Families’ Routines in Indigenous Communities: Links to Children’s Development of Environmental Concepts

• In Event: Children’s Informal STEM Learning Within Family Interactions: Cultural Strengths of Families from Non-Dominant Communities

Abstract

Research on children’s development of environmental concepts has mainly operated from a Western paradigm focusing on mainstream practices (e.g., recycling), even when working with diverse populations. This approach has left us with limited knowledge of how children from non-European-heritage communities, particularly those from Indigenous-descent communities, learn about and develop ideas about the environment. To address this gap in the literature, this study takes an Indigenous perspective to examine an overlooked set of environmental practices that I have termed canny consumption practices (CCP or canny practices) and defined as innovative ways of using resources to avoid wasteful behaviors (e.g., saving a plastic bottle to use it at a later time to store water or as a planter). This type of CCP contrasts with the term “reuse,” which often implies buying products made of reusable materials, and “recycling,” which requires access to specific infrastructures that are not available to everyone. Despite their alignment with mainstream conservation objectives, canny practices are often not recognized as such, and literature that investigates whether and why families engage in these practices is scarce. Excluding canny practices without proper investigation privileges mainstream conceptions, silences other conceptions of the environment, and opens doors for deficit interpretations. Therefore, this study investigates how Indigenous-descent children and parents from rural and urban communities in Guatemala talk about engaging in CCP.

Participants in this study included 20 parents and their 13- to 17-year-old children. Parents had 0-6 years of formal schooling. Families participated in a 30-minute semi-structured interview via WhatsApp. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded in the original language (Spanish or Native language). The coding scheme identified (1) the type of resources used: natural resources (e.g., plants, grains), human-made items (e.g., plastic containers), prepared food (e.g., tortillas), or paid utilities (e.g., electricity), and (2) how families used resources (e.g., extend their use, use everything, find a different use, use only what you need) when talking about CCP.

Every family described several CCPs as part of their routines. The number of times parents mentioned CCPs ranged from 17 to 44, with an average of 19.10. A within-subjects ANOVA revealed differences in the type of resources families reported using, F (3,19) = 37.78, p =0.01, η² =0.67. Families reported CCPs involving natural resources (M=14.90, SD=7.70) more than human-made resources (M=10.85, SD=5.0), prepared food (M=2.55; SD=.9), or paid utilities (M=.70; SD=.55). A within-subjects ANOVA revealed differences in families’ reports of how they used the resources. Families most often reported CCPs that involved extending the use of products (M=12.95; SD =5.93) and finding a different use (M=9.30; SD=5.53), F (3,19) = 23.41, p =0.001, η² =0.55. We found that both rural and urban families reported similar types and numbers of CCP. Ongoing coding captures families’ talk about Indigenous and Western ways of thinking about the natural world. Once this coding is complete, we will conduct analyses to investigate whether families’ talk about Indigenous views of nature correlates with their talk about CCPs.

Authors

• Claudia Lorena Castaneda, University of California - Santa Cruz
  Presenting Author

• Maureen A Callanan, University of California - Santa Cruz