Content uploaded by Jaakko Hilppö
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jaakko Hilppö on Feb 22, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Jaakko Hilppö
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jaakko Hilppö on Feb 22, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sense of Agency and Everyday Life: Children’s Perspective
Jaakko Hilppö, Lasse Lipponen, Kristiina Kumpulainen & Marika Virlander
University of Helsinki, Department of Teacher Education
Abstract
This paper discusses a socio-culturally informed study on children’s sense of agency
regarding their everyday lives. The empirical data comprise of open-ended interview
situations where four elementary school children (age 9-10) reflect on their everyday life
with the help of photographs they had themselves taken. The results highlight variation in
the children’s accounts of their sense of agency. In all, the results provide a nuanced
understanding of how the children’s own aspirations, beliefs, and competencies, from their
perspective, were related to engagement in different practices in their everyday life.
Keywords: sense of agency, children’s perspective, everyday life across settings
1. Introduction
The importance of understanding and promoting children’s sense of agency has been
emphasized by a number of scholars (Bandura; 1989; Bruner, 1996; Rainio, 2010). Given
the challenges posed by the collision of permanent and changing environments in the lives
of today’s children, this goal seems more vital than ever (e.g., Kumpulainen, Lipponen,
Hilppö, & Mikkola, 2013). Although existing studies on children’s agency (e.g.,
Markström & Halldén, 2009; Bjerke, 2011; Barton & Tan, 2010; Rainio, 2008) point to the
value of the reflexive aspect of agency, uncovering the way in which children fathom
themselves as agents has seldom been the focus of inquiry. For example, questions
regarding the way in which the children's own aspirations or competences play a role in
evoking action, or how children see possibilities available for action in different situations
remain largely unaddressed. Moreover, current conceptualizations concerning agency fall
short in providing conceptual tools to describe and elaborate on the relation of individual
actors with various practices and communities they engage in (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998;
Prout, 2005; Stetsenko, 2008). Thus, at present our research knowledge is limited in
explaining how different settings and situations play into children’s sense of agency.
This paper discusses a socio-culturally informed study on children’s sense of agency
regarding practices of their everyday lives. We will begin by elaborating on our theoretical
stance towards children’s sense of agency. Then, we will present our empirical work, that
is, how we worked with four children (age 9-10) Anna, Liisa, Erno and Eetu to document
and talk about their everyday lives. Thereafter, we present the results of our investigation,
viz., which modalities characterize children’s accounts of their sense of agency as they
reflect on different practices of their everyday life, and what these identified modalities tell
To apprear in Learning, Culture and Social Interaction
us about children’s sense of agency. We will end with a discussion on the relevance of our
results and the possible implications of our work.
1.1 Investigating children’s sense of agency from a socio-cultural perspective
Sense of agency, within philosophy and psychology, is often defined as the individual’s
subjective awareness of being an initiator or executor of actions in the world (e.g., de
Vignemont & Fourneret, 2004). In this study, our focus is on sense of agency talked into
being when children reflect on their everyday lives. Building on socio-cultural theoretical
frameworks, we argue that such reflections are socio-culturally mediated and distributed
(Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, Tulviste & Hagstrom, 1996). That is, when reflecting on our
actions we make use of different cultural tools such as language and various complex
semiotic resources which, in return, influence how we interpret those actions within a
specific cultural context (Gillespie, 2007; Valsiner, 2001). Furthermore, we argue that such
reflective accounts are always produced in certain situations and thus subject to the various
social aspects of those situations via which the accounts emerge. Accordingly, reflections
of one’s actions produced, for example in interviews, should be understood as being
embedded in that particular situation and as being produced for it in joint activity (e.g.,
Roth, 2008). More fundamentally, the socio-cultural perspective emphasizes that actions in
themselves are complex formations constituted by different cultural tools, personal
endeavours and collective motives. Hence, in contrast to cognitive or phenomenological
frameworks (e.g., Gallagher, 2012), our stance highlights the situative, distributed and
socio-culturally mediated nature of sense of agency.
However, despite a rich array of conceptualizations and empirical analyses, current socio-
cultural theories on agency have evoked critical voices concerning the lack of theorizing of
the individual actor (Roth, 2007; Nardi, 2005, Eteläpelto, Vähäsantanen, Hökkä &
Paloniemi, 2013). Stetsenko (2008, p. 481) explains:
“. . . a number of approaches tend to collapse the individual dimension onto the
social realm of everyday practices while undertheorizing the former, as in
participatory learning and discursive theories where individual subjectivity is
explained as being equivalent to, or a replica and sometimes a correlate of, the
social-level process such as discourse, collaborative activity, or participation in
shared practices of communities (e.g., Harre 2002).”
In other words, the more nuanced dynamics of individual agency, which contribute to the
emergence of these practices, are not adequately addressed by current research. For
example, the way in which the actor’s own aspirations, beliefs, or acquired and physical
competencies relate to concrete actions taken in social situations, are not accounted for. To
answer these critical claims, we draw on the narrative semiotics, and especially the notion
of modalities of agency (Greimas & Porter, 1977).
1.2 Narrative semiotics and modalities of agency
In the semiotics of A.J. Greimas, modalities of agency refer to the underlying structure of
different cultural narratives that constituted the actors of the story, and their intentions in
relation to an object or a given course of action (Greimas & Porter, 1977; Fontanille,
2006). In his work on Finnish senior citizens’ agency Jyrkämä (2008) has drawn attention
to six basic modalities commonly used in narrative semiotics and in this study we
elaborate on their function in discourse as follows: to want, positions the person in
question as wanting to do something; to know, ascribes the person with certain the
knowledge and know-how; to be able, characterizes the physical abilities and limitations
of the person; have to, ascribes a must or something that the person has to do; to feel,
experience, appreciate, positions the person as being able to feel and experience, and
lastly; to have the possibility, ascribes the person as having possibilities to do something in
a given situation. Although these kind of modal descriptions of agency are frequently used
in both everyday and academic discourses to note an actor’s orientation to a given state of
affairs or practice, there are few, if any, empirical research studies that would have used the
conceptualization of modalities of agency as an analytic tool.
In our research, we see potential in investigating children’s sense of agency in relation to
their everyday life via modalities of agency. In accordance with the socio-cultural
perspective, we understand these modalities as discursive tools which people use, and so
socially construct into being their relating sense of agency within a social setting.
Moreover, we regard sense of agency not solely as something people feel or provide a
narrative account of, but also as something people invoke, or choose not to invoke, in
certain situations (e.g., Wetherell, 2005). In sum, sense of agency is analyzed in this paper
as a socially constructed relation between an individual’s capabilities, aspirations, and
perceived opportunities and limitations to take action with a given practice.
Our research is guided by the following questions:
●How do children draw on different modalities to characterize their own agency
when reflecting on different practices of their life?
●What kind of insights can we, as analysts, draw from these reflections regarding
their sense of agency in these practices?
2. Study
The study took place in the Helsinki metropolitan area during autumn 2010. Our work is
embedded within a larger, co-participatory research initiative to study children's agency
(Kumpulainen, Lipponen, Hilppö, & Mikkola, 2013).
2.1 Participants and research context
The participants of the study were two girls and two boys, age 9-10 years. During the
study Anna, Liisa, Erno and Eetu described themselves to us in various ways during the
different phases of the research. We will next draw on these descriptions to describe these
children in their own words.
Erno, a nine-year-old boy described himself as being very interested in building scale
models, playing computer games and a person who does not get angry. He also talked
about how he, in kindergarten, collected bottle caps, and appreciates his father's coin
collection on display in his room. In return, Anna, a ten-year-old girl described herself as
being very enthusiastic about playing the piano and writing stories or poems. In the future,
Anna saw herself working either as a priest or a magazine director like her father. Liisa, a
nine-year-old girl talked about herself as a friendly person, but who sometimes also snaps
at people. She also likes to play the cello and video games, and to play with her little
brothers. In the future, she sees herself working either as a veterinarian, an animal nurse, a
waiter or a cook. Lastly, Eetu, a nine-year-old boy shared that he usually reads comics after
school and likes to draw wild animals from picture books. Eetu has swimming and dancing
as his hobbies, lives with his mother and father and his older sister visits occasionally.
Our connection to Anna, Liisa, Erno and Eetu was first established, when all four children
participated, with their classroom communities, in a two-week project of documenting and
reflecting upon their school lives and experiences. During this project, Anna, Liisa, Erno
and Eetu each took pictures for a school day of important situations during a school day.
The photos were then shared and discussed with other students, their teacher and the
researchers in either whole classroom or focus groups situations. The project functioned as
way to establish mutual relations with the children and demonstrate our appreciation and
interest in their perspective. After the project, we were interested in working with children,
and their parents, who would potentially be good key informants (Patton, 2002) regarding
their everyday life and their sense of agency. Furthermore, documenting one’s life outside
the school meant both effort and interest on the student’s and their family’s part. To this
end, we approached the teachers who suggested Anna, Liisa, Erno and Eetu and also
helped us to secure consent from them and their parents.
Their teachers described Anna, Liisa, Erno and Eetu as achieving students who were liked
by their classmates. In accord with the teachers views, we observed each child engage with
interest in different classroom activities and have extending friendship networks within
their own classroom and with students from other classrooms also. Furthermore, as
informed by our informal discussions with other students, the out-of-school lives of Anna,
Liisa, Erno and Eetu were comparable to those of their peers in relation hobbies and other
activities. Their socioeconomic background represented the lower and upper middle class
of Finnish society.
2.2 Creation of data sources
The data sources of this study comprise of four open-ended interviews (Patton, 2002). In
these situations Anna, Liisa, Eetu and Erno shared and reflected on their everyday lives
with two of the authors interacting with them. The interviews were done on school time in
either the lunchroom or a silent hallway corner during lessons. Also, along with them the
children had photos they themselves had taken across contexts during a three-day period.
The function of these photos was to assist the children in their reflections via familiar and
culturally meaningful mediational means (Schoultz, Säljö & Wyndham, 2002; Vygotsky,
1978) as well as provide a joint point of reference for the discussion. In contrast to
conventional stimulated recall interviews, the photos acted as “stimulants” that the
children themselves produced (e.g., Cook and Hess 2007).
When we provided Anna, Liisa, Eetu, and Erno with the digital cameras, we asked them to
focus on various agentic moments they might have during the next three days. In
particular, guided by Johnson (2008) and our experiences from working with their
classroom communities, we encouraged the children to take photos of people, things and
situations that were important to them. We also asked them to photos in situations in which
they felt happy, very glad, didn’t want to stop doing something, sad, angry or when doing
something felt difficult. This set of guidelines was discussed and handed to the children in
print along with the cameras. We also informed the parents about the guidelines, and asked
them to remind the children to take photos and to discuss them jointly at home. The four
case-study children took altogether 67 photos during the study. Between the children Liisa
took most of the pictures, 24 altogether, with Eetu and Erno taking 20 and 16 photos
respectively. Anna took 7 pictures. Liisa, Erno and Eetu took most of their pictures on the
first or second day while Anna took three pictures on her last day. Inline with the
guidelines, the photos were about people, places, artifacts and a variety of events.
The interviews followed an open format, and were designed to encourage the children to
elaborate on their everyday lives. This meant that each interview started with the adult
telling that he or she did not know anything about the child’s everyday life, but wanted to
learn, and hence asked questions and clarifications. In addition, the children were
encouraged to guide the discussion. In practice, the children, for example, decided which
photos were reflected upon, and which topics were further explored, and asked questions
of the everyday life of the researchers. These observations suggest that the co-participatory
nature of this study, and in particular the interactional dynamics of the interviews were
reciprocal and open to initiatives from each party (Hviid, 2008). However, to maintain the
focus of the discussion, the adults used an interview guide (Kvale, 2007) that was on
display also for the children, and explained in the beginning of the interview. In
connection, the children told that they had talked about the photos briefly with their
parents at home, and had deleted photos that were either of bad quality or photos they did
not want to share. This implies that the children were prepared to interact upon the photos
and to reflect upon their experiences. Anna’s interview lasted the longest (1h) due to being
held during class which gave room to take time for the interview. Liisa’s and Erno’s
interviews took 37 minutes and 43 minutes respectively but both were cut short due to
school timetables. Eetu’s interview was the shortest (25 minutes) due to Erno feeling
slightly ill during the school day.
2.3 Analysis
Our analysis of the children’s interviews proceeded through multiple iterative phases
during which we investigated both the content of interaction as well as its social
construction in evolving interactions (Roth, 2005; Erickson, 2006). First, the video- and
audio-data of social interactions upon the children’s photos were transcribed in full.
Relevant contextual information, that is, reference to the photo talked about, pointing and
other non-verbal gestures, were included in the transcriptions to guide their reading.
To investigate children’s sense of agency, we identified initial passages where Anna, Liisa,
Eetu and Erno seemed to talk about their agency. Here Jyrkämä's (2008)
conceptualizations acted as heuristic tools that guided our interpretations. After this, we
compared and negotiated about our analytical notes both in relation to how and which
modalities were utilized, and the various practices we understood the modalities being
connected to. As a result, we compiled a joint guideline for identifying different modalities
of agency from the data, and with it, re-read and analyzed all the interviews. Importantly,
taking note of the methodological problems inherent to child-adult interactions (Hviid,
2008; Westcott & Littleton, 2005) our guideline stipulated that the modalities would be
identified only from the child’s turns-at-talk, and short, minimal turns in which the child
only confirmed or denied what the adult had previously said, would not be analyzed. Table
1. summarizes the analytical framework used for investigating children’s sense of agency
by its modalities (cf., Arnold, this issue).
Finally, to understand the variation between the different senses of agency connected to
various practices, we focused on the degree of elaboration both within and across the
different modalities of agency manifested in the talk. That is, we looked closely at the
varying uses of a single modality to describe the children’s relation to the practices talked
about in the interviews as well as how extensively different modalities were draw on.
Table 1. Analytical framework for investigating modalities of agency
3. Results
We shall discuss the results of our study in two phases. First, we highlight how the
children draw on different modalities to characterize their own agency in the children’s
interview accounts on their everyday lives. Second, we focus on what insights can we be
draw from these accounts regarding the children’s sense of agency regarding the different
practices discussed in the interviews?
3.1. Modalities of agency in children’s reflections on their everyday lives
Our analysis demonstrates the richness and elaborateness of Anna’s, Erno’s, Liisa’s and
Eetu’s accounts on their agency. In the interviews, they established themselves - via the
modalities - as persons who identified aspects of their lives they saw worthwhile pursuing,
and how different people and artifacts helped them strive toward these goals. The children
also positioned themselves dominantly as having the competencies to engage in different
Modality
Theoretical
description
Analytical description
Empirical example
to want
what the actor wants
to do; motivation,
goals and aspirations
Detailing what the actor wants
(or does not) to do or achieve,
what s/he finds interesting or
compels him/her to make an
effort
”I just wanted to carry on doing that
all the time”
”I normally keep on trying for a
quite a long time...”
to know
the knowledge and
know-how of the
actor.
Describing the actors
understanding and know-how
(or lack of) related to e.g., social
skills, formal domain
knowledge, games, hobbies etc,
”…but then I didn't know how to
put the machine on…"
”I like know how to do my
homework”
” I took all the pictures myself”
to be able
the physical abilities
and limitations of the
actor
Describing how the actors
physical characteristics make
possible of impede action
”I was so sick that I couldn’t sit by
the computer”
”I didn’t have the strenght to carry
my brother to the other room”
have to
a must, something
that the actor has to
do
Detailing restrictions that either
other people or the actor her/
himself has set
”During classes...you can’t decide
yourself”
”They made the rules that way and I
couldn't do anything about it”
to feel,
experience,
appreciate
character’s ability to
feel and experience
Accounting what’s important (or
not) to the actor, what s/he
appreciates, or how s/he
experienced different events
”I really liked that a lot and it was
fun”
”It was really annoying when...”
”The cello was a really beautiful
sound to it....”
to have the
possibility
indicating
possibilities to do
something in a given
situation
Describing either actual realized
decisions or future situations
where there is a possibility to
make a choice
”I can change the (computer) game”
”I can do anything in my own room”
practices. Furthermore, their perspective entailed a nuanced understanding of the
conflictual and contested nature of agency. Table 2. illustrates our findings. It exemplifies
both similarities and differences in the children's’ accounts of their sense of agency in their
everyday life.
Table 2. Modalities of agency in children’s reflections on their everyday lives
The most salient modality present in the children’s reflections was feeling, appreciating
and experiencing. The prominence of this modality, although partly attributable to the
provided guidelines, displayed the rich and detailed way in which the children reflected on
their experiences and emotional connections present in their everyday lives. Most clearly
this modality was used when discussing the various personally important people children
identified. These “significant others” were mainly talked about in positive ways; parents
took care and loved and friends were fun to hangout with. In addition, the children
explained their emotional connection to mundane or extraordinary events, like Anna here
explains: “It’s so irritating. I have to clean up her [little sister] mess. When she plays in
Modalities /
Child
to feel, experience,
appreciate
to know
to want
have to
to have the
possibility
to be able
Anna
* family members,
cousins, friends,
teachers
* playing the piano
or be online in
Panfu
* moving the home
and packing, being
sick
* music, literacy,
homework
* granny’s basket,
piano
* make up stories,
do homework, play
the piano
* use the camera
and design pictures
* solve quarrels and
ask help
* to take care of
myself
*play the piano,
* write stories,
* do math and
homework,
* gossip with
friends, to have
my own room
* stop writing and
write about a
given topic
* play according
to the rules
* clean up after
my sister
* decide the topic
for story or picture
in school
* what to do on
recess
* being sick makes
it possible to be
online more
* Having a
bad
memory
* Being
sick
Liisa
* playing the cello
or with the
computer
* getting up in the
morning, brushing
your teeth
* cello, teddy bear,
bead handi craft
* family members,
cousins, friends,
teachers
* to study english
* to play the cello,
on the computer
* solve a problem
toy
* do handicrafts
* to clear a level,
play the cello
* be a vet or a
cook, paint
pictures
* find new winter
boots
-
* take photographs
* carry my
little
brother
Eetu
* family members,
friends, teacher
* swimming,
playing outside,
drawing
* animal books,
lego
* do handicrafts
* take photos
* swimming,
drawing
* finnish the handi
craft
* want to be a
champion
swimmer
* to make a
handicraft jewelry
to my cousin
-
Erno
* family members
* building scale
models, playing on
the Xbox
* homework, tests
* presents,
souveriens, coin
collection
* do math,
homework,
* find lost things
* do legos and scale
models
* do scale models,
play on the Xbox
-
* in my own room I
can decide
* being
sick
our room, my parents say that it is our mess and I have to clean up too”. The children also
talked about the importance of various artifacts, like books or toys. Erno explains: “...you
can see my little green toy soldiers, there is one there that has a thing severed from its legs
and I found it in Greece in the sand”. Interestingly, the things the children savoured in
their lives were not tied to any specific practice. Rather, they were distributed across
practices like a network of positive emotional valence connected to their sense of agency.
The modality of know how to in the children’s accounts focused on many different skills
and competencies. In relation to school practices, the children, for example, talked about
knowing how to do both easy and difficult homework. The children also reflected on their
skills in terms of hobbies and other informal practices like solving a problem toy. Liisa, for
example, explained how she knows how to learn the cello: “Well then I just try to
remember, if there is a familiar song, I listen with my ear and try to think how to play it”.
In addition, the children highlighted their social know-how, as in being able to solve
quarrels and asking help from friends. In all, the children established themselves mostly as
knowers and competent participants, and less as persons who did not know or have the
knowledge to engage in different practices.
The modality of want to, demonstrating the children’s will and motivation, was foremost
used when talking about the children’s hobbies or to other informal activities happening at
home. Respectively, these included reflections about wanting to swim or play on the
computer. Other shared topics included future hobbies and possible professions. In
addition, each child reflected on more individual topics like wanting an own room,
sleeping in during school mornings, or doing fun homework. Interestingly, the “wants” that
Anna, Erno, Liisa and Eetu talked about were grounded in already existing practices of
their lives. That is, wanting was directed at doing more of something rather than imagining
new aspirations.
The modality of have to in the accounts of the children referred to rules or other
restrictions that the children acknowledged to regulate their everyday life. These were
mainly regarded as set by adults, institutional practices, peers or congruent situations.
Respectively, among these were reflections concerning adults interrupting something that
the child wanted to do, or how unexpected events (e.g., shoe breaking) forced them to do
something. Conversely, when the children reflected on their hobbies and their future
aspirations, they referred to limitations they had set for themselves. For example, Eetu
when talking about his swimming said: “I’ve … [have to] swim regularly and take part in
an competition groups and … if I don’t want it, I won’t succeed.” Hence, from the
children’s perspective, various limitations in their lives were not solely antagonistic.
Rather, they can also act as resources which help to achieve their own goals.
The modality of to have the possibility to in the children’s accounts related to various
possibilities for action children had or considered imaginable in their everyday lives, and
what they considered as affording those possibilities. The children talked about how it was
possible to continue doing something they wanted because someone (parents, friends)
helped them, or in school, how could take more responsibility for designing classroom
activities, if allowed. Anna, for example, told how “we could have a lesson where the
students could like decide, like what we would draw in art class or like that”. In addition,
the children talked about how one’s own room was a place where their could do what they
wanted. Despite being talked about less than the other modalities, the children's
perspective on their everyday lives included choice and opportunities to choose.
In relation to the modality of to be able to, the children talked relatively little about
different physical or psychological aspects hindered or made possible some course of
action. For example, the children reflected on how being tired or sick stopped them from
doing something they wanted to. In addition, Erno and Anna shared both that they
considered themselves forgetful, and Liisa told, regarding one of her little brothers, that “If
he is in my room, then I’ll carry him, the smaller one, out to their own room [...]” when he
was interfering with her play. This relative difference to other modalities, could indicate
that aspects of agency connected to one’s body and its capabilities are not a highly salient
issue from the children’s perspective.
3.2. Children’s sense of agency in relation to different practices in their everyday lives
In all, the children worded their sense of agency in relation to a variety of different
practices present in their everyday life. These ranged from mundane activities like playing
with one’s siblings or friends, reading, and shoes getting wet while walking home to more
special practices, like planning one’s future (professions and hobbies), being a family
member or taking part in the research process. Importantly, what our analysis revealed was
that - via the modalities - the sense of agency of Anna, Liisa, Eetu and Erno manifested
differently regarding each practice. That is, our analysis highlighted the practice related
nature of sense of agency.
In our analysis we also identified two different accounts of sense of agency. These
distinctions demonstrate relative difference in the complexity of the children’s accounts
regarding the various practices in their everyday life. We first identified accounts where
the connection to a given practice was clear and uncomplicated. In these accounts, for
example, the child’s know-how was established as being relevant for engaging with the
practice, but the connection would not be discussed, justified or elaborated to any greater
extent. We named this form of sense of agency as straightforward account of sense of
agency. In comparison, we also identified accounts in which the connection to a given
practice complex and nuanced. This sense of agency was also firmly connected to the
child’s capabilities, aspirations and know-how. Furthermore, opportunities and limitations
to take action were more present in the child’s account. In all, multiple modalities of
agency would be present in the child’s reflection relating to the practice. We named this
form of sense of agency as an elaborate account of sense of agency.
In connection with these two manifestations, we also observed dynamics between the
different modalities. For example, Anna talked about situations where she did not know
how to do something or was not allowed to, although she wished to. Thus, her account of
her sense of agency encompassed tensions. Although this kind of tensional interplay was
evident in all of the four children’s reflections, the dominant character of the dynamics
was, however, one of alignment. That is, despite various voiced restrictions, to a greater
extent the children talked about how they could pursue something they wanted and saw as
meaningful to them.
Next, we shall further illustrate the children’s sense of agency in relation to different
practices. For the sake of brevity, we shall focus on Anna’s case and the two identified
manifestations of sense of agency and their connected practices. In Anna’s case, her
straightforward account of her sense of agency related to solving arguments with either her
parents or friends and to taking care of herself. In return, her elaborate account of sense of
agency was connected to writing, playing the piano, doing homework and going to school,
being sick, her future professions and her family moving to a new home.
3.2.1 Solving quarrels
Our first example comes from the beginning of Anna’s interview and exemplifies a
straightforward account of sense of agency. The preceding discussion has focused on an
incident during recess where Anna felt mistreated by her friends in a joint play activity and
how she tried to amend the situation. Jake found this description interesting and wanted
know whether Anna had had any other similar experiences. In her response Anna shares an
account of a quarrel she had with Sini, one of her friends from the upper classes.
Extract 1
225 J: Are there any others? That was very interesting. We're very interested in those
kind of situations when something has really bothered you so much that you've
tried to do something about it.
226 A: Last year Sini was really weird to me. Now she’s like on the fourth grade. She
like didn’t talk to me, look at me so I sent Maija to ask her what’s the matter,
but she didn’t of course talk to Maija she talked only to her classmates and kept
contact with them and then I asked of her classmates if she could ask. She
asked and Sini said that she was angry and it related to me, Maija, Henna and
Taru and like so like, and the she just went on like that and like here and there
asked the same person to ask Sini again and then one day Sini like came up to
us and asked if we could settle this matter what we even did not know what it
was about, and then we said yeah we can settle and then she started to be
normal again.
227 J: So like do you feel that the fact that you asked I don’t remember her name, but
you asked like to ask Sini always like what was bothering your friend that that
had an effect on the situation?
228 A: Yeah and like one day she came to ask if we can agree on the matter what we
didn’t have a clue about what she meant and I never found out.
229 J: Well good that you got it solved that situation. Did anything like that happen
during the last three days? Have you for example taken any does any of these
photos relate to those kind of situations?
230 A: Mm-mm (denying)
In the extract above Anna describes in detail a quarrel she had with her friend Sini, and
how the quarrel was eventually sorted out. To answer Jake’s initial question, Anna
provides an long narrative account of the argument (line 226). From the account we learn
that Sini was crossed with Anna and her other friends for a reason they did not understand.
Importantly, Anna describes how she had tried to solve the matter: as Sini did not talk to
her, she asked her other friends to talk to Sini. Eventually Sini herself had come up to
Anna to settle the matter. After her account, Jake queries (line 227) on about Anna’s
understanding of the effect of her own actions in the situation. In her response Anna
shortly agrees, and goes on to stress that, in the end, they did not know why Sini was mad
at them. The example ends after Anna’s last turn (line 230).
In terms of the modalities of agency, Anna voices one modality in her account of the
quarrel with Sini. On line 226, as Anna talks of her own actions, she voices the modality of
know-how. After learning that Sini only talks to her other classmates, Anna says “then I
asked of her classmates if she could ask.” That is, she tries to find out why Sini is acting
weird by evoking her social skills. This action gets repeated when the situation does not at
first resolve. What comes through from Anna’s narration is that, via the modality, she
presents herself as person who knows how to solve peer disputes in this manner. However,
in comparison to other discussed practices, Anna’s elaboration of her actions here is not a
fairly extensive one. The modality of know-how is the only modality used in relation to
solving quarrels. Furthermore, this modality is not elaborated in detail although she has the
opportunity to discuss it further (lines 227-228).
3.2.2 I keep on writing
Our second extract is on the practice of writing. The exploration of this practice began
when Anna referred a picture of her notebook, and the story she had written. She explained
that she had had to stop writing due to a recess and that this had annoyed her a lot. We
enter the discussion when the topic focuses on other similar interruptions, and at a moment
when Anna's elaborate account of her sense of agency in relation to writing is talked into
being.
Extract 2
401 J: Mhm, but does your Mom or Dad often ask you to stop writing and tell you
that now we really have to go. Or what do you do when you have to
interrupt your writing?
402 A: I usually write poems and stuff on the computer when I’m at home and so,
when Mom says: “Anna, we need to go shopping for groceries,” or “Anna
we’re going to church,” I normally grab some writing paper and continue
writing on the bus or tram.
403 J: Ok, you like continue doing it.
404 A: Yeah
405 J: Ok. Are there any situations where you can’t continue?
406 A: Yeah
407 J: What happens then? Can you give me an example?
408 A: Just like that (referring to the picture)
409 J: Just like that. How did you feel then?
410 A: Well, a bit stupid ‘cos I had a lot of ideas in my head which I forget easily,
and it was fun.
The extract begins with Jake querying instances when Anna has to interrupt her writing,
although she might not wish to. In her answer, Anna provides a generalized account of
how she is able to continue writing, despite having to go out with her mother, by switching
from the computer to using pen and paper. Jake then continues by asking for instances
when continuing is not possible. Anna redirects the joint focus back to the photo of her
notebook, and the particular incident at school. She shares how she felt at that moment,
and her understanding of herself as being forgetful.
From this extract, we can identify four different modalities. The first elicitation of a
modality of agency– to have to –is in Anna’s generalized account (line 402) when she
takes up Jake’s proposition and contextualizes the interruption in terms of shopping and
church going. The second elicitation is (also line 402) when Anna explains how she, by
changing the tools she uses, is able to continue writing despite the impediment, and thus
evokes the modality of know how to. Then, on line 410 Anna connects writing to the
modality of feel-appreciate-experience as she voices how having to stop feels stupid and
writing itself is fun. Finally, Anna expressed the modality of being able to as she talks
about how she easily forgets the narratives she has created due to her bad memory (turn
410). Thus, in contrast to other practices reflected on during the discussion, the position
established for Anna here as an agent is an elaborate one. Her intricate and connected
stance toward writing is made clearer when we take into account how Anna talks about
writing outside extract 2. Anna's reflections here also highlight the dynamics between the
modalities. When talking about the situation in which she originally took the picture, she
voices a tension between the modalities want to and have to; she had to stop, although she
wanted to continue. This tension is again present in her generalized account (line 402), but
in this case Anna also voices the modality of know how, and the tension is released.
In all, via the modalities, Anna establishes herself as a person who sees possibilities to
write, and identifies various obstacles or hindrances that stop her from writing. Also, Anna
can clearly identify and explain her various competencies as a writer, as well as her
understanding of how writing resonates with her emotions in diverse ways and is
something she aspires to do. In relation to writing, Anna's sense of agency is jointly here
talked into being as an elaborate one.
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Current conceptualizations of agency, although highlighting its varied dimensions, often
overshadow the individual actor’s perspective, and thus lend poorly to understanding how
children perceive themselves as authors in their own lives. This understanding is, however,
vital if we wish to foster children’s sense of agency. In this paper, by drawing on the
sociocultural framework and narrative semiotics, we have addressed this caveat by
examining children’s sense of agency as they reflect on their everyday lives in an open-
ended interview situation.
Our analysis revealed that children's sense of agency varied in relation to various practices.
That is, our results demonstrate that children’s sense of agency is not a context free,
universal phenomenon covering all practices of their everyday lives in a similar fashion. In
fact, when contrasting between the many practices Anna, Erno, Liisa and Eetu talked about
during the interviews, the opposite seems more in accord. Thus, our results highlight a
sense of agency as a practice related phenomena, and so provide empirical support for
Gallagher’s (2012) reasoning concerning the openness of sense of agency to qualitative
descriptions of degree. In all, our conceptualizations contribute as one novel way to
describe "the variable (and changing) ways in which social actors relate” to structures
around them that Emirbayer and Mische (1998, 1004) call for.
In this regard, our study also points out the applicability of the modalities of agency as a
theoretical construct to address the under-theorization of the individual actor within socio-
cultural approaches to agency (Stetsenko, 2008). Via the modalities, we were able to
extend existing conceptualizations of the individual actor by incorporating aspects, which
highlight how the actor’s own aspirations, beliefs, and competencies, from their
perspective, connect with a particular practice. In this regard, the modality of to feel,
appreciate and experience was interestingly prominent in the reflections of Anna, Liisa,
Eetu, and Erno. Albeit expressions such as “fun” or “nice” can arguably be considered as
skillful deployment of emotional conversational rhetoric (Edwards, 1999), the expressions
of this modality can also be seen as implying the role of heightened emotional experiences
in both constituting and becoming aware of one’s sense of agency. Within the socio-
cultural framework a similar argument for the role of positive experiences, or more
precisely moments of joy, in relation to feeling more active in the world has been made on
the basis of the philosophical work of Spinoza and Nietzsche (Greco & Stenner, 2013).
Indeed, the modalities of agency as an analytical tool allowed us to bring forth the
particularity of individual engagement in collective activities (McCarthy, Sullivan &
Wright, 2006; Nasir & Hand, 2008; Nardi, 2005, Siry et al., this issue) alongside existing
accounts which emphasize social level processes, and thus with this study enrich
descriptions of the dynamics of their connectedness. Furthermore, our results of the sense
of agency of Anna, Liisa, Eetu, and Erno also reflect the larger social and cultural-
historical milieu within which the lifeworlds are embedded. That is, the practices they
engaged in and had a sense of agency about were located in a certain cultural and historical
context, which also situates the childhood and agency of these children to a given time and
place (Fleer, Tudge, & Hedegaard, 2009). Thus, our results display the sense of agency of
Anna, Erno, Liisa and Eetu in a local and prosaic fashion
Although our conceptualizations are based on children's narrated interview accounts of
their sense of agency rather than an examination of agency in action, our study paves the
way for future research in this regard. For example, one would be the dynamics between
the modalities, and in particular identifying and detailing more closely qualitatively
different variations regarding a sense of agency. Ensuing this line of inquiry could in all
likelihood advance our understanding of sense of agency and further highlight the
manifold connections between agency and structure.
Our work has also pedagogical implications. The open-ended interviews, enriched with the
children’s photos, provided a fruitful context for Anna, Erno, Eetu and Liisa to share their
lives, and jointly explore their sense of agency. As our analysis exemplifies, through this
kind of interview methodology, children were afforded opportunities to take up various
perspectives on and ways of talking about their lives and agency. Gillespie (2012) has
argued that this kind of perspective exchange is at the hearth of developing agency.
Moreover, similar activities could be thought of as spaces for re-mediation where
documenting, sharing and reflecting act as ways for appropriating novel ways to see one’s
life (Wertsch et al., 1996). In this regard, documenting, sharing and discussing experiences
of one’s life in different ways can possibly provide a viable pedagogical practice in
fostering children’s sense of agency.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this article has been funded by the Academy of Finland, SKIDI-
KIDS research program (Project no: 135138). We also thank the participating children
Anna, Erno, Liisa and Eetu, their families, their teachers and classmates for sharing their
lives with us. In addition, we thank Antti Rajala, Anna Rainio and Anna Mikkola for their
insightful comments and valued support and the two anonymous reviewers for their critical
comments and feedback on the earlier versions of this paper.
References
Arnold, J. (this issue). ‘Student agency’ in science learning conversations: A discursive
psychological approach.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American psychologist,
44(9), 1175-1184.
Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin'! Agency, identity, and science learning. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187–229. doi:10.1080/10508400903530044
Bjerke, H. (2011). ‘It’s the way they do it’: Expressions of Agency in Child–Adult
Relations at Home and School. Children & society, 25(2), 93-103. doi:10.1111/j.
1099-0860.2009.00266.x
Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cook, T., & Hess, E. (2007). What the Camera Sees and from Whose Perspective. Fun
methodologies for engaging children in enlightening adults. Childhood, 14(1), 29–45.
doi:10.1177/0907568207068562
de Vignemont, F., & Fourneret, P. (2004). The sense of agency: a philosophical and
empirical review of the “who” system. Consciousness and Cognition, 13(1), 1–19.http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00022-9
Edwards, D. (1999). Emotion discourse. Culture & psychology, 5(3), 271-291.doi:doi:
10.1177/1354067X9953001
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology,
103(4), 962–1023. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/231294
Erickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research
procedures and their rationales. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.),
Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 177–205). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency?
Conceptualizing professional agency at work, Educational Research Review 10, 45–65.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.edurev.2013.05.001
Fleer, M., Hedegaard, M., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2009). Constructing childhood: Global–local
policies and practices. In M. Fleer, M. Hedegaard, & J. R. H. Tudge (Eds.), The world
yearbook of education 2009: Childhood studies and the impact of globalization:
Policies and practices at global and local levels (pp. 1–20). New York: Routledge.
Fontanille, J. (2006). Semiotics of Discourse. (H. Bostic, trans.). New York: Peter Lang.
Gallagher, S. (2012). Multiple aspects in the sense of agency. New Ideas in Psychology
30(1), 15–31. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.03.003
Gillespie, A. (2007). The social basis of self-reflection. In J. Valsiner & A. Rosa (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (pp. 678–691). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Gillespie, A. (2012). Position exchange: The social development of agency. New ideas in
psychology, 30(1), 32–46. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.03.004
Greco, M., & Stenner, P. (2013). Happiness and the Art of Life: Diagnosing the
psychopolitics of wellbeing. Health, Culture and Society, 5(1), 1-19.
Greimas, A. & Porter, C. (1977). Elements of a Narrative Grammar. Diacritics, 7(1), 23–
40. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/464872
Hviid, P. (2008). Interviewing using a cultural–historical approach. In M. Hedegaard & M.
Fleer (Eds.), Studying Children: A Cultural–Historical Approach (pp. 139–156). New
York, NY: Open University Press.
Johnson, B. (2008). Teacher-student relationships which promote resilience at school: a
micro-level analysis of students’ views. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling,
36(4), 385–398. doi:10.1080/03069880802364528
Jyrkämä, J. (2008). Toimijuus, ikääntyminen ja arkielämä: hahmottelua teoreettis-
metodologiseksi viitekehykseksi. Gerontologia 22(4), 190–203. [title in english:
Agency, aging and everyday life: a sketch of a theoretical-methodological framework.]
Kumpulainen, K., Lipponen, L., Hilppö, J., & Mikkola, A. (2013). Building on the
positive in children's lives: a co-participatory study on the social construction of
children's sense of agency. Early Child Development and Care, 184(2), 211-229. doi:
10.1080/03004430.2013.778253
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Markström, A. M., & Hallden, G. (2009). Children’s strategies for agency in preschool.
Children & society, 23(2), 112–122. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00161.x
McCarthy, J., Sullivan, P., & Wright, P. (2006). Culture, personal experience and agency.
British journal of social psychology, 45(2), 421–439. doi:10.1348/014466605X49140
Nardi, B. (2005). Objects of Desire: Power and Passion in Collaborative Activity. Mind,
Culture, and Activity, 12(1): 1, 37–51. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1201_4
Nasir, N., & Hand, V. (2008). From the court to the classroom: Opportunities for
engagement, learning, and identity in basketball and classroom mathematics. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 143–179. doi:10.1080/10508400801986082
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Prout, A. (2005). The Future of Childhood: Towards the interdisciplinary study of children.
New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Rainio, A. P. (2008). From resistance to involvement: Examining agency and control in a
playworld activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(2), 115–140. doi:
10.1080/10749030801970494
Rainio, A. P. (2010). Lionhearts of the playworld: An ethnographic case study of the
development of agency in play pedagogy. (Doctoral Degree). Finland, Helsinki:
University of Helsinki.
Roth, W. M. (2005). Doing qualitative research: Praxis of method. Rotterdam:
SensePublishers.
Roth, W. M. (2007). On the subject, self, and individual or monolingualism of the other
and the possible impossibility of babel fish. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(4), 227–
234. doi:10.1080/10749030701623599
Roth, W. M. (2008). The nature of scientific conceptions: A discursive psychological
perspective. Educational Research Review, 3(1), 30-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.edurev.2007.10.002
Schoultz, J., Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and
children’s understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44(2-3),
103-118. doi:10.1159/000057050
Siry, C., Wilmes, S., & Haus, J. (this issue). Examining children’s agency within
participatory structures in primary science investigations.
Stetsenko, A. (2008). From Relational Ontology to Transformative Activist Stance on
Development and Learning: Expanding Vygotsky’s (CHAT) Project. Cultural Studies of
Science Education, 3(2), 471–91. doi:10.1007/s11422-008-9111-3
Valsiner, J. (2001). Process structure of semiotic mediation in human development. Human
Development, 44(2-3), 84-97. doi: 10.1159/000057048
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of the higher psychological
processes. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J., Tulviste, P., & Hagstrom, F. (1996). A Sociocultural Approach to Agency. In E.
Forman, N. Minick, & C. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for Learning-Sociocultural Dynamics
in Children's Development (pp. 336–356). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Westcott, L., & Littleton, K. (2004). Interviewing Children: Context, Competence and
Joint Meaning Making. In S. Greene & D. Hogan (Eds.), Researching Children’s
Experience: Approaches and Methods (pp. 141–157). London: Sage.
Wetherell, M. (2005). Unconscious conflict or everyday accountability? British Journal of
Social Psychology, 44(2), 169-173. doi: 10.1348/014466605X39619.