Social Negotiations of Figured Worlds Through the Creation of Objects

• In Event: Sociocultural Material Experiences With Digital and Physical Objects Across Learning Environments

Abstract

Objectives and perspectives: This paper draws upon work from two studies of how students and faculty members created representations and artifacts about inclusion, equity, and diversity. Creating objects is an intentional act that shows meanings, histories, and experiences of the creator (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2021). Objects hold power in conveying how people, objects, environments, and actions relate to each other. The production of objects can also be social. For instance, “creating objects of resistance or care” (Melo & Nichols, 2020, p. 22) afford opportunities to (re)imagine inclusion through ideas and artifacts.
Both studies presented in this paper investigated objects using figured worlds: “socially and culturally constructed realm[s] of interpretation in which particular characters and actors are recognized, significance is assigned to certain acts, and particular outcomes are valued over others” (Holland et al., 1998, p. 52). The objects reflect social milieus and communicate taken for granted assumptions about environments, people, and interactions. In both studies, the participants discussed their created objects and/or created them collaboratively, which provided a glimpse into the social negotiations that shape figured worlds and everyday actions.

Methods and data: In Study 1, preservice teachers at a Canadian university created drawings of inclusion within a course about diversity and supporting student needs. Data sources include drawings, video recordings, and interviews from over 200 participants.
Study 2 examined how instructors and students at a Canadian university engaged in making and critical discourses about inclusion. Through a series of maker sessions, participants discussed inclusion and leveraged a makerspace to create artifacts that represent or support inclusion. For both studies, I used interaction analysis (Jordan & Henderson, 1995) for video recordings of the sessions and visual analysis (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2021) for the artifacts.

Findings: Across the studies, there were both commonalities and many nuances in how people interpreted and considered inclusion. In Study 1, the drawings conveyed power structures, interactions between people and objects, the activities of people, and the learning environment. For instance, some participants expressed inclusion as academic accommodations while other participants represented inclusion as an ecosystem. The drawings also showed relations between rendered objects and people. For example, some participants placed accommodations (e.g., assistive technology) around the edges of a classroom, which positions certain students at the social and physical margins of the environment.
In Study 2, participants made artifacts ranging from t-shirt designs showing cultural symbols and discourse about anti-racism to board games that encourage empathy and intersectional identities. Across both studies, most artifacts connected inclusion with personal and social experiences. The objects were imbued with personal and socially negotiated meanings that often combined pragmatic goals of fostering inclusion (e.g., activities or support for student needs) with considerations for power dynamics, oppression, and social interactions.

Significance: These studies highlight how objects can be powerful tools in conveying, negotiating, and enacting inclusion. Objects can also be personally meaningful to people and be useful as pedagogical and research tools for inclusion. Both of which are key to fostering an equitable and resilient education system.

Author

• Chris Ostrowdun, University of Leeds
  Presenting Author