Advertisement

Motives and Demands in Parenting Young Children: A Cultural-Historical Account of Productive Entanglement in Early Intervention Services

  • Nick HopwoodEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Cultural-Historical Research book series (PCHR, volume 6)

Abstract

Parent–child interactions significantly influence children’s development. Focusing on parenting practices is therefore a crucial means to disrupt trajectories characterised by risk or disadvantage. Hedegaard’s approach to understanding children’s development looks at the interplay between society, institution and person, foregrounding motives and demands in practice. Her associated valuable set of analytical resources can be used to go beyond previous cultural-historical accounts of expertise in partnership-based early intervention services. This chapter proposes the notion of partnership as a productive entanglement between institutional practices of the family and those of early intervention. Such entanglement is constituted in an emergent and expansive pedagogic practices of noticing, attaching significance and attributing agency. This offers a new way to conceptualise relational work between professions and families.

Keywords

Expertise Pedagogy Noticing Partnership Emergence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Australian Research Council, project number DE150100365. Thanks are given to staff and clients from Karitane, Tresillian and Northern Sydney Local Health District for their support. Teena Clerke and Anne Nguyen contributed to initial analyses of the practice discussed here.

References

  1. Australian Early Development Census (AEDC). (2016). Emerging trends from the AEDC. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  2. Chaiklin, S. (2012). A conceptual perspective for investigating motive in cultural-historical theory. In M. Hedegaard, A. Edwards, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Motives in children’s development: Cultural-historical approaches (pp. 209–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Clerke, T., Hopwood, N., Chavasse, F., Fowler, C., Lee, S., & Rogers, J. (2017). Using professional expertise in partnership with families: A new model of capacity-building. Journal of Child Health Care, 21(1), 74–84.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1367493516686202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. COAG. (2009). Protecting children is everyone’s business: National framework for protecting Australia’s children 2009–2020. Canberra: Council of Australian Governments, Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  5. Day, C., Ellis, M., & Harris, L. (2015). Family partnership model: Reflective practice handbook (2nd ed.). London: Centre for Parent and Child Support, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.Google Scholar
  6. DEEWR. (2009). Belonging, being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  7. Edwards, A. (2005a). Let’s get beyond community and practice: The many meanings of learning by participating. The Curriculum Journal, 16(1), 49–65.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0958517042000336809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, A. (2005b). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 168–182.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.06.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards, A. (2007). Working collaboratively to build resilience: a CHAT approach. Social Policy & Society, 6(2), 255–264. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746406003514.
  10. Edwards, A. (2009). Agency and activity theory: From the systemic to the relational. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Guttierez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 197–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert practitioner: The relational turn in expertise. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: Relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 33–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.04.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edwards, A. (2017). Revealing relational work. In A. Edwards (Ed.), Working relationally in and across practices: Cultural-historical approaches to collaboration (pp. 1–21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards, A., & Mackenzie, L. (2005). Steps towards participation: The social support of learning trajectories. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24(4), 282–302.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370500169178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualisation. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fowler, C., Lee, A., Dunston, R., Chiarella, M., & Rossiter, C. (2012). Co-producing parenting practice: Learning how to do child and family health nursing differently. Australian Journal of Child and Family Health Nursing, 9(1), 7–11.Google Scholar
  17. France, A., & Utting, D. (2005). The paradigm of ‘risk- and protection-focused prevention’ and its impact on services for children and families. Children and Society, 19(2), 77–90.  https://doi.org/10.1002/chi.870.
  18. Harris, L., Wood, L., & Day, C. (2014). An ethnographic study into the family partnership model: Implementation and sustainability. London: Centre for Parent and Child Support/South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.Google Scholar
  19. Hedegaard, M. (2012). The dynamic aspects between children’s learning and development. In M. Hedegaard, A. Edwards, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Motives in children’s development: Cultural-historical approaches (pp. 9–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hedegaard, M. (2014). The significance of demands and motives across practices in children’s learning and development: An analysis of learning in home and school. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(3), 188–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hedegaard, M. (in press). Children’s perspectives and institutional practices as keys in a wholeness approach to children’s social situations of development. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction.Google Scholar
  22. Hedegaard, M., & Chaiklin, S. (2011). Supporting children and schools: A development and practice-centred approach for professional practice research. In H. Daniels & M. Hedegaard (Eds.), Vygotsky and special needs education: Rethinking support for children and schools (pp. 86–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  23. Hedegaard, M., & Edwards, A. (2014). Transitions and children’s learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(3), 185–187.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (2008). Studying children: A cultural-historical approach. New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hedegaard, M., Fleer, M., Bang, J., & Hviid, P. (2008). Researching child development—An introduction. In M. Hedegaard & M. Fleer (Eds.), Studying children: a cultural-historical approach (pp. 1–9). New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hembree-Kigin, T. L., & McNeil, C. B. (1995). Parent-child interaction therapy. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hook, M. L. (2006). Partnering with patients - a concept ready for action. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(2), 133–143.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03993.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hopwood, N. (2016). Professional practice and learning: Times, spaces, bodies, things. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hopwood, N. (2017a). Agency, learning and knowledge work: Epistemic dilemmas in professional practices. In M. Goller & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (pp. 121–140). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hopwood, N. (2017b). Expertise, learning, and agency in partnership practices in services for families with young children. In A. Edwards (Ed.), Working relationally in and across practices: Cultural-historical approaches to collaboration (pp. 25–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hopwood, N. (2017c). Practice, the body and pedagogy: Attuning as a basis for pedagogies of the unknown. In P. Grootenboer, C. Edwards-Groves, & S. Choy (Eds.), Practice theory perspectives on education and pedagogy: Praxis, diversity and contestation (pp. 87–106). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hopwood, N., & Clerke, T. (2016). Professional pedagogies of parenting that build resilience through partnership with families at risk: A cultural-historical approach. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 24(4), 599–615.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2016.1197299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hopwood, N., & Clerke, T. (in press). Common knowledge between mothers and children in problematic transitions: How professionals make children’s motives available as a resource. In M. Hedegaard & A. Edwards (Eds.), Support for children, young people and their carers in difficult transitions: Working in the zone of social concern. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  34. Hopwood, N., Clerke, T., & Nguyen, A. (2018). A pedagogical framework for facilitating parents’ learning in nurseparent partnership. Nursing Inquiry, 25(2), e12220. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12220.
  35. Hopwood, N., & Gottschalk, B. (2017). Double stimulation “in the wild”: Services for families with children at risk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 13, 23–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaptelinin, V., Vadeboncoeur, J. A., Gajdamaschko, N., & Nardi, B. (2017). Negotiating motives, power and embodiment: Studies of creating and sharing meaning in social context. Mind, Culture and Activity, 24(1), 1–2.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2016.1267227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kelly, Y., Sacker, A., Del Bono, E., Francesconi, M., & Marmot, M. (2011). What role for the home learning environment and parenting in reducing the socioeconomic gradient in child development? Findings from the Millennium Cohort Study. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 96(9), 832–837. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2010.195917.
  38. McDonald, M., O’Byrne, M., & Prichard, P. (2015). Using the family partnership model to engage communities: Lessons from Tasmanian child and family centres. Victoria: Centre for Community Child Health at the Murdoch Children’s Research Centre and the Royal Children’s Hospital.Google Scholar
  39. NSW Health. (2010). Families NSW supporting families early package: SAFE START strategic policy. Sydney: NSW Department of Health.Google Scholar
  40. Rossiter, C., Fowler, C., Hopwood, N., Lee, A., & Dunston, R. (2011). Working in partnership with vulnerable families: The experience of child and family health practitioners. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 17(4), 378–383.  https://doi.org/10.1071/PY11056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sannino, A. (2015). The principle of double stimulation: A path to volitional action. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, J., Swallow, V., & Coyne, I. (2015). Involving parents in managing their child’s long-term condition—a concept synthesis of family-centered care and partnership-in-care. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 30(1), 143–159.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2014.10.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Houte, S., Bradt, L., Vandenbroeck, M., & Bouverne-De Bie, M. (2015). Professionals’ understanding of partnership with parents in the context of family support programmes. Child & Family Social Work, 20(1), 116–124.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12067.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.University of StellenboschStellenboschSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations