Necessary Directions for Anthropological Research on Child Care in the United States

Abstract

There has been little qualitative research done by anthropologists and sociologists on formal and informal American child-care arrangements. This paper suggests directions for research in ways that are useful for theory and rele vant to policy and program. Research topics should include: ascertaining informal child-care arrangements such as babysitting and sibling care; comparative ethnographies of different types of centers; eliciting the ways in which center operations affect the experience of the child; analyzing staff-parent mediation practices; and ascertaining the ways in which government and agency, through supervision and intepention, affect center operations. Results would help in the development of appropriate policy for each of the participants involved. EARLY CHlLDHOOD EDUCATION, SOCIALIZATION, UNlTED STATES, POLICY AND PROGRAM RESEARCH, LOCAL POLITICS.Child care in the United States has become a topic of national concern. There is little agreement (or clarity) over what constitutes adequate or superior child care and who should be the agents responsible for it. Comparisons are made to other countries.' American child-care arrangements, both informal and formal, are seen as "wanting" by many groups. Other groups argue that the very idea of care outside the home by agents other than the mother is a disgrace. In addition, there has been belated recognition that the changed role of women in America has modified the traditional meaning of "child care," in this case, child raising.Child care, anthropologically speaking, can be understood as the series of arrangements for the caring of children which derive from family lifestyles and external factors such as the economy and the nature of regulation in the larger society. These arrangements are likely to affect the experience, if not the development, of the child. Anthropologists using this perspective have much to contribute to the debate over types of child care in this country. This paper is an exploration both for anthropologists and non-anthropologists of research priorities in child care; it is put into a loose framework of relevant theory so that different people can communicate with each other in areas where they may not necessarily share the same vocabulary and perspective.2Much of the material contained in the paper is a consequence of a special conference held by Committee 1, Schools and

"It Just Makes Sense”: Early Childhood Teachers and Mixed‐age Grouping in One Preschool Setting

“…Participant-observer methodology allowed us to collect data in context, a need cited regarding research on early childhood settings in general (e.g., Zimmer, 1979) and also specifically with regard to research on the effects of mixed-age grouping (Roopnarine & Johnson, 1984). Because the study was based on a problem area identified by the center director and was oriented toward action, we were able to provide information to the program that may have helped staff to assess their practices and consider making changes leading to the most beneficial teaching strategies as identified by Katz et al (1990).…”

Ethnography in early childhood education

“…Children arriving into early childhood set tings, increasingly at a very early age, are moving daily back and forth between the world of the early childhood setting and home, often spending more waking hours in the early childhood care and education setting than they do with their families. This "bimondial" transitioning on a daily basis means children may be in regular transition between very different sets of routines, values, and expectations (Zimmer, 1979). Sensitive understand ing by early childhood care and education practitioners, informed by in-depth ethno graphical research, has the potential to foster deeper reciprocal relationships between educators and their families and thus enhance the well-being of the young children who are the shared concern.…”

Anthropology and Education: Issues from the Issues1

“…Policy makers are often wary of anthropology because ethnography can be a time-consuming and expensive methodology, but this i s a misunderstanding of what the full potentialitiesof thedisciplinecan be, as we have tried to argue. The major effects of the discipline to date have been indirect, one might argue: the correction of culture-bound practices in assessment, the use of knowledge about how change happens in complex organizations, the assumptions about the meaning of change (see e.g., Zimmer 1979, and the entire issues numbered 2 and 4 of volume 9). But the real test of the usefulness of anthropology to education will wait for the incorporation of the full range of what anthropology has to offer into the habits of the education policy maker and researcher.…”