Playful structure: a novel image of early years pedagogy for primary school classrooms

Playful structure is a new pedagogic image representing a more balanced and integrated perspective on early years pedagogy, aiming to blend apparent dichotomies and contradictions and to sustain and evolve play-based practice beyond Year 1. Playful structure invites teachers and children to initiate and maintain a degree of playfulness in the child’s whole learning experience, even when the learning intentions demand a supportive structure. Thus, playfulness becomes characteristic of the interaction between adult and the child and not just characteristic of child-initiated versus adult-initiated activities, or of play-time versus task-time. The paper is based on intensive observations and interviews with teachers in Northern Ireland who participated in a play-based and informal curriculum. This paper explains how playful structure rests on complementary processes of infusion of structure into play-based activities and infusion of playfulness into more structured activities, illustrated by cameos. ‘Infusion’ suggests the subtle blending process that allows apparent dichotomies and contradictions to be resolved in practice.

Masks as methodology and the phenomenological turn: issues of interpretation

The purposes of this chapter are to argue for (i) the heuristic value of the concept of mask and masking in research which has its basis in psychodynamic theory but relating it to socio-cultural theory as means to understanding self-experience (ii) the value of creating and performing masks as one valuable methodological ‘embodied’ form in social and educational research that represent individuals’ richly textured self-other constructions and allow for the interrogation of any simplistic dichotomies associated with notions of ‘inside’ ‘outside’ categories (iii) exploring possibilities and dilemmas of interpretation within this frame

Approaches through Materiality

Religion is a funny thing, because it always seems to be riding two horses at once. One could describe these horses in a number of different ways, using all sorts of familiar dichotomies; practice and belief, body and soul, earthly and heavenly, here and hereafter. “Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses”. Here, food and forgiveness, or, perhaps more accurately, ingestion and salvation, are claimed, simultaneously – even seamlessly – by religion. This list could (and does) go on, being inclusive of, for example, immanence and transcendence – but more on this below. Yet these binary pairs can clearly be observed bleeding into one another. Ingesting pork, for example, often appears to be religiously more troublesome than does ingesting bread. This is because matter matters. We may ask, then, is religion really riding two horses, or are these ‘familiar dichotomies’ so familiar because they are false? Rephrasing the question in terms that partially echo the title and subtitle of Morgan’s (2010) landmark edited volume Religion and Material Culture: The Matter of Belief, is, I think, helpfully clarifying. What, then, is the matter with religion? The answer presented below is that, very often, the matter with religion is the matter of religion. Put more simply still, the problem with religion is its materiality. This chapter examines the whys and wherefores of this problem for the anthropology of religion – its ethnographic puzzles and methodological opportunities, as well as its conceptual impasses and theoretical insights.