The Affordances of Videoconferencing Technology for Doing Interviews With Children Online: Methodological Explorations Based on a Critical Ethnography

Abstract

In this article, we engage with the concept and theories of “affordance” in the adoption of digital tools to perform qualitative inquiry. We first raise the question of what is afforded when we use online digital tools such as Zoom to interview young children (5–10 years old) and then draw on empirical examples from our multi-sited critical ethnography with transnational Chinese children to illustrate our key methodological points. We lay out three dimensions along which the concept of affordance can be conceptualized: the relational, the embodied situational, and the social-cultural. We discuss the potential to map out a critical approach to enable qualitative researchers to practice reflexivity in technology-mediated qualitative research.

Keywords

digital tools online research affordance critical ethnography research with children

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2016). AAP council on communications and media. Virtual violence. Pediatrics. 2016; 138 (1): e20161298. Pediatrics, 138(4), Article 20162399.

Antle

A. N.

Frauenberger

(2020). Child–Computer Interaction in times of a pandemic. International Journal of Child-computer Interaction, 26, 100201.

Ballotpedia. (2021). School responses to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic during the 2020-2021 academic year. https://ballotpedia.org/School_responses_to_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic_during_the_2020-2021_academic_year

Blewett

Hugo

(2016). Actant affordances: A brief history of affordance theory and a Latourian extension for education technology research. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 55–76.

Bluebond-Langner

Korbin

J. E.

(2007). Challenges and opportunities in the anthropology of childhoods: An introduction to “Children, Childhoods, and Childhood Studies.” American Anthropologist, 109(2), 241–246.

Bratsch-Hines

Zhao

Kwon

T. Y.

Shen

Zhang

Poekert

Cavanaugh

Faiello

Jones

Clark

(2022). COVID-19 deep dive study in Florida. University of Florida Lastinger Center for Learning.

Brinkmann

(2017). Philosophies of qualitative research. Oxford University Press.

Carnevale

F. A.

(2020). A “Thick” conception of children’s voices: A hermeneutical framework for childhood research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–19.

Carspecken

F. P.

(1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. Routledge.

10.

Chang-Bacon

(2021). Generation interrupted: Rethinking “Students with Interrupted Formal Education”(SIFE) in the wake of a pandemic. Educational Researcher, 50(3), 187–196.

11.

Colom

(2022). Using WhatsApp for focus group discussions: Ecological validity, inclusion and deliberation. Qualitative Research, 22(3), 452–467.

12.

Crompton

Burke

Jordan

Wilson

S. W.

(2021). Learning with technology during emergencies: A systematic review of K-12 education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52, 1554–1575. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13114

13.

Danby

Ewing

Thorpe

(2011). The novice researcher: Interviewing young children. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(1), 74–84.

14.

Dennis

(2020). Walking with strangers: Critical ethnography and educational promise. Peter Lang Publishing.

15.

Devakumar

Shannon

Bhopal

S. S.

Abubakar

(2020). Racism and discrimination in COVID-19 responses. The Lancet, 395(10231), 1194.

16.

Facca

Gladstone

Teachman

(2020). Working the limits of “giving voice” to children: A critical conceptual review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406920933391.

17.

Fargas-Malet

McSherry

Larkin

Robinson

(2010). Research with children: Methodological issues and innovative techniques. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(2), 175–192.

18.

Fine

(1994). Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 70–82). SAGE.

19.

Fine

(2018). Just research in contentious times: Widening the methodological imagination. Teachers College Press.

20.

Freeman

Vagle

M. D.

(2013). Grafting the intentional relation of hermeneutics and phenomenology in linguisticality. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(9), 725–735.

21.

Fry

Mitchell

S. A.

Wiener

(2021). Considerations for conducting and reporting digitally supported cognitive interviews with children and adults. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 5(1), 1–8.

22.

Gibson

(1977). Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology. In Shaw

Bransford

(Eds.), The theory of affordances (pp. 67–82). Lawrence Erlbaum.

23.

Gibson

(1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.

24.

Habermas

(1985). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Beacon press.

25.

Hafezieh

Eshraghian

(2017, June). Affordance theory in social media research: Systematic review and synthesis of the literature [Conference session]. 25th European Conference on Information Systems, Guimarães, Portugal.

26.

Heft

(1989). Affordances and the body: An intentional analysis of Gibson’s ecological approach to visual perception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 19(1), 1–30.

27.

Heidegger

(1977). The question concerning technology, and other essays. Garland Publishing. (Original work published 1962)

28.

Heinrich

C. J.

Darling-Aduana

Good

A. G.

(2020). Equity and quality in digital learning: Realizing the promise in K-12 education. Harvard Education Press.

29.

Howlett

(2022). Looking at the “field” through a Zoom lens: Methodological reflections on conducting online research in a global pandemic. Qualitative Research, 22(3), 387–402.

30.

Irwin

L. G.

Johnson

(2005). Interviewing young children: Explicating our practices and dilemmas. Qualitative Health Research, 15(6), 821–831.

31.

James

(2007). Giving voice to children’s voices: Practices and problems, pitfalls and potentials. American Anthropologist, 109(2), 261–272.

32.

Jeung

Horse

A. Y.

Popovic

Lim

. (2021). Stop AAPI hate national report 2020-2021. Stop AAPI Hate. https://stopaapihate.org/2020-2021-national-report/

33.

Joas

(1996). The creativity of action. University of Chicago Press.

34.

Jowett

Peel

Shaw

(2011). Online interviewing in psychology: Reflections on the process. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 8(4), 354–369.

35.

Kirk

(2007). Methodological and ethical issues in conducting qualitative research with children and young people: A literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(7), 1250–1260.

36.

Lan

(2019). 拚教養：全球化、親職焦慮與不平等童年 [Struggling to raise children: Globalization, parental anxieties and unequal childhoods]. Chunshan Press (in Chinese).

37.

LeVine

R. A.

(2007). Ethnographic studies of childhood: A historical overview. American Anthropologist, 109(2), 247–260.

38.

Marshall

Weatherson

(2018). Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic properties. In Zalta

(Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=intrinsic-extrinsic

39.

Merleau-Ponty

(2013). Phenomenology of perception ( Landes

, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1945)

40.

Nagata

J. M.

Cortez

C. A.

Cattle

C. J.

Ganson

K. T.

Iyer

Bibbins-Domingo

Baker

F. C.

(2022). Screen time use among US adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study. JAMA Pediatrics, 176(1), 94–96.

41.

Nolen

S. B.

Koretsky

M. D.

(2018). Affordances of virtual and physical laboratory projects for instructional design: Impacts on student engagement. IEEE Transactions on Education, 61(3), 226–233.

42.

Office of Civil Rights. (2020, June). Education in a pandemic: The disparate impacts of COVID-19 on America’s students. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608-impacts-of-covid19.pdf

43.

Orilia

Paoletti

(2022). Properties. In Zalta

(Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/#logiSystForProp

44.

Paulus

T. M.

Lester

J. N.

(2021). Doing qualitative research in a digital world. SAGE.

45.

Pham

(2021). Outside, inside. Roaring Brook Press.

46.

Sadler

E. B.

Given

L. M.

(2007). Affordance theory: A framework for graduate students’ information behavior. Journal of Documentation, 63(1), 115–141.

47.

Salmons

(2011). Cases in online interview research. SAGE.

48.

Salmons

(2014). Qualitative online interviews: Strategies, design, and skills. SAGE.

49.

Schutz

(1972). The phenomenology of the social world. Northwestern University Press.

50.

Spyrou

(2011). The limits of children’s voices: From authenticity to critical, reflexive representation. Childhood, 18(2), 151–165.

51.

Tesar

Duhn

Nordstrom

S. N.

Koro

Sparrman

Orrmalm

Boycott-Garnett

MacRae

Hackett

Kuntz

A. M.

Trafí-Prats

Boldt

Rautio

Ulmer

Taguchi

Murris

Kohan

Gibbons

Arndt

Malone

(2021). Infantmethodologies. Educational Philosophy and Theory. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.2009340

52.

Trott

Driscoll

Irlado

Pardhan

(2022). Changes and correlates of screen time in adults and children during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine, 48, 101452.

53.

UNESCO. (2020). COVID-19 educational disruption and response. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse

54.

UNICEF. (2020). How many children and young people have internet access at home? Estimating digital connectivity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

55.

Vagle

M. D.

Hofsess

B. A.

(2016). Entangling a post-reflexivity through post-intentional phenomenology. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(5), 334–344.

56.

Vargo

Zhu

Benwell

Yan

(2021). Digital technology use during COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(1), 13–24.

57.

Zhao

Ross

Dennis

(2016). Methodological tool or methodology? Beyond instrumentality and efficiency with qualitative data analysis software. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research,17(2). https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/download/2597/3984?inline=1

58.

Zhao

Poekert

Cugini

Jones

Schroeder

Cavanaugh

(2020). These are their stories: Challenges, successes, and lessons learned from Florida education stakeholders’ experience of the COVID-19 pandemic. University of Florida Lastinger Center for Learning.