By Dr. Junlei Li
One frequent question we get about the Simple Interactions Tool is: Are simple, everyday interactions different across cultures? And, should the SI tool change from country to country?
It is always our hope that the Simple Interactions Tool captures something universal about developmental interactions across settings (e.g., schools, home, informal learning) and cultures. In order for such a tool to be useful across cultures and settings, the design of the tool (as well as the uses of the tool) needs to embody a requisite humility and openness. Over time, we have adapted and revised the tool to be less “judgmental” about what mode of interactions (the X, Y, Zs) can best serve universal needs (the SI dimensions). The real test, of course, is when we bring the tool into different cultural contexts and engage with people in reflections and conversations about their interactions and relationships.
I recently had the opportunity to observe and lead workshops and presentations in China with three different early childhood audiences: 1) Pre-service teachers preparing to work in rural early childhood settings; 2) Educational and social service providers for parents with children from birth to five; 3) Parents. I was really curious to learn what people took away from these exchanges, and how these take-aways would compare to what we typically hear in the U.S. context. Switching between languages (on paper, in conversation, and in my mind), I also wondered how much is, or is not, “lost in translation” when the SI tool travels across cultures.
It was very interesting to observe that in these particular audiences, people are drawn to the dimension “reciprocity” and its X, Y, Z modes of who’s leading and following. Historically, China has a very “adult-led” family and educational culture. Families revolved around the elders, not the children, all the way through at least the 1970s when I was growing up. I recall at festive dinners, everyone would arrive near the table but would not take seats until the elders had arrived and seated. Teachers are revered as having parent-like authority. Yet, in the modern and westernized parts of China, there is an increasing emphasis on child-led interactions both in early childhood education settings and at home. “Child-directed play” as a concept is very much in vogue all across early education in the country, reaching as far as rural schools. However, China’s rigorous and stringent educational system exerts so much pressure on children and parents alike. When it comes to educational attainment, neither children nor parents feel they have much choice but to compete and compete early (into early childhood). Like it or not, children are pressed into learning music, English, chess, and many other skills and academic subjects that might distinguish them from a very young age. The cross-currents of who leads whom are so pronounced that, at the suggestion of our Chinese colleagues, we even added an extra figure into our reciprocity mode “Y” to explicitly capture it.
Clearly, there are cultural differences inside and outside homes and classrooms. How does that show up in the way people see and understand the SI tool?
One, I noticed that there is a quick and reflexive tendency to assume that Z across any dimension is the best place to be, and X is to be avoided at all cost! In a culture where both parents and teachers are often afraid “to do the wrong thing” and pressured to “do it the (one) right way”, it’s natural to read into the tool what isn’t designed to be there (i.e., an explicit and inflexible valuing of a particular mode of interaction).
Two, I noticed a particular interest in wanting to quantify what “good” interactions are and how many are needed. This comes not just from researchers, but everyday folks - particularly parents. Questions like, “How do we know we have really good interactions?” “How many good interactions would a child need?” These questions are impossible to answer from a pure research perspective, and certainly inappropriate to answer in a Chinese context using U.S.-based research. But a non-answer often left people disappointed!
Three, I noticed a sense of urgency to know what the tool says a parent or teacher should do. In teaching SI, we often emphasized its descriptive use (i.e., what is happening) and cautioned against its prescriptive use (i.e., what should be happening). But for many “action-oriented” attendees in our audiences, it is very unsatisfying that the tool does not tell one what to do 🙂 or even what one ought not to do! What we consider the best feature of the SI tool can be, for some, the most frustrating and confusing.
These reactions are not exclusive to a Chinese audience, but they are just more pronounced under the particular cultural context of early childhood in China. How do we talk about the thinking behind the tool in ways that are not lost in translation? Engagements like this push us to dig deep and ask, “What are the essential messages of SI work across cultural contexts?” They also inspire us to adapt and re-design how to introduce the tool and the thinking, and how we connect the tool to the real challenges people face in parenting and early education.
To answer the question, "What are the essential messages of SI’s work across cultural contexts," we have a few thoughts.
It is always our hope that the Simple Interactions Tool captures something universal about developmental interactions across settings (e.g., schools, home, informal learning) and cultures. In order for such a tool to be useful across cultures and settings, the design of the tool (as well as the uses of the tool) needs to embody a requisite humility and openness. Over time, we have adapted and revised the tool to be less “judgmental” about what mode of interactions (the X, Y, Zs) can best serve universal needs (the SI dimensions). The real test, of course, is when we bring the tool into different cultural contexts and engage with people in reflections and conversations about their interactions and relationships.
I recently had the opportunity to observe and lead workshops and presentations in China with three different early childhood audiences: 1) Pre-service teachers preparing to work in rural early childhood settings; 2) Educational and social service providers for parents with children from birth to five; 3) Parents. I was really curious to learn what people took away from these exchanges, and how these take-aways would compare to what we typically hear in the U.S. context. Switching between languages (on paper, in conversation, and in my mind), I also wondered how much is, or is not, “lost in translation” when the SI tool travels across cultures.
It was very interesting to observe that in these particular audiences, people are drawn to the dimension “reciprocity” and its X, Y, Z modes of who’s leading and following. Historically, China has a very “adult-led” family and educational culture. Families revolved around the elders, not the children, all the way through at least the 1970s when I was growing up. I recall at festive dinners, everyone would arrive near the table but would not take seats until the elders had arrived and seated. Teachers are revered as having parent-like authority. Yet, in the modern and westernized parts of China, there is an increasing emphasis on child-led interactions both in early childhood education settings and at home. “Child-directed play” as a concept is very much in vogue all across early education in the country, reaching as far as rural schools. However, China’s rigorous and stringent educational system exerts so much pressure on children and parents alike. When it comes to educational attainment, neither children nor parents feel they have much choice but to compete and compete early (into early childhood). Like it or not, children are pressed into learning music, English, chess, and many other skills and academic subjects that might distinguish them from a very young age. The cross-currents of who leads whom are so pronounced that, at the suggestion of our Chinese colleagues, we even added an extra figure into our reciprocity mode “Y” to explicitly capture it.
Clearly, there are cultural differences inside and outside homes and classrooms. How does that show up in the way people see and understand the SI tool?
One, I noticed that there is a quick and reflexive tendency to assume that Z across any dimension is the best place to be, and X is to be avoided at all cost! In a culture where both parents and teachers are often afraid “to do the wrong thing” and pressured to “do it the (one) right way”, it’s natural to read into the tool what isn’t designed to be there (i.e., an explicit and inflexible valuing of a particular mode of interaction).
Two, I noticed a particular interest in wanting to quantify what “good” interactions are and how many are needed. This comes not just from researchers, but everyday folks - particularly parents. Questions like, “How do we know we have really good interactions?” “How many good interactions would a child need?” These questions are impossible to answer from a pure research perspective, and certainly inappropriate to answer in a Chinese context using U.S.-based research. But a non-answer often left people disappointed!
Three, I noticed a sense of urgency to know what the tool says a parent or teacher should do. In teaching SI, we often emphasized its descriptive use (i.e., what is happening) and cautioned against its prescriptive use (i.e., what should be happening). But for many “action-oriented” attendees in our audiences, it is very unsatisfying that the tool does not tell one what to do 🙂 or even what one ought not to do! What we consider the best feature of the SI tool can be, for some, the most frustrating and confusing.
These reactions are not exclusive to a Chinese audience, but they are just more pronounced under the particular cultural context of early childhood in China. How do we talk about the thinking behind the tool in ways that are not lost in translation? Engagements like this push us to dig deep and ask, “What are the essential messages of SI work across cultural contexts?” They also inspire us to adapt and re-design how to introduce the tool and the thinking, and how we connect the tool to the real challenges people face in parenting and early education.
To answer the question, "What are the essential messages of SI’s work across cultural contexts," we have a few thoughts.
1. Facilitate as a guest. That’s the first thing that comes to mind whenever I visit each new community. Over the years, participants have shared that they liked the “feel” or “tone” or “vibe” of SI workshops. We hope that feeling is grounded in our respect as guests to the host community.
The SI message needs a messenger who genuinely feels like a guest. No matter how much preparation we make, we never presume that we know the community. That means we are not there to prescribe to anybody what they should do, what is good practice, or even what recommendations are. We do have something of value to offer–we share questions, tools, or ways of thinking (e.g., active ingredient, the power of the simple and ordinary). But the ultimate “decider” of what is good and what is worth doing rests with the community. We are not the experts in that community. Sometimes the participants will point out little and big things in the video stories we brought that are new to us! Awe, wonder, and appreciation are how we feel about the work of studying “interactions” across contexts.
Being a “guest” is not limited to outsiders. A school administrator is a guest inside a teacher’s classroom. An instructional coach is a guest inside a provider’s care setting. A home visitor is a guest inside a family’s home. There is a “guest” quality to all SI conversations because we all are guests when invited to reflect on someone else’s interactions and relationships.
2. Focus on the ordinary. The one message that did not change from Day 1 of SI work (e.g., talking about diaper change and feeding in orphanages), regardless of context or culture, is the emphasis on the simple and ordinary. It seems such an obvious thing to say: that the power of our human relationships comes from simple, ordinary moments. But it never seems to get old. Every place we went, participants would tell us how much they appreciated the reminder of the “ordinary”. It just struck us that most professionals (or parents and caregivers) do not often get the encouragement that their “ordinary” are appreciated. In our facilitation, by using ordinary examples of everyday living and inviting people to recall and share similar examples from their own lives, we set a tone for honoring the simple against the temptation towards the spectacular. If we helped participants see the ordinary in a workshop, it could help them to see the ordinary everywhere else long after the workshop. It is good to know that we got that right from the start, even as the tools and thinking evolved over time.
The SI message needs a messenger who genuinely feels like a guest. No matter how much preparation we make, we never presume that we know the community. That means we are not there to prescribe to anybody what they should do, what is good practice, or even what recommendations are. We do have something of value to offer–we share questions, tools, or ways of thinking (e.g., active ingredient, the power of the simple and ordinary). But the ultimate “decider” of what is good and what is worth doing rests with the community. We are not the experts in that community. Sometimes the participants will point out little and big things in the video stories we brought that are new to us! Awe, wonder, and appreciation are how we feel about the work of studying “interactions” across contexts.
Being a “guest” is not limited to outsiders. A school administrator is a guest inside a teacher’s classroom. An instructional coach is a guest inside a provider’s care setting. A home visitor is a guest inside a family’s home. There is a “guest” quality to all SI conversations because we all are guests when invited to reflect on someone else’s interactions and relationships.
2. Focus on the ordinary. The one message that did not change from Day 1 of SI work (e.g., talking about diaper change and feeding in orphanages), regardless of context or culture, is the emphasis on the simple and ordinary. It seems such an obvious thing to say: that the power of our human relationships comes from simple, ordinary moments. But it never seems to get old. Every place we went, participants would tell us how much they appreciated the reminder of the “ordinary”. It just struck us that most professionals (or parents and caregivers) do not often get the encouragement that their “ordinary” are appreciated. In our facilitation, by using ordinary examples of everyday living and inviting people to recall and share similar examples from their own lives, we set a tone for honoring the simple against the temptation towards the spectacular. If we helped participants see the ordinary in a workshop, it could help them to see the ordinary everywhere else long after the workshop. It is good to know that we got that right from the start, even as the tools and thinking evolved over time.
We are still developing these ideas in workshops, but the facilitation definitely has changed from asking people “which mode is this interaction” to “how does this interaction move between modes?” To many participants, this is both jolting (in the beginning) and liberating. They are the observers and deciders of what is “developmental” in their own interactions. Neither the tool nor the facilitator can offer definitive prescriptions.
3. Be open to the movement of interactions. Specifically, be open to the many possibilities of “developmental” interactions. Once upon a time, we made assumptions that there were definitively “good” and “bad” interactions illustrated on our tool. We learned over time that each illustrated mode - we do mean each one, including the Xs - can be a part of a developmental interaction. It can contribute to the healthy development of a person or persons. We invite others to notice, imagine, or recall such possibilities. They might see it in the videos, discuss scenarios, or share their stories.
As our thinking about simple interactions has changed, we have also modified the tool to reflect that. A significant visual change over the years is that the hardlines separating X, Y, Z into boxes have dissolved into dashed and porous lines. This represents a conceptual change in SI thinking. What is most important is not where an interaction is, but how we can move through X, Y, and Zs in response to the needs of the situation.
We even played with a version of the SI tool simply as a deck of cards, which breaks from any implied sequence or order.
As our thinking about simple interactions has changed, we have also modified the tool to reflect that. A significant visual change over the years is that the hardlines separating X, Y, Z into boxes have dissolved into dashed and porous lines. This represents a conceptual change in SI thinking. What is most important is not where an interaction is, but how we can move through X, Y, and Zs in response to the needs of the situation.
We even played with a version of the SI tool simply as a deck of cards, which breaks from any implied sequence or order.