The Spencer Foundation supporting advancement in education through research

Culture, Child Development and Education report

 

October 22 – 23, 1998

Conference Culture, Child Development and Education Report

Rebecca New, Catherine Snow, Blanca Quiroz,

Nurit Sheinberg, Ramona Thomas, and Rebecca Barr

 

On October 22 and 23, 1998, the Spencer Foundation, with the assistance of Rebecca New (University of New Hampshire) and Catherine Snow (Harvard Graduate School of Education), convened an interdisciplinary group of scholars to consider the implications of cultural research for young children's development in North America and internationally (Attachment A includes the agenda and list of participants). The conference was framed to focus discussion on the intersection between research and policy. In addition, conference participants were asked to consider how the now extensive body of research on cultural determinants of parenting, childrearing, and child development might have greater impact on those individuals or groups who develop and implement policies for childcare, for intervention and prevention efforts, for early childhood education, and for parental support both in the U.S. or abroad. Many participants saw this meeting as a historic one in that it provided a rare occasion for many leading researchers and national policy/practice professionals to gather and talk about the same set of issues.

 

This report is organized in three sections. The first summarizes the keynote address by Jerome Bruner and the conference focus as articulated by Rebecca New on Thursday evening. The second section focuses on issues of culture, child development, and education in North America that were discussed on Friday morning. The third section focuses on issues of culture, child development, and education internationally, which were addressed on Friday afternoon. The second and third sections both begin with a discussion of the comments of panelists and close with a summary of issues pursued through small group discussion.

 

Overview and Keynote Address

 

Jerome Bruner opened his keynote address by asking, "how is it that culture shapes human development?" Bruner is particularly interested in knowing how culture operates. Acknowledging a particular interest in how culture operates at both the individual and group levels, Bruner asserted that a better understanding of these notions will help us organize educational efforts in the interest of a "richer, fuller, human development." He maintained that "education is a part of culture, is an aspect of culture. It reflects culture."

 

Bruner continued his address by elaborating on four maxims of culture. First, "culture is a collective way of symbolically constructing reality through individual meaning-making and self construction." Second, "the collectivity of culture is institutional in nature with institutions imposing constraints and providing opportunities for individual expression, bearing on educational structure." The institutional structure of a culture often reflects hegemonic relationships. Thus, direct psychological intervention is not enough since many problems are built in institutionally. Third, "culture is always proximal"; it operates at the local level. Lastly, culture is in constant change; it is "an ever evolving dialectic between the institutional obligatory and the imaginatively possible." Bruner asserted that the balance between the two should be studied.

 

Rebecca New introduced the conference as an occasion to consider these themes, referring in particular to the lack of representation in educational practices of the "relationship between culture, children's development, and the educational enterprise." She noted two major concerns: (1) the challenges of moving beyond a mere "mentioning" of culture as a variable in the child development and educational discourse to more careful consideration of its multiple and complex meanings in children's learning and development; and (2) the need to critically evaluate the utility of educational models developed in one cultural setting for adaptation in another context. To those ends, she identified the following questions associated with the conference theme:

 

 

In concluding, she stressed the importance of "conducting research that situates development and educational experience in the society at large," as well as research that looks at intracultural differences.

 

Cultural Perspectives on Child Development and Education in North America

 

The first panel considered the current and potential role of cultural theories and models of research for improved policies and educational practices within the U.S. Panelists included researchers whose work has focused on cultural groups within the U.S., as well as national leaders in the realm of childcare and early education policies and practices. Each panelist was asked to speak briefly (5 minutes) on "The Implications of Cultural Research for Early Childhood Education in the United States." The panelists for the morning session were Sue Bredekamp, National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC); Susan Holloway, University of California, Berkeley; Sharon Lynn Kagan, Yale University; Sally Lubeck, University of Michigan; and Diana Slaughter-Defoe, University of Pennsylvania.

 

Sue Bredekamp (NAEYC) began her discussion using Gulliver in the "land of the giants" as a metaphor to illustrate the state of childcare and early childhood education in the United States. She asserted that the children are "in the land of little people," where fewer than 15 percent of them have access to what is considered high-quality childcare. Researchers, on the other hand, are in the privileged position of living "in the land of the giants." They are known to criticize NAEYC's efforts to promote better quality childcare and early education through the identification of developmentally appropriate practices. Politicians, in turn, could be regarded as occupying "the land of the monsters." They challenge professional position statements on the bases of political ambitions rather than common understandings of children and child development. Bredekamp urged researchers to become better acquainted with the political issues facing the field of early childhood education and to assume greater responsibility for the ways in which research findings are used to inform or critique practice.

 

Susan Holloway (University of California, Berkeley) discussed the importance of using the concept of cultural models to generate a better understanding of childcare. Holloway asserted that while anthropological work on the concept of cultural models is sophisticated and deep, most attempts at practical application do not live up to the rich potentials of the concept. In particular, she cited the failure of comparative research across cultural settings to acknowledge the significance of within-country variation. This notion of cultural homogeneity has contributed, for example, to inadequate cultural models of minority families within the field of early care and education in the U.S. Noting that "culture is not always country," Holloway stressed the idea that cultural models are "reborn" through personal representation; thus, they can be in tension with each other even within the same cultural group.

 

Lynn Kagan (Yale University) began her remarks by stating that attention to cultural research within the field of early care and education is inversely proportioned to its significance. Noting the extent to which culture is narrowly construed and often limited in educational practice (e.g., the naming of foods, festivals, and fashions) she pointed to the necessity of considering the political culture of current U.S. policy with respect to child development and education. Stressing not only the lack of research on culture and early childhood, but also the failure to broadly conceptualize the role of research, Kagan identified the following wishes.

 

  1. Broaden the definitions of culture beyond geography to acknowledge the multiple cultures in which everyone lives. By acknowledging the universality of cultural pluralism, this might better eliminate cultural stereotyping, thus essentializing culture as a normative universal state.
  2. Move away from considering culture as something that is fixed or constant. Instead, Kagan emphasized the need to better understand the conditions under and the extent to which cultural norms might vary.
  3. Better understand the extent to which the "policy culture," in which the field of early childhood education operates, is influenced by cultural constraints.
  4. Add the role of culture to the school reform framework and, in general, to get policy issues under consideration into the research agenda.

 

Sally Lubeck (University of Michigan) began by posing the question, "what would policy and practice in early care and education look like if we really take culture seriously?" Citing the current political emphasis on standardization and homogenization in education, Lubeck identified the following goals as essential to the integration of cultural knowledge into contemporary childcare and educational policy and practice.

 

 

Diana Slaughter-Defoe (University of Pennsylvania), the last presenter for the morning session, asserted that the field of childhood education needs to be viewed as a cultural entity composed of different groups of people. She identified three specific groups that might better contribute to the stratified field of early childhood education: (1) researchers who deal with culture, (2) professionals whose interests are in the study and long-term improvement of child development, and (3) those who work directly in the field of early intervention and education. Using the example of Head Start, Slaughter-Defoe noted its successful history within the American culture and its ability to adapt to the various pushes and pulls (e.g., from politicians and child development researchers) over the last 25 years. She urged researchers and funding agencies such as The Spencer Foundation to seek ways to promote better collaborations between those who do the work because they love it, with an eye on making a long-term difference in people's lives. This would include those who are quite removed from the political arena and those working from the perspective of early intervention.

 

Following the panel presentations, conference participants raised a number of questions and comments that served as a basis for subsequent small workgroup discussions. These included:

 

 

Small Workgroups Followed by Presentations and Large Group Discussion

 

The discussion in the smaller working groups centered on issues of family and community, culture, and connecting research with them and with policy. Many of the comments focused on acculturation, immigration, cultural change, and the relationship of these to research. The importance of using research to inform public policy was emphasized, as was the use of models of culture that include both communal and individual concepts. The following were among the topics that emerged.

 

  1. Given the growing importance of early childhood care settings, the issues of culture need to be incorporated into models of preparation for early childhood educators. Too often students and teachers think of culture as an affliction of the minority group member, not as a determinant of everyone's development. Thus, practitioner and researcher education needs to begin with analyses of our own status as products of cultural processes. At the same time, the notions of culture that are developed for the benefit of student practitioners and student researchers must be dynamic, community-based notions rather than reified, essentialist notions. The complexities of cultural change and cultural choice that are associated with immigration and with migration from rural to urban settings (incorporating the recognition that one reason for such migrations may be a rejection of aspects of traditional culture) need to be understood by practitioners. We also have an enormous research agenda to fully articulate the dimensions of cultural change involved in such migrations.

  2. In the U.S., we have a national discussion on education but no national mechanism for ensuring homogeneity of educational experiences. Even within states or school districts, there is remarkable heterogeneity of programs. In fact, such heterogeneity is often highly valued and may be built into the design of large-scale efforts, as in the recent initiative in the state of Georgia for young children. As the national conversation is often built on a national consensus about research findings (often crafted through efforts of the National Research Council, for example, or foundations like the Carnegie Corporation), researchers' roles in helping to generate consensus are crucial and inherently political. There is an inevitable tension between producing a consensus statement that presents the best possible statement of what we know and fabricating consensus prematurely about topics where knowledge is still incomplete. Being effective in policy settings with the message that research findings are often in conflict is very difficult, we need to distinguish carefully the domains where we know enough to make policy or practice recommendations based on research and those where research can only serve primarily to sharpen the questions.

  3. Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers each represent a separate discourse community to some extent. These different communities can be brought together in situations where research findings are sufficiently robust to inform practitioners. In other domains, efforts should be undertaken to support research done in collaboration with practitioners at the site. Practitioners benefit less from packaged ideas about cultural differences than from help in understanding researchers' methods and strategies, as well as the limits of their knowledge. The limits of research findings define the places where practitioners' wisdom needs to be formulated better, since in many cases it is an underutilized source of knowledge. Moreover, the top-down approach is problematic; reversing the direction of research, so that practitioners guide grass roots research might be valuable. Research is used and sometimes misused to influence policy and although researchers do not typically view their work from a political perspective, they should be more responsible for the use of their research findings beyond publication. Participants questioned researchers' divorce from societal pressures, as well as the political implications of ignoring years of research to push political views that are sometimes damaging to specific populations. Researchers should collaborate with policymakers and look through the lenses of political decision making since "all research is political." Participants also questioned the role of research in informing policymakers and the kind of relationship that is possible between policymaking and research. A suggested model was one of participant research, where policymakers are present, doing almost a kind of formative research investigation to see how the policies they created work, while academic researchers would examine their theories.

  4. Education is often viewed as a product everyone wants, but we need to explore the degree to which there is considerable agreement about the details of what everyone wants. There seems to be little disagreement about the value of literacy and numeracy skills, skills that lead to employability and productive participation in valued social groups. However, as classroom methods place greater emphasis on process (e.g., explaining answers in math, interpreting texts that have been read) rather than getting the right answer, increasing conflicts may emerge based on some groups' notions of the valued product of education and the appropriate role for students. We need to know more about who really wants what from education, and then develop a mechanism for value-based decision making about the goals of education. Practitioners have strong ideas about the value of the educational product and try to make it available to everyone, but researchers often undermine the collective definition of education by stressing differences and "pushing" educators to tap local knowledge and redefine goals. It is in this kind of interaction that researchers and practitioners work in opposite directions. An approach to resolving these conflicts might include a more systematic effort to chart the various understandings among practitioners, parents, policy makers, and researchers about the goal of education.

    Participants asserted that one focus of research should be community change and stability. The surprisingly high level of Latino support for Proposition 227 in California was used as an example of the change that a community could undergo. However, several people acknowledged that marketing and presentation influence how different groups of people perceive certain situations and decide what is best for their children. In addition, some practitioners may feel caught between the advice of cultural anthropologists, who inform them of how important culture is to the development of children, and the ongoing changes and adaptations of the communities within which they work. One suggestion that could help research stay abreast of communal change is to create fellowships for predoctoral students who would live and document issues internal to the community, since cultural values are constructed and maintained collectively in groups.

  5. Participants discussed the need to identify the domains in which cultural models differ across groups within societies (and within groups) and influence policies and practices that may be misunderstood because those cultural models are invisible to those who hold them. For example, in the U.S., there seems to be a mechanistic concept of schools where people are easily interchangeable, but in other cultures, schools are viewed in an organized way as part of the community or family. Similarly, early childhood settings can be seen by some as extensions of the family, or by others as alternatives to the family, even perhaps competitive with the family in having an effect on the child's developmental course. In some cultures, responsibilities for the care and development of young children are presumably shared across a wide range of adults. However, in the U.S., the cultural model is that a mother is primarily and autonomously responsible for the healthy development of her children. Another illustration of hidden cultural models has to do with the definition of childhood. For example, until what age is it appropriate for adults to indulge, coddle, and care for children, and after what age do children assume the rights and responsibilities of adulthood? In the U.S., we tend to treat anyone still in school in a somewhat infantilized way, which can potentially conflict with familial cultural models.

  6. Participants discussed cultural differences, the difficulties of distinguishing cultural from individual differences, and how practitioners in schools interpret and act on these differences. For example, they sometimes mistake differences for deficiencies. On the other hand, they also ignore indicators that individual children are showing developmental problems by discounting these as cultural, or fail to intervene and change counterproductive child behaviors in favor of excessive accommodation. A challenge in understanding the impact of culture is that research often still views the concept of culture as a static factor and thus, cannot deal with cultural shifts or the integration of time as dimensions in describing culture. Participants suggested viewing cultural processes in ways that are more dynamic and participatory to get beyond such limitations. They also suggested looking at communities rather than cultures; thus, defining culture as a process of participation wherein both the activities and belief structures change. A focus on communities, within which there is obvious diversity even if members of the community come from the same culture, enables researchers and practitioners to confront more openly the inevitability of diversity and the potential for conflict between a diversity orientation and a cultural orientation. Participants emphasized the importance of problematizing the concept of culture and taking into account the culture of the researcher, as well as his/her beliefs and practices.

    They also stressed the difficulty for researchers, and for practitioners, of coordinating analyses that start from cultural models with analyses that account, at a much more fine-grained level, for interaction patterns. Even if a teacher and child are from the same culture, there are still differences in the expectations of their responsibilities and roles in interaction. Similarly, creating research models within the details of mother-infant interactions that simultaneously incorporates the affective and cognitive experiences of the individuals involved, the practical constraints on their behaviors, and the cultural models they are enacting is an enormous challenge. Yet only by coordinating these various levels can we provide a fully articulated picture of how children develop in the context of their social groups.

  7. One place to begin doing research and improving practice in schools is to admit that there are differences between schools' and families' beliefs and, to some extent, their goals for children. Acknowledging the distinction between cross-cultural differences and cross-cultural deficiencies and the type of differences that children bring to school will facilitate the collaboration between teachers and families in making better informed decisions about their children's education. One source of the conflict is that the cultural models immigrant communities find at schools were not designed with them in mind. Moreover, as immigrants change their native values to those of the new society, the losses, as well as the gains, due to acculturation must be described. Participants asserted the significance of addressing issues of cultural adaptation and acculturation in immigrant populations, particularly those focusing on the changing nature of culture. Thus, they reiterated the importance of adding a temporal dimension to discussions of culture, as noted above. The positive function that immigrant groups' values served in the native culture should be examined in order to understand the process of acculturation. It is problematic when children are expected to give up a value that is acceptable at home and not as acceptable at school for one that may be acceptable at school but unacceptable at home. Hence, it is important to define culture and recognize that the culture and situation of different groups vary.

    Since it is "hard to change schools, we need to consider whether there are ways" to make families understand what is happening without affecting the well being of the children. Schools change families, but rarely is school affected by the participation of families. Participants questioned the exclusion of parents in their children's education and the conflict that it represents. They asserted that schools should include parents in their children's education, but they acknowledged that cultural differences between the parents' expectations of involvement are important. That is, some parents rely on the expertise of teachers and believe that "education" should take place in school by the teachers, while others want to be involved in the process. Strategies are needed to help assess the strains and stresses that different approaches might have on different communities' not to decide for them, but to highlight the strengths and weaknesses in their choices.

  8. If researchers come to understand culture as a process, as it relates to standardization versus diversity or universality versus particularity, research questions can shift from questions about cultural conflict between home and school to questions about how both school practitioners and parents can come to understand each others' perspectives and generate either shared or intentionally parallel systems of goals. For example, there are different values placed on social intelligence in this society compared to cognitive intelligence in other societies. Schools expect children to process teaching in terms of technological intelligence, but they tend to ignore the social intelligence that children bring to the classroom. Understanding the consequences of these various choices for children is crucial, as is research on ways to enhance practitioners' and parents' understanding of these issues. Moreover, culturally sensitive researchers need to be involved in establishing the standards and outcomes on which children and programs will be evaluated. This is not to undermine the importance of accomplishments in the domains of literacy and numeracy, but to help ensure that children's knowledge is truly reflected in the standards and assessments.

    One question that came up was how research can influence the discourse about childcare. Participants suggested looking at training institutions to understand the extent to which training is socializing teachers to a professional canon that does not respect cultural diversity. This was based on the assumption that the most culturally sensitive pedagogical settings may be staffed by the least formally trained individuals. There were questions about the implications of these associations given that many teachers in Head Start programs, for example, are mothers with limited formal training. It was suggested that teachers might be less culturally sensitive after training. Furthermore, given the high turnover rates for preschool and Head Start teachers, as well as a discontinuity between pre-service and in-service opportunities for learning, research is needed on the wisdom of investment in pre-service training for preschool practitioners, the best methods for delivering such training, and the content it should contain. Participants noted that in education, effort often goes toward making the packaged product and rarely do we deal with the core of our own practice. Participants also suggested that comparative research on the level and type of training provided to early childhood practitioners in other countries, as well as the level of economic support for such training, could be illuminating in the American context.

  9. Head Start was used as an example in a variety of topical areas. It is an illustration of centralized education that serves minority groups and is supported at different levels (including parents). However, participants questioned whether Head Start represents the experiences we want all children to have. They also identified the move toward the universalization of preschool education as an important issue. There were questions about the cultural appropriateness of this idea, its political implications, and the hegemonic sentiment it evoked. Participants also asked why the diversity of Head Start children is viewed only from the perspective of social class, while other differences are largely ignored. In addition, there were questions about the standardized evaluations of these programs, especially since children come to the educational system with different kinds and levels of knowledge, and the relatively brief exposure to Head Start or other preschool experiences cannot be expected to bring all children to the same levels.

 

Cultural Perspectives on Child Development and Education Internationally

 

Rebecca New introduced the afternoon panel by referring to the morning theme, which focused on the role of research in diverse cultural contexts in responding more effectively to the challenges of educating the U.S.'s own culturally and developmentally diverse population of children. The question for the afternoon session was, how might we best utilize what we are learning about children's development and educational experiences, especially as they are fostered within U.S. settings, to support the development of policies, programs, and practices in diverse settings internationally? The afternoon panel included both researchers and representatives of international agencies that focus on the health, education, and well being of young children. The panelists were Marianne Bloch, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Cigdem Kagitcibasi, Koc University; Cassie Landers, UNICEF; Joe Tobin, University of Hawaii; and Mary Eming Young, World Bank.

 

Marianne Bloch (University of Wisconsin-Madison) stressed the importance of supporting critical perspectives and alternative ("outside the normal") approaches in research at the national and international levels. A critical perspective is further warranted, she suggested, by recent attempts to export U.S. models of child development and teacher education to international sites. Rather what is needed is greater attention to developing culturally appropriate models. Bloch further stressed the need for more collaborative research models with a local control component as a means of addressing the crises of representation of cultures. This could be done, for example, through the establishment of research centers outside of the U.S. Such efforts would go beyond changing the nature of who does the research and contribute to more effective means of questioning the power-knowledge relationship. Lastly, she expressed concern about the increasing globalization of the discourse around issues of childhood and early education.

 

Cidgem Kagitcibasi (Koc University) initially noted the traditional resistance among researchers to carry out applied work that includes prescriptive orientations, partly because of their hesitation to make value judgements, particularly about other cultural groups, as well as the beliefs about the current inadequacies of social science to address serious social issues. As a result of this research orientation, researchers often find themselves as little more than observers of events, playing little or no role in fostering social change. Kagitcibasi challenged each of these notions, emphasizing that what knowledge social scientists do agree upon is typically utilized to benefit the middle classes. Furthermore, she stressed that by not taking a stance and acting on "insider knowledge," researchers are, in fact, making a choice that helps maintain the status quo. Drawing parallels with the application of research findings from the health field, she urged researchers to accept their social responsibility to work towards universally applicable standards of competence in human development.

 

Cassie Landers (UNICEF) began by challenging the assumption that everyone shares the same goals and values. Voicing the need to develop comprehensive programming strategies, she emphasized the importance of asking basic questions about how various actors (e.g., parents, family, communities, service providers, policymakers, etc.) perceive child development and the need for related programs. Discussions of cultural values, in turn, could then be used to promote better collaboration between policymakers and service providers. Landers used the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as a potential means of moving beyond a sectional approach (e.g., health, housing, education) to a universal set of core values regarding the rights of all children, independent of culture. Noting the strong cultural tradition of asking questions in the social sciences, she urged researchers to ask deeper and more sensitive questions about the usefulness of the research.

 

Joseph Tobin (University of Hawaii) first connected the theme of the afternoon panel to that of the morning panel. "How can international research help us with domestic issues?" Noting the too-linear ways in which some policymakers (and especially politicians) draw upon research findings to support their own agenda, he emphasized the need for "more complex ways of going oversees." He stressed that international research can inform domestic practice in that it can expand our repertoire of possibilities, lead us to question some of our basic assumptions, and help "rehabilitate the disparaged." He underscored the importance of not ignoring the lessons that can be learned from countries with economic difficulties. Moreover, he noted the importance of looking beyond what happens in other cultures, to the logic behind the practices. Tobin indicated that the audience of our work should include teachers and practitioners, as well as researchers and policymakers. He raised a question about how many multicultural sites are needed in comparative research, given the ease with which limited examples contribute to further cultural stereotyping.

 

Mary Young (World Bank) began her presentation by stating that World Bank lending to early child development services would reach $1 million by the year 2000. The programs receiving support range from direct service to children, to home care centers, to training caregivers and teachers. Hence, the World Bank is interested in understanding the essential ingredients needed to develop programs internationally, particularly in developing countries. On this basis, she identified three critical areas of concern to the World Bank agenda. First, what are the minimal ingredients of quality early childhood programs in diverse cultural contexts in developing countries? Second, what sort of framework could be created that would assist in the design of developmentally and culturally appropriate programs? Such a framework would not be a formula or a recipe, but rather a tool used in the creation of culturally diverse early childhood programs. Lastly, what sort of metric might best measure the impact and the methodology of various program efforts? Issues of culturally valid evaluation instruments are no less critical than effective means of measuring the (cognitive and socioemotional) outcomes of funded interventions.

 

Small Workgroups Followed by Presentations and Large Group Discussion

 

The conversations in the smaller workgroups focused on the implications of early childhood research, education, and policy at the international level. These discussions were dominated by a focus on the problems and possibilities of an "interventionist" philosophy. Most of the comments centered on ways to develop effective intervention initiatives and to bridge research, practice, and policy. Understanding the culture from which interventions evolve and how they are perceived and implemented in other cultures were also central to these conversations. The following were among the themes that emerged.

 

  1. Culture needs to be considered and understood before attempting an intervention or developing policy. Participants stressed the notion that values are always embedded in culture and that all the issues in early childhood education can be informed by cross-cultural research. Before attempting any research or intervention, it is important to understand the existing educational policies as well as the prevailing beliefs regarding children and education in the particular context where the work will be done. Research questions and interventions need to be tailored to local circumstances. In addition, it is important to know how communities work and how they are organized before attempting any intervention. Several conference participants emphasized the need to go beyond statements of cultural differences to include a discussion of how those differences might result in diverse programs or practices. One specific suggestion involved implementing policies and interventions at the community level, since things that matter in children's lives do not begin in schools but in the community (e.g., in many places formal schooling is still a recent phenomenon). Another idea was to perform a "cultural assessment" before implementing a program. However, there were some concerns about this since it could be very costly and complicated.

  2. Participants expressed concerns with the fact that many western models of research, policy, and intervention are exported to other countries. The appropriateness of transferring models will probably depend on how different the cultural paradigms are between countries. There is a need to study what happens in these programs, particularly when policies are applied in contexts that are different from the ones where the programs were developed. Many mistakes can occur when programs are just transferred without looking at specific local elements. At times, American researchers do not understand or are not familiar with the culture and relevant issues of the countries where the intervention is being implemented. There was a consensus that funded research informing child development interventions should go beyond simply exporting western models.

    An alternative to "imported" models is to create an integrated synthesis between existing programs and local specifics by bringing different values together (e.g., autonomy and relatedness), instead of trying to replace local values. Interventions need to be developed through a dialogue between local experts and those from other places. An insider is always needed in creating appropriate programs. Therefore, expert knowledge from outside can be helpful if it is applied in a collaborative way with local expertise. Another suggestion is that institutions and policymakers consider models developed in other countries, like Japan or developing countries, and not only in the U.S. The consensus was that Americans could learn about and use models developed in other places as well.

  3. The idea of having some universal indicators of child development, intervention, and policy was an issue of great controversy in the smaller groups. There was some attempt to determine whether there are any child development indicators that could be considered universal. The possibility of developing some universal indicators of psychosocial development or quality of life was mentioned. Can valid measures be developed? Participants were critical of this approach because of concerns about what should be measured and whose standards would be applied. Other possibilities of universal indicators mentioned were: basing programs around the basic rights of children (some participants claimed that this is a western notion), emotional development issues, schooling issues, the presence of caring adults, specific skills needed to function in society, and the like. Another option is to identify universal goals that are contextually sensitive (e.g., children who function successfully in society). However, the question of how to do this is a large one. More importantly, how is this translated into practice? What do you do with the cultural variation found? Do you reverse, extend, ignore, or transform it? There was some discussion about the possibility of simulating a health model, which has many universal elements. This was criticized because health variables are more precise and easier to measure than human development variables. However, participants agreed that a sharp distinction between universalists or relativists is not necessary; some universal standards can be synthesized without ignoring the local culture. Nevertheless, some participants maintained that, unlike health indicators, the search for universal indicators of human development would flounder.

  4. Participants had strong reactions to the idea of being prescriptive and normative. One question raised was, can we be less relativistic and accept the normative and the prescriptive? Moreover, can we understand the internal beliefs of a group of people and then present them in ways that have some universal applications (e.g., issues like swaddling or sleeping arrangements)? Some participants asserted that prescribing basic standards to identify minimal ingredients of a program provides a decontextualized scenario, which is problematic since minimal ingredients vary by country. One alternative might be to develop guidelines or frameworks of action rather than prescriptive directives that could help set the stage for program implementation. Another possibility is to develop a framework to help program developers recognize cultural differences and develop programs that fit the group's specific cultural needs. A related way of assisting might be to give them some guidance on how to look at their culture and beliefs in relation to their desired outcomes and then to support them in developing an appropriate program.

  5. Common across all the groups was the need to support the development of local initiatives to conduct research, develop policy, and implement practices. Specific actions mentioned included involving the local community in the research process, helping local communities and researchers identify what is important to them and provide them with options so that they can assist in choosing program goals and the type of children to be served, supporting capacity building at the local level, supporting the development of locally-based research centers that are networked with other similar centers, building and using a local knowledge base, and creating community-based programs that shift the power from the "experts" to local participants in order to have a more inclusive and participatory model.

  6. All proposed initiatives should include a program evaluation component. Furthermore, some systematic approaches should be implemented in order to understand what actually happens during the implementation of the program, research, or policy. Part of the evaluation should focus on the explicit values being supported by the program, research, or intervention. However, preparatory work is necessary before the research and intervention take place. The implementation of programs should be part of the process of cultural analysis. Another possibility is to contribute to program creation by supporting local participants as they think about local specifics and, based on these considerations, create local programs.

  7. Many participants expressed concern with the fact that relevant research often does not have an impact on policy. Questions and suggestions about how to create a bridge between research, practice, and policy, while keeping the role of culture central in these processes, were identified. One option is to conduct research that is relevant in terms of policy needs. Another is to support the training of people to work at the international level through the creation of a fellowship program that would be internationally oriented. This initiative would enable individuals with academic preparation (e.g., predissertation doctoral students) to work with international organizations such as the World Bank, UNICEF, and others, to establish some collaborative links.

    Another area of discussion involved ways of connecting researchers in the implementation phase. Can the same person be a researcher, policymaker, and practitioner? Are there other ways of disseminating findings and staying connected in the process? Is it better to learn how to introduce your ideas to important people in a way that will influence policy? As there was a sense among the participants that no one wants to support dissemination, they called for foundations that fund such projects to also provide funding and support to help disseminate findings to the right sources (i.e., policymakers, governments, etc.). For example, there could be policy briefs to the press. Foundations could establish a set of linked centers that could foster bridges between research, practice, and policy around culturally-relevant issues. Another suggestion was to use information technology to access a broader audience in a more interactive way.

    In the four decades of experience (since the inception of Head Start) of translating child development research into policy, participants identified several "lessons learned" that suggest how to improve the linkages between theory, research, policy, and practice. These included:
  1. Several participants raised the issue of teacher education as it might better influence the relationship between researchers, policy makers, and practitioners. While some bemoaned the general low level of teacher preparation programs in the U.S., with respect to understanding either cultural issues or the role of research in educational practice, others noted the leverage that educators could have in helping both the general public and policy makers make sense of research findings. It was noted that teachers have daily opportunities to make sense of research hypotheses, observe their implications within classroom settings, and then apply generic principles to their own work with children and families. They also have a powerful role to play in identifying issues in need of collaborative and culturally-grounded research. Others agreed that collaborative research involving teachers and other practitioners could also contribute to a better understanding of the role of subjectivity in social inquiry.

  2. A common view across all the groups was the notion of supporting and fostering alternative ways of conducting research. A proposition was made for a more collaborative model of research. Participants asserted that there should be greater collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. There should be an emphasis on supporting and strengthening this communication and connection. Foundations might be able to support this interchange by bringing together researchers and policymakers and helping them work as partners. In addition, collaboration should exist between different countries and among institutions that fund and implement relevant programs.

  3. Conference participants emphasized the need to develop a more relational model of research, which could be better achieved by involving local communities. Networks of support need to be created so that research can be conducted by local researchers. The people who are affected by the research should be included in decisions regarding research and policy implementation. Study participants should be included as co-designers, co-collectors, co-analyzers of data, and interpreters of the results. Research should be centered on issues that the community considers important, avoiding the problem of using underprivileged populations as "guinea pigs." This model should also consider the possibility of informing the people being studied about the research, without destroying the methodological rigor and validity of the project.

 

Conclusion

 

Following reports from the afternoon discussion groups on the above-listed topics, Robert LeVine was asked to conclude the meeting by commenting on the current status of culturally-based research in the fields of child development and early education.

 

He began by noting that at the time The Field Manual for the Cross-Cultural Study of Child Rearing was first published some 45 years ago, two assumptions were made explicit about the means and ends of cross-cultural research: (1) hypothesis testing was essential and (2) ethnography was required. The data collected under this rubric were to be donated to archives that would serve as a knowledge base for the future. Today, some 45 years later, a well-established knowledge base goes far beyond studies of independent-dependent variable relationships. Citing the child language data archives as an example, LeVine lamented the current disregard for this body of work as it might inform contemporary policy and practice issues. He also noted the role of such a reservoir of data in other fields (e.g., biology).

 

He identified two problematic issues that have likely contributed to this lack of interest, of those in child development and of those in education, in cross-cultural research. First, there are issues of heterogeneity. Long before accusations of essentialism were linked with the concept of culture, there were respected definitions of culture based on statistical models (e.g., every person is like all other humans, like some others, and like no others). Such models served as justification for the study of cross-cultural, universal, and individual differences, all of which were seen as necessary for a true science of human behavior and development. Yet, much of psychology has refused to accept this basic premise. Second, there is the translation of research into policy. The challenge of making research findings relevant and useful to policy makers and practitioners is not limited to studies of a cross-cultural nature. This is a problem of all educational research, as conference participants have noted. Something is missing in how research is translated.

 

He concluded by citing some participants' "clarion call against extreme cultural relativism" versus other positions expressed throughout the day. He saw such a conflict as one that is researchable and significant in that such research efforts might assist both theory and practice to "do justice to what is culturally relative, as well as do justice to the notion of universal competence."

 

A Note from The Spencer Foundation

 

The Spencer Foundation sponsors occasional conferences to stimulate research on important issues in education. We thank Rebecca New and Catherine Snow who helped organize this conference for their role in editing this report, Blanca Quiroz and Nurit Sheinberg for their work in preparing this report, and the individuals who participated (see attached listing) for their good work and contributions. We hope that interested researchers will find the theoretical, methodological, and topical issues raised at the conference thought-provoking. The Spencer Foundation welcomes well-designed research proposals on the issues and ideas discussed in this report.