Disposable Cameras, Humour and Children's Abilities

0 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size Report
humorous photographs young children took in their school and home environment, which ..... photographs taken by the children and the explanations they provided. .... Figure 3. Grandmother dancing in the car. Figure 4. Funny shaped pencils. ..... children's photographic behaviour and intentions at three age levels, Visual ...
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood Volume 12 Number 2 2011 www.wwwords.co.uk/CIEC

Disposable Cameras, Humour and Children’s Abilities ELENI LOIZOU Department of Education, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

ABSTRACT This was a two-phase qualitative study that investigated the humorous aspects of humorous photographs young children took in their school and home environment, which were examined in the context of the theory of the absurd and the empowerment theory. The participants in the study were six children – three boys and three girls – between the ages of four years, eight months and five years, eight months. During phase one, the children were given a disposable camera and were asked to take photographs of whatever they considered humorous and made them laugh in their school and home environment. Semi-structured interviews and the photographs were the main data sources. During the interviews, the children described the photographs and reasoned about their funniness. After six months, during phase two, the children revisited their humorous photographs and talked about them. This study asserts that kindergartners’ humour definitions as presented in their photographs can be regarded within the framework of the two theories. More specifically, the children refer to incongruity, something out of the ordinary (a cognitive process), and act as social agents utilising relationships within their social milieu to produce and appreciate humour (communities of practice). The use of a camera is considered as a creative and empowering tool which involves children in research.

Introduction The study of humour, and especially young children’s humour, is recent. It is hard to define humour since it can be influenced by factors such as age, gender, individual knowledge bases, education, cultural background or personal experience. Often, social, emotional and cognitive strands are employed to place humour within a framework, thus researchers analyse and perceive humour, and especially children’s humour, according to the framework in which they place their own definition of humour. Incongruity is an essential concept employed when referring to humour. Loizou (2005) defines incongruous events as those that refer to situations which appear in a different way from what we are accustomed to and are outside our schemata. Thus, incongruity involves a cognitive process which allows delineation from the existing schemata formation. McGhee (1979), a pioneer in children’s humour development, emphasises the concept of incongruity and suggests that there is a specific stage in children’s cognitive development which allows them to experience humour. McGhee’s (1984) theory of humour development for children aged two to seven explains the way they produce and appreciate humour and refers to four stages. The first stage – incongruous actions towards objects – refers to children of the age of two who use new objects to replace familiar ones. The second stage – incongruous labelling towards objects and events – includes children purposefully mislabelling familiar objects and events as a result of language enhancement. During the third stage – conceptual incongruity – children produce and appreciate incongruities which violate one or more aspects of a concept they have already

148

http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2011.12.2.148

Downloaded from cie.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015

Disposable Cameras, Humour and Children’s Abilities developed. Multiple meanings is the last stage, where children are capable of noticing and creating reverse sequences of events and also multiple meanings of words. Moreover, Loizou (2005), through an exploratory and open-ended qualitative study of six infants, examined infants’ ability to produce and appreciate humour in their daily social context, and developed a framework that integrated the theory of the absurd and the empowerment theory. The theory of the absurd involves children producing and/or appreciating events that are out of the ordinary. More specifically, the theory includes the specific categories of humorous gestures, positions, sounds or words; incongruous actions; and the incongruous use of materials. The empowerment theory involves events where children purposefully, or in a reactionary way, violate their caregiver’s expectations either by producing their own or appreciating other children’s actions. The data in this study was drawn from infants’ actions during their daily encounters in their childcare setting. Children as social beings participate in communities and cultural practices which provide them with the necessary tools to actively construct their identity, guide their own actions and learning, and eliminate the passive absorption of information from external forces (Wenger, 1991). Humour can be a product of communities of practice which may embrace agreed definitions of what it means to be funny/humorous and also set ways of performance – how things or how one can be funny/humorous. Thus, an essential element to be considered in light of children’s humour development and understanding is the influence of their social milieu. When children are in a familiar environment with well-known adults around them, they are more likely to appreciate and produce humorous events (Loizou, 2004). This explains how ‘early humor is most appreciated when children are in a familiar setting with familiar routines, teachers, and children’ (Burt & Sugawara, 1988, p. 19; see also Wolfenstein, 1954). Also, safety cues, a familiarity with their surroundings, play cues, pretend play and playfulness (Pien & Rothbart, 1980; Burt & Sugawara, 1988) have a critical role in facilitating children’s humorous experiences. During their humorous endeavours, children can ‘explore and experiment with known objects’ (Burt & Sugawara, 1988, p. 21). Moreover, Fine (1983, p. 159) suggests that ‘most humor and laughter imply a social relationship, a connection between self and other’. Researchers have discussed the methodological issues that arise in the investigation of humour, and especially young children’s humour. Chapman (1983) comments that many humour investigators focus on responses to humour stimuli, but it is essential to allow children to voice their definition of humour by involving them as research partners and not as objects (Christensen & James, 2000; Oliveira-Formosinho et al, 2001). An example of this is the use of cameras in research with children, which provides them with the power to make their own choices (what and when to photograph something) and visualise their ideas. The researcher is not aware of children’s possible choices. Thus, ‘the data gathering is in part in the hands of the children, and they provide evidence of their own rather than being directed by adults’ (Einarsdottir, 2005, p. 527). Moreover, the use of cameras helps children who are not so comfortable with verbally expressing themselves (Schratz & Steiner-Löffler, 1998; Clark, 2004) to find another way to do so – visually – especially when the theme being investigated is humour. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the content and humorous aspects of the humorous photographs that six kindergarten children took in their school and home environment. The following research questions were investigated: • What are the humorous aspects in the photographs that six children between the ages of four years, eight months and five years, eight months took in their school and home setting? • How are these humorous aspects (if they are) related to the theory of the absurd and the empowerment theory (Loizou, 2005)? • How are these humorous aspects (if they are) different after a period of six months based on the children’s own photograph choices and explanations? Methodology Participants The participants in the study were six children from a private kindergarten in Nicosia, Cyprus: three boys and three girls in the age range four years, eight months to five years, eight months. The

149

Downloaded from cie.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015

Eleni Loizou project examined the understanding of humour in kindergarten children by considering the reliability of the theory of the absurd and the empowerment theory (Loizou, 2005) in the context of the actions of older children/kindergarteners. The specific children were chosen because they were the only six who were at the kindergarten stage at the time of the study. They attended kindergarten on a full-time basis – that is, five days a week, but on a different time schedule depending on their parents’ work schedule. The participants in the study had three time schedules: 8 a.m. to 1 p.m., 7 a.m. to 2 p.m., and 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. All of the children except one were returning students to the specific private kindergarten since they had attended the school one to three years before. Two of the boy participants were the only child in their family, and all of the girls were the second child in their family. Also, the parents of two children of the sample were divorced, so the children spent time in two different homes. Finally, all of the parents had a Bachelor’s degree in different fields (for example, education, accounting, reflexology, management, computer science and psychology). Instruments A disposable camera was given to each child, which s/he was expected to use to take as many humorous photographs as s/he liked. With the specific instrument used, the goal was to involve the children as researchers in two of the stages of the research project – the data collection and analysis phases – supporting the view that ‘children are the primary source of knowledge about their own views and experiences’ (Alderson, 2008, p. 287). The camera is considered as a creative instrument (Graue & Walsh, 1998) in investigating children’s views on what is humorous and allows children to visualise their humour definition. By considering photographs as ‘social constructions’ (Fasoli, 2003), I intended to peek into the children’s social thinking and understand their definition of humour. Nevertheless, Fasoli (2003) and Einarsdottir (2005) comment on how children’s photographs alone do not provide the whole picture – what they would define as humorous – thus, other data collection methods need to be used simultaneously. In this study, it was even more evident that by just examining the photographs the children took, the researcher would have been unable to understand or could have misinterpreted the content of the photographs – the humorous aspects – and therefore the children’s point of view. Humour is hard to define linguistically and, apparently, visually as well. Therefore, the children were asked to participate in the selection of what they considered to be the 10 most humorous photographs they took and then explain why they considered them to be humorous. The goal was to involve the children in the research process and allow them to voice their views by providing an explanation of their actions and thinking. Furthermore, Fasoli (2003, p. 37) suggests that ‘one of the major strengths of photographs is the potential for re-reading’. Taking into consideration Fasoli’s point of view from the child’s perspective, I developed a second phase to the study, during which the children were provided with the opportunity to reread their own creations and revise or restate their definition of humour six months later. Procedures Phase one. During phase one, a letter was sent to the parents to request permission for their child to participate in the study and explaining the purpose of the study. Moreover, the parents were informed about and agreed to the use of their children’s photographs in a public document and presentations, ensuring ethical clearance. After obtaining the parents’ permission, the children were gathered together and were each given a disposable camera. They were asked to take photographs of whatever they considered humorous and made them laugh in their school and home environment. No further information was given on the definition of humour. Each child took a disposable camera home for two weeks. Two of the children asked for an extra week, so the period of keeping the camera was extended to three weeks. When the three weeks had passed, the children returned the disposable cameras to the school. Then, after the researcher had had the photographs developed (there were 38 photographs on each film), the children were asked to take them home and choose the 10 most humorous ones

150

Downloaded from cie.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015

Disposable Cameras, Humour and Children’s Abilities out of the 38, from their point of view, and return those 10 in an envelope to the researcher. Once the photographs had been returned, the researcher arranged for the interviews to take place. Phase two. After six months, the researcher visited the children at their home and gave them the opportunity to look at their photographs again and choose the 10 photographs they considered the most humorous after keeping all of the photographs at home for two weeks. The purpose of having the children revisit their photographs after six months was to examine whether, during phase one, the children had just made up a description including humorous elements when commenting on the funniness of their photographs, just to simply respond to the interviewer’s questions, or whether they had truly presented their understanding of humour. I wanted to see whether their choices and explanations of their humorous photographs, and thus their definition of humour, was consistent. A period of six months was considered to be an extended period of time which would not allow the children to remember their previous explanations. Farrar & Goodman’s (1992, p. 186) work indicates that ‘younger children organize their memory for general and specific event episodes differently than older children’ and tend to be confused about details of a specific experience. However, six months was also considered to be a short period of time that would not allow for any influential developmental changes. It is important to mention that the first set of 10 photographs the children considered to be the most humorous from phase one were marked so that the researcher could easily associate and compare the children’s two selections. Data Collection Phase one. A semi-structured interview was used with each child. The interviews were audiotaped and lasted approximately 10-15 minutes each. All the children were interviewed in the school during free activity, in a quiet room. The interviewer provided each child with the photographs that s/he had chosen and gave the child some time to look at all of them. A set of questions was developed and used with each child after they had looked at each one of the photographs. The goal was to use questions that would provide the children with the opportunity to talk about each photograph that they had taken (its content), and point out the humorous aspects of the photograph. The specific questions that guided the interviews were the following: 1. What did you photograph? 2. Why is it funny? 3. Did you set up the scene for the photograph or did you observe it? These questions were slightly modified according to each child’s response. Phase two. During phase two, with the second selection of the 10 most humorous photographs, all of the children were interviewed in their home environment, in a quiet room of the house. The interviewer provided each child with the photographs that s/he had chosen and gave the child some time to look at them. The interview protocol used with all of the children included the same questions that were used in phase one of the study. Data Analysis Phase one. The responses of the children from all of the interview questions were transcribed and the answers as to what were the humorous aspects of each photograph were categorised based on their content. Common themes were identified from the first selection of the 10 most humorous photographs taken by the children and the explanations they provided. Also, the number of photographs belonging in the different categories was calculated. Phase two. In phase two, the category of ‘incongruous appearance’ was expanded to include responses that made reference to people’s clothing. Also, the number of the same photographs chosen by the children during the first and second selection was calculated and the explanations provided were noted.

151

Downloaded from cie.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015

Eleni Loizou Limitations One of the limitations of this study was that the children were so excited by the disposable camera itself that they started taking photographs without thinking whether they were humorous or not. This is the main reason why I asked the children to choose their 10 most humorous photographs. The children were provided with the opportunity to choose the most appropriate photographs that represented their understanding/definition of humour. Findings The categories and their descriptions that emerged from the children’s own explanations of the humorous nature of their photographs are presented in Table I. These categories were common to all the children, but some were more frequent than others. Category Incongruity

Description Humorous gestures: the photographs that portrayed people using humorous gestures. Incongruous actions (animals/people): the photographs that portrayed animals or people acting incongruously. Incongruous appearance: the photographs that portrayed people, animals or things having an incongruous appearance in terms of colour, shape or size.

Social empowerment

Setting: the setting of the photograph – for example, school, room, yard, park or car. Participants: the participants in the children’s photographs (people or animals). Creating or observing humour: the humorous scene the children observed or created in order to take a photograph.

Table I. Common categories in reference to the humorous aspects of the children’s photographs.

The findings from both phases are presented below, and the categories are clearly illustrated with specific interview excerpts and photographs. Incongruity Humorous gestures. Humorous gestures such as a smile, laughter and other facial expressions (for example, sticking one’s tongue out, waving one’s hands over one’s head, pulling a face, etc.) are indicators of humour. Some children observed such indicators and others created them. Below is an example of the dialogue between the researcher and one of the boys whilst appreciating a scene which includes someone exhibiting such behaviour: Researcher: What did you photograph? Child: My dad. Researcher: Why is it funny? Child: He is driving a car. Researcher: Yes, but is that why it is funny? Child: [The boy smiles] Because he is smiling.

The description of a humorous photograph by another child provides an example of how facial expressions are considered humorous by children. More specifically, the boy said that he photographed his dad and the humorous part is that ‘he stuck his tongue out at me’ (see Figure 1). Animals’ incongruous actions. The findings of this study also suggest that children find specific animal actions to be humorous. The animals that the children photographed were their own pets, and

152

Downloaded from cie.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015

Disposable Cameras, Humour and Children’s Abilities mainly dogs and cats. The following description was provided by a girl participant who photographed her cat (see Figure 2): I photographed our cat that has a can [of cat food] on his head [child laughs]. Look, every time that the cat finishes eating, he puts his head in the can because he thinks that there is still food in it. As a result, he bangs his head everywhere!

Figure 1. Dad making a funny face.

Figure 2. Cat with a can (of cat food) on its face.

Another example of this category is the explanation of a boy participant who photographed his dog. He specifically said: I photographed my dog that plays with my sister. My sister gave him a teddy bear and he does like this [turns his head right and left and shakes it]. He shakes his head right and left.

People’s incongruous actions. People’s actions are another aspect of what children consider humorous. They observed, appreciated and photographed people who acted incongruously or did something out of the ordinary, based on their frame of expected behaviour. There follow two examples of what children consider humorous due to the incongruous actions of people: Researcher: What did you photograph? Child: I photographed a child at school. Researcher: Why is it funny? Child: She does like this [puts her finger in her mouth].

Moreover, a boy said that he photographed his grandmother acting humorously while she was in a car: ‘she moved her hands and pretended to dance in the car’ (see Figure 3).

153

Downloaded from cie.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015

Eleni Loizou Incongruous appearance. Along with humorous gestures and incongruous actions, the children find unusual and atypical appearances to be humorous. A girl suggested that she photographed her great-grandmother because her hair is white. The incongruity of her hair colour is the humorous aspect of her photograph. Another example of incongruous appearance, but in terms of the shape of specific materials, was described by one boy who found the shape of the pencils to be humorous since they were not straight, as is usual and expected (see Figure 4). There follows an excerpt from this particular interview: Researcher: What did you photograph? Child: The pencils. Researcher: Why is it funny? Child: Don’t you see that they go like this [he puts his finger on the photograph and he follows the curved shape of the pencil].

Figure 3. Grandmother dancing in the car.

Figure 4. Funny shaped pencils.

Another child found the size of two dolls’ legs to be humorous because they were too long compared to the usual length of dolls’ legs (see Figure 5). He used the following words to explain what he had photographed and why he considered it humorous: Researcher: What did you photograph? Child: The dolls, the two dolls. Researcher: Why is it funny? Child: Because they have long legs. Very long legs.

154

Downloaded from cie.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015

Disposable Cameras, Humour and Children’s Abilities Table II shows the number of photographs selected by the children during the first phase of the study based on the themes discussed above. It is important to mention that one child took only eight photographs, so the total number of photographs was 58 rather than 60.

Figure 5. Dolls with long legs.

Themes Humorous gestures Incongruous actions: animals people Incongruous appearance: colour, shape, size Total

Number of photographs 12 28 (19) (9) 12 52*

*The children did not provide explanations for six of the photographs. Table II. The content and number of the children’s photographs from the first phase of the study.

Phase two. The same categories as illustrated above existed in the explanations of the children in phase two of the study six months later, with the exception that the category of ‘incongruous appearance’ was expanded to include responses that made reference to the way people were dressed. The example that follows is a child commenting on the issue of clothing: Researcher: What did you photograph? Child: My dad. He was ready to take a shower. Researcher: Why is it funny? Child: Because he is not wearing his clothes [the child laughs; the dad is wrapped in a towel]. Researcher: Did you ask him to do it or did he do it by himself? Child: By himself, of course, since he was going to take a shower.

Themes Humorous gestures Incongruous actions: animals people Incongruous appearance: colour, shape, size, clothing Total

Number of photographs 19 17 (11) (6) 9 45*

*The children did not provide explanations for 13 of the photographs. Table III. The content and number of the children’s photographs from the second phase of the study.

155

Downloaded from cie.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015

Eleni Loizou Table III shows the number of photographs chosen by the children during the second phase of the study and the themes portrayed in their explanations. The same 36 (out of the 58) photographs were chosen as the most humorous by the children in both phases. The minimum number of the same photographs selected by each child was 5 and the maximum number was 8 out of the 10 photographs. Only one participant chose 8 photographs that were the same in both phases. Table IV shows the number of the same humorous photographs preferred by the children during phase one and phase two based on the themes discussed above. Themes Humorous gestures: Incongruous actions animals people Incongruous appearance: colour, shape, size, clothing Total

Number of same photographs in both phases 14 10 (9) (1) 8 32*

*The children did not provide explanations for four of the photographs that they chose in both phases. The total number of photographs that were the same was 36 rather than 32. Table IV. The content and number of the same humorous photographs chosen by the children in the first and second phases of the study.

The explanations that the children provided for the funniness of their photographs were mostly similar in the two phases. The children provided the same explanation for 28 out of the 32 photographs and a different explanation for only four photographs. The following descriptions of the same photographs by one of the children are examples that illustrate the similarity: Phase one interview excerpt Researcher: What did you photograph? Child: I photographed my sister who drinks something and she goes ‘bliaxxx’ [yuck]! Researcher: Why is it humorous? Child: Because she is funny when she says this ‘bliaxxx’! She doesn’t like that drink. Phase two interview excerpt Researcher: What did you photograph? Child: I photographed my sister. Researcher: Why is it humorous? Child: Because she drinks her ‘psilio’ [medicine for her intestines] and she goes ‘bliaxxx’!

Another example which shows matching explanations is the following, which refers to Figure 4: Phase one interview excerpt Researcher: What did you photograph? Child: The pencils. Researcher: Why is it funny? Child: Don’t you see they go like this [he puts his finger on the photograph and he follows the curved shape of the pencil]? Phase two interview excerpt Researcher: What did you photograph? Child: The pencils. Researcher: What is funny about this photograph? Child: You see that the pencils go like this [while pointing to the curved shape of the pencils]?

The photographs chosen, along with the explanations provided in both phases, were very similar over the period of six months.

156

Downloaded from cie.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015

Disposable Cameras, Humour and Children’s Abilities Social Empowerment The findings also suggest an alternative perspective of viewing children’s understanding of humour – one that refers to social empowerment or the social agency for children, specifically employing their social milieu (people, animals, settings, objects, etc.), to fulfil their activity and take humorous photographs. Setting. The analysis of the children’s interviews and photographs suggests that the children took photographs in different settings. Some photographs were taken in their school’s playground, the park or their parents’ car, while other photographs were taken at the children’s houses or in their house yards. Table V provides an illustration of the different settings and the number of the photographs taken in each one. Setting Children’s house Yard of children’s house School playground Parents’ car Park Total

Number of photographs 32 10 6 5 5 58

Table V. The number of photographs taken in different settings.

The children utilised all of the settings in which they felt comfortable and were aware of the expectations and rules to frame the content of their humorous photographs. Participants. The participants in the photographs the children took include: family members (for example, mother, father, grandmother, sister), housekeepers, friends and teachers, as well as their own pets. The participants in 23 of the photographs are people in the children’s social milieu. Animals (for example, cats and dogs) participate in 21 of the photographs, and objects (for example, decorative dolls, umbrellas, shells) are part of 14 of the humorous photographs the children took in their environment. The children are observed to employ social relations, daily experiences and familiar situations to frame ideas for their humorous photographs. Creating or observing humour. In analysing the data I encountered situations where the children either observed/appreciated and thus photographed humorous scenes or created/produced a humorous scene in order to photograph it. During the interviews when the researcher realised the possibility of a humorous scene having been created by the child, the interview questions were revised accordingly. Phase one. Most of the photographs (37 in total) were taken by children observing humorous events. As expected, the children noticed situations in their environment which they considered humorous and they used their camera to capture them. On the other hand, 20 photographs were taken by children creating the humorous events themselves. The children purposefully created situations in their environment which they labelled humorous in order to photograph them. Figure 6 provides a graphic representation of the number of photographs taken by children either observing and appreciating or creating and producing a humorous event. Figure 6 clearly shows that the children observed and photographed a humorous scene in almost twice the number of cases as they produced a humorous scene to photograph. With the use of interview excerpts and the children’s photographs, I provide examples of the children describing how they created specific humorous events in order to photograph them: Researcher: What did you photograph? Child: I photographed the umbrella. Researcher: Why is it funny? Child: Because.

157

Downloaded from cie.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015

Eleni Loizou Researcher: Why? Can you give me a reason? Child: Because it moves up and down and it has a bird. Researcher: Did you put the umbrella like that to photograph it? Child: Yes, my mum is holding it [see Figure 7].

Figure 6. Number of humorous photographs taken by children observing or creating humorous events.

Figure 7. Umbrella.

The following example suggests that the children also used themselves to set up a humorous scene, having someone else take the photograph on their behalf: Researcher: What did you photograph here? Child: It’s myself. I am acting funny. Researcher: Who took the photograph? Child: My grandmother in the car. Researcher: Why is it funny? Child: Because I am making a funny face [see Figure 8].

158

Downloaded from cie.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015

Disposable Cameras, Humour and Children’s Abilities

Figure 8. Making a funny face.

Phase two. During phase two, the children chose as the most humorous photographs those which showed the children appreciating or creating a humorous event. More specifically, they chose 35 photographs which they had taken whilst appreciating a humorous event and 15 where they had created the humorous event themselves. The following interview excerpt refers to Figure 7 and suggests how the children provided similar explanations in describing how they created a humorous scene in order to take a photograph: Researcher: What did you photograph in this picture? Child: The umbrella. Researcher: Why is it funny? Child: Because it has a bird on the top. Researcher: Did you put it here to photograph it or was it there? Child: I told my mum to hold it.

Conclusively, the social environment, as illustrated above, affected in different ways children’s involvement in this project as it specifically provided them with the tools to fulfil their activity of taking humorous photographs. Therefore, the impact of the environment is evidently decoded into social empowerment since the children employed the setting and the participants in not only observing, but also creating, humorous scenes in order to photograph them. Discussion The outcomes of this study vividly illustrate two strands – the incongruity perspective and the social empowerment perspective – demonstrating the connectedness of the data with the existing framework of the theory of the absurd and the empowerment theory. Incongruity Perspective The children’s photographs and the explanations they provided to define the humorous aspects they captured can be placed within the framework of the theory of the absurd and its subcategories (Loizou, 2005) – a theory grounded on infant data, where infants produce and appreciate incongruities in their social environment. This framework is now examined against the actions of kindergarten children involving the use of a sophisticated tool – a camera. It is evident that the humorous content of the kindergarteners’ photographs and their explanations refer mainly to humorous gestures and incongruous actions, categories that directly refer to the theory of the

159

Downloaded from cie.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015

Eleni Loizou absurd. For both categories, the children observed incongruous actions or activities which they defined as humorous. So, infants and kindergartners seem to appreciate incongruous actions and include these in their definition of humour. In addition, the children’s photographs refer to the recognition of incongruities in terms of appearance: the colour, size and shape of people, animals and objects. The children were able to capture and consider humorous appearances which violated their existing schemata of how one or something is expected to look, referring to violation of the mathematical concept of shape and length, as in the case of the curved pencils and the dolls with the long legs). Thus, kindergarten children having more schemata of the world have a larger pool of experiences – they can have a broader understanding of incongruous situations and, at the same time, expand their definition of humour. In both phases of the study, the children chose mostly the same photographs and commented on their funniness in the same way, placing them mainly within the categories of the theory of the absurd. The children seemed to have a preference for the category of humorous gestures since capturing such activity seems easier than capturing other forms of humour (for example, linguistic humour). Thus, the tool used to collect the data limited or forced the children to look for the most evident humorous scenes – in this case, mainly scenes with humorous gestures. DeMarie (2001), in her study about children’s words and photographs during a field trip, confirms that preschool children take photographs that capture action. In my study, the kindergarteners were focused on the unordinary actions of their participants (people and animals) as described in the incongruous actions and humorous gestures categories. It is important to note that even after six months, the children did not alter their explanations when describing and explaining the funniness of their photographs, which infers two possibilities: (1) that the children recalled the incident visualised in the photograph and the reason that made it humorous, or (2) that the children, within the period of six months from the age of five to five and a half, did not modify their point of view or definition of humour. The outcomes of this study suggest that when children are asked to focus on absurd events (humorous events), they are capable of looking for them and capturing them, unlike DeMarie’s (2001) data, which suggests that preschool children hardly noticed the unfamiliar during a trip to the zoo. Thus, one can argue that when young children are asked to focus on a specific situation (for example, a humorous or other situation), they have the ability to do so. Social Empowerment Perspective In the act of photography we are both part of the world, engaging in a social and cultural practice, and also apart from it, framing the shot, capturing a moment and interpreting the resulting image. (Sharples et al, 2003, p. 319)

From a sociocultural perspective, children’s photographs are viewed as part of social empowerment (Loizou, 2005). In this study, the empowerment theory is reflected in the settings and the participants the children employed for each humorous photograph they took. In their photographs, the children included people and/or animals as their main participants. This was embedded in the process of the study, where the children were asked to work within their school and home environment. Thus, the school and home environments are regarded as two common ‘communities of practice’ (Wenger, 1998), where children are quite knowledgeable of their expectations for routines, rules, people participation and object existence. For example, the umbrella was a common personal item with a specific usage and the child used it in a different way to create a humorous event. This familiarity made the children feel empowered to manipulate such elements in such a way as to provide their own definition of humour. Thus, the children were empowered to utilise themselves and others as participants in their photographs within familiar communities of practice: ‘Children use photography as a way of defining their world and affirming their control over important aspects of it’ (Sharples et al, 2003, p. 323). Most of the children took photographs of their own pets and people in their family, including people they considered important. This also supports Sharples et al’s (2003) finding, drawn from a sociocultural perspective, that children of all ages like to photograph people, especially young children who are regularly around family members. This study confirms that children who feel comfortable and

160

Downloaded from cie.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015

Disposable Cameras, Humour and Children’s Abilities secure within their communities of practice feel empowered to explore them in order to respond to the demands of an activity – for example, to photograph whatever they consider humorous. Moreover, they feel empowered to employ elements of their communities of practice to provide their definition of humour. Furthermore, children’s definition of humour and, more specifically, their understanding of humour have been investigated from multiple lenses. Such projects include children’s appreciation of jokes, humorous pictures and comics (McGhee, 1976; Brown, 1993; Puche-Navarro, 2004; Yannicopoulou, 2004; Loizou, 2006), but rarely the production of humour and especially not the production of linguistic humour. This study provided children with a technologically attractive means to express their understanding of humour: a camera, which was considered as an empowering tool since it provided children with the opportunity to express their visual definition of humour. The cameras worked as another form of language and allowed children who might have been unable to verbally explain their understanding of humour to have a different way of exhibiting their perception of humour. Naturally, one would assume that with a camera, children would mainly observe humorous situations and capture them – i.e. appreciate humour. Interestingly, the children not only appreciated but also produced humorous situations. Sometimes, they appreciated and photographed humorous circumstances but at other times, they themselves set up a humorous scene by inviting other members of their family to participate. This further suggests the power of the camera in allowing children to exhibit their ability to both appreciate and produce humour, and also children’s own abilities to be creative. This study argues that disposable cameras, along with a flexible conversation with children, can be a creative way to have them participate in research and express their understanding of humour. Moreover, with such a tool, they tend to consider humour as something incongruous and, more specifically, exploit their social environment and empower themselves in such a way as to appreciate and produce humour. Finally, this study supports the proposal that the theory of the absurd and the empowerment theory can be a flexible framework in which to place young children’s (infants’ and kindergarteners’) definition of humour by either producing or appreciating humour with a specific tool or freely in their social environment. Acknowledgement The author would especially like to thank Marianna Efstathiadou for all her help with the data collection and her continued feedback on the ideas in this article. References Alderson, P. (2008) Children as Researchers: the effects of participation rights on research methodology, in P. Christensen & A. James (Eds) Research with Children: perspectives and practices, 2nd edn, pp. 276-290. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Brown, I. (1993) Young Children’s Explanation of Pictorial Humor: a preliminary study, Early Child Development and Care, 93, 35-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0030443930930103 Burt, L.M. & Sugawara, A.I. (1988) Children’s Humor: implications for teaching, Early Child Development and Care, 37, 13-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443880370102 Chapman, A. (1983) Humor and Laughter in Social Interaction and Some Implications for Humor Research, in P.E. McGhee & J.H. Goldstein (Eds) Handbook of Humor Research, Vol. 1, Basic Issues, pp. 135-157. New York: Springer. Christensen, J. & James, A. (2000) Research with Children: perspectives and practices. New York: Falmer Press. Clark, A. (2004) The Mosaic Approach and Research with Young Children, in V. Lewis, M. Kellett, C. Robinson, S. Frases & S. Ding (Eds) The Reality of Research with Children and Young People, pp. 142-161. London: Sage. DeMarie, D. (2001) A Trip to the Zoo: children’s words and photographs, Early Childhood Research and Practice, 3(1). http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v3n1/demarie.html Einarsdottir, J. (2005) Playschool in Pictures: children’s photographs as a research method, Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 523-541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430500131320

161

Downloaded from cie.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015

Eleni Loizou Farrar, M.J. & Goodman, G.S. (1992) Developmental Changes in Event Memory, Child Development, 63(1), 173-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130911 Fasoli, L. (2003) Reading Photographs of Young Children: looking at practices, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4(1), 32-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2003.4.1.5 Fine, G.A. (1983) Sociological Approaches to the Study of Humor, in P.E. McGhee & J.H. Goldstein (Eds) Handbook of Humor Research, Vol. 1, Basic Issues, pp. 159-181. New York: Springer. Graue, E.M. & Walsh, D.J. (1998) Studying Children in Context: theories methods and ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Loizou, E. (2004) Humorous Bodies and Humorous Minds: humor within the social context of an infant child care setting, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 12(1), 15-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13502930485209281 Loizou, E. (2005) Infant Humor: the theory of the absurd and the empowerment theory, International Journal of Early Years Education, 13(1), 43-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669760500048329 Loizou, E. (2006) Young Children’s Explanation of Pictorial Humor, Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(6), 425-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-005-0053-z McGhee, P.E. (1976) Children’s Appreciation of Humor: a test of the cognitive congruency principle, Child Development, 47(2), 420-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1128797 McGhee, P.E. (1979) Humor: its origin and development. San Francisco: Freeman. McGhee, P.E. (1984) Play, Incongruity and Humor, in T.D. Yawkey & A.D. Pellegrini (Eds) Child’s Play: developmental and applied (child psychology), pp. 219-236. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Oliveira-Formosinho, J., Zabalza, M. & Pascal, C. (2001) Researching with Children: perspectives and issues. Paper presented at Eleventh European Conference on the Quality of Early Childhood Education on Early Childhood Narratives: early childhood and new understandings of the mind, Alkmaar, The Netherlands, 29 August–1 September. Pien, D. & Rothbart, M.K. (1980) Incongruity Humor, Play and Self-regulation of Arousal in Young Children, in P.E. McGhee & A. Chapman (Eds) Children’s Humor, pp. 1-21. Chichester: Wiley. Puche-Navaro, R. (2004) Graphic Jokes and Children’s Mind: an unusual way to approach children’s representational activity, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45(4), 343-355. Schratz, M. & Steiner-Löffler, U. (1998) Pupils Using Photographs in School Self-evaluation, in J. Prosser (Ed.) Image-Based Research: a resource book for qualitative researchers, pp. 235-251. London: Falmer Press. Sharples, M., Davison, L., Thomas, G.V. & Rudman, P.D. (2003) Children as Photographers: an analysis of children’s photographic behaviour and intentions at three age levels, Visual Communication, 2(3), 303-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14703572030023004 Wenger, E. (1991) Communities of Practice: where learning happens. http://www.ewenger.com/pub/pub_benchmark_wrd.doc Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wolfenstein, M. (1954) Children’s Humor. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Yannicopoulou, A. (2004) Visual Aspects of Written Texts: preschoolers view comics, Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 4(2/3), 169-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10674-004-1024-9

ELENI LOIZOU is an Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education in the Department of Education at the University of Cyprus, Nicosia. Her research focuses on an array of early childhood themes such as: young children’s humour, empowering young children and teachers, language and early literacy, the early childhood curriculum, infant and toddler development and practice, and teacher education. In 2009 she was appointed Co-ordinator of the Committee for the Early Childhood Curriculum, which was part of the educational reform in Cyprus. She is one of the principal authors of the New Early Childhood Curriculum. Also, she is the Director of the Early Childhood Education Research Centre (EENA) in the Department of Education at the University of Cyprus. Correspondence: Eleni Loizou, Department of Education, University of Cyprus, PO Box 20537, CY-1678 Nicosia, Cyprus ([email protected]).

162

Downloaded from cie.sagepub.com by guest on August 21, 2015