Ill-lll‘mlllll
.IIINIIIIIII:

 

   

 

?

 

 

 

_ O

  

 

.
I
,

 

   

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

ORDER IN THE COURT: A STUDY OF THE LONGITUDINAL
CO-CONSTRUCTION OF CHILD LEADER DEVELOPMENT
AND GROUP ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT

presented by

Cherie D. Wilcox

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in School Psychology

 

 

[I 1/; flLK/LKZZ (k

Major Professor’s Signature
/%-//2,/ o ‘3.

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LlBRARY

Michigan State
University

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

 

 

A STUD

 

ORDER IN THE KIDSVILLE COURT:
A STUDY OF THE LONGITUDINAL CO-CONSTRUCTION
OF CHILD LEADER DEVELOPMENT
AND GROUP ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT

By

Cherie D. Wilcox

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING, EDUCATIONAL.
PSYCHOLOGY, AND SPECIAL EDUCATION

2003

 

A STUD

This descric
six-month period 0
This activity was p
mid-T9803. The s
transcriptions of d
Activity theory me
levels: task orgar
practices of the K
about changes to
Child leadi
individuals. A qu
thacaaga
IBeris. and hail
IBIS 35 pan of tl
ASecond

tation at the actii

 

ABSTRACT
ORDER IN THE KIDSVILLE COURT:
A STUDY OF THE LONGITUDINAL CO-CONSTRUCTION
OF CHILD LEADER DEVELOPMENT
AND GROUP ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT
By
Cherie D. Wilcox

This descriptive study explores the co-construction of leadership over a
six—month period of time in an elementary school activity, the Kidsville Court.
This activity was part of a “town” created by children in their spare time during the
mid—1980’s. The setting is a two-room private elementary school. Analyses use
transcriptions of dialogue taken from videotape of 28 Kidsville Court trials.
Activity theory methodology is used to describe leadership development at three
levels: task organization behaviors of child leaders; development of legal
practices of the Kidsville Court activity; and developmental processes that bring
about changes for individuals and the activity.

Child leadership is often equated with task-organization behaviors of
individuals. A quantitative analysis identifies four child leaders who frequently
display task-organization behaviors. These older peers are experienced judges,
Iavwers, and bailiffs, and they perform task organization behaviors during court
trials as part of their role-related duties.

A second analysis demonstrates change in practices of legal represen-

tation at the activity level. In American culture it is considered essential to provide

procedural equity in spite of unequal distribution of resources to assure that both

 

sides of an issue a'
procedural justice.
provided to litigant!
representation. A
with leaders consrs
A third anal
Kidsville Court. C
ooniront inequities
representation. C
distribution of leg;
teacher, co-consr
transformations. r
Iital representati
The Kidsvi
lVrootsky, 1978)
iorum tor discuss
chalve. Leade
Practices provide
del’e‘ortmr-znt of r
snared history 31
thIhEIramEWr

I I9“ reItreser

 

sides of an issue are heard. Legal representation is a foundation of American
procedural justice. In early Kidsville court trials, legal representation is often not
provided to litigants, and there is no expectation that court leaders provide
representation. A qualitative improvement is seen in later Kidsville court trials,
with leaders consistently assuring representation.

A third analysis focuses on developmental processes of change in
Kidsville Court. Change begins in specific court trials when court leaders
confront inequities to individual litigants caused by court practices of legal
representation. Contradictions continue to arise between equity and uneven
distribution of legal resources. Leaders take action and, with the help of their
teacher, co—construct transformations of inequitable practices. After several
transformations, court practices begin to change toward universal provision of
legal representation.

The Kidsville Court activity provides a “zone of proximal development”
(Vygotsky, 1978) for participant action. The activity provides extant practices, a
forum for discussion of contradictions, and a status hierarchy which enables
Change. Leaders collaborate to construct new legal practices and values. New
practices provide further opportunities for leader development and stimulate
development of the complexity of the court activity. Court events contribute to
shared history and experience. The interdependence of actions of child leaders

with the framework of the activity results in the establishment of a value of equity

in legal representation.

 

Copyright by
CHERIE D. WILCOX
2003

This work is dr

husband. Bill.

 

 

 

DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my loving family and friends and especially to my

husband, Bill.

 

I am ind
from its incepti
research meth
a great suppor
Altermatt. and
expertise as or
not only during
husband, frien
this project. wl
manuscript ed
by readers.

Lastly.

health and we
Eisenberg. an

have helped r

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to King Beach, who has helped this project to go forward
from its inception and has shared his extensive knowledge of activity theory and
research methodology. I am very grateful to Susan Florio—Ruane, who has been
a great support to me throughout this process. I want to thank Jean Baker, Ellen
Altermatt, and Troy Mariage who have been very generous with their time and
expertise as committee members. Evelyn Oka, my advisor, has been supportive
not only during this project but throughout my program. I also want to thank my
husband, friends, colleagues, and family for their patience and support during
this project, which has become a major part of all of our lives. Jennie Weber’s
manuscript editing has been timely and useful and will be especially appreciated
by readers.

Lastly, I want to extend sincere thanks to the many supporters of our
health and well being throughout this process, including Dr.’s Norine Tracy, Joel
Eisenberg, and John Talbot, who saved Bill’s life, and other medical persons who

have helped me to manage the physical exertion of this dissertation.

vi

 

 

 

TABLE OF CC
LIST OF TABL
LIST OF FIGU

Chapter One
I‘I Re:
(
1.2 Oi

Chapter Two:
2.1 T

2.2 E
I

2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7

ChaPier Three
3r r
3.2 1
3.3 r

ChaPter Four.
4.1

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. xii
Chapter One: Introduction .................................................................................... 1
1.1 Reasons For The Study Of Childhood Leadership In Local Peer
Group Settings. ............................................................................... 1
1.2 Overview Of The Chapters In This Dissertation ................................. 6
Chapter Two: Critical Review Of Relevant Literatures ........................................ 12
2.1 Defining Power Relationships ........................................................ 16
2.2 Studies Of Domination Behaviors And Dominance Hierarchies In
Child Groups ................................................................................. 19
2.3 The Emergence Of Managerial Competence: Task-Facilitation As A
Dimension Of Leadership .............................................................. 22
2.4 Helping And Evaluating Others: The Group Maintenance Function
Of Leadership ................................................................................ 26
2.5 Leadership Processes In Play: Peer Group Culture Making And
Changing ....................................................................................... 30
2.6 Civic Leadership Among Peers: Serious Conflict Negotiation ....... 37
2.7 Summary And Conclusions ........................................................... 41
Chapter Three: Pilot Study .................................................................................. 46
3.1 Purpose ......................................................................................... 46
3.2 Setting, Data, Analysis And Major Findings ................................... 46
3.3 Need For Additional Study ............................................................. 51
Chapter Four: Research Questions .................................................................... 54

4.1 Is There A Change From The Early Period To The Late Period Of
The Kidsville Court In Frequencies Of Leadership Behavior As
Evidenced By Changes In “Task Organization Leadership” And

 

“Helping Or Evaluating Specific Others”? ...................................... 56
4.2 How Does The Nature And Quality Of The Practice Of Legal
Representation Change Over Time In The Kidsville Court? .......... 58

4.3 What Processes Bring About The Observed Development In
Practices Of Legal Representation Of The Kidsville Court, And How

Do Individual Leaders Contribute To This Development? ............. 59

Chapter Five: Theoretical/Methodological Framework ........................................ 61
5.1 Defining And Studying Activity. ...................................................... 62

5.2 Studying Developmental Crisis Periods ln Temporal Detail. ......... 69

vii

 

Chapter Six. 8‘
6.1
6.2
6.3

E
E
E
6
E
6.4 C
6

Chapter Seve
Trials Over Tir
7.1 l
l
7.2 I
7.3 '

Chapter Eight

Court Activity.
8.1

8.2

 

————fi

Chapter Six: Study Methods ............................................................................... 75
6.1 Description Of The Setting ............................................................ 80

6.2 Description Of The Participants ..................................................... 81

6.3 Description Of The Database ........................................................ 82

6.3.1 Division Of The Data Into Three Historical Periods ............. 84

6.3.2 Organization Of The Individual Court Trial Transcripts ....... 87

6.4 Operationalization And Coding Of Research Questions ................ 89

6.4.1 Is There A Change Over Time In Frequencies Of Leadership
Behaviors, As Shown By Changes In “Task Organization
Leadership” And “Helping Or Evaluating Specific Others”?
............................................................................................ 90

6.4.2 How Does The Practice Of Legal Representation Change
Over Time In The Kidsville Court? ...................................... 96

6.4.3 What Processes Bring About The Observed Development In
Legal Representation Practices Of The Kidsville Court
Activity, And How Do Individual Leaders Contribute To This
Development? ..................................................................... 98

 

Chapter Seven: Change In Frequency Of Leadership Behaviors In Kidsville Court

 

Trials Over Time: Analysis And Findings. ......................................................... 100
7.1 Descriptive Analysis Of Frequencies Of Leadership And Non-
Leadership Behaviors In The Early And Late Court Trials. .......... 102
7.2 Identifying Individual Kidsville Court Leaders .............................. 108
7.3 Summarization Of Findings ......................................................... 112
Chapter Eight: Change In Practice Of Legal Representation Of The Kidsville
Court Activity: Analysis And Findings ................................................................ 115
8.1 Are There Changes Over Time In Legal Representation Practices
Of The Kidsville Court? ................................................................ 116
8.1.1 Are Both Sides Of The Issue Expressed In Each Court Trial
And Does This Change Over Time?. ................................ 117
8.1.2 How Does A Defendant Get Heard In Court And Does This
Change Over Time? ......................................................... 119
8.1.3 How Does A Person Initiate A Lawsuit And Is There A
Change Over Time In This Process? ................................ 121

8.1.4 Is Legal Representation Used For The Benefit Of Oneself,
One’s Peers, Or Younger Children, And Does This Change

Over Time? ....................................................................... 122
8.1.5 Do Kidsville Lawyers Provide Representation And Does This
Function Change Over Time? ........................................... 123

 

8.1.6 What Do Participants Say About Legal Representation, And
What Do They Do To Prevent, Provide, Or Assure
Representation, And Does This Change Over Time? ....... 124
8.2 Are There Impediments To The Provision Of Legal Representation

That Change Over Time? ............................................................ 127
8.2.1 Limited Availability Of Lawyers (Children Who Know The
Kidsville Law And Who Have Legal Licensure) ................ 128

viii

 

('13

E

E
8.3 C

Chapter Nine:
And In Practic
9.1 A l

I

ChaPter Ter
10 1
10,2

 

 

8.2.2 Each Court Trial Requires A Qualified Judge ................... 128
8.2.3 High Cost Of Representation To Litigants In Kidsville
Currency ........................................................................... 129
8.2.4 No Expectation Of Representation ................................... 130
8.3 Conclusions ................................................................................. 130

Chapter Nine: Processes Of Change In The Development Of Leader’s Actions
And In Practice Of Legal Representation: Analysis And Findings ..................... 133
9.1 A Historical Account Of The Court Trials Of The Transition Period. 135

9.1.1. Court Trial 8, Tom Vs. George; Breaking And Entering And

Destruction of Property. .................................................... 138
9.1.2 Court Trial 9, Kidsville Council Vs. Citizen Buh; Nonpayment
Of Taxes. .......................................................................... 140
9.1.3 Court Trial 10, Tom Vs. George; Kidsville Money Overdue
From Fine Awarded By The Court On Last Friday. ........... 143
9.1.4 Court Trial 11, Baltic Credit Cards Vs. Citizen Buh; Non-
Payment Of Credit Card Debt. .......................................... 144
9.1.5 Court Trial 12, George Vs. Tom; False Charges .............. 145
9.1.6 Court Trial 13, Tom Vs. George; Non-Payment Of Original
Fine ................................................................................... 148
9.1.7 Court Trial 14, George Vs. Tom And Dan; More Than Two
Court Trials On The Same Topic. ..................................... 149
9.1.8 Court Trial 15. Kidsville Bank Vs. Jack; Stealing Kidsville
Money From The Bank. .................................................... 151
9.1.9 Court Trial 16, Jack Vs. Kidsville Bank; Making False
Charges About Theft Of Kidsville Money. ......................... 153
9.1.10 Court Trial 17, Tom Vs. Marie’s DooDads, Disturbing The
Peace. .............................................................................. 155
9.1.11 Court Trial 18, Marie’s DooDads Vs. Tom, Disturbing The
Peace. .............................................................................. 157
9.1.12 Court Trial 19, Josh Vs. Tom; Property Destruction .......... 157
9.1.13 Court Trial 20, Kidsville Council Vs. Rupert; Theft Of
Kidsville Money From The Bank. ...................................... 160
9.2 Transformations Of Inequity: Examples Of The Interdependence Of
Individual Action And Development Of Practice. ......................... 161

9.3 Summary Of Analyses: Co-Construction Of The Kidsville Court As A
Zone Of Proximal Development For New Equity Practices By

Participant- Leaders. ................................................................... 167
Chapter Ten: Conclusions From The Study Of The Kidsville Court .................. 178
10.1 Key Findings Of The Study .......................................................... 179
10.2 How The Findings Of This Study Relate To The Literature On
Leadership In Childhood .............................................................. 184
10.2.1 Great Man Models: Implications For The Study Of
Leadership As A Trait Of The Individual ........................... 186
10.2.2 Situationist Models: Implications for Situational Influences
On Childhood Leadership Behavior .................................. 189

ix

 

 

 

 

ms

103 Redef
Devel
104 Study
10.5 Future
105‘

10.5.2
APPENDICES.
Appendix A:
Leadr
REFERENCES .. .

REFERENCES ...,

 

————7

10.2.3 Values-Based Models: Implications For The Study of

Childhood Leadership As An Influence On Values ........... 193
10.3 Redefining Leadership In An Activity Theory Model: The

Development Of Equity Leadership In The Activity ...................... 195
10. 4 Study Caveats And Limitations .................................................... 203
10.5 Future Directions For Research And Practice ............................... 206

10.5.1 Practical Implications: The Importance And Difficulty Of
Experiential Learning In Civic Participation ....................... 210
10.5.2 Directions For Future Research ...................................... 213
APPENDICES ................................................................................................... 216

Appendix A:Coding Scheme For Coding Of Leadership And Non~

Leadership Behaviors .................................................................. 218
REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 222
REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 223

 

 

 

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.
Table 11 .

Table 12.

Table 13.

Uses of
Period C

Develop
Study. ..

The Ear
The Tra
The Lab
Organiz

Compar
By Parti

Compar
Trials B

Compar
Early Ar

Leadeh
Are Bot

IS Lega
Benefit

Do Kid:
LEQaIF

 

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.

Table 13.

 

LIST OF TABLES

Uses of Legal Representation In Kidsville Court Trials During The

Period Of January 1985 To June 1985. ............................................. 51
Developmental And Non-Developmental Aspects Of Psychological

Study. ................................................................................................ 70
The Early Period Of Legal Representation Practices ......................... 84
The Transition Period Of Legal Representation Practices ................. 85
The Late Period Of Legal Representation Practices .......................... 86
Organization Of A Court Trial Transcript ............................................ 88

Comparison Of Leadership Behaviors In Early And Late Court Trials
By Participant Role. ......................................................................... 103

Comparison Of Non-Leadership Behaviors In Early And Late Court
Trials By Participant Role. ............................................................... 104

Comparison Of Ratio Of Leadership To Non-Leadership Behavior In
Early And Late Court Trials By Role Of Participant .......................... 107

Leadership Behaviors By Specific Individual Participants By Role ..108
Are Both Sides Of The Issue Expressed In The Court Trial? ........... 118

Is Legal Representation In The Kidsville Court Used Primarily For The
Benefit Of Oneself, One’s Peers, Or Younger Children? ................. 122

Do Kidsville Lawyers Represent Others And Does This Function Of
Legal Representation Change Over Time? ..................................... 123

xi

 

 

‘

Figural. Absence
CourtT
Figure 2. Examp

Figure 3. Histori

  
  
  
   
 

Figure 4a. Timelin

Figure 4b. Timelin

 

Figure 4c. Timelin
Figure 4d. Timelin

Figure 5. The De

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Absence Of An Expectation Of Representation In The Early Period
Court Trials, As Exemplified In The Behaviors Of Court Participants
During The Early Period. ................................................................. 125

Figure 2. Examples Of An Expectation Of Representation In The Late Period
Court Trials Expressed In The Behaviors Of Court Participants During

The Late Period. .............................................................................. 126
Figure 3. Historical Overview Of Changes In Representation Practices Of The

Kidsville Court .................................................................................. 134
Figure 4a. Timeline Of Court Trials 8-10 In The Transition Period .................... 171
Figure 4b. Timeline Of Court Trials 11-13 In The Transition Period .................. 172
Figure 4c. Timeline Of Court Trials 14-16 In The Transition Period .................. 173
Figure 4d. Timeline Of Court Trials 17-19 In The Transition Period .................. 174
Figure 5. The Development Cycle Of The Kidsville Court Activity .................... 199

xii

 

 

‘

Dewey (1911

 

From this perspec
civic work, produc
actions to addrw

within community

1.1 Reasons Fo
Settings.

This study
WWW The
IONS on was

44

 

 

Chapter One: Introduction

Dewey (1916) and others have argued that schools should prepare
children for the responsibilities of adult citizenship by involving children as
citizens in democratic school communities. There are probably infinite ways to
define the essentials of Citizen participation in democratic life. For purposes of
this literature review, the writer takes a View of citizen participation in democratic
life similar to the practical democratic theory of Boyte and Kari (1996) who state:

. . . public work, work that makes things of value and importance in

cooperation with others, is the taproot of American democracy . . . .

Through such work people gain visibility, authority, and larger

intellectual horizons . . . [and they] become creators of their

communities . . . . Practical democratic theory looks at questions of

Civic action and civic capacity: What forms of education, popular

organization, relationships, and culture practices cultivate the

confidence, spirit, and skills that citizens need for effective action

and participation in governance? (p. 2-7).

From this perspective, schools would be communities in which children practice
civic work, producing things of value in cooperation with others and taking

actions to address local contextualized problems. Leadership, emerging from

within community work groups, is a practical feature of civic work.

1.1 Reasons For The Study Of Childhood Leadership In Local Peer Group
ettings.

This study is of peer group leaders engaged in civic work in a school
ommunity. There are practical, theoretical, and methodological reasons to

ocus on leaders and leadership practices as these are observed in natural peer

1

 

 

‘

9WD settings. 31
below. Peer Ieadr
group‘s abflitios to
support group

the developmenta
experiences with
experience for

as an outcome of

through their child

 

experiences may
may be that the

for the sorts of I

One pu

resolve disputes a
insome school so
productively amor
Johnson, 1994). ‘
that the uses of p
and systematic bi
unresolved (mm
festive to lean
retlular targets 01
and Adler, 1993)

4A

 

group settings. Several reasons for such study are discussed in the paragraphs
below. Peer leadership can be studied as a variable that affects the peer
group’s abilities to resolve disputes, take effective action, and protect and
support group members. As such, peer leadership in a group setting will affect
the deveIOpmental outcomes for all group members, providing either positive
experiences with group membership or negative and possibly traumatizing
experience for some members. From another angle, leadership can be studied
as an outcome of peer group experience. That is, children learn how to lead
through their childhood experiences as leaders in groups. These peer group
experiences may positively or negatively affect how people lead in the future. It
may be that the study of childhood groups can provides a model or explanation
for the sorts of leaders that our culture is producing.

One purpose of leadership within any community is to provide methods to
resolve disputes among community members. Studies have found that children
in some school settings do not know how to resolve conflicts peacefully or
productively among themselves (Johnson and Johnson, 1996; Johnson and
Johnson, 1994). Recent episodes of fatal violence in schools highlight the fact
that the uses of power in child and adolescent peer groups can involve planned
and systematic bullying, revenge, and hate crimes in response to chronic
unresolved conflict. To a lesser extent children’s use of power strategies can be

isruptive to learning and cooperation in schools, with some children becoming
egular targets of peer abuse as has been studied in peer group cliques (Adler

nd Adler, 1998). Parents, teachers, and Citizens express concern that children

 

 

 

 

learn how to resoli

express helplessn.
methods of conflic
of peer leadership
of peer conflict in r
viewed as an impt

that support the de

 

One purpos

peer group activiti
development of pl
of peer group porn
individuals come 1
information about
settings.

The need I
°I Meal signili
as an hiporlant o
Propose to foster

 

 

learn how to resolve disputes for the benefit of their communities, but adults often
express helplessness in attempting to change uses of peer group power and
methods of conflict management in a peer group (Adler and Adler, 1998). Study
of peer leadership may provide insight into the practical processes of resolution
of peer conflict in peer groups. In this respect, peer group leadership can be
viewed as an important variable in the development of the school environments
that support the development of all children.

One purpose of this study is to examine the ways in which leaders and
leadership practices affect the development of group activities. As is discussed
in the section on methodology of this paper, there is reason to believe that much
human behavior is learned and developed through participation in cultural
activities. In practical group settings, all children are not equally powerful, and it
is the powerful peers who are most influential in the creation and development of
peer group activities (Harris, 1999; Harris, 2000). To understand the
development of peer group activity, it may be necessary to understand the uses
of peer group power in local settings. This requires that researchers study how
individuals come to wield power and such studies need to provide longitudinal
information about how the uses of power Change over time in natural peer group
settings.

The need to foster leadership within child and youth activities is an issue

fpractical significance in our culture, and in this way leadership can be viewed
3 an important outcome of peer group experience. Practical settings which

ropose to foster or encourage leadership include high schools (Boccia, 1997),

 

 

 

(Heifelz, 1994).

definition, help to

activity developm
development of it
interrelated devel
Whites at

This is a Si

 

 

programs for gifted students (Smyth and Ross, 1999) and community programs
for disadvantaged youth (Roach, et. al., 1999). There are, however, few models
for programs of h_q_vy_ to promote leadership among children or youth, and there is
little research in this topic (Boccia, 1997; Smyth and Ross, 1999; Roach, et. al.,
1999)

Another purpose for study of leadership in natural child group settings is
that such study allows one to evaluate and modify theories of leadership.
Theories of leadership have been beset by controversies about whether leaders
are great men who influence history, or whether leadership behaviors are
contingent upon and defined by cultural expectations, norms, and circumstances
(Heifetz, 1994). The problem can be stated succinctly as follows: Leaders, by
definition, help to shape the historical movement of activities; furthermore, the
shape of activities dictates the forms that leadership takes, the skills that leaders
need to develop, and the choice of candidates for leadership. Leadership can be
seen as both an outcome of and an influence in activity deveIOpment, whereas
activity deveIOpment can be seen as both an outcome of and an influence in the
development of individual leaders. This research project emphasizes the
interrelated development of individual leaders and of changing leadership
responsibilities and practices in the activity.

This is a study of a child’s peer group and its work in making a conflict
esolution activity: the Kidsville Court, a Children’s court of law. The study

xamines pre-existing videotapes of a children’s court activity that was part of a

town” that elementary school children created in their free time. The setting is a

 

 

 

 

   
 

Ndsville Court co
For the current

The Kidsvil
enforce the first la
of older children ir
years to enforce I
disputes among t
Ndsville Court's I
Positions as bailil

Teachers ‘
"who the Period
can as lawyers.

 

 

two-room, privately-owned school with a population ranging from 15 to 20
students (aged 6 to 12 years) during the time videotapes were made in 1985. In
earlier years the school had a much larger student body, but enrollment declined
rapidly during the economic recession of the early 1980’s, resulting in a very
small, mixed-aged group of students. About half of the students in this school
population had educational disabilities. Disabilities ranged from mild (ADHD,
learning disabilities or mild developmental disabilities) to severe disabilities
(severe sexual and physical abuse, emotional impairments, oppositional-defiant
disorder, and autism). This study is based on videotape records that were made
of the Kidsville Court trials. Videotape was taken during the first year of Kidsville
and only during the last five months of that year. The Kidsville Town and
Kidsville Court continued through the next four years until the school was closed.
For the current study, videotapes include 28 formal Kidsville Court trials.

The Kidsville Court activity was initially created by the children in order to
nforce the first law produced by the children's town Council, a self-elected grOUp
folder children in the school. After that, the court functioned over the next four
ears to enforce law and order and to settle interpersonal and intergroup
isputes among the town’s citizens. Within the first several months of the
idsville Court’s existence, licensure was created to control who could take
ositions as bailiffs and lawyers. Eventually child judges were also licensed.

Teachers were some of the first lawyers in the Kidsville town. However,
uring the period of this study teachers were usually prohibited from arguing in

urt as lawyers. Teachers usually participated in Kidsville Court trials, if at all, in

 

 

 

 

peer groups. It a

Chapter T
childhood leade
that provide insig
maintenance. Th
study of leadershi
the second introdr
adolescent group
traits in children. l
leadership, emph
limp crlture. 111
New play a
peer 9mm conflir
trHeston of study
W by Hear
it "cream
W W 1

 

roles of private citizens of the Kidsville town as defendants, plaintiffs, witnesses,
or as observers. The director of the school, however, was often involved

informally as a legal advisor to court participants.

1.2 Overview Of The Chapters In This Dissertation

Chapter One is the introduction to this study. The introduction delineates
the purposes of the study and reasons to study leadership in naturally occurring
peer groups. It also introduces an overview of the paper.

Chapter Two is a critical review of the literature, including the research on
childhood leadership and developmental studies of play and conflict negotiation
that provide insight into the functions of leadership in childhood group
maintenance. This literature review begins with three sections introducing the
study of leadership development in children: The first defines forms of power;
the second introduces literature on domination hierarchies in child and
adolescent groups, and the third discusses developmental studies of leadership
traits in children. Chapter Two takes an alternative perspective on childhood
leadership, emphasizing contributions by leaders to the co-construction of peer
group culture. This review briefly introduces literature on the development of
peer group play as a culture—making process and on interventions in improving
peer group conflict resolution and democratic processes in peer groups. This
direction of study of peer leadership fits a values-based definition of leadership
proposed by Heifetz (1994) where leaders are seen as persons who help groups
3r organizations to engage in “civic work” (Boyte and Kari, 1996) or “adaptive

Ivork” (Heifetz, 1994).

 

 

 

 

 

(1) ts there a cha
leadership behavl
and helping crew
of the practice of
(3) What WIN
representation of
contribute to this i
Chapter Fl
deville Court an
enemy. 1
"We: of
Wins and ind

 

Chapter Three summarizes a pilot study of the videotaped data on the
Kidsville Court. It introduces the setting, participants, and the videotapes which
were then used for the current study. The pilot study analyzed legal arguments
and decisions using a Piagetian model of moral reasoning, and its findings were
ambiguous. However, during that study the researcher observed that practices
of legal representation in the Kidsville Court may have undergone change over
the time of the study. This observation became important for the genesis of the
current study, which focuses on the development of the court’s practices of legal
representation and the interaction between individual leaders and changing
leadership responsibilities of the Kidsville Court activity.

Chapter Four presents three research questions for the current study.

(1) Is there a change from the early period to the late period in frequencies of
leadership behaviors as evidenced by changes in task organization leadership
nd helping or evaluating specific others? (2) How does the nature and quality
f the practice of legal representation change over time in the Kidsville Court?
3) What processes bring about the observed development in practices of legal
epresentation of the Kidsville Court activity, and how do individual leaders
ontribute to this development?

Chapter Five provides the methodological framework for studying the
idsville Court and its participants. The framework is based on principles of
tivity theory. The chapter begins with a definition of development as the
ocesses of sociogenesis: a dynamic, open-ended process by which group

tivities and individuals create their social worlds, themselves, and others. It is

 

 

 

 

for the study of tlr
may team and gn
the leader and of
Chapter Sr
and the setting an
address each oft
question use a or
behaviors (which
“entity merges
battalion in ‘
W menial
Need of
Inalists of

 

argued that developmental study should view leadership as a process of
promoting adaptive work, defined as the work that groups do to respond
adaptively to environmental challenges. This chapter emphasizes the culture-
making function of peer groups and the function of peer group leaders as
persons who promote the creation of adaptive peer group cultures. Activity
provides the purposes for which individual leader work can be put; it provides the
tools, symbols, and other mediating artifacts that leaders use, and it provides
roles in which participants can take effective action. Leaders may find that some
aspects of the activity should be changed to address social problems in the
group or the effectiveness of group processes. Activity theory provides a model

for the study of the interactions of leaders and activity settings, where leaders

 

may learn and grow and where these activities may improve the functioning of
the leader and of the group.
‘ Chapter Six describes the subjects, the videotaped data, the transcripts,
nd the setting and describes the specific methods that are used in this study to
ddress each of the three research questions. The methods for the first research
uestion use a coding scheme for quantifying leadership and non-leadership
ehaviors (which can be found in Appendix A). Descriptive statistics are used to
entify changes over time in the frequencies of leadership and non-leadership
ehaviors in Kidsville and to identify four individual leaders of the group. The
econd research question requires a qualitative analysis of change over time in
ractices of legal representation of the Kidsville Court. This includes an in-depth

nalysis of seven indicators of change in legal representation, with descriptive

 

 

 

roles of judge, be

than persons in n
four individual lea
behaviors. The a
leadership behav
behavior in the K
fulfill the roles of.
behaviors. Then
“‘9 “3 Periods r
trim this quanrm

 

data for each of these indicators. The methods used for analysis of the third
research question involve qualitative analysis of developmental processes by
which changes in legal practices of the court take place. This is presented
through a historical account of the Kidsville Court trials of the transition period,
with an emphasis on identified Kidsville Court leaders and their specific actions in
effecting change in legal practices of the court.

Chapter Seven presents the research findings of the first analysis, which
describes change over time in frequencies of leadership and non-leadership
behaviors in Kidsville Court trials. Findings indicate that there is an increase over
time, from the early to late court trials, in frequencies of both leadership and non-
leadership behaviors. Both leadership and non-leadership behavior are found to
be strongly related to the role of the participant, where persons performing in
roles of judge, bailiff and lawyer perform more leadership behaviors, on average,
han persons in roles as witnesses or court observers. The analysis identifies
our individual leaders of the group on the basis of their production of leadership
ehaviors. The analysis in Chapter Seven shows that the production of

adership behavior is strongly related to role-dependant expectations for
ehavior in the Kidsville Court, and that certain persons in the group more often
lfitl the roles of court officials and also produce the majority of leadership
ehaviors. There is also an indication that change takes place from the early to
e late periods of this data, but the nature of that change cannot be determined

m this quantitative analysis of behaviors.

 

 

 

 

provides an intent
the analysis in C
responsibilities of
lawyers to assure

Chapmr N
during which prar
charse. This his
Wabbit (Hail
heme" etillity a
due to W

 

Chapter Eight presents the research findings of a qualitative analysis of
indicators of change over time in the practices of legal representation in the
Kidsville Court. As will be discussed further in Chapters Five and Eight, practices
of legal representation perform a special function for procedural justice in the
American legal system to assure that litigants have an opportunity to have their
side of the issue heard in court. Chapter Eight demonstrates that changes in
practices of legal representation from the early to late periods of this data result
in important changes in ways that Kidsville Court litigants are heard by the court
and the ways that judges are able to take both sides of a conflict into account.
Chapter Eight also demonstrates that there were a number of practices in the
early period of the Kidsville Court that acted as impediments to the provision of
universal legal representation to litigants. Viewing these impediments over time
provides an interesting way to analyze change in Kidsville Court legal practices.
The analysis in Chapter Eight provides information about changes in the
responsibilities of leaders over time, especially the responsibilities of judges and
lawyers to assure and provide representation to others.

Chapter Nine provides an analysis of the transition period, the period

uring which practices of legal representation have been shown to undergo

  
  
   
  
 

hange. This historical period of the court is presented to the reader in

equential detail to show how Kidsville Court leaders encounter contradictions
etween equity and unequal distribution of legal resources in their justice system.
pecifically, situations arise in which a litigant is not provided with representation

ue to practices of the court which support unequal distribution of legal

10

 

 

 

 

 

provision of legal
Kidsville leaders
of resource di '
interdependence
as new practices
important in this
against change.
Chapter Tr
study, implication
conclusion of this
interdependence

Following

 

resources. For example, there may not be enough licensed lawyers available to
provide representation for both litigants, or a litigant may not have enough
Kidsville money to pay for a lawyer. tn these court trials, Kidsville Court leaders
are seen taking action, sometimes supporting more equitable distribution of legal
resources and sometimes supporting extant Kidsville Court practices (which limit
provision of legal resources). This results in an ongoing dialogue among
Kidsville leaders concerning contradictions between equity and current practices
of resource distribution. Transformations of inequity arise out of the
interdependence of individual action and the devel0pment of collective practice
as new practices are negotiated among the participants. Leaders are especially
important in this process of transformation, as they provide the voices for and
against change.

Chapter Ten presents conclusions about the study, weaknesses of the
study, implications for practice, and directions for further research. The primary
conclusion of this study is a definition of equity leadership as a feature of the
interdependence of individual leaders and the collective practices of the activity.

Following are the Appendices and the Reference section.

11

 

 

 

 

 

Slater, 1855).

compose a “a '
and achievemen
examine persona
predict success f
Clark and Clark (
reflecting managi
styles, managerir
Situation'
bring about
1994). Tire
Headers
PrtlmandChu

Wuttllarll.

 

Chapter Two: Critical Review Of Relevant Literatures

Heifetz (1994) argues that there are three basic approaches to defining
leadership: great man definitions, situationist or contingency models, and values-
based models. in this section these three approaches are defined, and they are
used throughout this review to refer to their respective literatures.

Great man models of leadership define leadership as a set of traits,
particularly power-wielding traits of individual leaders (Bates, 1953; Bates and
Slater, 1855). Dachler and Hosking (1995) argue that traits ascribed to leaders
compose a “caricature of the dominating, competitive, aggressive, manipulating,
and achievement-driven male.” (p.12). Studies based on great man models
examine personalities of great leaders or provide lists of characteristics that
predict success for managers in business, government, or military. For example,
Clark and Clark (1988) have edited a compilation of leadership measures

eflecting management potential, inspiration and influence, managerial thinking
tyles, managerial behaviors, and intellectual qualities of effective managers.

Situationist or contingency models of leadership define situations that

ring about certain leadership behaviors (Dachler and Hosking, 1995; Heifetz,

994). The most radical situationist models of leadership argue that traits of

reat leaders can be entirely explained by historical events or specific situations.
atton and Churchill became great leaders due to specific circumstances during

orld War It. Less radical models, called contingency models, emphasize the fit

 

12

 

 

 

 

1975. 1976a,
useful to

adults. Some \M
business leaders
Roach, et at. (15

man models to d

wayslrorr

 

 

 

etween leadership styles and situations. One can ordinarily understand that

ilitary commands may not be effective in organizing a church fund—raiser.

  
 

Situationist and contingency approaches have clear advantages for study
fleadership in children because these models assume that leadership
quirements vary broadly across history and across cultures. One cannot know
prion” which styles of leadership will be useful for specific activities. To use an
ample from anthropology, an outsider cannot know without some kind of
search which leadership skills are needed in the erlle “Talking Matter.”
alking Matter” is a public court process in ertle Villages (Lancy, 1971, 1974,
75, 1976a, and 1976b; cited by Schwartzman, 1978). Similarly, it may not be
eful to assume that leadership skills for children are the same as those for
ults. Some writers argue that qualities of successful governmental or
rsiness leaders (great men) may not be appropriate or relevant for children.
rach, et. at. (1999) argue against the direct application of adult-based great
rn models to children or youth:
. . . actual and emerging youth leadership may differ in significant
ways from established adult leadership, . . . [and] leadership
programs with youth need to derive from field-based studies of the
w§)ys youth themselves define, value, and enact leadership. (p.
Situationist and contingency definitions have another advantage in studies
eadership. Using such models, one can account for different leadership
ectations within the same organization or activity. Katz and Kahn (1978)

d that leaders at different levels in modern democratic bureaucracies have

onsibility for different functions. Lowest level leaders have responsibility to

13

 

 

 

 

authority relation

vatuebased. Th
drarisma,organi
had skits well su
Powerusers. but
definitionbecau
“is. Adleran
Mauritania:
increase, in

 

administer established rules. Intermediate level leaders are responsible for the
velfare of subordinates and for resolving disputes. Top level leaders are
esponsible for planning the direction of the organization. This indicates that
.uccessful leaders may not have identical qualities. Persons with different skills

oordinate their efforts within the organization, and this coordination results in the

 

reeting of goats.
Heifetz (1994) proposes a third definition of leadership, one which
mphasizes the values that leadership should promote, and the purposes for

hich power should be used. He argues that great man and situationist

 

e rnitions purport to be “value free.” These models implicitly emphasize the
rportance of prominence, influence, and authority, but they do not clearly
tdress the purpose(s) to which influence should be put. According to Heifetz
994), these researchers should simply call their topic “influence, power, and
thority relationships.” The study of leadership should be prescriptive and
tue-based. Throughout history there have been infamous power-users with
arisma, organizational skills, and persuasive influence. These power-users

1 skills well suited to the demands of their situation. Such people are effective

 

yer-users, but they should not be called leaders according to a values-based

 

inition, because leaders should help their communities to develop in adaptive
is. Adler and Adler (1998) provide a longitudinal study of childhood cliques in
ch elementary-school children were observed practicing Machiavellian styles

ower—use, including systematic scapegoating. A values-based definition

14

 

 

 

 

would argue that such uses of power should not be called leadership because
they do not promote valuable and adaptive outcomes in communities.

Many experts in the leadership literature argue that leadership requires an
“ethics of social responsibility,” (Drucker, 1977), “morality,” (Emler and Hogan,
1981; 1991), “caring” (Colby and Damon, 1992), or “stewardship” (Block, 1993). .
These qualities are important for all members of a community, but they are
especially important for persons who have power. Heifetz (1994) argues that
leadership should help organizations to choose between different “values” and to
make values-based decisions. Instead of glorifying the simple use of power,
leadership should be defined as helping groups and organizations weigh and
decide between values for the purpose of adapting to their environments. In
other words, Heifetz argues for a leadership value of supporting adaptive change
in groups. Heifetz (1994) defines “adaptive work” as:

. . . the learning required to address conflicts in the values people

hold, or to diminish the gap between the values people stand for

and the reality they face. Adaptive work requires a change in

values, belief or behavior . . . . Getting people to clarify what

matters most, in what balance, with what trade-offs, becomes a

central task. (p.22)
eifetz views influence and authority as the primary means used by leaders.
eadership outcomes are judged by the adaptive work that leaders encourage in
hers and in groups. Rather than viewing leaders as unique great men, or
ewing leaders as defined by situations, Heifetz views leaders as those who are

fluential in changing culture in adaptive ways. This definition is consistent with

e definition of civic work given earlier in this paper (Boyte and Karl, 1996).

15

 

 

 

 

 

contribute to the

activities and se

2.1 Defining

Observati
about basis with
maintain themse
the creation of e

According

POWBI’ is

controlling

Wt

PM 18}

thereby a

1956;Par
Melton:

 

This critical review of the literature on childhood leadership includes
several topics. The first sections of Chapter Two define types of power relations,
child and adolescent dominance hierarchies, and research on developmental
changes in power-use during childhood. Developmental literature shows that as
children mature, managerial leadership in the peer group begins to become
differentiated from simple domination. Child leaders contribute to organization of
group activities, provide task—oriented feedback to participants, maintain efficient
execution of task demands by the group, and help younger or less able peers.
The later sections of Chapter Two focus on the ways in which child leaders
contribute to the development of peer group activities, including group play

activities and serious conflict negotiations.

2.1 Defining Power Relationships

Observational and experimental research has produced robust findings
about basic within-group processes by which human and primate social groups
naintain themselves (Harris, 1995; Fishbein, 1996). One of these processes is
we creation of status and power differences between group members.
According to Wentvvorth (1980):

Power is said to be the result of an at least temporarily held
controlling interest in certain resources originating in the subjective,
objective, material, and symbolic realms (Weber, 1964) . . . .
Power is said to arise in and change the course of interaction and
thereby affect future realities (Lasswell and Kaplan, 1950; Mills,
1956; Parsons 1957; Weber, 1958). Power, therefore is embodied
in action affecting the “negotiation of reality. (p. 112-113)

 

16

 

 

 

V l entwolth (1 980
capacity for f orce
resourcesl- and 5
important: the re'
Raven 1.15
power as coercic
and tegltimaCY-
monetary rewarC
and referent DOV
influence; While ‘
expert knows wt
emulate the per!
logical argumen
Raven (1
. . based on tt
target. implicitly
and you have a
power, as exerr
Raven (1992) d
draw on other s
Something for y
power of equity

d0 Something tr

 

 

entworth (1980) defines three sources of power as physical power (control of
apacity for force), economically conditioned power (control of strategic material
sources), and social power. While the first two of these sources of power are
portant, the remainder of this discussion is on the topic of social power.

Raven (1992) and French and Raven (1959) define four sources of social
wer as coercion and reward, expert and referent power, informational power,
d legitimacy. Coercion and reward include such tactics as physical threats,
netary rewards, expressions of approval, and withdrawal of affection. Expert
d referent power are based on specific characteristics of the person exerting

luence; while the power of an expert comes from an expectation that the
pert knows what is correct, referent power comes from the target’s desire to
rulate the person. lnforrnational power is the power to persuade based on
lical argument.
Raven (1992) defines four kinds of legitimate power. Legitimate power is
. based on the structural relationship between the influencing agent and the
get. lmplicitly or explicitly the agent says, ‘I have a right to ask you to do this,
you have an obligation to comply.” (p. 220). The most obvious is position
er, as exemplified by the formal power of a supervision over a subordinate.
en (1992) defines the three other forms of legitimate power as those which
on other social norms: the legitimate power of reciprocity, meaning that I did
ething for you, so you are obligated to do something for me, the legitimate
er of equity, meaning that l have worked hard, so I have a right to ask you to

omething to make up for it, and the legitimate power of responsibility or

17

 

 

 

dependence, me
themselves or wl
Position p
differentiates bet
depends on cust
requires obedier
positions in that
authority has be
Specific ieatu res
. . . autho
particular
legalcodr
upon a or
those Wht
According to Err
in its modern de
rePresentation."
lmpersonally, wt
lepresented.

Power re

QTOUps; thus, st;

clear that power

are occasionally
and more Subtle

certainly. CiVlC i

 

ependence, meaning that one has an obligation to help those who cannot help

 

  

hemselves or who are dependant.

Position power has been further specified by some writers. Weber (1964)
ifferentiates between two kinds of position power: traditional authority, (which
epends on custom and inherited titles), and legal-rational authority, which
quires obedience to an impersonal legal order and to persons who hold
sitions in that order. Emler and Hogan (1981) argue that legal-rational
thority has become the primary model in modern democratic societies.
ecific features of the legal-rational order are:

. . . authorities in particular positions are permitted to do only
particular things; their jurisdiction is usually specified in rules and
legal codes . . . . [Also] legal-rational authority does not depend
upon a personal relationship between bureaucratic officials and
those whose activities they regulate. (p. 299)
cording to Emler and Hogan (1981 ), appropriate use of position power defined

ts modern democratic sense ideally includes both "authority” and "impartial

resentation." A democratic leader is supposed to represent the people fairly,

 

ersonally, within a specified jurisdiction, and to be answerable to the people
resented.
Power relations have been shown to be relatively stable features of
ps; thus, stability is the focus of much research on power. However, it is
r that power relations can and do change over time. While power changes
ccasionally dramatic, as in the American Revolution, most changes are slow

more subtle, as in the erosion of job discrimination due to affirmative action.

 

inty, civic action implies the creation of new organizations, the emergence

18

 

 

of new power grc
changed power r
(1980). power ar
negotiation of re:

A develop
the intricate ruler
culture. This unr
maturing into full
developmental is
1981; Emler and
community to ch
some writers cor

leadership, as or

2-2 Studies t

Child GfOUps

Dominant
Under the age 0.
dominance alid
dominance hierz
0f QTOUD functior
who Wins in a di

dyad the domin;

 

 

 
  
  

fnew power groups and leaders, and changes in the social structure, including
hanged power relations between and within groups. To paraphrase Wentworth
1980), power arises in and changes the course of interaction affecting the
egotiation of reality within communities.
A developmental task throughout one’s lifetime is to understand and use
e intricate rules of power relations as is appropriate for one’s position within the
lture. This understanding develops as children undergo status changes,
aturing into fully functioning power-users of their cultures. Another
velopmental task according to some writers (Heiftez, 1994; Emler and Hogan,
81; Emler and Hogan, 1991) is to learn to use power in ways that allow one’s
immunity to change in adaptive ways. As will be seen in the next section,
lme writers consider the promotion of adaptive change to be the hallmark of

adership, as compared to other forms of power usage.

’ Studies Of Domination Behaviors And Dominance Hierarchies ln

ild Groups

Dominance hierarchies are a basic feature of group functioning. Children
er the age of 2 years do not operate as members of groups in their
inance and affiliation behaviors (Strayer and Trudel, 1984); after that age
inance hierarchies among age-mates become an increasingly important part
roup functioning. Dominance hierarchies are usually measured in terms of
wins in a diSpute or conflict between two children. it is expected that in a

the dominant partner will win in the majority of conflicts. in a group, these

19

 

 

 

 

 

dyadic relationst
is dominant over
One pron

group stability ar
oltime, Petit. Ba
formation of stat
groups of first ar
dominating socj;
aggression. and
related differenc
aggression in th
Savin-Wi
adolescents Ove
behaviors. in tr
Were eStablishe
There Were diff E
dominance beh.
in arguing and l
to use eValuativ
soliciting advice
Was to d‘3t9nnir

' ' ~domi
motivatic

 

 

yadic relationships will be hierarchical. lf child A is dominant over child B, and B
s dominant over C, then child A is expected to show dominance over child C.
One prominent theory is that dominance hierarchies function to maintain
roup stability and reduce aggression. In an experiment covering a 5-day period
t time, Petit, Bakshi, Dodge, and Cole (1990) tested the relationship between
rmation of stable dominance hierarchies and the occurrence of aggression in
roups of first and third grade boys. These authors defined four types of
minating social encounters (persuasion, bullying aggression, instrumental
ggression, and angry-reactive aggression). Their analysis found that age-
rlated differences in group coherence were a function of lower rates of
Jgression in the groups of older boys.

Savin-Williams (1979) studied dominance hierarchies in camp groups of
lotescents over a three-month period of time using eight indexes of domination
ehaviors. in this study dominance hierarchies in both male and female groups
re established quickly and were relatively stable across time and settings.
ere were differences between male and female groups in frequency of specific

inance behaviors. Specifically, boys were three times more likely to engage
rguing and physical encounters. Girls were four times more likely than boys
se evaluative behavior such as complimenting, asking favors, imitating,
citing advice, and shunning or ignoring. However, the purpose of the study
to determine who asserted dominance over whom, not to evaluate the
lity of domination behaviors. As the author notes,

. . . dominance may take many forms and arise from many
motivations, from helping to aggressive behavior [and] . . .

20

 

 

 

 

individual
considera
Some. ca
used vert
was rmpo
toward."
Dominant
also allowed a s
specialized grou
initiating activitie
their functions b
directions. in fe
bad feelings or r
accomplished tt
The impc
doubted. As pe
hierarchies may
uses of power.
dominance alter
exchange. Dor
”We soohisuca
dominance beh
is Possible that
glOUp Sehings t

 

 

 

individual adolescents, for whatever ontogenetic reasons, varied
considerably in their use of the eight indices to achieve their status.
Some, cabin bullies, physically threatened and fought, while others
used verbal directives and control to assert their dominance. What
was important was whom the dominance behavior was directed

toward.” (p. 932).
Dominance hierarchies not only reduced antagonism within groups, but
also allowed a stable division of labor to appear. High ranking adolescents had
specialized group functions and performed specific instrumental roles, such as
initiating activities and making decisions. Lower ranking adolescents performed
their functions by taking cues from dominant group members and by following
directions. in female groups, dominant girls also intervened in squabbles to ease
bad feelings or repair interpersonal relations. Group activities and chores were
accomplished through this division of labor.
The importance of dominance hierarchies in group functioning cannot be
doubted. As peer groups become more sophisticated, however, dominance
ierarchies may not be the most effective way to study their organization and
ses of power. One limitation to the study of dominance hierarchies is that
ominance attempts often result in a “tie” because there is no clear “winner” in an
xchange. Dominance behavior may be especially difficult to observe in older or
ore sophisticated subjects. For example, Savin-Williams (1979) found that
minance behaviors in adolescent girls’ groups were sometimes quite subtle. it

possible that stable and effective dominance hierarchies emerge so subtly in

    
 

oup settings that overt dominance behaviors are not necessary in order to

sert or communicate dominance, except perhaps in serious conflict situations.

21

 

 

 

 

Since open confl
situations may it
(Petit, Bakshi, Dr
When chi
researchers havr
which can be dis
Dodge, and Coir
extent to which a
positive fashion.
9r0ups of third 9
that as children
QtOUP tunctionin
leadership clear
and female atpr
the indirect don
directives, The

IeadeiSl‘iip in Ch

23 The Em!

Din'lensi0n 0f

SOme re
can be estabiis

 

 

ince open conflict is rare in naturalistic settings, study of dominance in conflict
ituations may require use of videotape to analyze relatively unusual events
Petit, Bakshi, Dodge, and Cole, 1990).

When children are observed in groups after the age of 3 or 4 years, some
searchers have noticed a distinct type of behavior task organization behavior
hich can be distinguished from other dominance behaviors. Petit, Bakshi,
odge, and Coie (1990) called this behavior “leadership” and defined it as the

ent to which a subject “displayed assertive attempts to direct the group in a
sitive fashion. (p.1020)” in their study, leadership predicted dominance rank in
cups of third grade boys, but not in groups of first grade boys, which suggests
tas children mature, leadership becomes a more important feature of peer
cup functioning. Savin—Williams ( 1979) confirms this supposition. in that study
adership clearly predicted dominance status rank among adolescents: male
d female alphas were clearly leaders in their cabin groups, and they tended to
e indirect dominance behaviors or to express authority by giving verbal
actives. The following section reviews research on the deveIOpment of

iership in children defined by managerial and task-oriented uses of power.

The Emergence Of Managerial Competence: Task-Facilitation As A

ension Of Leadership

Some researchers have argued that hierarchical arrangements in groups
re established through leadership, defined as direction, organization, and

ation of group behavior, instead of through coercive types of dominance.

22

 

 

 

The rest of this c
group functioning
One obvir
sophisticated in
Sroufe (1985) st
preschool group
Leadership was
making SUggest
aPilOihtrng child:
rank was not a r
differences betv
leadership was
status, social pg
t0 dominance re
behavioral prob
with Social 00ml
differentiation b
the differentiarn
large number 0'
mahdt
Fukada. FUkad
preschOOt class

“09mins.“ “in~b

 

he rest of this chapter reviews studies of leadership as a specific aspect of
roup functioning and social competence in individuals.

One obvious feature of preschool play is that some children are active and
ophisticated in organizing play episodes among their peers. LaFrenier and
roufe (1985) studied peer social competence in four to five-year olds in two
reschool groups using multiple measures over the course of a school year.

adership was defined as organizing or directing the activity of a peer by

aking suggestions, demonstrating an activity, leading by the hand, or

pointing children to various roles. These researchers found that dominance
nk was not a reliable measure of peer social competence because of
fferences between the two classroom groups in the study. In one group,
adership was significantly correlated with social competence, sociometric
atus, social participation, and attention rank, but it was not significantly related
dominance rank. The other group had a higher proportion of children with
havioral problems, and in that group leadership was n_o_t significantly correlated
h social competence. These findings provide indirect evidence of a
erentiation between dominance and leadership in preschool groups, although
differentiation is not strong enough to be demonstrated if the group has a
e number of poorly adjusted individuals.

In a factor analysis of preschool play leadership in Japanese children,

ada, Fukada, and Hicks (1997) studied the behaviors of 6 pupils in 3
chool classes. The children were selected by their teachers as being

trals,” “in-betweeners,” or “peripherals” in group play activities. The

23

 

 

researchers 1951'
nature, and the”
subjects during f
evaluation of Pi3
between groups
more considerat
betweeners OF P
evaluation were
criticism based r
others. This stu
leaders from nor
facilitation beha‘
relationships an
peers. This topi
Manager

Petit, Bakshi, Dr

assertive attemr

tound that leads

but not in the fir

“facilitative lead

toward the attai
and sixth grade

engaged in 3 cc

 

researchers tested Misumi’s (1985) theory that leadership has a multidimensional
nature, and their study found evidence for two factors of leadership in their
subjects during free play: (1) facilitation of play, and (2) consideration for and
evaluation of playmates. Although facilitation of play did not differentiate
between groups, the researchers found that centrals demonstrated significantly
more consideration/evaluation behavior toward playmates than did the in-
betweeners or peripherals. The four behaviors that defined consideration/
evaluation were those of giving directions for rules of play, giving approval or
criticism based on play rules, worrying about or helping others, and protecting
others. This study supports the view that managerial behaviors differentiate
leaders from non-leaders, but it also points to a difference between task
facilitation behaviors and leadership behaviors that maintain positive
relationships among group members, that is, consideration and evaluation of
eers. This topic will be elaborated on later in this chapter.
Managerial uses of power have also been studied in middle childhood.

etit, Bakshi, Dodge, and Coie (1990) defined leadership in terms of the child’s

 

ssertive attempts to direct play in a positive manner. Using this definition, they
und that leadership predicted dominance rank in play groups of third graders,
ut not in the first grade groups they studied. French and Stright (1991) studied
acilitative leadership,” defined as “behavior that organizes and directs a group
ward the attainment of a goal.” (pp. 188-189). in that study, second, fourth ,

d sixth graders were assigned to same—age groups and video-taped as they

gaged in a COOperative task which involved selecting pictures to put in a

24

 

 

hospital. The re
correlated in the
thought to be inc
leaders may hav
others of their 0;
Edwards
Scout troops. T
troops. The rest
rating scales of r
and adult and pr
the trooo. ResU
adults and peer:
Furthermore, int
from personality
Leadersl
French. Wass, E
. . . childr
Offer insti
more like
with agec
Brody. 8'

older siblings as

sibling, but they

interaction in cc

 

 
  
  
  
   
  
 
   
  

ospital. The researchers express some surprise that leadership was not
orrelated in their study with the behavior of “offering opinions,” which has been
hought to be indicative of leadership in some settings, but they concluded that
aders may have had too little investment in the task to attempt to convince
thers of their opinions.
Edwards ( 1994) studied naturally occurring leadership in school-age Girl
cout troops. The subjects were fourth, fifth and sixth graders enrolled in 16
ops. The researchers took several measures of leadership, including adult
ting scales of different personality traits, peer descriptions of personal qualities,
d adult and peer ratings of frequency of formal and informal leadership within
troop. Results showed that a managerial leadership style (as perceived by
ults and peers) consistently distinguished leaders from non-leaders.
rrthermore, informal leadership was relatively stable over time and predictable
m personality characteristics.
Leadership behaviors may be more common in mixed-age groups.

ench, Wass, Stright, and Baker (1986) point out that:

. . . children are more likely to exhibit prosocial behavior. . . and

offer instruction . . . to younger peers than to age-mates. They are

more likely to establish friendships . . . and exhibit aggression . . .

with age-mates. (p. 1277).

Brody, Stoneman, and MacKinnon (1982) found that during a board game
er siblings assumed dominant roles (teacher and manager) with a younger
ng, but they assumed equalitarian roles (playmate) with a friend. Since peer

'action in communities, neighborhoods, and clubs is often in mixed-age

25

 

 

groups (Ellis. Rt
behaviors in mi)
compared the le
cooperative pict
Stright (1991). .
mixed-age triad:
groups, older gr
behaviors and s
counterparts in

these difference
one sixth grade
behaviors. This
situational displ
that some task .

conditions in on

2-4 Helping
Leadership

The Jap;
Challenged lea c
dimension of le
shown that in a
facilitation and .

 

  
  
  
   
  
 
   
  

roups (Ellis, Rogoff, and Cromer, 1981), it makes sense to study leadership
ehaviors in mixed—age groups. French, Wass, Stright, and Baker (1986)
ompared the leadership behaviors of same-age and mixed-age triads in a
ooperative picture-choosing task, using the same methodology as French and
tright (1991). Asymmetries in leadership behaviors were most pronounced in
ixed-age triads composed of one 9—year-old and two 7-year-olds. In these
roups, older group members showed increased frequencies of task organizing
haviors and solicitations of opinion and exhibited less opinion-giving than their
unterparts in same-age groups. The authors note that the failure to replicate
ese differences in older mixed-age groups (groups with two fourth graders and
e sixth grader) could be because the task was too easy to require leadership
.haviors. This indicates that task difficulty may have something to do with the
uational display of managerial behaviors. French and Stright (1991) had found
at some task organizational behaviors may be not needed under certain task

tditions in order to achieve a task.

Helping And Evaluating Others: The Group Maintenance Function 0f

Idership

The Japanese researcher, Misumi (1985) and his colleagues have
Ilenged leadership models which focus on task organization as the primary
ension of leadership. Using a two-factor model, these researchers have
vvn that in actual industrial, governmental, and educational settings, task
itation and group maintenance are separate but complementary dimensions

adership. If one or the other factor is missing, then it is difficult to accomplish

26

 

 

goals in such go
do not fulfill bott
different functior

The two-l
work groups. bu
1997) has subsl
child play group
central play gror
expressed conc
playmates‘ beh:
Fukada, et. al. (
through helping
help individual g
PIOVide guidanr

Americar
organization dir
When QIOUp m:
although the re
be as lmDOrtan'
thrOUgh Cooper
factor that is nc

Evideno

SlUdies 0f 000p

 

ials in such group settings. Furthermore, in many settings the same managers
i not fulfill both functions equally. In successful organizations, persons fulfill
fferent functions, which allows for the coordination of goals.

The two-factor model has been developed and tested primarily in adult
ark groups, but one study in Japanese preschools (Fukada, Fukada, and Hicks,
997) has substantiated the usefulness of Misumi’s (1985) two factor model in
iild play groups. The researchers found that the factor that distinguished
antral play group members from others was that central play group members
:pressed concern for playmates, helped others, evaluated or corrected
aymates’ behaviors, and protected the group from outside disruptions. In the
rkada, et. al. (1997) study, preschool leaders provide group maintenance
rough helping and evaluating others. In other words, it is the leader’s job to
elp individual group members meet expectations for group behavior and to

vide guidance and support for that.

American research on leadership in children seems to focus on the task
anization dimension of leadership to the exclusion of group maintenance.
en group maintenance is considered, it is not defined as a separate factor,
ough the research cited above would indicate that group maintenance may
5 important in childhood leadership as task organization. Leadership
ugh cooperation, mutual helping, positive criticism, and guidance may be a
or that is not well understood in American culture.

Evidence of the need for group maintenance leadership can be seen in

ies of cooperative learning in classrooms. During peer cooperation in

27

 

 

learning, both le
This requires th:
feedback from C
there are three I
studied extensii
In peer tutoring.
knowledge or a!
more experienc
collaboration, ir
conversation ar
learning in whit
highly structure
Opportunities fc
evaluating othe
Researc

for students. Ir
hdoing others
attendance, ar
collaborative le
decisionmakir
lesulfs in impn
engaged with r

_4____4

 

learning, both leaders and followers work together to gain insights into problems.
This requires that children help and evaluate each other and accept help and
feedback from others. According to Foot, Shute, Morgan, and Barron (1990),
there are three basic types of cooperative learning situations that have been
studied extensively: peer tutoring, peer collaboration, and cooperative learning.
In peer tutoring, relationships between peers are asymmetrical in terms of
knowledge or age so that the novice learner can get help and guidance from the
more experienced tutor. Symmetrical relationships are more important in peer
collaboration, in which peers mutually engage in discovery learning through
conversation and having their views challenged by others, or in cooperative
learning in which cooperation among peers is needed to accomplish certain
highly structured tasks. Each of these learning situations may provide different
opportunities for leadership in the forms of task organization and helping and
evaluating others.

Research on peer learning experiences has shown a number of benefits
for students. In tutoring, for example, the opportunity to assume an active role in
telping others tends to increase the tutor’s internal motivation, improves
attendance, and improves school learning and behavior. Research on
:ollaborative learning is extensive (Rogoff, 1998). Several studies show that joint
Iecision—making with a balanced exploration of different opinions among peers
esults in improved understanding of solutions. For example, peers who are
ngaged with each other’s ideas are more likely to gain competence on logic

ames or math and science tasks than peers who did not collaborate on the

28

 

 

 

tasks (Damon a
(1989) found th.
they had worke
Joiner (1994) it
planning tasks I
planning, negot

Studies r
level of cooper:
problem-solving
instruction in or
task-facilitation
compared pairs
teach a game t
build on each c
l~year~old stud
engaged in the
American 9-ye;
7-year~old stud
instruction.

A brief r
are many book
Amencan child

refers to foster

 

tasks (Damon and Phelps, 1987; Light and Glachan, 1985). Gauvain and Rogoff
(1989) found that individual children did better on an errand planning task after
they had worked together in collaborative groups. Light, Littleton, Messer, and
Joiner (1994) found that school-aged children performed better on errand—
planning tasks or games when their work together involved discussions of
planning, negotiations, and co—construction of knowledge.

Studies of cooperative learning show that some groups never achieve the
level of cooperation and idea—sharing that is necessary to learn from group
problem-solving. Specifically, Euro-American children sometimes need specific
instruction in order to coordinate the leadership and followership functions of
task-facilitation, helping others, and asking for help. Ellis and Gauvain (1992)
compared pairs of Navajo and Euro-American 9-year-olds who were asked to
teach a game to 7-year—olds. Pairs of Navajo 9-year—olds were more likely to
)Ulld on each other’s comments and collaborate in trying to teach the task to the
’-year-old student. Together they provided useful task information, remained
engaged in the task, and observed their partners. In contrast, European
rmerican 9—year-olds tended to offer parallel and unrelated lines of instruction to
-year-old students. These helpers did not cooperate together to provide
struction.

A brief review of recent work on collaborative learning shows that there
a many books and articles on how to encourage collaborative learning so that
terican children can benefit from group learning experiences. The literature

ers to fostering environments of collaborative learning. Perhaps the most

29

 

 

important outcc
refers to as gro
members accei
assessment. or
group members

Brice (1S
detailed linguis
leadership pattr
acceptance of:
productively. T
consequently g
task-disruptive
leader, this gro

stable leadersh

2-5 Leaders

Changing

Leaders
are involved in
conflict managr
folltfation of a f

Znaniecki (192

‘ ' - as if
aCthities

 

important outcome in cooperative learning groups would be what Misumi (1985)
refers to as group maintenance leadership in the learning environment. Group
members accept help and give help, and members can accept a peer’s criticism,
assessment, or suggestion. Members can disagree without dismissing other
group members.

Brice (1998) studied two high school focused-discussion groups in a
detailed linguistic analysis. One of the groups was able to form a stable
leadership pattern which allowed them to focus on the discussion tasks. The
acceptance of a group leader allowed the group to function cooperatively and
productively. The other group never formed around a stable leader, and
consequently group members continuously challenged for dominance, which was
task-disruptive and eventually was disruptive to group maintenance. Without a
leader, this group rarely had the kinds of cooperative learning experiences that

stable leadership allowed the other group to have.

2.5 Leadership Processes In Play: Peer Group Culture Making And
Changing

Leaders not only organize tasks and help maintain group cohesion, they
ire involved in making and changing group cultures and developing methods of
onflict management (Heifetz, 1994). Some writers have argued that the
irmation of a functional group requires the emergence of group institutions.

taniecki (1925) states:

. . . as the group is formed and its makers become its members [its]
activities are normatively standardized and systematized until they
come to be regarded as group institutions, the whole system of

30

 

 

which co
function .
partrcrpa'
cafegorre
It is the f
the defining tea
organized and s
powerful way in
groups. Under
resolution invoh
their society ant
distributed roles
helping peer grr
One can
What conflict m
overtime? Is tl
leaders help gn
5"le research .
which involves 1
groups to chans
The next
psychological S“
are laken from .

natural Sailings

 

which constitutes the dynamic organization of the group. The

function of each member consists in his [or her] obligatory

participation in group institutions: functions vary for the different

categories of members. (p. 208)

It is the formation and standardization over time of group activities that is
the defining feature of a functional group. Local play activities, as they are
organized and standardized by group members over time, can be seen as a
powerful way in which children learn to create and participate in functional
groups. Understood as civic work (Boyte and Kari, 1996), play and the conflict
resolution involved can be viewed as the child group’s collective work in making
their society and co-constructing things of lasting value: symbolic artifacts,
distributed roles, and methods of conflict resolution. Child leaders are observed
telping peer groups to create these local activities.

One can ask in longitudinal research: What is created by this group?

'Vhat conflict management strategies does this group use, and do these change
ver time? Is there a problem that the group attempts to resolve over time? Do
aders help groups choose between alternative values or meanings over time?
uch research questions address the nature of adaptive work (Heifetz, 1994)

ich involves maintaining cultural practices and relations and also helping
cups to change cultural practices in adaptive ways.

The next two sections give examples from sociolinguistics and

ychological studies of peer group co—creation. The studies chosen for review
3 taken from two different literatures: ( 1) children’s group play and games in

tural settings and (2) peer conflict negotiation interventions. These literatures

31

 

 

 

provide infonna
group cu ltu re-rr

In some
created by the r
1996) describe:
Thus, parts of ti
culture-making

In other i
the expressed l
(Wilcox, 1996) i
participants anc
Kidsville town c
of the court par

mmemr
in the peer play
demonstrate th.
Change peer cu

Peer pla-
aclivities has tr:
areve for the d,
children to 00—0
methods of Don

who Childhoo‘

 

provide information (usually incidentally) about leadership processes in peer
group culture-making.

In some ways the Kidsville Court activity is a complex “game with rules”
created by the children in their spare time. The pilot study on this data (Wilcox,
1996) described the Kidsville Court as “a sustained children’s play activity.”
Thus, parts of the literature on play and games are relevant to the study of
culture—making and culture-changing in the Kidsville Court.

In other ways, the Kidsville Court is clearly a children’s court of law with
the expressed purpose of settling conflicts. One of the pilot study findings
(Wilcox, 1996) was that decisions of the Kidsville Court were binding on the
participants and that the court’s processes were taken very seriously by the
(idsville town citizens, as a court of law would be. The very serious behaviors
of the court participants do not resemble those of persons who are "playing.”

In the following pages, this review will sum up some of the major findings
the peer play literature and in the peer conflict intervention literature that
emonstrate the ways in which peer group leaders act to create, maintain, and
ange peer cultures.

Peer play is a context in which mutual co-creation of childhood peer group
tivities has traditionally been studied. Piaget (1962) and Vygotsky (1967) both
gue for the developmental importance of play because play activities allow
rildren to co-construct social rules, experiment with social roles, and develop
ethods of conflict resolution among themselves. The task of creating society

:hin childhood peer groups is multi-faceted, and it also changes over the

32

 

 

course of Child
maintain such I
leadership stru'
Vygotsk'
transformations
play. the broorr
shared pretend
order to make I
other are probe
Research in on
their real relatir
transformations
that children er
reality (Brether
Gilhn, 1986). T
and it is not sur
SOphisticated p
Garvey. 1982:
implies that wit
glOUP could no
Piaget (

middle child hOI

 

course of child development. It is possible that the group’s ability to form and
maintain such play and game activities is dependant upon the formation of
leadership structures, a possibility that is briefly outlined here.

Vygotsky (1967) focuses on the importance of early childhood symbolic
transformations of objects and of the self into something else. In solitary pretend
play, the broomstick can become a horse and the child can become a cowboy; in
shared pretend play children actively negotiate these symbolic transformations in
order to make play scenarios together. Symbolic transformations of self and
other are probably a key element in the ability to understand role-taking.
Research in pretend play communications shows that children must maintain
their real relationships, while at the same time engaging in cooperative symbolic
transformations, such as pretending to be a teacher or fireman. This requires
that children engage in extensive negotiations as they co-create pretend play
reality (Bretherton, 1986; Gearhart, 1979; Garvey, 1982; Schwartzman, 1976,
Giffin, 1986). The process of pretend play negotiation requires political finesse,

nd it is not surprising that leaders in the child group are often leaders in the
ophisticated processes of pretend play negotiations, as well (Fein, 1981;
arvey, 1982; Howes, Unger and Matheson, 1992; Schwartzman, 1976). This
plies that without leaders to help the coordination of group symbolic play, the
roup could not enact complex pretend play activities.
Piaget ( 1962) emphasizes rule play in middle childhood, arguing that in

iddle childhood, through games with peers, the child begins to see social rules

33

 

 

 

as negotiable tl
the following we
. . . the r
called rn
preserve
boys...

law . . . .

If this is
Piaget h

and moral rules
Piaget's staterr
altering authori'
Opportunities tc
possible by lea
Piaget’s
developmental
lEifermann, 19
rules and play
FOT example, a
light-Green Us
“gill legalistic
defense Can be

move, New

was goal direct

 

as negotiable through playing games with peers. Piaget (1962) expresses this in

the following way:

. . . the rules of the game of marbles are handed down, just like so-
called moral realities, from one generation to another, and are

preserved solely by the respect that is felt for them . . . . The little
boys . . . are gradually trained by the older ones in respect for the
law . . . . As to the older ones, it is in their power to alter the rules.

If this is not "morality," then where does morality begin? (p. 17 ).

Piaget has been criticized for blurring the boundaries between game rules
and moral rules (Turiel, 1983; Gilligan, 1982). However, one can interpret
Piaget's statement at a deeper level: that children practice rule-using and rule-
altering authority while negotiating game rules (Kurtines, 1987). Again, such
opportunities to engage in rule-using and rule-changing activities are made
possible by leadership structures of the child group.

Piaget’s work on games with rules has not been followed up by child
evelopmental psychologists, except for a study confirming his stages of play
Eifermann, 1971). However, anthropological studies have shown that game
ules and play negotiations can provide practice in legal-argumentative skills.
or example, an ethnographic study of dispute settlement in the game of "Red
ight-Green Light" (Von Gloscoe, 1980) found that children's argumentation was
ighly legalistic. If accused of moving during the "no-go" condition, the player's

fense can be expressed in the following paradigm: "I didn't move. Ifl did
ove, it wasn't goal directed. If it was goal directed, it wasn't intentional. And if it

3 goal directed and intentional, you didn't see me." (p. 229).

34

 

 

 

Lancy l 1
analyzed the re
skills necessan
Talking Matter
and family rela‘
participate in tt
witness. elder.
memory of pas
erlle childrer
telling short str
hostile audienr
use of dramati
defending the

involve memo
Resear
C0-Constructic
arllllmentatior
Positions. Su
Corsaro (199;
that he Was 0
Little [3
Posrtiv.
childre
CUliure

llee frr
develc

 

Lancy (1974, 1975, 1976a, and 1976b), cited by Schwartzman (1978),
analyzed the relationship between erlle children's language games and the
skills necessary in village court appearances (called the Talking Matter). The
Talking Matter is a serious public court event, affecting wealth, prestige, marriage
and family relations. All adults (and some adolescents) are required to
participate in these court appearances at some time -— as plaintiff, defendant,
witness, elder, or judge. Talking Matter requires complex skills, verbal fluency,
memory of past events, and ability to use several kinds of speech events; and
erlle children’s language games clearly hone legal-argumentative skills. In
telling short stories (mini-pele), children practice verbal agility in the face of a
hostile audience; longer stories (pole-yee) require holding audience attention by
use of dramatic techniques; riddles (sia—polo) require remembering evidence and
defending the rationale for one’s position; and verbal memory games (cologne)
involve memorization of proverbs.

Research in many American and European school groups has shown that
co-construction of a peer society frequently requires complex forms of practical

rgumentation in which children can advocate for themselves and justify their
ositions. Such justifications can be evaluated by peers on the basis of merit.
orsaro (1992) notes that as he observed and studied children’s play, he found
hat he was observing “collective, communal, and cultural processes.” (p. 160).
Little by little, I began to see that l was not simply studying the
positive effects of peer interaction but also was documenting the
children’s creative production of and participation in a shared peer
culture . . . . Theories of children’s social development must break

free from the individualistic doctrine that regards social
development solely as the child’s private internalization of adult

35

 

 

skills am
through
become
contrnuo
To creat
resolution. Ont
among peers is
(Rubin. et. al..
conflicts during
in the safety of
experiment wit
through the ex
2.3 and 2.4, pr
leadership.
The abr
relationship be
differentiated r
contested me,
provide group
(Usually multit
he best Way t
decisions. Cr
”egotiation, a

aCllVities. Rc

 

 

skills and knowledge . . . children enter into a social nexus and,

through interaction with others, establish social understandings that

become fundamental social knowledge on which they build

continuously. (p.161).

To create a shared peer culture may require methods of conflict
resolution. One neo-Piagetian view is that opportunity for conflict resolution
among peers is the major developmental factor in peer group play or games
(Rubin, et. al., 1982). Conflicts are real, and they disrupt play. Outcomes of
conflicts during play are also real but usually not permanent or damaging. Thus,
in the safety of play, child groups have the opportunity, and motivation to
experiment with dispute resolution artifacts and to create their own peer culture
through the exercise of dispute resolution. As has been discussed in sections
2.3 and 2.4, processes of conflict resolution may take the form of peer group
leadership.

The above studies would indicate that in successful peer groups the
relationship between group members and group leaders is one of shared but
differentiated responsibilities and mutually negotiated, although sometimes hotly
contested meanings. Leaders are not simple task managers, nor do they simply
provide group coherence by helping and providing feedback to others. Leaders
(usually multiple leaders) are influential contributors to ongoing dialogues about
the best way to do things, especially when the group must make important
decisions. Child leaders are influential participants in persuasive dialogue,
negotiation, argument, and decision-making about how to best structure

activities. Rogoff (1998) indicates that the need to explain or justify oneself

36

 

 

indicates that 0
Absence of Opt

peer group sell

2.6 Civic LE

Sometit
alternative voic
however. are a
learning envirc
exclude and at

A recen
preadolescent
that over a thrt
used very simi
GIOUp children
astonishingly 5
differences be
behaviors, agt
Adler, 1992), t
the encourage

members four
Clique lead er t
members. Mt

target beCauS

 

 

indicates that others also have power to refuse, refute, or make decisions.
Absence of open debate is problematic in authoritarian governments and in some

peer group settings, such as cliques and gangs (Adler and Adler, 1998).

2.6 Civic Leadership Among Peers: Serious Conflict Negotiation

Sometimes skillful peer group members use their power to exclude
alternative voices and to encourage abuse against other children. Educators,
however, are assigned the task of providing a safe, productive, and collaborative
learning environment for afl children, including those whom peer cliques tend to
exclude and abuse.

A recent longitudinal ethnographic study (Adler and Adler, 1998) of
preadolescent cliques in a middle- to upper-class American school setting found
that over a three-year period of study, cliques of third, fourth, and fifth graders
used very similar methods of classifying clique members, and of treating out-
group children and less powerful clique members. Cliques techniques were
astonishingly similar between groups and also over time despite other
differences between cliques especially those of masculine- and feminine—typical
behaviors, age, and attitudes toward school achievement (Adler, Kless and
Adler, 1992). One of the most disturbing features of clique-leader’s behavior was
the encouragement of verbal abuse against less powerful others. Clique
members found sport in harassing low-status out-group children because the
clique leader did so. Clique members also picked on less powerful clique
members. Members would passively accept this, even if a best friend was the

target because of fear that the abuse would be turned on them.

37

 

 

Adler an
specifically ass
exclusive deftn
and differential
(cohesion and
application, frie
included out-gt
stigmatization.
leaders indical
could be subtlt
authors conclt

{Clique}
or the c
inheren
ability t.
Collecting lont
Adler (1998) v
What can be it
Observed in a
There I
Often With the

moral develot

It Will be erg”

appropn‘ate u

 

Adler and Adler (1998) conclude that there are a set of political dynamics
specifically associated with cliques, that included boundary maintenance and
exclusive definitions of membership, a hierarchy of popularity (status stratification
and differential power), and relations between in-groups and out-groups
(cohesion and integration). Techniques of inclusion included recruitment,
application, friendship realignment, and ingratiation. Techniques of exclusion
included out-group subjugation, in-group subjugation, compliance, and
stigmatization. Examples from interviews with clique members and clique
leaders indicated that the methods of using these political moves and tactics
could be subtle, covert, and manipulative on the parts of the group leaders. The
authors conclude that:

[Clique] leaders maintain their power not through attractive qualities

or the contributions they can offer the group, but through their

inherent grasp of the subtleties of [political] dynamics and their

ability to successfully manipulate them. (p. 73).

ollecting longitudinal ethnographic data across groups and over time, Adler and
dler (1998) were able to look below the surface of what people claim to do,

hat can be measured in brief observations of public behavior, and what can be
bserved in a laboratory.

There have been many programs designed to promote changes in groups,

ften with the goal of creating more democratic group processes, promoting the
oral development of individuals, or reducing violence and destructive conflicts.

will be argued here that effective intervention programs usually promote

propriate uses of peer leadership, although this may not be a stated goal or a

38

 

 

perceived metl'
groups had to a
enforcing rules
Higgens (1987
was less to esc
and isolation or
(1997) states t'
lndividu
group. t
They mu
themsel
coopere
would n
The above sta
development c
Peer m
management
children can It
studies (Johns
Jbbnson and _
l(fund that bet
Conflicts throt;
Conflict mane]
Studies

ploglams, hat

 

oerceived method of intervention. Kohlberg and Higgins (1987) found that peer
groups had to actively take responsibility for their member's welfare, including
enforcing rules by serving in student discipline committees. Kohlberg and
Higgens (1987) states that the appeal of the democratic community of students
was less to escape the authority of adults, but “to escape the theft, intimidation,
and isolation created in the peer world of cliques and gangs.” (p.125) Reed
(1997) states that in what Kohlberg has termed “just communities”:
Individuals began to articulate their concern as members of the
group, but they [more importantly] began to reason as a group.
They moved from heteronomous reasoning in which they conceived
themselves as subjects of an external authority to autonomous,
COOperative reasoning . . . ruling themselves as a community
would rule itself. (p. 210).
The above statement suggests that healthy group self-rule requires the
development of civic leadership within the group.
Peer mediation programs are more modern examples of peer conflict
anagement intervention. The basic premise of peer mediation programs is that
hildren can learn to mediate between peers during conflict situations. Some
tudies (Johnson and Johnson, 1996; Johnson and Johnson, 1994; Johnson,
ohnson and Dudley, 1995; Johnson, Johnson, Dudley, and Acikgoz, 1994) have
und that before training in mediation, students did not know how to resolve
onflicts through negotiation, and teachers complained of being overwhelmed by
nflict management demands.

Studies of interventions, such as “just community” and peer mediation

ograms, have not systematically examined the group developmental processes

39

 

 

by which dispu
used (or not us
Hogan (1981: '
model. and the
equal, “just cor
that are requirt
leadership, wh
a theoretical is
not report on t
of leadership r
lnterver

peer leaders c
that peer conf
communities i
negotiators thi

Chanties as le

Years, the aut

le|ated differe

way they deal

Dbdple With it

authors Cohcl

leadership tra

that Deer mEc

 

by which dispute resolution artifacts are established, accepted, changed and
used (or not used) by peer communities during the intervention. Emler and
Hogan (1981; 1991) for example, are critical of Kohlberg’s (1981) theoretical
model, and they argue that by emphasizing the ideal that all participants are
equal, “just community” interventions downplay the social realities of leadership
that are required to bring about positive changes in any community. Specifically,
leadership, whether provided by students or staff, is not usually considered to be
a theoretical factor in peer group intervention programs. Research reviews do
not report on the development of leadership during the intervention, although lack
of leadership may be mentioned as a reason for the failure of an intervention.
Intervention researchers rarely study the development of individuals as
peer leaders during intervention programs. Trela and Conley (1997) point out
that peer conflict negotiators may have to act as leaders in their school
communities in order to be effective, and that through their work as conflict
negotiators these students could be expected to experience developmental
changes as leaders. In their study of student peer mediators, aged 15 to 22
years, the authors found that peer group mediators reported that they felt they
related differently with their peers, listened to both sides of a story, changed the
ay they dealt with personal conflict, thought more independently, and surprised
eople with their mediation skills after they had become peer mediators. The
uthors concluded that many aspects of peer mediation are closely related to
adership traits (Wyach, 1992; Rost, 1991). Trela and Conley (1997) point out

at peer mediators explain their development in relational terms, and they

40

 

 

describe their r
including impTc
become more i

The abc
would indicate
influence the c

relationships v

2.7 Summ:
Rogoff

in child groups
(1) The
peo

effo

(2) We
otht

is c

are

(3) The

attt

fret

oth

ins

 

describe their mediation experiences as helping them to gain personal efficacy,
including improved ability to act in a responsible manner, be decisive, and
become more involved in leadership roles in their school and community.

The above research on leadership development among peer mediators
would indicate that peers, especially as leaders in their peer groups, can strongly
influence the development not only of the peer group, but of themselves and their

relationships with others.

2.7 Summary And Conclusions

Rogoff (1998) sums up the status of research on collaborative processes
in child groups:

(1) There has been little study of the social and cultural aspects of how
peOpIe determine the problems, goals, and means of their collaborative
efforts;

(2) We know little about collaboration when children and adults are in each
other’s presence without interaction as their agenda, when interaction
is controlled by children seeking assistance, or when groups of children
are not in the presence of adults.

(3) The dynamics of groups larger than the dyad have received little
attention. Even when larger groups have been studied, they are often
treated simply as collectives of more individuals, interacting with each
other as successive dyads rather than as integrated groups; there is

insufficient information regarding populations other than middle-class

41

 

 

 

Euro

bym

Leadersl
further study.
competencies
but also to too
adaptive chan
structures anc
leadership pra

This stt
culture-makin
setting are ce
there are a nr
devel0pment
about the dei
glOUDS. Sucl
hoW encultur.
illllmate. long

This p
t“touch the i
Changing. 1

444

 

 

European American groups, or in situations other than those devised

by middle-class European American researchers. (p.697).

Leadership is one feature of collaboration in child groups that warrants
further study. This review of the literature is meant to show not only the technical
competencies and abilities of child leaders as they use task management skills,
but also to focus on the ability of child leaders to coordinate group efforts toward
adaptive changes. Adaptive work sometimes requires that groups change their
structures and even re-organize their uses of power. This study is about
leadership practices as adaptive work in the creation of a children’s court of law.

This study of Kidsville Court holds promise as a study of enculturation and
culture-making within American school life. The students and the activities in this
setting are certainly recognizable as features of American culture. However,
there are a number of unique and possibly surprising features of peer group
development within the Kidsville Court setting that may provide food for thought
about the development of groups and of individual leader development within
groups. Such research allows psychologists to re-examine traditional views of
how enculturation and culture-making happen in American culture through an
intimate, longitudinal view of local culture-making.

This project is designed to study both individual and activity development
through the interrelated processes of enculturation, culture-making, and culture-
changing. The study of culture-making is illuminated throughout this review by

tudies of children’s peer group play and cooperative problem solving. Children’s

42

 

 

 

 

work within pe-
themselves an
different afford
themselves ar
the “same" fro
occupy differe
Leadership pc
persons in p0:
influence to al
achieved (Bru
It is cor
large, univers
would be no r
because all p
overwhelming
have to chant
apbpular apt
violence, drui
Programs or !
But 0L
Sllecific child
Sellings With

Harriszooo;

 

 

work within peer groups can be studied as children define and “make a place” for
themselves and others within peer group activities. Different activities have
different affordances and constraints for the ways that peOpIe can define
themselves and be defined by others. Furthermore, a specific peer activity is not
the “same” from the points of view of the various participants, since participants
occupy different “places” within the activity (Sui-Lan and Moghaddam, 1999).
Leadership positions within group activities are especially important, because

persons in positions of power within activities often have more authority or

 

influence to alter activities, and the practices by which the “meanings of self” are
achieved (Bruner, 1990).

It is common in news and governmental reports to refer to “cultures” as

 

large, universally held sets of beliefs and behaviors. If this were true, there
would be no reason to study specific peer group cultures, or their activities,
because all peer groups would essentially be the same. It would also be an
overwhelming task to try to intervene in peer group culture because one would
have to change large sets of beliefs in large segments of the population. This is
a popular approach taken by politicians to address widespread problems of
violence, drug abuse, and premarital sex, as is exemplified by “just say no”
programs or governmental attempts to control sex and violence on TV.
But outside-of—the—home child enculturation and culture-making, for
pecific children and groups of children, takes place in specific peer group
ettings with local ways of doing things and ways of belonging. (Harris, 1999;

arris 2000; Adler and Adler, 1998). These local ways are developed over time

43

 

 

 

by peer group
time through p
enculturation i
development i
cultures and ti
illustrates this
school activity
. . . my
“mesoc

scale it
studies
probler
macroc
peasar
researr
activitit
ecolog
added]

The pr
activity and tr
deSiElned to c
enforce their
adult institutit
needs and m
Study Of Clqu
Way 0i l00kin

common in s

View Of Deer

 

by peer group members, and they are passed on or changed over the course of
time through peer group processes. Viewing peer group culture-making and
enculturation in this local way, the prOper unit of study for peer group
development is not the statistically average individual child, but local peer group
cultures and the children’s co-construction of their activities. Cole (1995)
illustrates this level of study in the following description of his study of an after-
school activity called “The Fifth Dimension”:
. my colleagues and l have adopted what might be called a
“mesoqenetic” approach to cultural mediation, one whose time
scale falls between the microgenetic scale employed in classical
studies, where [individual] children are confronted with a difficult
problem and their use of new mediation means is studied, and the
macrogenetic scale implied by the historical difference between
peasant and industrialized societies. The basic strategy for this
research [on The Fifth Dimension] has been to create a system of
activities with its own standing rules, artifacts, social roles, and

ecological setting, that is its own culture . . . . (p. 194) [emphasis
added]

The proposed study of the Kidsville Court is of a child—created court
activity and the child leaders (judges and lawyers) of that court. The study is
designed to observe the ways in which court officials create, maintain, and

enforce their own town traditions. The children are free to “import” aspects of

 

dult institutions into their court, but they make these choices based on their own
eeds and motivations subject to the approval of other peers. The ethnographic
tudy of cliques (Adler and Adler, 1998) reviewed in this chapter illuminates one
ay of looking at peer group enforcement in a sub-cultural setting that is

mmon in schools and neighborhoods. The Kidsville Court provides a different

ew of peer group development in a very different sub-cultural setting.

44

 

 

 

 

Such dt
development 2
methodologies
study child lea

at the mesoge

 

 

Such detailed longitudinal studies can provide ways to see peer group
development and processes and illuminate potential problems with traditional
methodologies of developmental study. This study provides an opportunity to

study child leadership in a unique setting through use of longitudinal data aimed

at the mesogenetic time scale.

45

 

 

 

3.1 Purpos

The pill
Court into a d:
preliminary ar
the pilot study
development
the pilot study
court participz
evidence that
score highly i

1933).

3-2 Settin

The St
Who ranged i
1985. The sc
declined sud
Closed for fin
than TESearc

The s.

 

Chapter Three: Pilot Study

3.1 Purpose

The pilot study was undertaken to organize videotape of the Kidsville

Court into a data base, to prepare transcripts from the videotapes, and to make a
preliminary analysis of the Kidsville Court as an activity. The theoretical basis of
the pilot study was Piagetian, and the study attempted to delineate moral
development in the arguments of the Kidsville Court participants. The findings of
the pilot study were ambiguous in this respect, since the majority of arguments of
court participants were based on the legality of a specific behavior and concrete
evidence that the behavior occurred. Such legalistic reasoning does not usually
score highly in a model that is based on the need for abstract reasoning (Piaget,

1933).

3.2 Setting, Data, Analysis And Major Findings

The setting is a two—room privately-owned school with 15 to 20 students
NhO ranged in age from 6 to 12 years when the videotapes were made in early
I985. The school had previously had a much larger student body, but had
leclined suddenly due to economic recession in the 1980’s. The school was
:Iosed for financial reasons in 1988. The videotape was taken for purposes other
tan research, as is described later in this section.

The school was an unusual setting primarily because of the educational

hilosophy of its founder and director, Will. The director emphasized the “self-

 

46

 

 

 

appropriative I
Montessori l1!
Probably the r
environment ll
school power
via appropriat
guidance in tr
director taugh
and also of at
philosophy is

The tot
town created
school year, t
called Kidsvill
she brought if
children aske
divide their rc
Kidsville busy
retrial stores.

Some)
Dress to lTllnt
Parsonal curt

 

appropriative nature of the learning experience.” He also referred to the
Montessori (1965) principle of “freedom to learn in a prepared environment.”
Probably the most critical issue for the director was the preparation of a school
environment in which children self-govern. According to the philosophy of the
school power exists and is a normal part of social life. Learning to assert oneself
via appropriate use of power was considered to be basic to the self-concept, and
guidance in this area of life was considered to be of utmost importance. The
director taught that self-control is the basis of ethical conduct and self-concept,
and also of appropriate use of power. Further information on the school and its
philosophy is located in Appendix B.

The topic of this study is the Kidsville Court, an activity which was part of a
town created by the elementary school children. In the fall of the 1984—1985
school year, the older elementary school children began to organize their town,
called Kidsville, in their spare time. One child started the Kidsville bank when
she brought Monopoly money from home and began to distribute it. Several
children asked the director if they could use various pieces of unused furniture to
divide their room into private offices from which they could operate businesses.
(idsville businesses included performing clowns, office cleaners, art stores,
ental stores, hand-made toys, and decorative sticker sales.

Sometime in the fall of 1984 the older children used a rubber printing

ress to mint the first official Kidsville currency. When a younger child minted his
ersonal currency and began distributing it among his friends, a group of older

hildren formed the Kidsville Town Council and wrote the town’s first law, against

 

47

 

 

 

 

counterfeiting
first several rr
could become
court function
settle interper
I996; Wilcox

The pa
aged 6 to 12 1
school popula
ranged from t
development:
stressors suc
Oppositional-t

Teach
the time of th
three court tn'
an official roll
the tOWn and
lWIlcox, 199f
based. Althc
the “My. ll

The st

the last We r

 

counterfeiting. They created the Kidsville Court to enforce their law. Within the
first several months of the court’s existence, licensure was created to control who
could become bailiffs and lawyers. Eventually judges were also licensed. The
court functioned over the next four years to enforce law and order and also to
settle interpersonal and intergroup disputes among the town’s citizens (Wilcox,
1996; Wilcox and Beach, 1996).

The participants in this study are the students of the elementary school
aged 6 to 12 years old and their teachers. About half of the students in this
school population had educational disabilities. The students with disabilities
ranged from those having mild disabilities (ADHD, learning disabilities, mild
developmental disabilities) to children with histories of severe disability and
stressors such as histories of sexual and physical abuse, emotional impairments,
oppositional-defiant disorder, and autism.

Teachers were usually not involved in court trials as court officials during
:he time of this study, although there were exceptions. Specifically there were
'hree court trials during the time of this study in which a teacher was used to fill
an official role. Teachers usually participated in the court as private citizens of
he town and as defendants, plaintiffs, witnesses, advisors, or court observers.
Wilcox, 1996). The teachers also made the videotape on which this study is
ased. Although the director Will was an active contributor to the development of
re activity, this was not focused on in the pilot study.

The study was based on videotapes of court trials that were made during

e last five months of the 1984-1985 school year, which was the year in which

 

48

 

 

 

the Kidsville tor
includes 28 for
censured a Kic
took place fror
were culled frc
activities. lunc
was taken for
consent for ta
prior to the be
Videot:

to the recessi
beginning to 1
history of suc
starting a day
intensive test
1985, the sol
of social exp
the latte WOL
Persons invc
school in ex'
documentlnt
For tl

the Videotaj

 

the Kidsville town was created. Videotaped data in this six- month period
includes 28 formal court trials and one formal court action where a judge
censured a Kidsville lawyer for contempt of court. The court trials in this study
took place from early January to early June in 1985. These videotaped trials
were culled from a larger videotaped record of school life, including academic
activities, lunch, and daily interactions of Kidsville Town participants. Videotape

was taken for purposes other than research, as is described below. Written

 

consent for taping in the school was obtained from each child’s legal guardian
prior to the beginning of collection of videotape.
Videotaping was started in this school setting for practical reasons. Due

to the recession of the early 1980’s the school was losing enrollment and was

 

beginning to take children with serious behavioral problems. The director had a
history of success with difficult students and had discussed the possibility of
starting a day treatment program to prevent residential treatment for children in
intensive foster care with the local Department of Social Services. In January of
1985, the school began videotaping in order to be able to demonstrate the kinds
of social experience that this school environment promoted. It was expected that
the tape would be useful for foster parents, social workers, consultants and other
persons involved with these difficult cases, as well as for the purposes of the
school in exploring the possibility of an intensive day treatment program and
documenting the progress of children in that program.

For the pilot study (Wilcox, 1996; Wilcox and Beach, 1996), dialogue from

the videotapes was transcribed, the court participants were given pseudonyms,

49

 

 

the nature of each
participant’s roles i
interaction and the
small vignettes. Tl
researcher.

A major ftnt
court served to re
including interper:
disputes in which
disputes in which

The pilots
practices may he
the with was not

number of lawye
during the Coursi
significant llTCree
detense rePrese

adecrease neat

the nature of each conflict that motivated a court trial was determined, and
participant’s roles in each court trial were delineated. Also the sequences of
interaction and the main story lines of each court trial were summarized into
small vignettes. This information is in a data base, accessible only to the
researcher.

A major finding of the pilot study (Wilcox, 1996) was that the Kidsville
court served to resolve conflicts on a range of issues in the school community
including interpersonal disputes over property, Kidsville currency, or insult,
disputes in which the Kidsville Council acted to enforce the laws of the town, and
disputes in which the issue was unrelated to the Kidsville Town.

The pilot study (Wilcox, 1996) also showed that legal representation
practices may have undergone changes during this five month period, although
the topic was not explored in detail. Wilcox (1996) noted, for example, that the
number of lawyers per court trial and the use of defense attorneys increased
during the course of study, as can be seen in Table 1. The researcher noted a
significant increase over time in use of formal legal representation, especially

defense representation. Conversely, the incidence of self-representation showed

a decrease near the end of the school year.

50

 

Table 1. Use
Period 0f Januail

E

l‘°l°°l"l°’l°’l“l°’l”l"

__|.
O

:l

l

_.x
N

l

__L
(A)

l

_.\
A

l

.4
(Pl

l

(eye.

.4
(I)

let

M
O

l" le’l“

MM
m\l

3-3 Need Ft

The pilo
Kidsville Court
pamelpélhts, at
participants‘ T
court to solve i

Colin HOWet

"able 1. Uses of Legal Representation In Kidsville Court Trials During The
’eriod Of January 1985 To June 1985.

 

.3 Need For Additional Study

The pilot study provided an opportunity to locate the videotapes of
idsville Court trials, transcribe dialogue from the court trials, identify the
articipants, and understand the conflicts and arguments of the Kidsville Court
trticipants. The pilot study indicated that the children in the school used the
turt to solve conflicts, and it illuminated the types of conflicts addressed by the

rurt. However, the primary thrust of that study was based on Piagetian theory,

51

and was intendec
Kidsville Court UT
of changes in chi
Specifically. child
whether it could 1
Thus. the majorit
more from practi
setting, which we
moral reasoning
One obse
Chanties over tir
representation ll
could be produc
the activity, and

and assurance
This ave

KldSVllle Com l

 

Concerning leg:
trials are hot as
Opportunity to y
court’s ”598 of
deveiepment 0

argumentation

 

44

and was intended to be an analysis of children’s “moral” argumentation in

(idsville Court trials. Although the pilot study was able to show some evidence
of changes in children’s arguments over time, the results were ambiguous.
Specifically, children’s argumentation during court trials usually focused on
vhether it could be proven that a law in the Kidsville lawbook had been broken.
'hus, the majority of arguments during Kidsville Court trials seemed to result
tore from practical or legalistic concerns rather than moral concerns. Given the
etting, which was a children’s court of law, this makes sense, but the study of
toral reasoning in the children’s court arguments was difficult to determine.
One observation discussed in the pilot study was that there seemed to be
tanges over time in uses of legal representation. Given the importance of legal
epresentation in the larger society, it seemed that practices of representation
>uld be productively analyzed in greater detail to show change at the level of
e activity, and also to show changes over time in Kidsville leaders’ provision of
Id assurance of representation to others.

This avenue of thought provided the basis for the current study of the
:Isville Court representation practices and the Kidsville leaders’ actions
ncerning legal representation. It may be that specific arguments during court
als are not as important as the legal processes by which litigants are given an
portunity to have their side of the issue heard by the court. A study of the
urt’s uses of procedural justice could provide a better view into the
velopment of the court and its leaders than a study of individual

lumentation. Thus, the current study focuses on leadership behaviors of

52

Kidsville Court le
devel0pmental P'

can be observed

 

   

dsville Court leaders, changes in representation practices over time, and the
evelopmental processes by which changes in practices of legal representation

n be observed to take place.

53

 

 

There are
athlete“t 33"”
leadership as a V
and the situation
the anal)’Sis Of '6
demonstrate 595
activity can be a
defined in terms
The units
practices of the
#1, the actions <
leadership beha
activity, specific
can be seen to i
take on new res
The third
individual actior
During the trans

responsibility, it

 

Chapter Four: Research Questions

There are three research questions in this study, each of which addresses
a different aspect of the study of leadership. Although it is good to view
leadership as a whole entity that involves the interaction of leaders, followers,
and the situational aspects of the activity, for purposes of analysis in this study
:he analysis of leadership within the activity has to be cut in various ways to
demonstrate specific types of relationships. As is discussed in Chapter Five,
activity can be analyzed at various levels, but the units of analysis are always
defined in terms of the functions they fulfill.

The units of analysis in this study are the actions of individuals and the
tractices of the Kidsville Court activity. For purposes of the analysis of Question
51, the actions of individuals that are of interest are leadership and non-

adership behaviors. Question #2 focuses on the practices of the Kidsville Court
ctivity, specifically the practices of legal representation. This set of practices
n be seen to affect the behaviors of individuals in another way, where leaders
ke on new responsibilities to provide and assure legal representation to others.
The third unit of analysis in Question 3 is the interaction between
dividual action and the practices of legal representation within the activity.
uring the transition period one can see the leaders taking on a new kind of

sponsibility, that of changing their practices of legal representation. With

54

 

 

changes in practi
responsibilities tc
According
leadership. Lear
specific behavior
Chapter Seven c
individual leader
leaders as havin
leadership as ar
or circumstane
the analysis on
that leaders are
Practices of thei
rePresentation t
lepresented, H
assun'ng legal r
based definittt
help their com”
pleSSUres, In
allr0blem of Sc

as indiViduaLe" .

that SOITte peo‘

lead“ are set

 

ranges in practices of legal representation, leaders then have added
:sponsibilities to others in the provision and assurance of legal representation.
According to Heifetz (1994) there are three basic ways to define
adership. Leadership is often defined as a trait of individuals and studied as
>ecific behaviors that individual leaders exhibit. In one way, the description in
hapter Seven of leadership as individual behaviors and the identification of
dividual leaders could be seen as a way of viewing identified Kidsville Court
aders as having certain traits as leaders. In contrast to definitions of
adership as an individual trait, leadership can be defined as the social settings
"circumstances that ordinarily bring about leadership behaviors. Certainly
e analysis of changes in the practices of legal representation would indicate
at leaders are filling very similar roles in the ways that they reSpond to the
actices of their court. In the early period leaders frequently did not provide
presentation to others, nor did they make any assurance that defendants are
bresented. However, in the late period, leaders are consistent in providing and
suring legal representation to others. Heifetz (1994) argues for a values-
sed definition in which leadership is seen as a process by which individuals
lp their communities to evaluate values and to change in response to adaptive
assures. In addressing Question 3, one can see leaders as they struggle with
troblem of social inequity in the provision of legal resources. As a group and
individuals, the leaders are confronted with contradictions between the ways
tsome people are treated in court, resulting in unfair uses of the court. Child

ders are seen taking actions that help their community change.

55

 

 

The three
mwmmmad
activity in which
counting freq uer
of leadership as
behaviors are hi
clear that leader
Question #2 too
requirements of
assure legal rep
co-construct the
creation of new
the effects of in
understood by a
The follo

the Kidsville Cc

4'1 Is There
Kidsville can,

Changes In "1

Specific Other

Leaders

behaVlOrs that

 

The three questions of the Kidsville Court study out the data in different
ways to aim at different aspects of the relationship between leaders and the
activity in which they are leaders. By looking at leaders as individuals and
counting frequencies of their behaviors, one is able to confirm a traditional view
of leadership as a trait of the individual. Since the individual’s leadership
behaviors are highly determined by their roles in the court at the time, it is also
clear that leaders must conform their behaviors to those required by the activity.
Question #2 focuses on the place of the activity in defining and determining the
requirements of leaders, specifically whether they are required to provide and
assure legal representation to others. It is Question #3 that shows how leaders
co—construct their practices of legal representation, and thus have a hand in the
creation of new leadership requirements. In the end, it is impossible to separate
:he effects of individual versus the effects of the activity, although it can be
understood by analyzing the data in different ways to explore the relationship.

The following sections introduce the research questions of this study of

e Kidsville Court.

.1 Is There A Change From The Early Period To The Late Period Of The
idsville Court In Frequencies Of Leadership Behavior As Evidenced By
hanges In “Task Organization Leadership” And “Helping Or Evaluating

pecific Others”?

Leadership is perhaps most often studied as a set of certain organizational

ehaviors that can be used to identify individual leaders during a group activity.

56

 

 

Leaders are the
behaviors. It is a
specific groups r
behaviors as the
quantitative stuc
the Kidsville Cor
frequencies of It
To addre
delineates child
peer play group
leadership beha
literature. One
the formation ol
and Baker, 198
MacKinnon, 19;
Matheson, tgg;
Oihelping‘ guid
Sroufe, 2000: h
Stright 1991, F

Mackinhon‘ 19

 

Leaders are the persons who more frequently engage in these organizational
behaviors. It is also traditional to measure the frequencies of these behaviors in
specific groups or social settings in order to understand the nature of leadership
behaviors as they are influenced by social expectations. In this analysis the
quantitative study of specific leadership behaviors is used to identify leaders in
the Kidsville Court and also to determine if there are changes over time in the
frequencies of leadership behaviors in Kidsville Court trials.

To address this question, the researcher devised a coding scale that
delineates child and adolescent leadership behaviors that have been observed in
peer play groups, classrooms, and in mixed-age groups. Two dimensions of
leadership behavior are Identifiable based on the review of the leadership
literature. One dimension is that of organizing the structure of tasks and guiding
the formation of group opinions (French and Stright, 1991 ; French, Waas, Stright
and Baker, 1986; Fukada, Fukada and Hicks, 1997; Brody, Stoneman and

acKinnon, 1982; Bass, 1990; Rogoff, 1998; Fein, 1981; Howes, Unger and
atheson, 1992; Schwartzman, 1976). A second dimension of leadership is that
fhelping, guiding, tutoring, and evaluating others (Englund, Levy, Hyson and
roufe, 2000; Markell and Asher, 1984; LaFrenier and Sroufe, 1985; French and
tright, 1991; French, Waas, Stright and Baker, 1986; Brody, Stoneman and

IacKinnon, 1982; Rogoff, 1998; Fukada, Fukada and Hicks, 1997).

57

 

 

4,2 How Doe

Representation

Study of l
behavior of indiv
in which person:
also influenced -
1984; Roach, el
Goodnow, 1998
experience diffe
way that changt
expectations to

The secr
leadership as n
acting. This de

leadership prac
representation.
transcripts for E
representation
detail in Chapti

Change
analirsis hemL

inlllortant in m

 

 

—’—_ 7
l

L12 How Does The Nature And Quality Of The Practice Of Legal

Representation Change Over Time In The Kidsville Court?

Study of leadership as an individual trait is problematic because the
iehavior of individuals must be considered in relationship to the cultural activities
1 which persons are engaged. Although leaders influence activities, leaders are
lso influenced by the activities in which they are involved (Rogoff, 1998; Damon,

984; Roach, et. al., 1999; Katz and Kahn, 1978; Cole, 1995; Bugental and

 

ioodnow, 1998; Valsiner, 1987). As activities change significantly, leaders

xperience different opportunities for development. This analysis focuses on the

 

ay that changes in the court activity alter the requirements of leadership and

 

(pectations for leader behavior.

The second research question uses a qualitative approach and examines
adership as related to the social setting or circumstances in which the leader is
ting. This descriptive analysis measures changes over time in certain
adership practices of the Kidsville Court activity, specifically in practices of legal
iresentation. The researcher performed an analysis of Kidsville Court trial
nscripts for evidence of genesis and change in the nature of practices of legal
resentation using five basic principles of activity theory that are described in
ail in Chapter Five.

Change in practices of legal representation was chosen as the topic of this
lysis because it involves procedures that are considered to be extremely

ortant in modern American courts of law. Practices of legal representation

58

 

 

have been deve
preserve two m2
achance to pres
decision-makert
provision of leg:
accused of wror
legal help. Tl
nature of legal r
include expecta
others. Next, tt
time in impedirr
review of transc
Kidsville Court I
were built into t

rePresentation

4'3 What Pr
Practices 0f L

Individua| Lea

SOnte Cl
leadership argi

Induding Civic

 

have been developed over time in the larger American legal system in order to
preserve two major principles of procedural justice: both sides of the conflict have
a chance to present evidence and refute the evidence of the other side, and
ecision-maker(s) make decisions impartially based on the rule of law. The
rovision of legal representation is especially important for the person who is
ccused of wrong-doing because of the difficulty in defending oneself without
gal help. This analysis begins with evidence of changes over time in the
ature of legal representation practices of the Kidsville Court. Such practices
clude expectations that leaders will assure or provide legal representation for
thers. Next, the researcher studied the transcripts for evidence of change over
me in impediments to the provision of representation. It was determined in the
eview of transcripts that the provision of representation was difficult for the
idsville Court participants because of a number of limitations or restrictions that
ere built into their court practices. Impediments to the provision of

presentation were analyzed when they were noted.

3 What Processes Bring About The Observed Development In
'actices Of Legal Representation Of The Kidsville Court, And How Do

dividual Leaders Contribute To This Development?

Some critics of the traditional study child development and of child
dership argue that real-life leaders, including child peer leaders, contribute to
history of their communities through activity-making and activity-changing,

uding civic action (Boyte and Kari, 1996; Boccia, 1997; Smyth and Ross,

59

 

 

 

 

1999; Roach, et
Eder. 1990). T
based leadershi
persons who he
enduring chang
leading the Kids
children helping
Questior
happens” in the
Period of chang
deSi9lled to inc
between the d:
activity. In On
de"‘3'0l>rrlenta
This an
face in changi.
Ways in Which
arise 38 Wash
examination is
"ammo“ pen‘
represelitatioi

in praCtlceS o.

 

 

1999; Roach, et. al. 1999, Corsaro, 1992; Corsaro and Miller, 1992; Corsaro and
Eder, 1990). The third question comes closer to Heifetz’ definition of value-
based leadership. Leaders are viewed not only as task organizers but as
persons who help communities to address social problems and bring about
enduring change in important social practices. If the child leaders are truly
leading the Kidsville Court, then one would expect to see evidence of these
children helping the group to make needed changes in practices of the court.

Question #3 requires that the researcher qualitatively investigate “what

happens” in the relation between the activity and the individual leaders during the
period of change in the practices of legal representation. This question is
designed to inquire into dynamic developmental processes in the interaction
between the development of individual leaders and the development of the
activity. In order to do this, detailed temporal examination of the period of
developmental change was undertaken by the researcher.

This analysis focuses on the challenges that Kidsville Court participants
face in changing court representation practices, and the creative and adaptive
ways in which the court and its leaders respond to problematic situations that
arise as practices of legal representation undergo change. The result of this
examination is a qualitative historical account of events that take place during the
ransition period, with an emphasis on times when changes are made in

epresentation practices. Individual leaders are seen as contributors to changes

1 practices of representation during specific court trial events.

60

 

 

 

Che

Bugental
possibilities in tl
development. l
emerging popul
development. n

The stud
strong way to o
gloups. Bugen
practice approg
interactions the
observed by m
a Particular lint
Problems Often
the Concept of

ideas are inten
Common cultu
reSiStin9 quest

discussed, an:

ldeas.

TWO 99

 

Chapter Five: TheoreticallMethodologicat Framework

Bugental and Goodnow (1998) point out that there are exciting
possibilities in the study of enculturation and culture—making in child
devel0pment. Many of these directions for study are associated with the
emerging popularity of cultural-historical approaches to the study of child
development, models that highlight fluid change in groups and individuals.

The study of practical activity and everyday cultural practices provides a
strong way to observe relationships between the development of individuals and
groups. Bugental and Goodnow (1998) point out three reasons for the use of
practice approaches in research. First, such approaches focus on routine
interactions that are culturally relevant and that are enacted or commonly
observed by theparticipants, often without comment. Second, practices provide

particular link between actions and identity. Routine ways of acting or solving
roblems often affirm one’s identify and demonstrate changes in identity. Finally,
he concept of practice allows researchers to examine ways that actions and

eas are interrelated in the course of enculturation and culture-making.

ommon cultural practices can develop an inertia or momentum of their own,
sisting questioning or reflection. But everyday practice can also be questioned,
iscussed, and changed, resulting in changes in individual and cultural views and
eas.

Two generic approaches to cultural-historical research include models that

phasize negotiated meanings within groups, between individuals, and in larger

61

 

 

 

segments of the
in one party and
leadership in the
Chapter Seven :
activity can be u
Chapter Nine st
of the group in a

This char
this research sti
in individuals er
and change ove
qualities they dl

Processes will r

5-1 Defining

A numb:
tradition of Rus
through labor tl
place for them:
between the pr
We in Whicl

Leontei

activity: and he

 

 

egments of the society, and models that emphasize the ways in which change
one party and changes in the other are intrinsically inseparable. This study of
adership in the Kidsville Court uses both of these models of research. In
hapter Seven and Eight, this analysis focuses on the ways that changes in

tivity can be used to understand changes in individual leader behavior.

apter Nine shows how change in the activity is negotiated between members
the group in a brief span of time.

This chapter outlines the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of

3 research study. This study aims to understand complex interrelated changes
individuals and in an activity, using activity theory as a model. Leaders grow
d change over time, and organizations also change over time in the leadership
alities they demand of leaders. The interaction of these developmental

>cesses will mutually affect each other sometimes in unpredictable ways

Defining And Studying Activity.

A number of activity~theoretic approaches have evolved in the Marxist
lition of Russian psychology. ln Marxist philosophy and psychology, it is
ugh labor that individuals contribute to the creation of society and also find a
:e for themselves within that society. Activity provides the connection
leen the person’s labor, which is organized by participation in activities, and
ire in which activities are developed and changed over the course of time.

Leont’ev ( 1981) has produced an integrated psychological theory of

TV. and he defines activity as follows:

62

 

 

 

 

Act
corporal
level), it |
real func
objects.
reactions
transiorr

W
system v
without t
individue
to their lr

Analysis of acti
function of culti
accomplishmer
contribution to
(1986) calls thi
The sub
mmem
in them
In creat

aestheti
in the al

Creative self-a
SPecialized co
furihen‘ng the l
alohitect: the a
labor of others
lasing Value,

‘aWYET 0r judg

 

Activity is the nonadditive, molar unit of life for the material,
corporal subject. In a narrower sense (i.e., on the psychological
level), it is the unit of life that is mediated by mental reflection. The
real function of this unit is to orient the subject in the world of
objects. In other words, activity is not a reaction or an aggregate of
reactions, but a system with its own structure, its own internal
transformations, and its own development . . . .

With all its varied forms, the human individual’s activity is a
system within the system of social relations. It does not exist
without those relations . . . . It turns out that the activity of separate
individuals depends on their place in society, the conditions that fall
to their lot, and on idiosyncratic individual factors. (pp. 46—47)

alysis of activity allows researchers to study individual development as a
iction of cultural activity, the enactment and creation of cultural activity as an
complishment of collaborative labor of people over time, and the ways in which
ntribution to activity—creation influences individual development. Rubinshtein
986) calls this the principle of creative self-activity.

The subject is not only revealed and manifested in his actions and

in the acts of his creative self-activity; he is created and determined

in them . . . . The possibility of pedagogy rests on this alone . . . .

In creating his work of art, the artist creates himself and his own

aesthetic individuality in the process. The creator himself is created
in the act of creativity. [emphasis added] (pp. 15-16).

 

  
  
  
  
  
  

ative self-activity usually requires the coordination of many persons, whose
cialized contributions enrich not only themselves but also their society, thus
hering the history of civilization. Leont'ev (1981) uses the metaphor of the
itect: the architect’s blueprints are of little value without the goal-directed

r of others who share the collaborative purpose of creating something of
ing value. in the Kidsville Court, the goal-directed actions of an individual

er or judge further the co—construction of a court trial event, which is a

63

 

 

 

coherent unit w
time.

Wertsch (1
tennis used by
foreign to Amer

definitions of ar

1. Acti
based on the K
Kidsville Court
of the Kidsville

settling matters

2. Activ
analysis are an
intrinsic pr0per.
Giddens (1979'
example) are tt

following defini'

- - .take'
Practice:
diSCOUrS
actom, t
essentia

 

:rent unit within the larger process of creating the court activity over historical

Wertsch (1981) reviews several features of the concept of activity as this
1 is used by Leont’ev and others. He notes that these basic principles are
:ign to American psychologists, and thus require elaboration. The following

lnitions of activity are taken from Wertsch (1981).

1. Activities serve some purpose or purposes. For example, a pilot study
sed on the Kidsville Court data (Wilcox and Beach, 1996), demonstrated that
lsville Court activity served the functions of settling disputes between citizens
the Kidsville Town, enforcing laws of the Kidsville Council, and (occasionally)

ttling matters that came about in the school in general unrelated to Kidsville.

2. Activity can be analyzed at various levels, but the units used for
lysis are always defined in terms of the functions they fulfill, rather than by
insic properties. One level of analysis in this study is that of “practice.”
dens (1979) cited in Cole (1996) argues that practices (rather than roles, for

mple) are the basic constituents of the social system. Cole (1996) gives the

   
 

wing definition of social practice, taken from Taylor (1987, p. 53).

. . . taken-for-granted social reality [is] composed of social
practices, which provide the . . . foundation for community and
discourse. Meanings and norms are not just in the minds of the
actors, but are out there in the practices themselves . . . which are
essentially modes of social relations.

64

 

 

 

A second leve

conscious goal

3. Activit
the use of tools
systems. in a r
of discourse. T
judge who assr
decision basec
research pract'
provide legal re

“mediation.”

4. Activ
and the study
anall’sis. At tt
features of the
Vl’QOtsky's res

0f Practices 01

5. In t
societies 00m

°°nfli0t amoni

 

A second level of analysis used in this study is that of “action,” specifically

onscious goal-directed actions of individual Kidsville Court participants.

3. Activity is mediated. In physical labor, mediation takes place through

e use of tools. In thought, mediation takes place in the form of signs and sign
ystems. In a court of law, mediation is performed by people through the means

discourse. The Kidsville Court provides “third party mediation” in the form of a
dge who assures that disputants follow the rules of the court and renders a

cision based on the arguments presented in court (Wilcox, unpublished
search practicum, 1996). When Kidsville legal actors take actions to assure or
wide legal representation to others, they are providing a specific kind of

1ediation.”

4. Activity and the tools that mediate it evolve through social interaction,
d the study of activity often emphasizes development at historical levels of
alysis. At the cultural level, sign systems, tools, and social practices are
ltures of the evolution of activity. Historical analysis plays an important part in
gotsky’s research and is a central level of developmental analysis in this study

aractices of legal representation in the Kidsville Court.

5. In the tradition of dialectics, important developmental changes in
leties come about when basic contradictions in social practices result in

flict among social factions and a concomitant need for resolution. Such

65

 

 

 

 

resolution is oftr
practices and r
there is a basic
of participants t

and of their owr

These fi‘
Kidsville Court
elaboration, sir
relevant in Am
activity is centr
do not simply '
such as those
contribute to tr
their group to 5
“W of histr
devek)Dment c
reSp0nsib|e fOI
resolve a bash

Leaden
definition of le:
St“dll- As has

0f QTOup leads

 

esolution is often of a revolutionary nature, resulting in transformation of social
ractices and redistribution of resources. In this study of the Kidsville Court,

ere is a basic contradiction between the ideal of a legal system and the actions
fparticipants based on their growing awareness of the uses of such a system

nd of their own roles in it.

These five points provide the basis for a developmental analysis of the

idsville Court and its legal leaders. Point four above requires further
aboration, since historical development is generally not considered to be
levant in American psychology. In this study, the historical development of
:tivity is central to the definition and study of leadership. Kidsville Court leaders
2 not simply facilitate the group’s accomplishment of pre—determined tasks,
lCh as those assigned by a teacher or researcher. Leaders are persons who
ntribute to the historical development of their community, as such, they help
air group to settle conflicts, make decisions, and accomplish new tasks. This is
study of historical changes in a children’s court of law, specifically the
velopment of practices of legal representation, and of child leaders who are
ponsible for those changes. In this process, Kidsville Court leaders must
olve a basic contradiction in their practices of legal representation.

Leadership has not been the focus of activity theory research. Thus, the
nition of leadership must be taken from other sources for purposes of this
Iy. As has been noted in the literature review of this paper, most definitions

roup leadership “assume that leadership is centered in the person who

66

 

 

 

 

ccupies the leader position in a network of static roles.” (Fisher and Ellis, 1990;
avitt and Curtis, 1990). An alternative way of defining leadership is to focus on
adership functions in the group’s accomplishment of their activity. Barge and
irokawa (1989) conclude there is no one set of task and social functions unique
leadership because leadership involves actions that assist the group in
vercoming barriers to task achievement. It is an act performed by one or more
roup members that facilitates the group’s ability to accomplish tasks. (Barge and
irokawa, 1989) Such functional definitions shift the emphasis from the
dividual person to “clusters of communicative behaviors performed by multiple
oup members.” (Brice, 1998).

According to the principle of creative self activity, people are changed by
eir creations. Social practices are never complete; there are always new
“oblems needing new solutions. It is not clear, in fact, how one can study
adership in the absence of a significant social problem, and without
iportunities to improve the social practices of their communities, it is not clear
w persons can practice leadership.

In Kidsville, leaders struggle with contradictions in the court system that
y have created. During this study, they are seen, with the help of their
cher, determining the nature of the problem and taking action. The problem
t Kidsville Court leaders face is not new in legal history. Ideally, in the
erican legal system both sides of a dispute should have a chance to be heard
he court, in spite of differences in power between disputing parties; that is, a

rt trial should provide “equal treatment under the law.” Anyone should be

67

 

 

 

 

able to use the courts to seek justice, and everyone has the right to competent
legal advice if accused of a crime. Equal treatment under the law is rarely
achieved, but legal practices to support this ideal have developed through
historical and political processes. Some of the most important of these legal
practices are those assuring equal opportunities for representation.

As stated earlier, social practices are never finished. They continue to be
negotiated. In colonial America, Massachusetts, Virginia, South Carolina and
Connecticut all had laws forbidding anyone to plead for another person in court
for profit (Roth and Roth, 1989). This was considered to be an ideal, and in
Pennsylvania it was said that: “They have no lawyers. Everyone is to tell his own
case or some friend for him. . . . ’Tis a happy country.” (p. 49).

Although this may describe a form of Ut0pia, the modern American has a
much different perception of the right of the citizen to competent representation,
which continues to be disputed. For example, the Bush administration has
recently imprisoned people for months without legal representation or any due
process of law (Lewis, 2003; Powers, 2003; Weiser, 2003). In response to

buses of power, corrective actions are attempted. In the current American
ystem, advocacy groups, such as labor unions and human rights groups, often
orm and may take legal action against power groups resulting in new legal and
dvocative practices. In the final analysis, courts function to interpret the details
flaw and of individual rights which are re-assessed as new situations arise.
ocietal leaders make decisions, voice opposition, form advocacy groups, and

ke corrective actions (sometimes through the courts).

68

 

This study focuses on the micro-development of legal representation
practices in the Kidsville Court over a six-month period of time. Similar to the
larger legal system, the children’s court is seen in the process of evolution as
child leaders work out issues of individual rights in their court. Individual legal
leaders are seen as contributors to leadership functions of the group, as they
also are created by their contributions to the group history. The leadership
function of the group is not only to facilitate a predetermined task but to create

new tasks, define new processes, and decide what the group will do in the future.

5.2 Studying Developmental Crisis Periods In Temporal Detail.

The term “development” is used in this paper in a way that is consistent
with Vygotsky’s psychological theory. Learning and development are both ways
of describing change, and Vygotsky (1935) delineates three ways to

conceptualize the relationship between learning and deveIOpment (Voss, 1996):

  
  
  
  
  
  
   
 
  

(1) Hull-Spence learning theory views learning as an alternative expression for
development: development is simply made up of “bits of learning.” (2) Piagetian
theory focuses on development as a prerequisite for learning: certain intellectual
operations must mature before learning based on those operations can take
place. (3) Vygotsky argues that learning and development form a unity in which
“preperly organized learning results in development and sets in motion a variety
fdevelopmental processes that would be impossible apart from learning.”

033, 1996). Vygotsky (1978) emphasizes the “zone of proximal development,”
he distance between the child’s current level of development and development

hat can be reached in collaboration with others.

69

 

Valsiner (1987, 1994) argues that development takes place "in times of
e-differentiation of the previous forms and during the emergence of the novel
nes" (Valsiner, 1987, p. 53). For this reason, developmental research should
:udy moving, changing entities as they engage in interaction. The study of
evelopment should specifically focus on periods during which qualitatively new
evelopmental forms emerge. Valsiner (1987) uses the following table to
istinguish between developmental and non-developmental aspects of

sychological processes and outcomes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

able 2. Developmental And Non-Developmental Aspects Of Psychological
tudy.
Outcomes ]
Static j Dynamic l
Static Non—developmental LNon-developmental
1.1 1.2
Processes Dynamic Developmental L Developmental
2.1 2.2

 

 

Cell 1.1 can be viewed as a psychological process that operates like a
nple computer program. The same algorithm is used each time to produce the
me result, and there is no opportunity for development.

Cell 1.2 is exemplified by Chomsky’s theory of language generation; the
eory focuses on the creative outcomes of language generation, but the
)duction m is hypothesized as an invariable, fixed, genetically-

ermined “language-generation mechanism.” Valsiner argues that in a similar

research in the field of child developmental psychology often focuses on

 

ic descriptions of outcomes, without attempting to study dynamic and

70

 

 

daptive developmental processes. Some of the most obvious examples are
evelopmental models that use factor analysis to predict certain behaviors,
ttitudes, or some other variable from combinations of genetic predisposition,
arental attitude, childhood peer experiences, early success in school, parental

ivorce, maternal depression, or similar variables. Such methodologies cannot
apture dynamic developmental processes as these emerge over time.

Valsiner (1987) argues that developmental methodologies must capture
nd explore the temporal and changing nature of developmental adaptation:

. . . . developmental research has its goal to adequately represent
the reality of the generation process . . . . Instead of reaching
satisfaction in finding a formal system that accurately describes all
the possible outcomes of a productive (i.e., outcome-generating)
psychological process, the goal of developmental research is to
describe all of the possible versions of the time-dependent
(sequential) structure of the process itself — even in cases when the
process produces in some sense ‘deficient’ outcomes.
Furthermore, developmental research includes the option that the
set of different versions of the process is not finite, and that new
versions of the process can emerge in the course of development.

[emphasis in original] (p. 122).

 

Piaget’s theory is an example of cell 2.1, in which the processes of
velopment are considered to be dynamic (assimilation, accommodation and
tamic equilibration), but the outcomes are studied as sta—tile irreversible
ges. Excessive emphasis on static, invariant stages draws attention away
n Piaget’s theory of dynamic developmental processes, specifically . . the
e that assimilation and accommodation interdependent/y play in the
anism’s process of adaptation to its environment” (Valsiner, 1987, p. 56).

siner argues that "development of any kind . . . is an open-systemic

71

 

 

 

phenomenon in which novelty is constantly being created.” (p.56). Even if

developmental outcomes can be described as pre-determined stages,
evelopmental study should focus on the dynamic and often unique processes
y which new forms emerge.

Cell 2.2 represents a dynamically changing process related to dynamically
hanging outcomes. For example, when the child learns to speak, this is an
utcome of certain kinds of learning. Once signs become a part of the child’s
xicon, the child’s action is transformed qualitatively, and use of signs becomes
means to reorganize cognitive processes (Luria, 1979). Thus, “an outcome of
learning process (use of signs) has now fed into that process and changed it

ualitatively, affording the production of new outcomes.” (Valsiner, 1987, p. 5).
nother example is the qualitative change that can take place in a culture with
e introduction of literacy. When important cultural texts are preserved through
e introduction of writing technologies, oral retelling and memorization become
as important, and high level memory skills are no longer needed to preserve
(ts; these skills are replaced by the limited memory skills observed in modern
lustrialized societies (Vygotsky and Luria, 1993; cited by Valsiner, 1987).
Valsiner (1987) argues that a powerful way to study child development as
iresented in cell 2.2, is for researchers to undertake the study of the joint
istruction of the psychological system of the developing person by him/herself
I the goal-oriented “social others” who provide the person with social
Igestions. This process is goal-oriented and goal-constructing as participants

up, try to attain, replace, or abandon their goals. Social knowledge and

72

 

 

values are developed, maintained, learned, and changed through the dynamic
interactions of groups and individuals. Individual development presents the
potential for many life courses, out of which the person’s unique and idiosyncratic
life course is jointly constructed by the self and others.

All developmental theories, including those of Freud, Erickson, Piaget, and
Vygotsky view developmental change as taking place during periods of crisis or
conflict. Valsiner argues that it is useful to study crisis periods or “bifurcation
points” during which the person negotiates with his/her own self-constraints and
other’s constraining suggestions. The result is the person’s “next step into the
future,” which actualizes only some of many possibilities. The same could be
said for the developmental crisis points of group activities, organizations, and
cultures; there are times when events happen, decisions must be made, or new
technologies are introduced. History is changed or group values are altered,
after which periods of relative stability can be seen. Developmental study ideally
captures these developmental crisis periods for analysis, to examine how groups
and individuals chose their next steps into the future. Thus, Valsiner argues that

developmental study should use a microgenetic research methodology to

 

 

analyze developmental crisis periods in temporal (longitudinal) detail in order to
view processes of development as they take place.

This research study is designed to address the dynamic developmental
relationship between individuals and an activity, considering both as

developmental entities with their own unique, but interrelated courses of

  

evelopment. The approach taken is a longitudinal study of the Kidsville Court

73

 

 

 

 

 

 

(specifically its practices of legal representation) and individual leaders (the

Kidsville Court officials), with a focus on crisis periods or bifurcation points.

 

 

74

 

Chapter Six: Study Methods

Leadership is a complex topic because it requires an analysis of several
different kinds of tasks that groups may be performing. The three questions of
this study are designed to focus on different aspects of the relationship between
leader development and activity development. This introduction to the methods
provides an overview of each of the research questions as they relate to the
chapters that follow.

Chapter Seven describes a quantitative analysis based on Question #1: Is
there a change from the early period to the late period of the Kidsville Court in
frequencies of leadership behaviors as evidenced by changes in “task
organization Ieadership” and “helping or evaluating specific others”? This is a
descriptive study of changes over time in frequencies of leadership behaviors
and non-leadership behaviors of participants in court trials.

For the purpose of analyzing the leadership behaviors of individual
Kidsville Court leaders, the researcher devised a rating scale of leadership and
non-leadership behaviors. This scale was used to code behaviors in five court
trials from the early period and five court trials from the late period of the Kidsville
Court. The descriptive statistical analysis provides a description of changes in
requencies of leadership behaviors in the Kidsville Court over time, and it allows
he researcher to identify four child leaders of the Kidsville Court on the basis of
heir providing the functions of task organization and helping and evaluating

thers. This analysis demonstrates that although leaders are the persons who

75

 

 

 

most frequently perform these functions for the court activity, their participation is
clearly constrained by the activity itself, especially by the provision of specific
role requirements that individuals fulfill.

Chapter Eight describes a qualitative analysis based on Question #2:
How does the nature and quality of the practice of legal representation change
over time in the Kidsville Court? The analysis of Question #2 provides
information about one aspect of leadership development in the Kidsville Court
activity, namely, change over time in practices of legal representation that can be
observed in the court’s provision or assurance of representation. This chapter
provides a descriptive analysis of the deveIOpment of the Kidsville Court activity
over time. The analysis focuses on the way that changes in activity can alter
leadership requirements in the activity and expectations for leader behavior.

As described in Chapter Five, there are several basic points that guide this

study of activity:

(1) Activities serve some purpose or purposes. Wilcox and Beach (1996)
emonstrated that Kidsville Court activity served the functions of settling disputes
nd enforcing laws in the Kidsville Town.

(2) Activity can be analyzed at various levels, but analyses are always
efined in terms of the functions they fulfill. One level of analysis used in this

tudy is that of action, specifically goal-directed actions of individual court
articipants. A second level is that of practice, specifically the practice of legal

presentation.

76

 

 

(3) Activity is mediated by tools or symbolic artifacts. PeOple can also
become the means of mediation. The Kidsville Court provides third party
mediation in the form of a judge who assures following the rules and renders a
decision (Wilcox, 1996). . When lawyers become involved in advocacy for
clients, they provide a specific form of mediation between their clients and the
court. In this study, development over time can be observed in the practices of
legal representation, that help to provide procedural justice in a court of law.

(4) Activity (and the tools that mediate it) evolve through social
interaction, and the study of activity often emphasizes development at historical
levels of analysis. Historical analysis is an important level of developmental
analysis in this study of representation practices of the Kidsville Court.

Two basic principles of procedural justice are of interest here. One is that
in a court trial both sides should have the opportunity to present a case and to
refute the case of the opposing side (Bayles, 1990). Since courts have strict
requirements for presenting and refuting cases, ordinary citizens may not be able
to represent themselves adequately without legal advice. The second principle
of procedural justices is that decision-maker(s) should impartially consider the

erits of both cases before rendering a decision on the basis of law. Bayles
1990) notes that “complete impartiality is not always attainable,” (p.19) but legal
epresentation functions to assure or enforce a level of impartiality through the
wyer’s use of objections and appeals processes.
In this analysis of leadership, the development of legal practices of

presentation can be seen as an evolution over time of changes in one

77

 

 

 

 

leadership function of the Kidsville Court leaders, that of providing and assuring
representation to others. The leadership by individuals includes a new function
over time through the development of the legal practices of the court. Since
leadership behavior can involve different specific functions dependant upon the
needs of the group and the task, it can be seen in this analysis that leadership
requirements are changing in the court.

Chapter Nine is a qualitative descriptive analysis based on Question #3:
What processes bring about the observed development in legal representation
practices of the Kidsville Court activity; and how do individual leaders contribute
to this development? Chapter Nine focuses on a specific aspect of the
relationship between activity deveIOpment and leader development. In theory and
in practice, leadership does not simply involve the facilitation of pre-determined
tasks set by teachers, researchers, or other authorities, nor is leadership solely
the organization of simple tasks over short periods of time. Leaders settle
disputes, invent new tasks, and provide ways to reach group goals. Leadership
involves actions that assist the group in overcoming barriers to task achievement
(Barge and Hirokawa (1989).

For purposes of this study, leadership is defined functionally, focusing on
the various functions of leadership in the group’s accomplishment of their activity.
In Chapter Seven Kidsville leader are seen organizing their court trials. In
Chapter Eight, an important change is described in the practices of legal
representation in the court activity. In Chapter Nine, Kidsville Court leaders

are studied as persons who are actively involved in changing the representation

78

 

 

practices of their court. They are seen struggling with procedural problems which
come up in court trials, attempting alternative solutions, and revising their court
procedures. Over the course of time the Kidsville Court leaders collaborate to
transform problems during court trial, allowing legal representation practices of
the court to develop.

To address question #3, the researcher provides a description of the
events in each court trial during the transition period with special emphasis on
the court trials in which there are disputes or problems concerning the provision
of representation. During the transition period, court participants are seen
confronting social contradictions that come to their attention during court trials.
Over time the repeated resolution of various social contradictions by leaders of
the court results in the emergence of a universal expectation of representation.
This expectation of representation is not a “right” in the formal sense but rather a
set of social conventions and expectations that participants are seen acting upon
in their court trials in the late period of the court.

Taken together, Chapters Seven, Eight, and Nine focus on changes in
task organization leadership behaviors and practices of legal representation of
the activity, on changes in behavior of Kidsville Court leaders in their provision
of and uses of legal representation, and on contributions of individual leaders to

he development of legal representation practices over time. Developmental
tudy of Kidsville Court leaders and the development of legal representation

ractices provides a unique opportunity to study developmental change in an

79

 

 

 

activity, changes in individual leader behaviors and leadership responsibilities,

and the relationship between leader development and activity development.

6.1 Description Of The Setting

This section briefly describes the setting of the Kidsville Court. As
described in Chapter Three, in early 1985, the setting was a two-room privately-
owned school with a population of 15 to 20 students, aged 6 to 12 years when
the videotape was taken. The student body had declined suddenly due to the
economic recession in the 1980’s, and the school was closed for financial
reasons in 1988. Chapter Three provides a description of the school, some of
the school’s activities, the Kidsville town and court, and the educational
philosophy of Will, the school’s founder and director.

In the fall of the 1984-1985 school year, the elementary school children
began to organize Kidsville in their spare time. One child brought Monopoly
money to use as a currency, and the children scavenged cardboard, brown tape
and furniture from an unused room to divide their schoolroom into private
spaces, which became their offices and stores. Sometime that fall, the older

hildren minted the first official Kidsville currency, but a younger child also printed
currency, which caused an argument about “who decides what real money is?”
hen the question was brought to the director of the school, he gave a short
promptu lesson on government. Kidsville Town Council was formed
mediately thereafter to write a law defining money and prohibiting
ounterfeiting. When this did not stop the counterfeiter, the group came to the

irector, who gave another short impromptu lesson on the place of courts in

80

 

 

 

governance along with a field trip to a probate court. Over time, licensure
practices were developed, and bailiffs, police, and lawyers were licensed. The
pilot study (Wilcox, 1996) showed that court trials concerned a range of issues
including interpersonal diSputes over property, insult, Kidsville currency, and
eventually disputes in which the Kidsville Council acted to enforce their laws, and

disputes in which the issue was unrelated to the Kidsville Town.

6.2 Description Of The Participants

The participants in this study are the 6 to 12 year old students of the
elementary school, their teachers, and the school director. As described in
Chapter Three, about half of the students in this school population had
educational disabilities. Unlike the pilot study, in this project, only a small
segment of the student population is studied in detail, the leaders of the Kidsville
Court. These are the older children, aged 9 to 12 years old, who, in this setting,
are elders both by age and by their years of school experience. With a few
exceptions during the 1984-1985 school year, the licensed officials of the court
were not generally the more severely disturbed children in the school. The
Kidsville Copncil, who minted the currency of the town, wrote the town’s laws,
and eventually organized the Kidsville Court, did not include any severely

isturbed children during this year. Membership on the Kidsville Council was
llowed only to the children who were oldest and who had been in the school the
ongest. Younger children or children who were newer arrivals in the school

ometimes argued that they should be accepted on the Council, but such

81

 

 

suggestions were not accepted by the Council. The setting of the school as a
setting is further described in Appendix B.

During the time of this study, teachers were usually not involved in court
trials as court officials, although there are three court trials out of the 28 in this
study in which a teacher participates as a judge or lawyer. Usually teachers
participated as private citizens of the town (as defendants, plaintiffs, witnesses,
advisors, or court observers) if they participated at all. The one teacher who
served the function of a leader in terms of Kidsville Court representation
practices was the director of the school, and his contributions to representation
practices are analyzed in Chapter Nine along with the contributions of the child

leaders of the court.

6.3 Description Of The Database

The current study is based on videotapes of court trials that occurred from
January to June of 1985 that includes a set of 28 videotaped Kidsville Court
trials. These videotaped court trials have been culled from a larger videotaped
record of school life, including academic activities, lunch, and daily interactions of
Kidsville Town participants.

Videotaping was started in this school setting for practical reasons. Due
o the recession of the early 1980’s the school was losing enrollment and was

eginning to take children with serious behavioral problems. The director had a
istory of success with students with behavior problems and had discussed the
ossibility with the local Department of Social Services of starting a day

reatment program to provide more than academics for children in intensive

82

 

 

foster care. In January of 1985, the school began videotaping in order to be
able to demonstrate the kinds of social experiences that this school environment
promoted. It was expected that the tapes would be useful for foster parents,
social workers, consultants, and other persons involved with these difficult cases,
as well as for the purposes of the school in exploring the possibility of an
intensive day treatment program and the documentation of the progress of
children in that program. Written consent for taping in the school was obtained
from each child’s legal guardian.

As noted in Chapter Three, during a pilot study using these videotapes
(Wilcox, 1996; Wilcox and Beach, 1996) dialogue was transcribed, the
participants were given pseudonyms, the nature of each conflict was determined,
and the participant’s roles in each court trial were delineated. The sequences of
interaction and the main story lines of each court trial were summarized as small
vignettes. The videotapes and transcripts used in the present study are the
same as were used in the pilot study, except that one event has been excluded
from the current analysis. That event was a power struggle that did not have the
form of a court trial, where a judge censured a lawyer for contempt of court. It
was decided to limit the current study only to court events that have the form and
content of court trials. A few transcripts have been made more detailed in

ialogue through further review of videotape for purposes of this study. The
ideotapes themselves have not been directly used in this study except as

ecessary to improve understanding of a transcript or to clarify coding problems.

83

 

 

6.3.1 Division Of The Data Into Three Historical Periods

For purposes of this study, the 28 videotaped Kidsville Court trials were
divided into three historical periods for analytical and practical purposes. Pilot
study data (Wilcox, 1996) suggested that there might be three periods in the
development of practices of representation: an early period of eight videotaped
court trials (from February 1985- when the first court trial was videotaped-- to
late April1985), a transition period of eleven court trials (videotaped from late
April 1985 to late May 1985), and a late period of nine court trials (videotaped
from late May 1985 to the last day of the school year, June 7th 1985).

In order to assure accuracy of the division of court trials into these
historical periods, the researcher engaged in a brief preliminary historical
analysis of the data, which is described in following tables. Uses of
representation in the early period of the Kidsville court data can be observed in
Table 3. One can seen that three of the court trials in this period did not involve
any lawyers because litigants represented themselves in court. Only three of the

court trials in the early period included a defense attorney.

Table 3. The Early Period Of Legal Representation Practices

 

# of Is there Defense
Trial No. Lawyers. representation?
Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mNCDU‘l-h-OON—t
A—tN-‘OOON

 

 

 

 

 

84

 

 

Uses of legal representation during the transition period of this data can
be seen in Table 4. In this historical period of the court, seven of the eleven
court trials involved two lawyers, which shows increased use of legal
representation. However, defendants in four court trials did not have
representation during the transition period, which shows that defense

representation was not a universal standard during the transition period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4. The Transition Period Of Legal Representation Practices
’ Trial No. ' ’ # of Is there Defense
Lawyers representation?
9 2 Yes
10 2 Yes
1 1 2 Yes
12 2 Yes
13 2 Yes
14 1 No
15 1 No
16 1 No
17 2 Yes
18 2 Yes
19 1 No

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the preliminary analysis of the transition period of the court, the
researcher found that court trial 9 provided a turning point for the Kidsville
Court’s practices of legal representation. In court trial 9, the defendant is the
school director who is acting in the role of an annoying Kidsville citizen. The
defendant demands representation and is denied any opportunity for legal
representation. This defendant argues with the Council members until a number
of their reasons for denying representation are discussed; these actions helped
0 illuminate a major contradiction in the practices of legal representation of the

idsville Court. After serious discussion about their representation practices, a

85

 

 

Cou
serir
The

lilig:

tun
tria
rep
inv
re;

86'

 

Council member agreed to provide defense representation. This resulted in a
series of court trials in which representation practices were in a transitional form.
There are a number of court trials in which both sides are represented but not all
litigants are represented, and defense representation is not universal.

The end of the transition period can be seen in court trial 19, another
turning point in the development of representation practices of the court. In court
trial 19, the Kidsville Court tried and convicted the defendant without benefit of
representation. However, on the next school day, the Kidsville Council became
involved and overruled the Kidsville Court’s decision on the basis that defense
representation had been denied. Court trial 19 is the last court trial in this data
set in which a defendant is tried without opportunity for defense representation.

Table 5 shows uses of legal representation during the late period of this
data in which there is a consistent use of defense representation. Also, with the

exception of one court trial in this period, plaintiffs also used lawyers to represent

them.

Table 5. The Late Period Of Legal Representation Practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ TriaINo. , # of Is there Defense

Lawyers representation?
20 2 Yes
21 1 Yes
22 2 Yes
23 2 Yes
24 2 Yes
25 2 Yes
26 2 Yes
27 2 Yes
28 2 Yes

 

 

 

 

 

86

 

 

 

 

This brief preliminary analysis allows for the division of the court trials into
periods for purposes of addressing the research questions. Questions #1 and #2
pertain to the early and late court trials. These questions analyze change over
time between the early and the late court trials for individuals or for court
practices. Analysis of Question #3 addresses the transition period in order to
analyze processes of change in court practices of representation and in

leadership practices of the Kidsville Court.

6.3.2 Organization Of The Individual Court Trial Transcripts

For purposes of coding and to increase understanding of the court trial
events, the transcripts of court trials have been organized by the researcher as
follows:

First, each transcript was divided into basic organizational units called
blocks. These blocks often include preparations for the court trial, plaintiff’s
statement of case and suit, plaintiff’s presentation of evidence, defense cross-
examination of evidence, defense presentation of evidence, plaintiff’s cross-
examination of evidence, final presentation by plaintiff, final presentation by
defense, and judge’s statement of decision.

Second, blocks were divided into units called components. The
components are specific elements that make up the block. For example, the
plaintiff’s presentation of evidence may be divided into several components in a
particular court trial. These would include presenting material evidence and

questioning each witness.

87

 

 

 

 

Third, components are divided into speech interactions called sequences.
Sequences are common types of interaction between court participants. Such
sequences in a specific court trial might include an interruption and response to
the interruption, an argument about a procedure, a set of questions and answers
during the questioning of a witnesses, a request and response to the request,
and a mistake and correction of the mistake.

Fourth, sequences are made up of the statements or actions of the
individual participants. A person makes a statement or takes action and then
either finishes that action or it is ended by another person. This is the unit that is
coded. Table 6 provides an example of the division of transcripts into

organizational units.

Table 6. Organization Of A Court Trial Transcript

 

Block--- Plaintiff’s Presentation of Evidence
Component —Second Plaintiff’s Witness
Sequence -—- Calling the second witness
- Plaintiff to judge: “I have another witness.”
- Plaintiff gestures to the second witness
- Witness rises, carries his chair to the right side of the judge’s stool, faces the
courtroom, and sits down
- Judge to witness: "Are you done with your work?” (i.e., school work)
- Witness says he is.
Sequence -—- Questioning the second witness
- Plaintiff to witness: “Was you not here when Dan broke into the offices of Sally
and the lnterKidsville Independent?”
- Witness: “l was.”
- Questioninlcontinues.

 

 

 

From this example, one can see how components are nested within
blocks, and sequences are nested within components. The organization of court
trials into blocks, components, and sequences allows the reader to understand

he meaning of a particular speaker’s actions in relation to the complimentary

88

 

 

actions of others. In the above example, the plaintiff is in the process of
presenting her evidence to the judge. The interaction between the plaintiff, the
witness, and the judge can be clearly observed within the context of the
sequence of “calling a witness” or “questioning a witness.” Leadership is not
something that can be observed in isolation from the behaviors of others. When
a person gives instructions to others or clarifies an idea for the group, it is
important to observe the complimentary behaviors of other actors to determine if

leadership behavior is present.

6.4 Operationalization And Coding Of Research Questions

The next three sections describe the operationalization of the three

research questions, and the Specific methods used to address each question.
As has been noted throughout this section, each question requires a different
kind of analysis of the data. Question #1 requires a quantitative descriptive
analysis comparing frequencies of leadership and non-leadership behaviors from
the early and late periods of the Kidsville Court. Question #2 requires a
qualitative descriptive analysis comparing the practices of legal representation in
the early and late periods of the Kidsville Court. Question #3 requires a
qualitative descriptive analysis of the transition period in historical detail that

escribes processes by which change in representation practices takes place

ver time.

89

 

 

6.4.1 Is There A Change Over Time In Frequencies Of Leadership
Behaviors, As Shown By Changes In “Task Organization

Leadership” And “Helping Or Evaluating Specific Others”?

Chapter Seven presents an analysis of the frequencies and ratios of
leadership and non-leadership behaviors in the Kidsville Court trials of the early
and late period, comparing the two periods for evidence of change. Details of the
coding scheme can be found in Appendix A.

The scale addresses two basic dimensions of leadership: task
organization and helping and/or sanctioning a specific other.

Task Organization involves three different types of organizational
behaviors:

- organization of the physical court environment (someone puts chairs,
tables, and other furniture in the right places and tells people where
they belong);

- organization of the court procedures (corrects errors or mistakes of
others that interrupt the task flow, gives reminders, gives prompts, or
gives criticism to assure that group members stay on task, maintains

turn-taking, and enforces rule-following); and

 

- organization of ideas during the court trial (solicits opinions or ideas of
others, summarizes ideas, clarifies points of view, or relates ideas to

each other to enhance meaning).

9O

 

Help and/or evaluate a specific other also includes three types of
behavior:
- help or teach another person (help, guide, teach, instruct a
specific other);
- give needed advice or information (advise, praise, or provide
constructive criticism to a specific other);
- offer emotional help (give personal support, sanction behavior that is

inappropriate, and help someone regain emotional control).

Non-leadership behaviors are coded in two categories: compliance or
followership and off-task or inappropriate behaviors.

Compliance or Followership involves actions that ordinarily compliment
\ leadership behaviors in the Kidsville Court trials. Compliance behaviors include
such behaviors as witnesses going to the stand when ordered by the judge and
answering questions of the lawyer. Five specific types of compliance or
followership behaviors are defined in the coding scheme:

- agree with another, comply with commands or directions of others

- ask for help, advice, or information (“What do I do in this court?”

“Would you be my lawyer?” “What happens if he doesn’t pay it?”)

 

- physically follow, observe other(s), wait for others (observers sit quietly

waiting for the judge to call court to order).

91

- simple procedural comments that are related to task, but not needed
by the group in the organization of the task at that moment. (After the
judge has made a prompt, another participant echo’s it.)

- simple statement of opinion, evidence, or position (“I don’t like it.” “Did

you see him do it?” “It’s against the law.”)

Off-task or Inappropriate Behaviors are coded in four categories as

follows.

- irrelevant or off-task comments or behaviors (“Hey Judge, look at this
book I found. It’s been lost about a year”)

- angry outbursts, teasing, taunting, insulting, gloating, threatening (“I’m
going to get you back for this, Andy.” “You’re going to lose this court
trial, and I think it’s funny.” “Nobody is going to help you.”)

- disobey, ignore, argue with a legitimate command/ direction/ direct
order (“I don’t care what the judge says, I’m not going to pay it.” “I
don’t care about ‘Order in the court,’ You can’t tell me what to do”)

- whining, complaining about, or mocking task-related behavior of others
(“Why don’t you just say something, huh?” “Can you hurry it up so we

can go to lunch?” “Well, that’s a dumb decision”)

In counting leadership and non-leadership behaviors, when a participant is
coded as having performed one of the four categories of behavior, this behaviors

is not coded again for that specific participant within the same sequence.

92

 

(Sequences are described in section 6.2.3 above) This avoids over-estimating
behavioral frequencies of leadership behavior due to repetitions of the same
types of behavior by an individual. For example, a plaintiff could ask multiple
questions of a witness but counting each question would inflate estimations of
leadership behavior for the plaintiff.

In coding leadership, the research plan was to measure two dimensions of
leadership: that of task organization and that of helping and evaluating specific
others. This distinction turned out to be difficult and perhaps insignificant in the
rating of leadership behaviors. The results of this analysis suggested that the
majority of leadership behaviors during formal court trials were of the task
organization type. When the code of helping and evaluating others was seen
during court trial events, it was difficult to differentiate it from behavior serving to
organize the task. To illustrate this problem, some examples will be useful here.

An example of helping and evaluating others in this court setting takes
place prior to the formal court trial, not during the trial itself.

Ron: [Bailiff Ron enters the courtroom guiding Witness Rich, a first

grader. Ron’s hand gently rests on Rich’s shoulder, and he
points out the defense side of the courtroom to Rich]: OK,
so you just answer the questions ‘Yes’ or ‘No,’ but you wart

until someone asks you, OK?” [Ron points to a seat on the
defendant’s side where the witness will sit. Ron leaves and

Rich follows him].
Rich: [Rich returns guiding George, another first grader]. “This is

how you do it. You sit right here.” [The two first graders walk
over to the chairs on defense side. One of them approaches

to the gathering participants]: I’m a jury.

Jack: There’s no jury.

93

 

 

Rich: [Seeing defendant Sally walk into the room, Rich
approaches her] Where does the jury sit?

(Text from the preliminaries of court trial 1).

Such examples of helping and evaluating others are rarely seen during

formal court trials. In fact, during the court trials one sees interactions in which

young litigants are not given much direction, as in the following example.

Sally: [The Judge prompts Defendant Rich, 3 first grader]: Would
you like to cross examine?”

Rich: What does that mean?
Jack: Ask questions.

Ann: [The bailiff asks George, 3 first grade witness, if he knows
What “cross-examine” means. George doesn’t know, either.

Bailiff Ann shrugs].
Sally: [to Rich]: Defendant, would you like to defend yourself?
Rich: [Sits silently for about a second]: No.
Sally: Okay. I’ll come back with my decision. [Sally goes to her
office briefly and then returns to the courtroom]. I find the

defendant guilty. You must pay Jack $100. This has to be
paid within a certain date.”

Jack: Either today or tomorrow.

Sally: [addressing court] The defendant did not have any evidence
or did not have anything to say for himself.

(Text from defense case of court trial 3)

 

 

The literature indicates that task organization and helping and evaluating

hers may be two different dimensions of leadership behavior, and the above

94

 

examples would support such a distinction. From the above examples, it can be
seen that helping behaviors took place among these participants, but the
researcher found that such behaviors were rarely seen among the children
during the formal court trials. For the purposes of statistical analysis, in Chapter
Seven the two codes were condensed into one code called "leadership
behavior.” It appears that during the formal trial, the officials are busy assuring
that court events are taken care of in the proper order, and their behaviors are

highly task-oriented rather than being oriented to guiding individuals who may

need instruction or help.

 

Another change in the research plan must be explicated here. The
original plan was to use the first eight and the last nine court trial transcripts to
address Questions #1. However, when these 17 court trial transcripts were
reviewed by the researcher, some of the court trials could not be used for
purposes of coding data for question #1. Court trials that were eliminated
included the following: fragments in which only a part of the court trial was on
videotape, court trials where teachers played primary roles, such as plaintiff,
defendant, or judge, or court trials that were extremely difficult to understand
because important dialogue could not be transcribed from videotape. This
reduced the data to be coded for Question #1 to a smaller set of ten court trials,
five from the early period and five from the late period. The trials that could be
coded in this analysis were court trials 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 from the early period and

21, 23, 24, 27, and 28 from the late period. This data provides adequate

95

 

 

 

 

information to analyze changes for the activity over time and to identify individual
Kidsville Court leaders.

Using the coding scheme to code this data set of 10 court trials, the
researcher coded individual children’s behaviors. In lieu of interrater reliability
information, the researcher has provided the coding scheme in Appendix A.
Using leadership frequency data collected from ten transcripts, four leaders were
then identified by their production of leadership behaviors as compared to other

participants in court trials.

6.4.2 How Does The Practice Of Legal Representation Change Over

 

Time In The Kidsville Court?

 

Chapter Eight provides a comparison of the early and late periods of this
ata for evidence of change in practices of legal representation. In order to
ddress Question #2, the researcher collected information on Kidsville Court
ractices of legal representation in all of the 17 early and late period court trials.
ll 17 early and late court trial transcripts could be used because this analysis did
at require highly detailed transcripts that included all dialogue of the major
articipants. Also, court trials in which adults filled crucial roles would not
nnecessarily skew the data.

The following seven questions were used to gather information in the
rly and late court trials for an analysis of change over time in the practices of
gal representation in the Kidsville Court. For each of the 17 court trials in the

rly and late period, the researcher asked the following questions:

96

 

— Is each side of the issue expressed in court, and does this change from
1 early to the late court trials?

— Are there changes from the early to the late court trials in how a person
tiates a lawsuit?

- How does a defendant get heard by the court, and does this change
am the early to the late period?

- Is there change from the early period to the late period court trials in how
egal representation is used. Is legal representation primarily for the benefit of
ineself, one’s peers, or for younger classmates?

— Is there a change by the Kidsville lawyers in their provision of legal
representation for others from the early to late court trials?
- What do court participants say or do if a defendant is n_ot represented by
a lawyer? What actions are made by the court to assure or prevent
representation? What thoughts and arguments do court participants make about
provision of representation. What are the results of these comments or
discussions? Do these discussions or decisions by the court indicate changes
from the early to the late period in representation practices?
- Are there impediments to the provision of representation, or are there
changes, innovations, or attempts to remove impediments to the provision of
epresentation from the early to the late court trials?
In Chapter Eight the researcher compares the first eight court trials and
he last nine court trials in various aspects of legal representation that is provided

ir not provided by the Kidsville Court leaders. This analysis includes information

97

 

 

about other practices of the court that are related to practices of legal
representation. The results of this analysis are primarily about changes in the
quality of representation rather than the frequency. For example, one might see
that in an early court trial a defendant is denied representation, and no one
comments on this fact or makes an issue of it, whereas in a late court trial
participants may be seen encouraging a defendant to accept representation, or if
the defendant is denied legal representation, the participants may take actions to
repair their error of denying representation. In such examples, participants are

seen to qualitatively change their behaviors concerning representation.

6.4.3 What Processes Bring About The Observed Development In
Legal Representation Practices Of The Kidsville Court Activity, And

How Do Individual Leaders Contribute To This Development?

The purpose of question #3 is to understand how changes take place in
the representation practices of the Kidsville Court and how individual leaders
ontribute to those changes. Information from the pilot study indicated that there
ay have been rapid changes in uses of representation during the transition
eriod . Given what can be deduced from developmental theories concerning
rocesses of development (Valsiner, 1987), during a period of crisis or change,
Iements of the early period and late period may be expected to co—exist,

ossibly coming into conflict and bringing about events necessary for change.

98

 

 

The researcher provides a qualitative analysis of the events of the
transition period at the activity level, at the individual leader level, and in the
interaction between individuals and the activity. The analysis requires detailed
temporal description of events that produced change. It was determined that
some incidents in the Kidsville Court trials provided challenges to existing
representation practices, and study of the transition period became an analysis of
the creative and adaptive ways in which the court and its leaders adjusted their
practices of legal representation. The result is a qualitative historical analysis of
events during the transition period, with an emphasis on times when changes
were made concerning representation practices. Individual leaders are studied
as contributors to historical changes in practices of legal representation during
the transition period. These changes in legal representation result in changed
leadership responsibilities for leaders, where leaders now provide and assure

representation to others.

99

 

 

Chapter Seven: Change In Frequency Of Leadership Behaviors In Kidsville

Court Trials Over Time: Analysis And Findings.

Is there a change from the early period (court trials 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8) to the
late period (court trials 21, 23, 24, 27 and 28) in frequencies of leadership
behaviors as evidenced by changes in task organization leadership and helping
or evaluating specific others?

The researcher coded leadership and non-leadership behaviors in
Kidsville Court trial transcripts for all children who participated in 10 court trials,
as described in Chapter Six. It should be noted that only 10 of the 17 early and
late court trial transcripts were usable for the purposes of coding individual
leadership and non-leadership behaviors as required in this particular analysis.

In order to be usable for coding purposes in this Specific analysis, a court
trial transcript needed to include all of the events of the court trial from its
beginning to its end, and the dialogue of all major participants had to be fairly
etailed in the transcript. Because of poor quality in the original videotaped data,
ive court trial transcripts were not adequately detailed nor sufficiently complete
0 allow for coding of individual behaviors. Two other court trials were not used
n this specific analysis because an adult participated in the trial in a major role
'udge or litigant), and this analysis focuses specifically on child leadership and

on-leadership behaviors. In the end, five court trials from the early period and

100

 

five court trials from the late period were usable for purposes of coding individual
child leadership and non-leadership behaviors.

This descriptive quantitative analysis serves two purposes. The first
purpose is to determine if the frequency of leadership behavior during the
Kidsville Court trials increased overall over time and in relation to non-leadership
behaviors. This analysis consists of comparisons of the early and the late court
trials in average per trial frequencies of leadership behaviors, average
frequencies of non-leadership behaviors, and the ratio of leadership to non-
Ieadership behaviors. The second purpose is to identify the children who most
often perform leadership behaviors during Kidsville Court trials. These particular
individuals are studied as Kidsville Court leaders in the chapters that follow.

The researcher used the coding scheme provided in Appendix A that
describes the leadership and non-leadership behaviors that were counted in
these court trials. The first leadership dimension, task organization behavior,
was found to be the most common type of leadership behavior demonstrated in
these Kidsville Court trials. The second leadership dimension, helping and
evaluating others, was seen infrequently during the formal court trial events. As
described in Chapter Six, section 6.4.1, to simplify this analysis the two

leadership dimensions were combined into one category of leadership

behaviors.

101

 

7.1 Descriptive Analysis Of Frequencies Of Leadership And Non-

Leadership Behaviors In The Early And Late Court Trials.

A primary purpose of this analysis is to describe changes over time in
frequencies of leadership and non—leadership behaviors. The tables in this
section compare differences between the early and late periods in average
frequencies of leadership behaviors, average frequencies of non-leadership
behaviors, and ratios of leadership to non-leadership behavior. This data has
been derived by averaging the observations of leadership and non-leadership
behaviors for the early period and the late period, so averages can be compared
for the two periods of the Kidsville Court. For each period five court trials have
been coded, resulting in averages across those five trials for each of the periods,
described in Chapter Six.

During the analysis of this data, it became clear that an important variable
was that of the participants’ roles in the court trial. Although specific individuals
might participate in different roles across court trials, the leadership behaviors of

judges, lawyers, and bailiffs appear to fulfill role-dependant functions in the court.
Therefore, it is useful to compare frequencies of leadership and non-leadership
behaviors based on the roles of the participants.

Leadership behaviors were coded in the five early and five late court trials
for all child court participants, including judges, bailiffs, lawyers, litigants,
witnesses, and observers. Table 7 shows that average frequencies of leadership
increased over time for court participants in official roles (judges, bailiffs, and

lawyers). In this analysis, litigants who self-represent are considered to be acting

102

 

 

as lawyers, since they are representing themselves and serving the same
functions in the court trial as a lawyer would serve.

As can be seen in Table 7, judges and plaintiffs‘ attorneys engage in
leadership behavior roughly twice as frequently during the late court trials as they
do in the early court trials. The greatest increase in average frequency of
leadership behavior is seen among bailiffs and defense attorneys, an increase of

roughly three times.

Table 7. Comparison Of Leadership Behaviors In Early And Late Court
Trials By Participant Role.

Role of

  

'Average
court trials from the late period.
2 Standard Deviation from the mean

It should be noted that during the early period bailiffs were not used in
each court trial, with the result that frequency averages for bailiffs are not exactly
comparable to those of the other roles that occurred in every court trial.
Specifically, bailiffs were used in only three out of the five early court trials of this
late whereas bailiffs were used in all five of the later court trials of this data. It
as also discovered upon examination of the transcripts that the frequency

formation for bailiffs during the early period was inflated because of one high

103

 

 

scoring outlier (a frequency score of nine). Thus, the changes in frequency of
bailiff leadership behavior over time is difficult to interpret from this information.
For the second analysis, non—leadership behaviors were coded for all

court trial participants in the same five early and five late court trials. Non—
leadership behaviors included both compliant and disruptive non-leadership
behaviors. Disruptive behavior was rare in these court trials, and most non-
leadership behaviors involved such behaviors as witnesses answering questions
or observers making comments. As shown in Table 8, average frequency of
non—leadership behavior is seen to increase over time for all participants with the
exception of judges. Frequencies of non—leadership behaviors increased from
the early to the late period by about three times for plaintiffs or plaintiffs’

attorneys and about five times for defendants or defense attorneys.

Table 8. Comparison Of Non-Leadership Behaviors In Early And Late Court
Trials By Participant Role.

  
 
 

”Average over court and
five court trials from the late period.

3 Standard deviations from the mean
Information on bailiffs during the early period is limited because only three of five court trials

included a bailiff.

By comparing Table 7 and Table 8, two important observations can be

made. First, non-leadership behaviors during court trials were infrequent

104

 

 

compared to leadership behaviors during both the early and late periods. This is
an unusual finding. In previous studies of leadership behaviors among
elementary school children in peer group settings have been relatively rare
compared with non-leadership behaviors because of the primarily egalitarian
relationships between friends and peers. Some writers (French, Wass, Stright
and Baker, 1986; French and Stright, 1991) argue that asymmetrical
relationships among participants may result in higher frequencies of leadership
behaviors. This certainly describes the hierarchical relationships that are seen
in the formal Kidsville Court trials.

Transcripts were reviewed to understand the reason for the high
frequency of leadership behaviors and the relative infrequency of non—leadership
behaviors. It was determined that during formal Kidsville Court trials both
officials and non-officials of the court are limited to specific types of behaviors.
Judges, for example, are expected to make decisions on objections, determine a
verdict on the basis of evidence, and also direct the order of events during a
court trial, calling the court to order, ordering a recess, informing lawyers of their
turns to present evidence, or correcting participants on protocol. This results in
high frequencies of task organization behavior by judges. Likewise, lawyers and
litigants are expected to be directive but polite if they expect to be heard by the

judge. Lawyers direct the order of court events by presenting their evidence in
their own fashion and refuting the evidence of the other side Lawyers and
litigants also direct the judge’s behavior by making requests to the judge for

decisions, rulings, court orders, changes in court procedures, or delays and

105

 

 

recesses. Non—officials in court trials are limited in the range of appropriate

behaviors allowed to them, which mostly include non-leadership behaviors.
Witnesses are limited to responding to a judge’s call to the stand by going to the
stand, by answering questions when asked, and by being dismissed. Observers
are usually allowed to watch but not contribute actively to the court trial events.
Thus, the high proportions of leadership to non-leadership behaviors are due to
roles which call on participants to produce specific types of behaviors.

A second observation is that the average frequencies of both leadership
and non-leadership behaviors increased over time for participants in most roles.
Although leadership behaviors increased over time in the Kidsville Court trials, it
cannot be determined if this increase is due to increasing leadership or if it is due
to a general increase in behavior during court trials. Table 9 describes these
increases in more detail by calculating the ratios of leadership to non-leadership
behaviors in early and late court trials by role. This calculation shows that ratios
of leadership to non-leadership behaviors changed over time in ways that are
specific to the roles of participants in the court trials. On the average, judges
had higher ratios of leadership to non-leadership behavior than other
participants, and this ratio increased by four times from the early period to the
late period. On the average, attorneys or litigants performed more leadership
than non-leadership behaviors at a rate of 2 or 3 to 1, but over time they

demonstrated a slight decrease in the ratio of leadership behaviors to non-

leadership behaviors. Witnesses and observers showed a pattern of far more

106

 

 

 

non-leadership behaviors than leadership behaviors, and over time this

relationship became even more pronounced.

Table 9. Comparison Of Ratio Of Leadership To Non-Leadership Behavior
In Early And Late Court Trials By Role Of Participant.

 

Ratios of Leadership fl.)to Non-Leadership (NL) Behavior

 

 

 

 

 

     
  

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l l

Earl Court Trials 1 Late Court Trials 1

[ Participant Role XL XNL Ratio Quot” an1 I ‘XNL‘I Rafi?! Quot‘!
LINL LINL LlNL L/NL

Jud e ] 11.6 ] 12 | 11.E>/1.2. l 9.7 28.2.] 0.6 1 23.:./0.6] 47.0 j

Bailiff” 2.6 0.8 j 26/02 3.3 8.6 2.0 3.6/2.0 I 4.3 l

Plaintiff/Pl’s att 8.6 2.4 l 8.6/2.4 3.6 15.2 6.0 156/60] 2.6 l
Defendant/ Def's 4.6 1 4 ( 4.6 /1.4 3.: 15.2 60 15.2/6.0 2.5
Witness/Observer 0 2 5 4] 0.2/5.4 0.1 0.8 7.8 0.8/7.8 T 0.1]

 

 

 

 

 

rLeadership (L) and Non-Leadership behaviors (NL) behaviors are averaged over five early court
trials and five late court trials.

The proportion of Leadership (L) behaviors to Non-Leadership (N L) behaviors expressed as a
ratio.

The ratio of Leadership (L) behaviors to Non-Leadership (NL) behaviors expressed as a
quofient
4 Bailiff leadership behaviors in the early period include one high outlier (a frequency of 9). Also
two court trials out of five do not include a bailiff during the early period.

Bailiff behaviors are difficult to assess from this data. One can see
increased frequencies of both leadership and non-leadership behaviors for
bailiffs over time, but information is inadequate to make any other assumptions
about changes in ratios. As has been noted, in the early period the bailiff data
was skewed due to a specific high outlier. Furthermore, bailiffs were only used in
three of the five court trials in the early period.

One can see that leadership behaviors in the formal Kidsville Court trials
are dependant upon the role requirements of the participants. Although both

leadership and non-leadership behaviors increased over time in the Kidsville
Court, it seems that there is also a trend toward a greater distinction between
roles in the proportions of leadership behaviors that are appropriate for that role.

107

 

 

That is, judges specifically perform more leadership behaviors than non-
Ieadership behaviors, and in the late court trials this relationship becomes more
pronounced. Even though a particular person might be a judge in one court trial
and display a high frequency of leadership behaviors in that specific court trial,
the same person might be a witness or observer in a different court trial and

display very few leadership behaviors during that event.

7.2 Identifying Individual Kidsville Court Leaders
The second purpose of this analysis is to identify the individual leaders of
the Kidsville Court. In order to do this, the above data is re-analyzed to focus on

the leadership behavior of specific individuals who occupy multiple roles over

time.

Table 10. Leadership Behaviors By Specific Individual Participants By Role

DefAtt’y Bailiff Non- Leadership Leadership

Child Judge Pl’s Att’y

 

Ann, Sally, and Dan provide a large proportion of the leadership behaviors

in this data set, and they are also the children who most frequently serve as

108

 

 

 

 

 

judges and lawyers during this period of time. These three are the original
lawyer/ judges of the Kidsville Court, and they were the first children licensed as
lawyers. They are also prominent Council members and the older children in the
school

Ann is a sixth grader who organized the Kidsville Council and was elected
as the first Kidsville Council President during the early period. She acted as the
judge of the first Kidsville Court trial.

Sally is a fifth grader, a Council member, and the original President of the
lnterKidsville Independent Bank. During the late period Sally frequently acts as a

judge in court trials.

Dan is a fifth grader, a Council member, and the President of the Kidsville
Bar Association. As the only member of the Kidsville Bar, Dan controls all
licenses to legal professionals in Kidsville --- the cop licenses, bailiff licenses,
and lawyer licenses. During the late period of this data, Dan was elected as the
Kidsville Council President after Ann had resigned. Between the three of them,
Ann, Sally, and Dan provide 72% of the total leadership behaviors in this set of
data.

Ron and Tom are the next likely candidates as leaders, since they each
contribute 8% to the total number of leadership behaviors in this data. A more
detailed analysis of the transcripts, however, shows that in the lower ranges,

leadership frequency counts are not a reliable measure of leadership for
individual children. Ron is a fifth grader, a prominent Council member, and the

first licensed bailiff of the Kidsville Court. During the late period Ron became the

109

 

 

Kidsville Bank President and was licensed as a lawyer. As a lawyer, Ron
successfully pursued two cases as a hired attorney. For these reasons, Ron
should be considered as a leader for purposes of this study, even though he
emerges as a legal leader only during the late period.

As compared to Ron, the total of Tom’s leadership behaviors are
displayed when he is given a bailiff license during the late period and is hired as
a bailiff by Judge Sally in three court trials. He is a fourth grader, a new child in
the school, and he is not a Kidsville Council member. During the period of this
data, Tom also contributed to some of the rare disruptive behaviors that were
observed in the court. For these reasons, Tom will not be studied as a Kidsville
Court leader.

The three remaining children on this list did not contribute much to the
leadership functions of the Kidsville Court during this period of time. Jack had a
lawyer license during the early period of this data, but he was not seen
representing anyone but himself. When Jack was hired to represent another

child, he abandoned his client, and a different attorney had to be hired to replace

 

him. Terri was given a lawyer license during the late period and is seen in this
data representing one case as a defense attorney. Josh attained a bailiff license
during the late period and was a bailiff in two court trials.
Considering the above information on individuals, four leaders of the
Kidsville Court will be the focus of the analyses that follow: Ann, Dan, Sally, and
Ron. The relationship between leadership behaviors and the performance of

official roles has been noted in this analysis, and it is seen clearly in

110

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10. Individuals produce leadership behaviors in relation to their
functioning as Kidsville Court officials and as is appropriate to their roles in the
court trials. The older children were the most influential children in the school.
They were members of the Kidsville Council, and they were licensed as lawyers

and bailiffs in the Kidsville Court.

 

One might assume from the above analysis that in itself the role of judge
or lawyer resulted in the production of leadership behaviors independently of the
individual participant. This is not the case. There were several court trials in

which an inexperienced lawyer orjudge did not produce appropriate leadership

 

behaviors required for their role. Lack of apprOpriate leadership behavior
generally resulted in exclusion of the individual from legal leadership roles in the
future. For example, in court trial 2, Terri was placed in the position of judge.
When Terri had difficulty ruling on objections, Witness Ann started to give Judge
Terri signs from the back of the courtroom, thumbs-up or thumbs-down to
indicate whether to accept or overrule an objection. Terri was not used again as
a judge during the time of this study. It should be noted that court trial 2 was not
usable for purposes of coding in this analysis because Judge Terri’s statements

were spoken very softly and her words could not be transcribed from the

 

videotape. As another example, although Jack had a lawyer license he was
rarely hired as a lawyer because be frequently lost cases and sometimes
abandoned his clients. It is clear that an individual performs leadership

behaviors in the roles of judge or lawyer according to their level of skill and

111

 

 

 

ability, and they are chosen or excluded from performing these roles based on

the perceptions of others of their level of ability.

7.3 Summarization Of Findings

 

The descriptive statistics in this chapter demonstrate three main findings.
First, the quantity of both leadership and non-leadership behaviors in the
Kidsville Court increased over time. Given the dramatic increase in both

leadership and non-leadership behaviors, it is clear that changes in the court

 

activity and/or in individual leaders resulted in a greater number of leadership
behaviors during the late period.

Second, the production of leadership and non-leadership behavior is
related to the roles that participants occupy in the activity. Persons acting as
judges produced a greater number of leadership behaviors than any other
participants in the court trials, and their ratio of leadership to non-leadership
behaviors increased by four times from the early period to the late period of this
data. Court officials (including litigants, attorneys, judges and bailiffs) produced

almost all of the leadership behaviors seen in these court trials, whereas

 

witnesses and observers produced very few of the total leadership behaviors.
Since individuals performed different roles in different court trials, it can be shown
that individuals conformed their leadership and non-leadership behaviors to the
dictates of their communal role. Leadership and non-leadership behaviors of
participants fulfilled specific activity requirements that cannot be attributed

entirely to the influence of individual leaders.

112

 

 

 

Third, there are four identifiable child Kidsville Court leaders who
contribute the majority of leadership behaviors demonstrated in the Kidsville
Court trials. These children are Kidsville Council members, primary Kidsville
Court officials, and they are the older and more influential children in the school
and in the Kidsville town.

This analysis shows that it is hardly possible and perhaps not useful to
separate out the influence of individuals versus the influence of the social setting
in this complex cultural activity called the Kidsville Court. Individuals fill roles
within a complex activity system, and thus they are constrained by role-dictated
functions which afford leadership behaviors. However, individual leaders are
influential in the modification and maintenance of the activity. Dan, for example,
decides who gets a license as a lawyer or bailiff. Yet his authority is limited by a
written law in the lawbook that a legal license must also be signed by all 5
Council members. The production of leadership and non-leadership behaviors
are clearly a joint construction where changes in the social organization of the
Kidsville Court influence the behaviors of individual leaders and vice versa.

In this chapter, leadership has been defined and studied as a set of task
organization behaviors performed by individuals. Yet when these behaviors are
evaluated closely, it can be seen that leadership behaviors are not simply
individual traits or properties of individual leaders. Not everyone can act as a
hired lawyer or bailiff, since one attains these positions not only through skill and

ability but also by being licensed. Leadership behaviors are part of a complex

113

 

 

 

cultural system. Individual leaders are both enabled and constrained by the roles
they provide in the activity.

Different definitions of leadership discussed in this paper point to different
ways that leadership can be studied. Barge and Hirokawa (1989) and Heifetz
(1994) define leadership as a set of behaviors that help to improve the culture.
These value—based views of leadership point to qualitative, descriptive, and
longitudinal questions about leaders and the activities in which they are
engaged. What is created by this group? What conflict management strategies
does this group use and do these change over time? Is there a problem that this
group attempts to resolve over time, and are there impediments to problem
resolution? Does the group overcome these impediments and, if so, how? Do
leaders help groups choose between alternative values or meanings over time?
Such questions address the possibility that leaders help to change and improve

their local culture contributing to the adaptive work of the group (Heifetz, 1994).

114

 

 

 

Chapter Eight: Change In Practice Of Legal Representation Of The

Kidsville Court Activity: Analysis And Findings

This chapter addresses the following research question: How does the
nature and quality of the practice of legal representation change over time in the
Kidsville Court? The researcher approaches this question from two directions in
this chapter. First, is there an observable qualitative improvement in the practice
of legal representation in the Kidsville Court activity? Second, are there
impediments to the provision of legal representation that change over time in the
Kidsville Court activity?

Based on principles of procedural justice in the larger culture of American
law, there is reason to believe that improvement in representation practices
would be an important change in the Kidsville Court activity. Two basic
principles of modern procedural justice have been discussed in this paper: both
sides in a court trial should have the opportunity to present a case and to refute
the case of the opposing side, and decision-maker(s) should impartially consider
the merits of both cases before rendering a decision on the basis of law (Bayles,
1990). Anyone should be able to use the courts to seek justice, and everyone
should have the right to competent legal representation if accused of wrongdoing
in spite of differences in power between disputing parties.

The ability to present a case and refute the opposing case is improved by

the provision of competent legal counsel. Likewise, legal counsel functions to

115

 

 

 

 

assure or enforce a level of impartiality on the part of the decision-maker; thus,
the assurance of legal representation in modern democracies serves two basic
principles of procedural justice.

Based on the pilot study data (Wilcox, 1996), the preliminary analysis
provided in Chapter Six demonstrates that increased use of representation over
time is observable in the data. This observation is especially strong in uses of
defense representation. This quantitative change in the use of representation
may represent an important qualitative change in the court activity, since
practices assuring legal representation are considered necessary for assurance
of procedural justice. This chapter provides a detailed qualitative analysis of the
legal representation practices of the Kidsville Court by using the early and late

court trials to evaluate qualitative change in the nature of legal representation

over time.

8.1 Are There Changes Over Time In Legal Representation Practices Of

The Kidsville Court?

To analyze change in practices of legal representation in the Kidsville

Court, the researcher chose six indicators by which evidence of change could be

identified.
( 1) Is each side of the issue expressed in court for each case brought to

the Kidsville Court, and does this change over time?
(2) Are there changes over time in how a person initiates a lawsuit?

(3) How does a defendant get heard by the court, and does this change

over time?

116

 

 

 

 

(4) Is there change over time in how legal representation is used? Is it

used primarily for the benefit of oneself, one’s peers, or for younger

classmates?

Is there a change over time in the provision of legal representation

(5)
for others by Kidsville lawyers?

What do court participants say or do if a defendant is _n_o_t represented

(6)

by a lawyer? What actions are made by the court to assure or
prevent representation? What thoughts and arguments do court
participants make about provision of representation? What are the
results of these comments or discussions? Do these discussions or

decisions by the court indicate changes over time in representation

practices?

The data for this analysis were derived by the researcher through careful reading

of all 17 early and late court trial transcripts. All participants in these 17 court

trials are included in these analyses.

8.1.1 Are Both Sides Of The Issue Expressed In Each Court Trial

And Does This Change Over Time?

This first indicator is meant to determine whether there is an important

qualitative change over time in the court’s ability to fulfill a major function of

117

 

 

 

 

 

modern procedural justice where both sides of an issue have a chance to be
expressed in court before a decision is made. It is especially important that the
defendant, who is accused of wrong—doing, has an opportunity to refute the
accusations against him or her. If one side or the other is not expressed during
the court trial, then the decision-maker cannot be expected to take both sides of
the issue into account prior to making a decision.

To assess whether a side of the issue was heard by the court, the
researcher read the transcript of each early and late court trial for evidence that

both sides presented evidence or refuted the evidence of the other side. Data are

presented in Table 11.

Table 11. Are Both Sides Of The Issue Expressed In The Court Trial?

in court

 

From this data it is clear that the majority of litigants had the opportunity to
express their side of the issue in court and to be heard by the court. Note a large
change over time where 19% of litigants were not given a chance to express their

side in court during the early period, whereas 100% of litigants had a chance to

be heard by the court during the late period. There are three court trials (3, 7,

and 8) in which a litigant was not able to express his or her side in court and

none of these children had legal representation.

118

 

 

 

In court trials 3 and 8, the first grade defendants were not given an
opportunity to express their side of the issue in court. These children were not
able to respond when the judge told them that it was their turn to question
witnesses or present a case. Both of these defendants were found guilty and
charged to pay a fine to the plaintiff. This is exactly the situation for which
modern systems of justice have developed a “right to representation” to protect
the defendant who is unable to represent himself or herself.

In court trial 7, the plaintiff did not have a lawyer, and he was told that his
court time needed to be moved to an earlier time to accommodate the defense
attorney. When the plaintiff arrived in court, he was unprepared, and his case
was dismissed by the judge.

It appears that increased use of representation in the late period has
resulted in improved opportunities of both sides of a conflict to be heard in court.
In late court trials all litigants consistently have lawyers, and their issues are
expressed in court. The following two sections describe in more detail what is
involved in going to court, first from the point of view of a defendant and then
from the point of view of a plaintiff. These sections show how the presence of a
lawyer helps the defendant or the plaintiff to negotiation the complex process of

getting heard in the Kidsville Court.

8.1.2 How Does A Defendant Get Heard In Court And Does This

Change Over Time?

This indicator addresses how the presence of a defense attorney

influences the defendant’s ability to be heard in the Kidsville Court. The

119

 

 

researcher reviewed the transcripts and found that a defendant has multiple

 

tasks to manage in order to have his or her side of the issue heard in court.

Upon being told of a lawsuit, a defendant must begin to gather evidence of his or
her innocence. The defendant is usually given a short period of time to prepare a
case, although he or she may ask the judge for delays. During the court trial the
defendant must attempt to discredit the plaintiff’s case through use of objections,
cross-examination, and/or presentation of defense evidence. If the defendant
does not present a case, the judge decides in favor of the plaintiff and assigns a
penalty to the defendant. It has been noted that lack of representation is
especially difficult for the youngest defendants who do not know how to present a
case in court.

In the late court trials defendants consistently have lawyers to help them

 

to negotiate these complex details, which means that from the point of view of

the defendant the process of defending oneself is much less difficult during the
late period. When a defendant has a lawyer to provide representation, the

lawyer takes responsibility for the many tasks of gathering evidence and talking

to witnesses, asking for delays, preparing the case, and speaking for the
defendant in court. When the lawyer is a same-age peer, it is seen in the
transcripts that the defendant usually works together with the defense attorney in
planning and presenting a defense case. When the defendant is a younger child
the defense attorney usually does the entire job of preparing and arguing the

C386.

120

 

 

8.1.3 How Does A Person Initiate A Lawsuit And Is There A Change

Over Time In This Process?

Persons go to court to state their grievances and to have the conflict
decided by a third party. This indicator is designed to determine what tasks a
plaintiff must complete in order to use the court to express a grievance or
complaint. It is found that the responsibilities of the plaintiff remain the same
over time, but that the presence of an attorney assures that the plaintiff does not
have to accomplish all of these tasks alone.

An analysis of the transcripts shows that initiating a court trial is a process
involving several steps. Prior to the court trial, a plaintiff must hire a judge and
arrange a time for court, assess chances of winning, find and interview
witnesses, and inform the defendant. This process may also include negotiating
other details such as hiring a bailiff for the trial. The complexity of these
processes is such that litigants can forget an important detail. This is seen in
court trial 3 and court trial 7 when the plaintiff does not have evidence in order
prior to the court trial. In court trial 3, the plaintiff is seen trying to find a witness
while beginning to present evidence during the trial. In court trial 7 the plaintiff
has mislaid the documents that he planned to use as evidence, and his case is
dismissed.

In the later court trials, the process of initiating a lawsuit involves the same
basic steps, but during late court trials plaintiffs consistently have lawyers to

initiate the court trial or provide assistance in that process. With a lawyer to

121

 

 

 

represent them, even younger children and persons who are inexperienced in
court are able to initiate court trials. For example, in court trial 23, a first grader

with a lawyer initiates a successful suit against an older child.

8.1.4 Is Legal Representation Used For The Benefit Of Oneself,
One’s Peers, Or Younger Children, And Does This Change Over

Time?

The fourth indicator of change in practices of legal representation of the
court (Wilcox, 1996) can be observed by documenting who is providing
representation for whom and does this change over time? The results of this

analysis are presented in Table 12.

Table 12. Is Legal Representation In The Kidsville Court Used Primarily For

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Benefit Of Oneself, One’s Peers, Or Younger Children?
Litig‘ant Category of Early Period Late Period
, Representation ~ #‘ % of # % of
, ' ' ‘ ‘ Litigants Litigants Litigants Litiga_nts
Child Represented by self 10 62% 1 5%
Child Represented by same-age 3 19% 9 50%
Leer
Child Represented byolder child 2 13% 4 22%
Adult Representede child 1 6% 1 5%
Council Represented by senior KV 0 0% 3 17%
Council member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is clearly a change from the early period (the first eight court trials)
to the late period (the last nine court trials) in uses of legal representation in the

Kidsville Court. During the early period, 62% of litigants in the court engage in

122

 

 

 

self-representation dropping to 5% in the late period. Representation of same—
age peers increases from 19% of litigants in the early period to 50% of litigants in
the late period. There is also an increase over time in representation of younger
children by older children from 13% of the litigants in the early period to 22% of
litigants in the late period. One can see from this analysis that provision of legal
representation increases for all child litigants over time and that self-

representation decreases.

8.1.5 Do Kidsville Lawyers Provide Representation And Does This

Function Change Over Time?

The fifth indicator of change in legal representation in the Kidsville Court
looks specifically at Kidsville licensed lawyers to determine if licensed lawyers
are providing representation to others, if lawyers primarily represent themselves,
or if non-lawyers are seen representing themselves. Data addressing this

question are provided in Table 13.

Table 13. Do Kidsville Lawyers Represent Others And Does This Function Of
Legal Representation Change Over Time?

   

 
    

 

(including same-age peers,
younger children, adults or KV

There is a large change by licensed lawyers in their provision of
representation to others over time. In the early period, 44% of the Kidsville Court
litigants were licensed lawyers representing themselves. In the late period, only
5% of the litigants were lawyers engaged in self-representation. In the early
period 44% of the litigants were represented in court by a licensed lawyer, and
this percentage increases to 95% during the late period.

Non-lawyers are seen representing themselves 12% of the time in the
early period which is not seen at all in the late period. This analysis shows that
the “job” of lawyers changed over time, from representing themselves in their

own disputes to assuring and providing representation primarily to others.

8.1.6 What Do Participants Say About Legal Representation, And

What Do They Do To Prevent, Provide, Or Assure Representation,

And Does This Change Over Time?

The sixth indicator in this analysis examines how court participants talk
about the need for representation, and whether they express in actions or words
an expectation that litigants should have representation.

A review of the transcripts shows that discussions about the need for
representation during the early period were initiated by the school director, Will.
Will is seen advising the defendant in court trial 1 to seek representation because
she needs to be able to prove her innocence in court. During a court recess, he

tells litigants in court trial 4 that hiring a lawyer helps people to avoid errors in

pursuing their cases. However, the behavior of court officials indicates that

124

 

 

representation is not an expectation of the court at this point in time. This can be

seen clearly in the examples in Figure #1.

Figure 1. Absence Of An Expectation Of Representation In The Early Period
Court Trials, As Exemplified In The Behaviors Of Court Participants During The
Early Period.

 

Trial Absence Of An Expectation Of Representation Expressed In The
No. Behaviors Of Court Participants In The Early Period Court Trials
1 The school director tells defendant Sally that she needs to get a lawyer to
protect herself. She hires Ann, who is the last available lawyer. The plaintiff,
Jack, is left representing himself.
2 Plaintiff Sell and defendant Dan are both lawyers who represent themselves.
Neither the fourth grade plaintiff nor the first grade defendant have
representation. The defendant is unable to represent himself. No one
comments on the need for defense representation and the defendant is found
guiltyty Judge Silly.
Plaintiff Sell and defendant Dan are both lawyers who represent themselves.
Plaintiff Sally has hired Ann to represent her. Defendant Dan represents
himself successfully by getting informal legal advice from the school director.
The first grade defendant has a lawyer, Jack, who abandons his client just
before the court trial. When the defendant shows up in court without a lawyer,
Judge Sally begins the court trial as usual. While court is in session, the school
director hires Ann to be the defense attorney.
The school director is the defendant, and he has hired Ann as his lawyer.
Plaintiff Jack represents himself. Jack is unprepared for court, and his case is
dismissed.
The fourth grade plaintiff hires Ann as his lawyer. The first grade defendant has
Sally as his lawyer. Prior to the court trial, Ann insists thatjudge Dan must rule
on the legality of Sally’s law license. Dan rules that Sally’s license is not valid,
and she is not allowed to represent her client in court. The first grader is found
guilty by judge Dan without benefit of representation.

 

 

 

 

 

(.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I) \ll' 03 01-5

 

 

 

These examples from the early period show that participants do not
display an expectation that legal representation is a requirement of the court.

Figure 2 shows that in the late period, the participants rarely discuss their
representation practices, but their behaviors often demonstrate that they are

acting on an expectation of representation, a belief that representation should or

125

 

 

 

will be provided. Figure 2 gives examples that demonstrate an expectation of

representation which can be observed in late court trials.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Examples Of An Expectation Of Representation In The Late Period
Court Trials Expressed In The Behaviors Of Court Participants During The Late
Pefiod.
, Trial Evidence Of Art-Expectation Of Representation Expressed In Court
No. Behaviors During The‘Late Period
20 A lawyer spontaneously volunteers to be the defense attorney for a first grade
defendant.
21 The first grade defendant is successfully defended by newly licensed lawyer,
Ron. Ron has been hired and prepared for this court trial by Will, the school
director.
22-25 Both the plaintiff and defendant of these court trials have representation.
26 The first grade defendant is successfully defended by newly licensed lawyer,
Terri. Terri was hired and advised by the school director Will.
27 A lawyer spontaneously volunteers to be the defense attorney. The angry
defendant at first argues that he does not want a lawyer, but several
participants que him to accept defense representation.
28 Judge Sally denies defendant Dan the opportunity to get a lawyer. She is told
by Ann “I think that a person has a right to have a lawyer.” Then Sally gives
Dan time tcmgpare his case with his defense attorney Ann.

 

 

 

 

 

With changes in the practices of legal representation, the school director

changes his behaviors concerning representation. During early court trials, the

director of the school initiates discussions about the need for representation. In

late court trials the director is involved in the court’s representation practices

primarily through his provision of lawyers for litigants. During the period of this

study, Will has created a Kidsville business called “Gorilla Services,” and several

lawyers work as employees in this business. Will informs his employees of legal

cases that he wants them to pursue, and he often provides guidance on ways to

prepare and present a client’s case.

126

 

 

 

 

8.2 Are There Impediments To The Provision Of Legal Representation

That Change Over Time?

This question approaches the issue of social change in the Kidsville Court
from a different perspective in terms of impediments to the provision of
representation that exist in the practices of the Kidsville Court. Heifetz (1994) and
Barge and Hirokawa (1989) argue that leaders function within organizations to
remove impediments to task completion. In the original Latin, impedimenta are
encumbrances such as baggage, supplies, and equipment that hinder progress
on a trip or military expedition. (New World Dictionary, 2nd Ed.). In this sense,
impediments are not externally imposed obstacles, they are baggage that one
has chosen to carry. In order to make progress on a trip one must leave certain
valued possessions behind, choosing between what is needed and what is not.
Similarly, in order to adapt to new pressures, groups must often re-organize or
modify important practices in their social organization. Thus, impediments begin
as important functions of the social organization which must later be modified or
removed in order for the social organization to develop. Leaders can be
observed as individuals or groups of individuals who facilitate the removal or
modification of impediments to task completion. The following sections describe
impediments to provision of representation that were observed in the Kidsville

Court data.

127

 

 

 

 

8.2.1 Limited Availability Of Lawyers (Children Who Know The

Kidsville Law And Who Have Legal Licensure)

The most obvious impediment to provision of representation is that there
were not enough lawyers for everyone to have representation during the early
period of this data because of licensure restrictions. At the beginning of the early
period there are only four licensed child lawyers in Kidsville: Ann, Dan, Sally and
Jack. Jack is not a popular choice as a lawyer because he regularly loses cases
and sometimes abandons his clients. To compound the problem of lawyer
availability, during court trial 8, Ann and Dan successfully challenge the validity of
Sally’s law license, which reduces the number of lawyers to three.

During the late period of this data, availability of representation increases
dramatically because two new lawyers (Ron and Terri) are issued law licenses
and Sally regains her law license that was revoked during the early period. Thus,
there are six licensed lawyers at the time of court trial 28 compared to three

lawyers at the time of court trial 8.

8.2.2 Each Court Trial Requires A Qualified Judge

Another reason for limited opportunities for legal representation is that
each court trial requires one of the experienced lawyers to participate as judge.
During the early period of this data set, participants attempted to use
inexperienced persons as judges in court trials 2 and 5, but it was discovered
that inexperienced judges make disruptive mistakes and have difficulty ruling on

objections.

128

 

 

 

 

In the late court trials, there are enough experienced lawyers available
that both litigants in a court trial can have representation and one lawyer can act
as judge. Another change is that Sally has become an experienced judge, and
she often volunteers to try cases “free of charge.” This has the effect of providing
a stable judge for the court activity while allowing other lawyers to focus on

responsibilities of legal representation.

8.2.3 High Cost Of Representation To Litigants In Kidsville Currency

 

Another impediment to provision of representation in the early court trials
is that of expense (in Kidsville currency). Several times in the transcripts

participants are seen attempting to negotiate the price of legal services, but

 

lawyers are expensive. For example, prior to court trial 5, Ann tells the plaintiff: “I
cost $200 in Kidsville money. You either want me for a lawyer, or you don’t.”
Prior to court trial 6, Dan tells a friend that his services cost $100 in Kidsville
money. The friend tries to negotiate, so Dan decides that he will take his
payment in two $50 Kidsville money installments. Thus, even when lawyers are
available, they sometimes are not involved in a court trial because the litigants do
not have Kidsville money to pay for a lawyer. Since younger children usually do
not have much Kidsville money, they are the most likely persons to go without
representation due to the expense.

In late court trials the problem of legal costs to individual litigants is
addressed in three ways. One, the school director often sends lawyers to pursue

certain cases as part of their employment in his business “Gorilla Services.”

129

 

 

 

Two, sometimes lawyers volunteer to take cases pro bono. It is not clear how
this practice comes about, but it is possible that the influx of new lawyers results

in persons who want court trial experience and are less concerned about being

 

paid. Three, as has already been noted, Sally begins volunteering to provide

judging services “for free,” further reducing legal costs for participants.

8.2.4 No Expectation Of Representation

 

Possibly because of practical problems caused by impediments during the
early period of the court, there is no expectation of representation shown by
litigants or court officials in early court trials. Lack of an expectation of
representation becomes a further impediment, since there is no requirement that
the court should assure legal representation to each and every litigant. The
evidence for lack of expectation of representation has been discussed in

section 8.1.

8.3 Conclusions

The analysis in 8.1 shows that over time there are important changes in

 

the practices of legal representation in the Kidsville Court. All of the indicators
discussed in Chapter Eight show improvements in legal representation practices
in the Kidsville Court. This is demonstrated by increased use of lawyers,
availability of licensed lawyers, provision of defense attorneys, and perhaps most
significantly, by provision of representation to younger children.

Changes in Kidsville Court representation practices also result in

significant changes in actions of individual child leaders. Differences between the

 

130

 

 

 

early and late court trials show that legal leaders express and act upon an
expectation of representation in the late period that is not exhibited in the early
period. In the examples throughout this chapter, it can be seen that during the
late period, identified Kidsville Court leaders assure and provide representation
for others. They also hire lawyers when they are involved as litigants. These
observed differences between the early and late periods of the court appear to
result from changes in the social organization of the court activity and its legal
practices rather than from differences between individual leaders in their
preferences, beliefs, or behaviors.

The list of impediments to legal representation in Chapter Eight
demonstrates that in the early period there are many practical limitations to
provision of legal representation. By the late period of this data these
impediments have largely been overcome, which provides a significant
improvement in procedural justice in the Kidsville Court.

From the early to the late period of this data, one sees a reduction of
impediments to legal representation, increased use of legal representation, and
the development of an expectation of legal representation. This leads one to
wonder: what are the processes that bring about these changes?

Chapter Nine looks at the transition period of the court. The analysis
examines how leaders contribute to historical events and bring about
transformations in practices of legal representation of the Kidsville Court. Heifetz
(1994) and Barge and Hirokawa (1989) specifically indicate that leaders help

organizations to remove impediments to task completion. Leaders help groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to make decisions about their values and weigh choices about how they want to
attain their goals.

There is an inherent dialectic in the job of the leader, since it is through
problems that the leader becomes useful to the group and practices leadership.
If the group has no important decisions to make, no problems to address, no
conflicting values that must be assessed and resolved, there is no need for
leaders. Thus, if children are to practice or demonstrate leadership, child peer
groups should be allowed to have important problems that require leadership
skills such as organizing difficult tasks, helping persons who need assistance,
and facilitating needed changes in important activities. If adults fulfill all of these
functions within an activity, then child participants have no need nor any
opportunity to practice and engage in leadership behaviors. In Chapter Nine it
will be demonstrated that the presence of a serious social problem and a conflict
between different values requires that child leaders engage in actions that

transform their legal representation practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter Nine: Processes Of Change In The Development Of Leader’s

Actions And In Practice Of Legal Representation: Analysis And Findings

What processes bring about the development in practices of legal
representation of the Kidsville Court activiw, and how do the actions of individual
leaders contribute to this development are the questions addressed in this
chapter.

Valsiner (1987, 1994) argues that the study of development should
primarily involve the analysis of developmental processes rather than the
analysis of developmental outcomes. He states that “developmental research
has as its goal to adequately represent the reality of the generation process.”
(Valsiner, 1987, p. 122). Development takes place during times of change when
previous forms are reorganized and novel forms emerge. This means that
developmental methodologies must capture and explore the temporal and
changing nature of developmental adaptation. It seems sensible that
developmental studies should ultimately focus on periods of change during which
previous forms are reorganized and novel forms emerge.

Chapters Seven and Eight show developmental outcomes in the Kidsville
Court. Chapter Seven demonstrates change in quantity or magnitude of
leadership behaviors in Kidsville Court trials over time. Chapter Eight provides
evidence of important qualitative changes in practices of legal representation of

the court and concurrent changes in the responsibilities of court leaders.

133

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Specifically, leaders are seen during the late period trials consistently providing
and assuring representation to others, including younger litigants. As a result of
changes over time in practices of legal representation, Kidsville Court trials are
more fair by adult standards of procedural justice: both litigants have the
opportunity to present a case and refute the case of the opponent, and decision
makers are then able to take both sides of a dispute into account before making
a decision.

Figure 3 summarizes the three historical periods of this study: the Early

Period, the Transition Period, and the Late Period.

Figure 3. Historical Overview Of Changes In Representation Practices Of
The Kidsville Court

 

 

 

Early Period: Transition Period: Late Period :
Court Trials 1— 8 Court Trials 9— 19 Court Trials 20- 28
Leaders do not Leaders consistently
consistently provide nor A period of provide and assure
assure legal change in representation.
representation, and there —V practices of legal Participants
is no expectation of legal representation. —> demonstrate an
representation observed What happens? expectation of legal
in participants’ behavior. How does representation.

There are relatively fewer change take Relatively frequent
leadership behaviors place? exhibition of
than in the late period. leadership behaviors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because the development of practices of legal representation takes place

during the transition period among a limited number of known actors, the

Kidsville Court data provide an Opportunity to study processes of developmental

134

 

 

 

 

change in the interaction between individual leaders and the practices of the
court activity. Chapter Nine provides an analysis of developmental processes of
change in practices of legal representation during the transition period (court
trials 9 — 19).

To understand the historical events during the transition period, this
chapter first gives a description of each transition period court trial presented in
historical order. Then, the historical development of the court is examined in
terms of transformations of inequity. The emphasis is on the processes by which
events in the court are transformed through the interdependence of actions by
individuals and the development of the activity in its practices of legal
representation. The conclusion to this chapter argues that the Kidsville Court
activity creates a zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) for its
participants by providing opportunities for them to encounter and discuss
contradictions. The leaders of the Kidsville Court contribute to the development
of equity practices of the activity, and thus they collectively create the next zone

of proximal development for themselves and for their classmates.

9.1 A Historical Account Of The Court Trials Of The Transition Period.

Throughout the transition period contradictions provide opportunities for
development at the level of the activity and at the level of the individual. As has
been discussed in Chapter Five, there is a global contradiction between equity
and unequal distribution of resources in many American social institutions.

Differences in power and status resources usually result in differential treatment

135

 

 

 

 

of persons; however, many American institutions are expected to provide equity
of treatment without consideration of a person’s power or status resources. This
global contradiction of equity is especially important in legal contexts. Unequal
treatment in court trials, especially in criminal law, would result in the unfair
application of law to persons who are accused of crimes. Chapter Five discusses
the fact that certain practices in procedural justice have developed over historical
time in the larger American culture in order to resolve problems in providing
equal treatment. Specifically, assurance of legal representation partially resolves
this tension because a competent lawyer can assure that the litigant’s rights are
not violated in a court of law.

This contradiction of equity versus unequal distribution of resources
is relevant in this study of the Kidsville Court. In Kidsville Court the contradiction
of equity is seen in local manifestations of inequity that arise from problems of
limited resources in the local Kidsville culture: licensed lawyers, qualified judges,
and Kidsville money. Through careful analysis of the historical events of the
transition period one can see work that Kidsville leaders do to reorganize their
court activity to resolve equity contradictions in their legal representation
practices.

A second contradiction in equity verses uneven distribution of resources is
seen throughout the transition period and it is basic to uses of power in
democratic leadership. Ideally, leaders are expected to be responsible for less
fortunate or less powerful others. Universal provision of representation, for

example, would require that Kidsville Count leaders find ways to distribute limited

136

 

 

 

legal resources more evenly among litigants. However, limited resources are
naturally attained by the more wealthy, powerful and competent members of the
group who often do not perceive any need to redistribute resources. There are
common and serious problems for organizations. First, why and how leaders
become aware of their responsibilities to provide for less fortunate others, and
second, if leaders become aware of the needs of less fortunate others, what do
they do to improve the distribution of limited resources within their social
organization? This contradiction will be referred to in this chapter as the
contradiction in awareness of inequity.

These two global contradictions arise in multiple local instantiations in the
specific court trials during the transition period. Leaders are seen modifying their
activity in attempts to resolve serious local contradictions that arise in Kidsville
Court trials. Specifically, court leaders are observed resolving contradictions in
their practices of legal representation and making transformations that eventually
improve the practices of legal representation of their court.

In order to present the data for analysis, this section provides a brief
sequential narrative description of each of the transition period court trials.
Special attention is given to court trials in which legal representation is not
provided or where problems in legal representation are encountered. The four
individuals identified as Kidsville Court leaders in Chapter Seven become a focus
of this discussion, since they are the children who are primarily responsible for

the changes in practices of legal representation during the transition period.

137

 

 

 

Through analysis of transition period court trials, the researcher found that
changes in legal representation practices involved Kidsville leaders taking direct
action to transform the outcome of a court trial by providing legal representation.
The school director, Will, was often involved in these incidents of transformation
as a supporter, guide, and agitator for change. The focus is on ways that
Kidsville Court leaders deal with contradictions in their legal practices by

transforming problems to universal legal representation.

9.1.1. Court Trial 8, Tom Vs. George; Breaking And Entering And

Destruction of Property.

In order to understand the historical events of the transition period, one
must first understand the events of court trial 8, which was the last court trial of
the early period. Court trial 8 was initiated by Tom, an emotionally impaired
fourth grader who was offended when George, 3 first grader, entered his office
without permission and knocked over a cardboard wall in the office. Court trial
8, from the early period, is an event that sets several transition period court trial
events into motion in the following days.

All four of the identified Kidsville Court leaders were involved as court
officials in court trial 8. Sally was George’s defense attorney and Ann was Tom’s
attorney. Dan was the judge, and Ron was the bailiff. At the beginning of court
trial 8, plaintiff’s attorney Ann insisted that Judge Dan must rule on the legality of
Sally’s lawyer license before the trial could proceed. Sally had been prepared to
act as the defense attorney, but Judge Dan ruled that Sally’s license was not

legal, so first grader George was denied representation. George was not able to

138

 

 

 

defend himself in court. He was found guilty and told he must pay the plaintiff
$300 in Kidsville currency. This is a very large sum of Kidsville money for
Kidsville participants. George, a first grader, did not have any Kidsville money.
George’s inability to pay his fine resulted in a number of further court trials.

Court trial 8 exemplifies two of the impediments to representation that
were discussed in Chapter Eight: limited availability of lawyers and a clear lack of
any expectation of representation. Due to a tightened restriction in lawyer
licensing, Sally was not longer licensed and she could not act in George’s
defense. Since there was no expectation of representation, no attempt was
made by the court to provide representation, and no notice was taken of the
inequity of the result to George and Sally.

Because of their relative lack of power in this situation, both George and
Sally were helpless to take action against this inequity perceived by them. It was
not a problem for the court, because the inequity was not perceived by the court.
It was a problem for George and Sally. Their voices were silenced by the
powerful voices of Ann and Dan, who decided that Sally’s law license was illegal.
Without legal representation, George’s voice could not be heard and his side of
the story did not come to the attention of the judge. The next several Kidsville
Court trials show how the court and its participants transform the events of court

trial 8.

139

 

 

9.1.2 Court Trial 9, Kidsville Council Vs. Citizen Buh; Nonpayment

Of Taxes.

Court trial 9 provides an opportunity to observe a collaboration between
child leaders of the Kidsville Court and their teacher in the process of addressing
the court’s practices of legal representation. On Friday mornings the tax collector
went on her rounds to each office. That Friday, the director of the school, Will,
assumed the role of a citizen activist (commonly known to Kidsville town
participants as citizen ”Buh"), and he asked the tax collector to show him in
writing where it says he has to pay taxes. A Council meeting was called. The
tax collector returned to Buh with a written demand signed by the “Concil” [sic].
Buh said he doesn’t know any “Concil” and he made a public show of throwing
the paper away. The Council drafts, and the tax collector presents, a new,
correctly spelled demand. Buh now asks: “What happens if I don’t pay it?” The
Council met again and drafted a new law that specifies a penalty for non-
payment. It is to sit on a chair “in jail” for 15 minutes or to pay a fine of$1000 in
Kidsville money. The tax collector showed the new law to Buh who said: “Ok, I’ll
spend 15 minutes in jail, and then my taxes are paid.” On short notice the
Council informs Buh that they are suing him, and he is told to be in court in five
minutes.

Once in court Buh demands that the court provide a lawyer for him. He is
essentially told that the court does not have to provide a lawyer. Buh persists in

his demand for a lawyer. The transcript below shows the result.

140

 

Buh: [Buh insists that he must be given a lawyer to represent
him. Dan, President of the Bar Association, leaves to
license a temporary lawyer. Dan returns with Rich, one of

the youngest first graders in the school].

[Bar Association President Dan presents Rich to Buh]:

Dan:
Here’s your lawyer.

Buh: [Buh quickly establishes that Rich has no experience in the
practice of law]: I don’t accept him.

Ann: [Council President]: Ok, then you don’t have a lawyer.

Buh: You gotta give me a lawyer.
Ann: We gave you a lawyer.

Buh: This lawyer doesn’t know law.

Ann: He’s a lawyer. We’ve given you a lawyer. You can either
accept him or not accept him and represent yourself.

Buh: What’s a lawyer if not a person who knows law? I mean,
you could have put a stick of wood here and said “That’s a

lawyer.” [Kidsville Council members chuckle at this, and
there is some relaxation of tension in the courtroom]

 

Will: [The teacher now speaks in his “teacher voice” as Will]:
Now, I’m going to talk to you as your teacher about what I

need to do here. I need to protect Rich from this serious
confrontation that is taking place here. [Will sends the first
grader, Rich, back to his class, after which Will returns to his

arguments as defendant Buh].

Buh: I’d be very happy with any of the Council members as a
lawyer. [This suggestion results in a discussion of why
Council members can’t act as Buh’s lawyer. Some Council
members argue that a lawyer cannot provide representation
unless he or she agrees with the client. Their reasoning is

that the lawyer would be prejudiced against Buh’s case]

Dan: [softly]”: No, they wouldn’t be prejudiced.

Buh: I’d trust any Council member to present my case. They
wouldn’t have to agree with me. Just present my case.

What’s wrong with one of you guys? I’d take Josh. I’d take

141

 

 

 

Ron.
Ron: We’re not licensed.
Buh: [laughing]: How do you manage to license poor Rich and
feed him into this meat grinder that is about to happen here,
if?” you won’t license one of these guys who can stand up to

In this manner, two local instantiations of global equity contradictions are
created and made explicit by Will together with the members of the Kidsville
Council. Buh insists on being represented, which contradicts the Kidsville
practice that a lawyer cannot represent someone unless he or she agrees with
the client. Buh strongly states that any lawyer who can argue his case is fine.
He doesn’t have to have a lawyer who agrees with him. Dan’s voice can be
heard on the audiotape saying “No, . . . the lawyer wouldn’t be prejudiced.”

Another local instantiation of the global equity contradiction is that Dan,
who is the President of the Bar Association, refuses to license capable senior
members of the Council, including Sally, Ron, and Josh. However, Dan is willing
to temporarily license a first grader to fill a "lawyer” slot. Currently the only
licensed lawyers in Kidsville are Dan, Ann, and Jack. Will’s comment is gently
stated, but the contradiction is now open for discussion. At this point in court
trial 9, a personal transformation takes place. Dan, the President of the Bar
Association, offers to be Buh’s defense attorney. Buh accepts and Dan changes

sides in the courtroom. That the council consents to this indicates that a

transformation may be taking place in the practices of the court as well.

 

 

 

During the trial Buh takes the stand and explains that he only wanted to
talk to someone about lowering his taxes, but the Kidsville government is not
willing to listen to someone who has a complaint. Buh expresses relief that the
Council is now willing to listen to him, and he gives an argument about why he
believes that his office taxes should be lowered. After heated argument, the
court trial comes to an end when the Council decides to settle out of court by
lowering Buh’s tax. This court trial is stressful enough for the Kidsville leaders

that Council President Ann and several other participants request to have hugs

from Will after the court trial is over.

9.1.3 Court Trial 10, Tom Vs. George; Kidsville Money Overdue From

Fine Awarded By The Court On Last Friday.

Court trial 10 is the first of four court trials that take place on the same day
concerning a conflict between Tom and George that began with court trial 8. In
court trial 8, first grader George was deprived of a lawyer, found guilty, and
charged to pay $300 in Kidsville money to Tom, the fourth grade plaintiff. By
Monday the fine has not been paid, which is not a surprise because $300 is a

large sum of Kidsville money and jobless George usually don’t have the means
to make money.
Court trial 10 is initiated by Tom, who hires Dan as a lawyer to sue George
for the Kidsville money that was awarded last Friday. Tom tried to specify at the

end of court trial 8 that the money be paid to him by a certain date. He asserts

143

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the previous Friday was that day, and he wants his money. This time defendant
George has a lawyer, Jack, whose license is legal. With the addition of a

defense attorney there are some clever arguments, most of which focus on
confusion about the date that the Kidsville money is considered to be due. Judge
Sally listens to both sides of the dispute and decides that George still owes the
Kidsville money. In this trial the usefulness of a defense attorney is
demonstrated publicly because the defense is able to put up a good fight in the
court trial. As times goes on in this day, more of George’s story will be heard

and some interesting evidence will come out into the open.

9.1.4 Court Trial 11, Baltic Credit Cards Vs. Citizen Buh; Non-
Payment Of Credit Card Debt.

In the month before this court trial, Buh had run up a bill on his Baltic
Credit Card, a business run by Sally. Further, he made up excuses for not
paying the debt. In doing this, Will, as a teacher, was trying to stimulate Sally to
stand up appropriately to Buh because of her habit of being non-assertive with
men. Will had been backing Ann to act as Sally’s lawyer, hoping that Sally
would sue him, win the case, and get on about her business. As an attorney,

Ann had been trying to get Sally to go to court, but Sally kept backing out of a
formal court confrontation with Buh.
Finally, after avoiding the problem for a month, Sally sued “Citizen Buh”
for not paying the amount due on a credit card. Sally did not seem able to sue

“Buh” without extra support, so, in court trial 11, Ann acted as the judge, and

144

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sally’s lawyer is Marie a teacher in the school. Marie was not a licensed lawyer
in Kidsville because of a law that prohibited adults from practicing law, so this
use of Marie as a lawyer was against the law. Buh hired his own lawyer, Tom,
who was also not a licensed lawyer. Buh may have hired Tom because he really
did not intend to win the case and did not want a licensed lawyer who would want
to win. Judge Ann made it clear that she was allowing these unlicensed lawyers
to participate only because no one had complained about it. The outcome of the
court trial was that Sally successfully sued Buh, who paid the Kidsville money

that he owed to her.

9.1.5 Court Trial 12, George Vs. Tom; False Charges.

Court trial 12 is a counter-suit: George against Tom. Once again, Jack is
George’s attorney, and Dan is Tom’s attorney. The counter-suit was stimulated
by Will, who found witnesses to the actual event and then guided defense
attorney Jack so that these events could be heard by the court.

During this court trial some very surprising facts came forth. Several
witnesses saw fourth grade Tom gesture to first grade George beckoning George
to his office. When George stepped into the office entrance, Tom began yelling:
“You stepped into the office. I’m going to sue you.” George became frightened,
stumbled, and knocked over a cardboard wall.

These circumstances had not been considered in court trial 8, the original
court trial in which George was found guilty. The original guilty verdict expresses

an assumption that George intentionally entered the office and destroyed

 

 

 

 

property, and thus was guilty of a crime. Tom was portrayed as a victim of a
crime. As in adult courts, a guilty verdict is expected to represent a final truth.

The new evidence in court trial 12 presents Tom as an instigator who may
have entrapped and frightened a younger child and then used the court to benefit
from the situation. During court trial 12, it became apparent to participants that
the court’s act of denying representation to George in court trial 8 continued to
have serious consequences for him. Now some other court participants,
especially Dan, were starting to experience problems because the issues
became contradictory. A guilty verdict was not an easy thing to reverse. These
facts were not discussed in court trial 10 on the same topic. The discovery of this
new evidence presented a clear contradiction between the previous guilty verdict
and present evidence of George’s extenuating circumstances

Dan, who was Tom’s lawyer, showed obvious surprise when he heard
about the events, and he began to argue for the correctness of the original
verdict. Dan first argued for a specificity of purview: namely, George’s guilt has
already been decided, and the original verdict would have to be overturned by
the judge who made the original verdict, who happens to be Dan. Next, Dan
engaged in a hair-splitting argument that his client called George to the office but
did not invite him to enter, which meant that George entered the office without
permission. Lastly, Dan argued that the harm done was real, since it has already
been proven that George did cause destruction by knocking over a cardboard

wall. In this manner, Dan tried to uphold the meaning of the original court

decision in spite of new evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In response to Dan’s arguments, George’s lawyer called Will, the school
director, to the stand as a witness. Will’s testimony provides his interpretation of
the events that lead to George’s original guilty finding. Will stated that he was
testifying as an expert witness in child development, and he testified that a first
grader might not understand the difference between being called over to an office
and being invited in. Will stated that everyone knew that George was clumsy and
he often falls by accident. In other words, George’s actions were probably
accidental, not intentional. Will offered the humorous opinion that “anyone who
called George to their office should be prepared for whatever happens.” This
caused general chuckling in the courtroom.

Through his testimony, Will showed that Dan’s legalistic defense of the
guilty verdict in court trial 8 was not useful since the defendant’s acts were not
intentional, but accidental. The contradiction here lies in the issue of legal
responsibility. A person is usually not held responsible for simple mistakes, yet
this one was. When court reconvened after a recess for lunch, Judge Sally
levied a $50 fine in Kidsville Currency to Tom on the counter-suit.

The new and contradictory evidence had brought the court’s authority into
question along with some collateral appreciation of the duties and functions of
lawyers. The inequity of the $50 fine and the $300 penalty seemed to go
unnoticed in the acrimonious trial atmosphere. All during trial 12 and continuing
into trial 13, Jack and Tom made increasingly aggressive and personal

arguments interrupting each other and making insulting remarks.

 

 

 

 

9.1.6 Court Trial 13, Tom Vs. George; Non-Payment Of Original Fine.

Court trial 13 began immediately after Judge Sally’s verdict was given on
court Trial 12. George’s attorney demanded to have a new court trial to overturn
the guilty verdict of court trial 8 and Dan wanted a trial to clarify that George still
owed the original fine. In court trial 13, Dan again proved that George entered
the office without permission, knocked over the wall, and was fined $300 in
Kidsville money. George’s attorney interrupted with his arguments and
witnesses proving that George was called over to the office by Tom. George’s
attorney and the plaintiff heatedly insulted each other. The bailiff walked off the
job, claiming that he had not been paid for his services in the previous court trial.
Judge Sally lost track of the order of speech events, allowing participants to
interrupt each other’s cases and insert their own witnesses. At times it was
difficult to tell who was suing whom.

In the end, Judge Sally does not overturn the verdict of court trial 8, nor
does she make any changes to the fines that have been charged to George and
Tom. However, by this time George's, side of the story has finally been heard.
This represents a significant attempt at transformation of the result of the original
court trial in which George was found guilty but had no lawyer, and his side of the
story was not heard at all. The practice of holding the individual responsible for
his own defense representation was now evident as a manifest problem in the
activity. There was no easyisolution to this situation that had been created, and
no solution at all that did not involve the defense giving up or the court changing

its practices of legal representation.

148

 

 

 

9.1.7 Court Trial 14, George Vs. Tom And Dan; More Than Two Court

Trials On The Same Topic.

The final court trial on this matter is court trial14, initiated by George’s
attorney against both Dan and his client Tom. Time is running short because it is
almost the end of the school day. This time Will, as the teacher, has hired
Judge Ann to “clean up this mess and get some justice done here.” George’s
attorney accuses both Tom and Dan of making false accusations against his
client in court trial 8. Furthermore, he refers to the Kidsville law that a person
cannot be sued more than twice for the same crime, and he argues that his client
has been sued several times over the same issue.

Judge Ann hears both sides of the issue and all of the evidence; then she
overrules all previous verdicts and fines. She fines both litigants $50 in Kidsville
money to be paid to the court (to herself). Prompted by Will, Ann says she
thinks George “just became afraid and fell down, and he didn’t understand what
he was doing.”

Judge Ann’s decision and explanation provide a transformation of the
events from court trial 8 by nullifying the court’s original decision that George
was guilty of a crime. There may be an underlying message for the participants:
it is probably not a good thing to find people guilty without giving them
opportunity for a defense. When the court does not hear someone the first time,

it may cause a problem for everyone.

149

 

 

 

 

 

 

After trial 14 is over, it was time for the school’s daily end-of-day—group.
Will gave a soothing lecture gently pointing out that this matter became blown out
of proportion. Will said that George should be more careful where he is falling
and Tom should be less touchy about first graders who fall down. After
conducting four court trials on this topic in one day, court leaders seem to be in
agreement that there had been a miscarriage ofjustice in court trial 8. The issue
had been argued and re-argued and finally was settled by Judge Ann, with Will’s
guidance. By the end, George’s side of the story had been heard and taken into
account by the court.

There had been other changes that had taken place in this one day.
Specifically, there were four consecutive court trials in which both sides had
legal representation, and the usefulness of legal representation had now been
repeatedly proven.

There are also opportunities for individual leaders to consider their own
behaviors. Ann and Dan have an opportunity to learn a lesson about their
leadership actions because they were primarily responsible for denying
representation during court trial 8, resulting in the original guilty verdict. In trial 8,
Judge Dan did not hear George’s side of the story and, at Ann’s request, he
denied representation to a first grader. Then, as a lawyer, Dan not check into
his client’s story, which resulted in an unpleasant surprise for him in the middle of
court trial 13. In court trial 14, Judge Ann overturns the decision that she had
worked to achieve three days before as the plaintiff’s attorney. When Ann

addressed the group, she said that George’s actions were probably a mistake on

150

 

 

 

 

the part of a first grader, an idea planted by Will, that she had not considered or
taken into account in court trial 8.

Sally was another leader who experienced changes in this sequence of
court trials. When this sequence began, Sally had a law license that was ruled
“not valid” by Judge Dan. Sally responded by becoming the judge of court trials
10, 12, and 13. By taking the role of judge, Sally helps resolve the problem of
stability in judging in the Kidsville Court, and she created her own pressure on
court participants by her willingness to hear both sides of the issue, even when
people interrupted each other’s cases or did not follow court protocols. During
the court trials of this day, and with the recent experience of losing her law
license, Sally seemed to be developing a new style ofjudging in which keeping
order and the Ietter-of-the-law was less important than hearing what people had
to say.

Will, acting as a teacher, demonstrated that he was an important leader in
these events as well. He provided support for George and his attorney, he
engaged in detective work to uncover the crucial evidence of Tom’s entrapment,
and he eventually testified as an expert witness explaining that George’s actions
were accidental rather than intentional. In the end, Will hired and guided Judge

Ann so that the final transformation for this set of court trials could take place.

9.1.8 Court Trial 15. Kidsville Bank Vs. Jack; Stealing Kidsville
Money From The Bank.
In court trial 15 a low status fourth grader, Jack, is sued for the theft from

the bank of $8,000 in Kidsville money. This came about because he publicly

151

 

 

 

 

bragged about stealing $8,000 in Kidsville currency from the bank, and Bank
President Ron took offence at this. Plaintiff Ron was the Kidsville Bank
President and his attorney was Ann. The defendant did not have a lawyer
because the plaintiff’s attorney, Ann, had subpoenaed all of the Council
members as witnesses for Ron. The defendant sat sucking his thumb throughout
most of the trial. He asked for time to get a lawyer, but he was told by Plaintiffs
Attorney Ann: “You were informed of the case at 9:30 [am], and it is now

1:30 [p.m.]” During the court trial, the Bank provided no evidence that Kidsville
money was missing, but there were many witnesses to the fact that the
defendant had bragged about stealing the money. Without a defense, Jack was
found guilty and fined $9,570 to be paid to Bank President Ron by the end of the
next school day.

This court trial presents a return to the early practices and impediments of
the early period which is in contradiction with court practices that have been
recently established for providing representation to all defendants. In court trial
9, citizen Buh argued successfully that he should be given defense
representation, even though no one agreed with his actions. In court trial 14 it
was shown that lack of defense representation could result in a guilty verdict on
the basis of inadequate evidence. Court trials 9 and 14 would seem to have set
precedents for the provision of defense representation. However, during the
transition period, contradictory precedents and court practices co-exist, and

some of these have long histories.

152

 

 

 

 

There were two problems in obtaining representation for the defendant in
court trial 15. The first problem was that no one agreed with this client’s behavior
and thus no one wanted to represent him. Another obstacle to obtaining legal
representation was that all of the licensed lawyers in Kidsville had been
subpoenaed as witnesses. There was an unstated restriction that persons could
not fulfill dual roles within the same court trial. Thus, a subpoenaed witness
could not provide services as an attorney.

Court trial 15 is a short court trial in which several witnesses testified that
they heard Jack brag that he had stolen Kidsville money from the Bank. Jack
was found guilty and fined to pay the amount of the theft ($8,000) plus a $1,750
fine in Kidsville money to the Bank President Ron. At the end of the court trial,

Jack was crying.

9.1.9 Court Trial 16, Jack Vs. Kidsville Bank; Making False Charges

About Theft Of Kidsville Money.

After the verdict was given in court trial 15, Will approached Jack and said:
“You’ve known about this since 9:30, but you didn’t do anything to try to get help.
So, do you want pity or do you want help?” Jack wiped away his tears. Then
Will hired Dan as the attorney for Jack’s counter-suit, and he suggested to Dan
that he might subpoena all of the Council members as witnesses. Dan
enthusiastically followed this advice.

In court, Dan presented a case accusing Bank President Ron of bringing
false changes against his client in the previous court trial. Dan argued that the

Bank had no evidence that Kidsville money was missing. Furthermore, all of the

153

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

subpoenaed witnesses observed this lack of evidence. Since Defendant Jack
was denied representation in court trial 15 on the basis of the unstated rule
against dual roles, then it was appropriate to use the same tactic to deny
representation in this court trial to Defendant Ron. Of course, high status
individuals and their friends are not accustomed to being treated in such a

manner, and Defendant Ron objected, which resulted in the following exchange.

Ron: But I didn’t have any time to prepare a case, and I can’t get a
lawyer because all of the lawyers are subpoenaed as
witnesses.

Dan: That’s exactly what you did to my client in the last court trial.

[Ron requested a recess, consulted with his lawyer friends, and
settled out of court with both sides dropping their charges]

This trial illustrates the importance that court participants now attach to having a
lawyer, and the outcome of this trial helps to provide a foundation for moving
toward a court practice of providing legal representation.

The transformation in court trial 16 takes place when a Council member is
deprived of the opportunity for a defense attorney, and other Council members
are not allowed to defend their friend. Ron points out the injustice when he
complains that he can’t get a lawyer because they have all been subpoenaed as
witnesses. Dan responds: “That’s exactly what you did to my client.” In court
trials 15 and 16, the rule against dual roles is used unfairly to control the

outcome. At this point, the contradiction is made clear to all participants. We

154

 

 

 

 

don’t like to admit it, but we care about some folks more than others. In a court
of law, people are supposed to get equal access to legal resources, even though
this is not true in most other spheres of community life. Will believes that this
issue is best experienced in a hands-on way, and the events of court trials 15
and 16 require the participants to deal with this contraction.

It can be clearly seen that Dan acts as a leader when he provides
representation for an unpopular client, challenging the rule against dual roles
within a court trial as unfair. Dan is a powerful influence because he is both the
Kidsville Council President, and he controls the licensure of new legal
professionals, including lawyers.

This example demonstrates Will’s indirect method of intervention, which
illustrates a different form of leadership than is observed in the child leaders of
the Kidsville Court. Through Will’s guidance, Dan’s willingness to argue the
point, and Ron’s assertion of unfairness, all of the Kidsville Court leaders have an
opportunity to experience the injustice of being tried without benefit of

representation.

9.1.10 Court Trial 17, Tom Vs. Marie’s DooDads, Disturbing The

Peace.

In court trial 17, there are no problems in obtaining representation.
Plaintiff Tom hired Dan as his attorney. Ann is the judge. The defendant is
Marie, a teacher, and her lawyer is Sally, who has by this time managed to talk

Josh into signing her law license, which validates her license as legal.

155

 

 

 

 

 

Tom is a recent transfer student from public school where he had been in
a self-contained classroom for emotionally impaired children. He has carried on
a battle for control with Marie, who is a first year teacher. After school work is
done in her room, Marie has been operating a business called Marie’s Doodads
in Kidsville. Children gather around her desk and trade stickers, play games, or
cut, paste, and color. At times Marie teaches classes in origami or other arts in
her store for small donations of Kidsville money from the participants. Somehow
on this occasion, Tom, an arch-disturber, managed to become offended by the
noise at Marie’s Doodads.

Tom sued Marie’s Doodads for “disturbing the peace.” His claim was that
the teacher’s Kidsville business was making too much noise during free time.
During the presentation of evidence, Plaintiffs Attorney Dan called Tom and one
other witness who said that many of the teacher’s customers were talking at the
same time and that in their opinion the customers were talking loudly.

During the defense case, Defense Attorney Sally called several witnesses
who testified that the customers were talking one or two at a time and that the
noise was not too loud. Both sides of the issue are expressed in court with the
testimony of multiple defendants concerning the definition of what is “too Ioud”
during free time in a classroom. Judge Ann decides in favor of Tom, and Marie’s

Doodads is fined.

156

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.1.11 Court Trial 18, Marie’s DooDads Vs. Tom, Disturbing The

Peace.

Court trial 18 is a counter-suit against Tom, initiated by the teacher who
was sued in court trial 17. Again, Sally is the Marie’s lawyer, and Dan is Tom’s
attorney. Marie, doing business as Marie’s Doodad’s, sued Tom for “disturbing
the peace.” Her claim was that Tom was playing a loud video game during free
time, and he refused to turn down the volume when her customers asked him to.

Both sides were given a chance to express their sides in court, and there
was an extended argument about whether the game was too loud during free
time, including a demonstration of the video game. The court trial became
lengthy and Marie needed to leave the courtroom to take over her preschool

teaching duties. Judge Ann dismissed Marie’s case.

9.1.12 Court Trial 19, Josh Vs. Tom; Property Destruction.

Court Trial 19 was the last of the court trials in which a defendant was
tried without opportunity for representation. In court trial 19, Tom an emotionally
impaired fourth grader, was sued because he was in Council Member Josh’s
office, was told to leave, and knocked possessions off of a shelf as he angrily
departed the office. Dan, Josh’s office-mate, was the judge. Plaintiff Josh hired
Ann as his attorney. Tom entered the courtroom with Jack as his defense
attorney.

[As the court trial began, the defendant yelled that he wanted time

to talk to his lawyer, and the plaintiff’s attorney argued that Tom

was given time already]

Tom: Three minutes, three minutesl!

157

 

 

 

 

Ann: The defendant was yelling and not trying to get a lawyer.
Five to ten minutes ago the plaintiff told the defendant that
he was going to sue him, right after the incident. The
defendant could have hired a lawyer, but he chose to wait.

[This argument continued and became loud enough that the
statements of individuals could hardly be discerned]

Dan: [banging his gavel] Order, order in the court. [The
defendant’s attorney began to make a request to talk to his
client, the plaintiff’s attorney interrupted, and the defendant
began yelling again]

Dan: [bangs gavel]. Order, orderl! [Defendant Tom continued to
yell]

Dan: [to Tom]: Quietll

Jack: Please, your Honor, give me time to talk to my client.

Dan: No!

[At this point, defendant Tom accused Judge Dan of having a crush

on the plaintiff’s attorney, Ann, and that’s why Judge Dan does

whatever Ann wants. Dan denied this, saying that they can’t take

more time because they were pressed for time. In fact, the school

day is almost over.]

Eventually, when plaintiff’s attorney Ann began to present her case,
defense attorney Jack objected that his client knocked Josh’s possessions off the
shelf accidentally. The objection was overruled. After several more escalations
of the argument, Judge Dan threatened Jack and Tom with contempt of court,
although the attorney, Jack, had been attempting to calm his client. Jack could
not take the pressure and he quit as Tom’s defense attorney.

After his attorney abandoned him, defendant Tom angrily demanded

representation, but was denied. He yelled that he did not have time to prepare a

158

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

case, but his request for delay was also denied. During the trial, defendant Tom
continued to insult everyone in the courtroom in a personal manner and Judge
Dan repeatedly called for order and banged a make-shift gavel on the podium.
With obvious effort plaintiffs attorney Ann presented her case. Meanwhile, Tom
flipped papers, jiggled his legs, and sang “Liar, Liar, Pants on fire” as witnesses
gave testimony. The defendant was found guilty and ordered to pay a large
amount of Kidsville money to the plaintiff. The resemblance to court trial #8 was
striking, although Tom might have been treated differently if he had made his
requests politely.

In this court trial the defendant’s behavior provides a serious challenge to
the emerging Kidsville Court practices of legal representation. The defendant’s
behavior was rude and bizarre, which had never been seen in the Kidsville Court.
Then, the defense attorney abandoned the client, creating another problem.
Defense representation would have to be renegotiated with very limited time, and
it may seem unreasonable to the irritable participants that they should have to
provide anything at all to someone who is so insulting to everyone in the court.
The result was a contradiction between the participant’s personal outrage and
the growing ideas that had recently led to new practices of legal representation.
Tom is not represented, denied an opportunity to prepare a case, found guilty,
and fined a large sum of Kidsville money.

After Judge Dan’s decision, Tom left in a rage and Will followed him to de-
escalate the situation. Later, Will talked privately with Sally concerning Tom’s

personal problems. Tom’s mother physically abuses him, and he has notified the

159

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

authorities. Now in temporary foster care, he is scheduled to go into a new foster
home soon. Will and Sally together prepared an argument that Tom was found
guilty without benefit of representation, in spite of his requests for a lawyer and
for time to prepare his case.

On the following Monday, Sally talked privately to Council President Dan,
presenting her argument on behalf of Tom. Later that day a Council meeting was
called and Dan lead the Council in overturning the guilty verdict of the court. This
was the first time that the Kidsville Council became involved in overturning a
court verdict. This transformation was made by the entire Council, with the

advocacy of Will, Sally, and Dan.

9.1.13 Court Trial 20, Kidsville Council Vs. Rupert; Theft Of Kidsville

Money From The Bank.

Court trial 20 is the first court trial of the late period. As noted in Chapter
Eight, during the late period an expectation of representation is observed in the
actions and statements of court participants, and is shown by multiple court
participants who seamlessly coordinate their actions to provide and assure
defense representation.

Court Trial 20 is an exemplar of the late period of representation. When
a hapless kindergartner was accused of stealing Kidsville money from the bank,
the court participants did not hesitate in assuring that he had representation. A
fourth grade attorney spontaneously volunteered to be the defense attorney and
began to talk to the defendant. Judge Sally requested to know the name of the

defense attorney, indicating her expectation that the defendant would have

160

 

 

 

 

representation. The defense informed the court that his client said he did not
steal the Kidsville money. After a brief investigation, Prosecutor Dan discovered
that the child who actually stole the Kidsville money had confessed to Will.
Prosecutor Dan requested of Judge Sally that the case be dropped, and this was

the action taken by the judge.

9.2 Transformations Of Inequity: Examples Of The Interdependence Of

Individual Action And Development Of Practice.

Chapter Eight demonstrates changes in the Kidsville Court practices of
representation, culminating in practices that assure the provision of universal
representation. Section 9.1 introduces the court trials of the transition period
where the emphasis is on events in which an inequity in court practices is
challenged and defended by Kidsville Court leaders. Section 9.2 reintroduces
the court trials of the transition period, focusing on actions of individual leaders
that effect the transformation of practices of the activity.

Court trial 9 is perhaps the best exemplar of a court trial in which local
equity contradictions in practices of legal representation are discussed and
addressed by the Kidsville Court participants and their teacher. In court trial 9
there is no expectation of defense representation (except that the defendant
defies custom by demanding representation), there are not enough licensed
lawyers to provide representation, and there is an expectation that a Kidsville
lawyer must agree with his or her client in order to provide representation. These
practices of the Kidsville Court have been shown in Chapter Eight to be

impediments to the provision of representation in the local customs of Kidsville.

161

 

 

 

 

These practices are contradictory to equity in legal representation, and they
contribute to uneven distribution of legal resources in the Kidsville Court during
this period of time.

In court trial 9, the school director, acting as Kidsville citizen “Buh,”
confronts these local equity contradictions in his dialogue with the council
members. A transformation of legal practice takes place when leader Dan
decides that he does not have to agree with defendant Buh in order to present
Buh’s case. Dan physically moves to the defense side of the courtroom, works
with Buh to prepare a case, and then argues that case. In working on their case
together, Buh and Dan provide a new model for the professional relationship
between the lawyer and client in Kidsville Court.

In his role as a citizen activist, Buh is able to induce a consideration of the
contradiction between equity and unequal distribution of resources in Kidsville
Court practices of legal representation. There are several factors that allow Will
to successfully introduce his arguments for equity into this situation and to
influence Kidsville Court leader Dan to hear his plea about the need to
redistribute legal resources. Will is an important person in their school. In the
role of Buh, he is also a wealthy business person of their town. When Buh
argues for himself, he does so in a way that is appropriate for a Kidsville Court
participant and defendant.

Despite Buh’s power and resources and his ability to express his
arguments eloquently, the extent to which the court leaders resist his demand is

notable. Buh’s demand that the court should provide representation is clearly

162

 

 

 

unreasonable to members of the Kidsville Council. Only part of Buh’s argument
is accepted, and only one member of the Council, Dan, takes action on the basis
of this argument.

As a part of this study, the school director Will’s actions are probably best
explained in his own words. The school director was asked to review the
transcript and talk to the researcher about impediments to representation and his
interventions to transform court representation practices. Will related the
following:

Transformation of the Kidsville Court practices of representation
required significant changes for the participants to move from
verisimilitude to functionality. For example, in the beginning the
town of Kidsville was a verisimilitudinous play activity with Sally
doling out Monopoly money to her friends, so they could buy her
drawings. Participants took non-functional roles, such as Mayor
and Governor. Dan took the role of the President of the Bar
Association, and he issued law licenses to Ann and Sally. Dan was
the guardian of the gate, and children had to go to him to get a
license. Ann, Dan, and Sally were older children and all members
of the Council, so they formed a sort of clique.

Because these three and their friends were all on the
Council, there was usually a great deal of agreement between
them, and because they were primarily the only lawyers and judges
in the town, there was a great deal of agreement between the court
and the Council. If you disagreed with a member of the Council,
you were sunk. Providing legal representation was the farthest
thing from their minds. To embrace the idea that a lawyer could
represent someone with whom they personally disagreed meant
embracing a less personal idea of interaction. Such a change
requires a willing distribution of power, which I believe is the
hallmark of identification with a group, not just a clique, and it is the
purpose of what I call in my writings ‘social-effective’ play.

Once the court became more functional, I used opportunities
that came up to make suggestions to the group. This trial shows
one of the rare occasions when I felt the need to steer their actions
more directly than usual. The Council’s attempt to license Rich as
my lawyer would have subjected him to undue stress, so I
explained this to them.

163

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m happy with the way it turned out. I chose to appear as

Buh because as Buh I have more freedom to push the children’s

system without overpowering it. As a teacher, I could have said,

“Real courts must provide representation if a person is unable to

get it.” But there are risks in that kind of teacher intervention, and

one of these risks is that the activity could die. Big people often co-

opt children’s play and work with the best of intentions and the

worst of results. As an example, one new teacher took over the

children’s newspaper with the result that the children never made

another edition. By acting as Buh, I gave the group an opportunity

to work on the effect of their lack of expectation of representation.

Buh was a high status individual because of his wealth and the

history we had as a group. Historically, when Buh made demands

of them, there was usually some reasonable solution that was

mutually agreeable to both the group and to Bub.

(Comments by Will, School Director)

Through the collaborative actions of the teacher and the Council
members, court trial 9 is transformed from a trial without defense representation
to a trial with defense representation. As Will explained above, this required
some sophisticated work on the part of the teacher. He wanted to discuss equity
contradictions, but he did not want to require that child leaders make specific
changes, nor did he want to take over the activity. By making himself into an
annoying citizen with a problem, he was able to be heard by the Council
members.

It may be tempting to expect that a dramatic group learning experience, as
is seen in court Trial 9, will bring about a total transformation of Kidsville Court
equity practices. However, data from the transition period show that the route
toward equity required several dramatic episodes in which equity contradictions

were encountered and challenged. In other words, transformation in equity

practices of the Kidsville Court did not take place quickly or easily.

164

 

 

 

 

Starting with court trial 8, when George, a first grader, was found guilty
without opportunity of a defense, there are five court trials on the issue of Tom v.
George before the court reaches an equitable outcome. This sequence of court
trials, which takes most of an afternoon, exemplifies one of the fundamental ways
that Kidsville Court leaders become aware of the needs of others who are less
fortunate, and that is by observing unfair consequences of their own actions and
taking action to correct those consequences. George was denied representation
in court trial 8, and by the time his side of the issue was heard in court, the guilty

verdict had already been given. In Kidsville, as in courts in the larger American

 

culture, there is an inherent contradiction between a guilty verdict and new

evidence of innocence. There is no simple way to resolve such a contradiction.

 

Historical time is not reversible and courts of law produce outcomes that cannot
easily be “undone.”

Throughout the Tom v. George court trials, Will is seen creating and
maintaining contradictions to address the need to redistribute legal resources for
others who are less fortunate, such as first grader George. Will provides a model
for redistribution of resources by financially supporting George’s defense. He
then uncovers the evidence of George’s innocence and guides George’s attorney
to assure that the court hears George’s evidence. Evidence of George’s
innocence ultimately creates an equity crisis for Kidsville leaders, especially
those who worked to deny representation to George. Ann, the eldest child, was
responsible for the original denial of representation. With Will’s help, Ann

becomes the judge who reverses the guilty verdict and publicly announces that

165

 

George’s actions were probably a simple mistake. Throughout this sequence of
court trials, the court can be seen as a forum for discussion of equity issues on a
level that involves leaders personally.

One might expect that the Kidsville Court leaders would embrace a
universal expectation of legal representation after their experiences in court trials
8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14. However, in court trial 15 defendant Jack is denied legal
representation on the basis of a practice that prohibits court participants from
performing dual roles in the same trial. Jack is emotionally impaired, and he is
not a popular member of the group. He is especially unpopular when he does
things such as bragging about stealing money from the Kidsville Bank. Plaintiff’s
attorney Ann assures that defendant Jack does gpt have an opportunity for legal
representation when she subpoenas all potential lawyers as witnesses. In court
Jack is quickly found guilty. This is another local instantiation of the contradiction
of equity versus unevenly distributed resources in Kidsville.

A transition toward equity is brought about when Will hires attorney Dan
to pursue a countersuit on behalf of Jack. In this countersuit, court trial 16,
Council member Ron is denied the opportunity for legal representation because
Dan again uses the technique of subpoenaing all potential lawyers. Ron
complains, “I couldn’t get a lawyer because they were all subpoenaed.” Dan
points out the equity contradiction when he replies, “That’s exactly what you did
to my client in the last court trial.” Once again, the court provides a forum in

which the local equity contradiction can be addressed by participants. In this

166

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

trial, the leaders of the Kidsville Court have the opportunity to observe, and in
Ron’s case to experience, the inequity of being tried without a defense attorney.

In court trial 19, the last court trial of the transition period, defendant Tom
is offensive to court participants, is threatened with contempt of court, and is
abandoned by his attorney. When he requests a new lawyer, he is denied. He
is then found guilty by the judge. Essentially, Tom is denied representation
because of his obnoxious behavior toward court participants, although Judge
Dan gives the excuse that time is running short in the school day. In the
resolution of this inequity to Tom, school director Will first advocates privately
with Sally. Sally then advocates privately with Dan. On the next school day, the
Kidsville Council overturns the guilty verdict from court trial 19 on the basis that
Tom was denied an opportunity for defense representation. These actions by the
Kidsville Council end the transition period.

In the late period of the Kidsville Court data, defense representation is
consistently provided, and there is an expectation of such representation

expressed in the actions of the participants.

9.3 Summary Of Analyses: Co-Construction Of The Kidsville Court As A
Zone Of Proximal Development For New Equity Practices By Participant-
Leaders.

Vygotsky (1935) argues that learning and development form a unity in
which “properly organized learning results in development and sets in motion a

variety of developmental processes that would be impossible apart from

167

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

learning.” Vygotsky argues for the importance of a “zone of proximal
development,” which is the difference between an individual learner’s current
behavior and the behavior that person is capable of with the help of a teacher or
more experienced other. Because of the emphasis on the individual learner, the
zone of proximal development is often typified in American psychology as a
dyadic interaction between one learner and one teacher.

This section expands the notion of the zone of proximal development to
include the interdependence between multiple leaders’ co-construction of the
Kidsville Court activity and individual leaders’ actions within that activity. Working
and arguing together, leaders create equity changes in the court that no
individual would be capable of without the problems, solutions, and arguments of
their co-creators. The court activity provides a zone of proximal development for
new equity practices for all participants, including the leaders who are
themselves instrumental in historical change. This interpretation of the zone of
proximal development is not entirely new. Piaget (1932) and Vygotsky (1967)
have both argued for the developmental importance of peer play because in play
peers co-construct social rules, experiment with social roles, and develop
methods of conflict resolution among themselves. Collectively, children
accomplish in play what experienced adults do: co-creating an orderly society
and negotiating the “meanings of self” among peers through mutual agreements
and argumentation. Individually and collectively in play, children "accomplish a
jump above the level of their ordinary behavior" (Vygotsky, 1967), which is the

meaning of the zone of proximal development.

168

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The task of "creating society" within peer groups throughout childhood is
multifaceted and changes over the course of childhood. During pretend play in
early childhood, children actively negotiate symbolic transformations of self, of
others, and of objects into “something else.” This creates opportunities to
experiment with "being someone else" (assuming the role of a parent or teacher
in play) while still being "oneself" (and responsible for one’s own actions in the
playroom). Such opportunity for transformation of self is probably a key element
in the development of children’s ability to understand role—taking. Research in
pretend play communications show that children engage in continuous
negotiation and co—creation of reality while engaging in pretend play together.
This process requires political finesse, and leaders in the child group are often
leaders in the sophisticated processes of pretend play negotiations as well (Fein,
1981; Garvey, 1982; Howes, Unger & Matheson, 1992; Schwartzman, 1976).

Chapter Nine shows that developmental change in the Kidsville Court
activity can be described in terms of transformation of equity vs. resource
distribution contradictions over time. lnequity begets a challenge to the extant
practice which created the inequity. In the attempt to resolve the inequity, new
practices may be developed or created. Developmental change in the Kidsville
Court results in more equitable practices of legal representation, which are then
made available to all Kidsville Court participants. The historical development of
the activity is dependant upon the actions of Kidsville Court participants for its

existence. The leaders of the court provide an active function. Besides their

169

 

 

 

 

 

 

actions as solvers of cases, the leaders show by their behaviors and arguments
that they are speakers for the activity, both for and against change.

Figure 4 is a timeline which summarizes court trials during the transition
period of the Kidsville Court. The first row shows the t0pic of each court trial, its
official dispute. The second row shows the political subtext of the court trial, the
political dispute between the participants. Rows three and four demonstrate how
individual participants engage in a dialogue in the court trials, some speaking for
the extant practice of the court, and some participants criticizing extant practices

and speaking for change in the equity of legal practices of the court.

170

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4a. Timeline Of Court Trials 8-10 In The Transition Period

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Court trial #8 Court Trial #9 Court Trial #10
Tom v. Georqe for Kidsyilje Council v. Citizen Tom v. Georcg for Not
BreakincLand Engring Buh for Not aninCLTaxes. aninqthe Fine From
First grade George is School Director Will acting Court Trial #8.”
accused of entering as citizen Buh, challenges Torn wants the money
COURT Tom’s office without the council by asking that was awarded to
TOPIC permission and questions about his taxes. him in court trial #8.
breaking a wall. The Council is outraged Blind to the inequity in
and sues Bub. court trial #8 and the
fact that George has
no money, Tom want
the court to make
George "“pay up”.
Court forum is used for Buh insists that the court The arguments in court
a political fight between must provide revolve around the
three high-status representation. This is issue of when the fine
COMMUNITY children. This contradictory to extant was due. This time
polarization of the court practices. No there is a defense
SUBTEXT leadership results in the provision of a lawyer is attorney. Also, at this
inequity of a first grade required of the court. Also, time, Judge Sally
child found guilty there is a practice that a hears both sides of the
without representation. lawyer must agree with the issue. Judge Sally
client. The court battle decided that George
results in a weakening of still owes the fine.
both practices of the court.
Plaintiffs Attorney Ann Plaintiffs Attorney Ann Plaintiffs Attorney E
insists that Judge Dan prosecutes the case argues that the money
must rule on the legality against Buh. She is owed by George and
ACTIONS of Attorney Sally’s law vehemently argues that the that the payment is
license. court does not have to overdue. The
SUPPORTING provide representation to plaintiffs side wants
m then argues the Buh. and extra fine included
EXTANT case against George, for not paying on time.
who is entirely unable to Several Councfl members
PRACTICE defend himself. argue that there are not Judge Sally decides
enough lawyers to provide that George still owes
Without a defense, representation to everyone. the fine.
George is found guilty Also a lawyer cannot
by Judge Dan. (Extant represent someone if he or
practice is that the best she does not agree with the
argument in court wins client.
the case).
ACTIONS fly is prepared to be Attorney Dan decides he Judge Sally assures
the defense attorney, does not have to agree with that the defense case
SUPPORTING although it is not a client in order to defend is heard, which is an
common practice to the case. He changes attempt to resolution of
CHANGE IN defend a younger child sides and defends Buh. the inequity of court
during this time in the trial #8 in which
PRACTICE Kidsville Court. George was tried
' '_‘ without opportunity for
a defense.

 

171

 

 

 

 

Figure 4b. Timeline Of Court Trials 11-13 In The Transition Period

Court trial #11

Court Trial #12

Court Trial #13

 

 

Sally v. Buh for Debt
on Credit Card

Sally sues Buh for
money that he owes
her on credit card
purchases. The
videotape record is
incomplete and does
not include the
arguments in the court
trial.

 

George V. Tom for False
Charges

Evidence exonerates first
grader George. There is also
reason to believe that Tom
engaged in entrapment of
George into the offence of
entering the office and
stumbling into the wall.
Evidence points to a new
inequity that took place in
court trial #8.

Tom v. Georqe for Still Not
Paying the Fine.”

Because of the persistence
of attorneys Jack and Dan,
the issue of court trial #8 is
argued again.

 

COMM U-
NITY

SUBTEXT

Will wants Sally to
assert herself in order
to get the Kidsville
money that is owed to
her. Sally has avoided
direct confrontation
with Buh for about one
month. She finally
sues Buh with the
encouragement of
Judge Ann and
teacher Marie.

School director Will testifies in
court as an expert. Evidence
shows that George’s offenses
were probably accidental.
(Intentionality is a new issue
in this case). Judge Sally is
caught between the inequity
to George and the pressure
of her high status peers

The battle between lawyers
heats up. Attorney Jack is
angry and poorly
organized. He makes a
poor argument for his
client. Judge Sally is still
conflicted and does not
make any changes to
previous verdicts or fines,
in spite of new evidence
exonerating George.

 

ACTIONS

SUPPOR-
|N_G

EXTANT

PRACTICE

Buh and Sally both
have lawyers who are
not licensed in
Kidsville. Judge Ann
states that she is
allowing these
unlicensed lawyers to
argue in the court
because no one is
complaining about it.

Attorney Dan argues that only
the judge who made the guilty
verdict can overrule it.

Judge Sally makes her
decision on the basis of the

best argued case. She does
not overrule the guilty verdict
already in place.

After the decision, %
requests a new trial to affirm
that George still owes the
fine.

Attorney Dan again argues
that George entered the

office without permission,
knocked over a wall, and
was found guilty. He states
again that the guilty verdict
could only be overruled by
the same judge who made
it (who is Dan, himself).

 

ACTIONS

SUPPORT-
Mg

PRACTICE

 

CHANGE IN

 

Both sides have
representation, which
supports new practices
of universal provision
of representation.

 

Attorney Jack argues to
overturn the guilty verdict

from court trial #8.

Judge Sally rules a small

amount of money for George
on the counter-suit. This is
an attempt to resolve the
newly discovered inequity
from court trial #8.

 

Both sides have
representation and both are

heard by Jud e Sall .

 

172

 

 

 

 

Figure 4c. Timeline Of Court Trials 14-16 In The Transition Period

Court trial #14

Court Trial #15

Court Trial #16

 

 

George v. Tom for Too
Many Court Tflayls on the

Kidsville Bank (Ron) v.
Jack for Stealing money

Jack v. Kidsville Bank
(Rom for False Charges

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRIAL Same Topic. from the bank This time a Council
Attorney Jack argues that Jack asks for a lawyer and Member complains of
TOPIC George has been sued time to prepare a case. lack of a defense
more than twice for the Denied. He if found guilty attorney. He settles his
same offence, which is without benefit of case out of court by
against Kidsville Court law. representation. dropping all changes in
Judge Ann overturns guilty this and the previous
verdict of court trial #8 and court trial.
sets aside all fines and
court decision on this topic.
Will hires Arm to be the The entire Council had VWII hires Attorney
judge, and he talks with her heard Jack brag that he Qa_n, Dan subpoenas
COMMUN- at length about the need to stole money from the bank. all potential lawyers as
m “get some justice done They were all subpoenaed witnesses, which
here." He stresses the as witnesses for the demonstrates the
SUBTEXT issue of intentionality. plaintiff. Thus, no one inequity of this tactic.
could act as a defense
(The four trials in this attorney. 3% complains: “I can’t
issue illuminate the Plaintiffs attomeLAnn get a lawyer because
importance of defense subpoenas all available they’ve all been
representation). lawyers, denies the subpoenaed as
defendant any opportunity witnesses.”
for an attorney, and then
roasts him. This inequity is
unnoticed due to Jack’s low
status position.
ACTIONS Co-Defendant Dan argues Mififfs attorney Ann Ann and the rest of the
that he did not cause the subpoenas all available Council Members sit
SUPPORT- problem of too many court lawyers as plaintiff’s angrily behind the bar,
M trials on the same topic, the witnesses. (Extant practice unable to help their
plaintiff did. He again is that people cannot friend. Ron. This is
EXTANT argues in favor of the perform dual roles within clearly an outrage
original guilty verdict and the same court trial).
PRACTICE the evidence supporting it.
Judge Ann hears both None. No defense M complains about
ACTIONS sides and overturns the representation. Dan’s tactic.
original guilty verdict of W says:
SUPPORT— court trial #8. She explains “That’s what you did to
IN_G that a first grader probably my client in the last
could not understand the court trial.”
CHANGE difference between In court, Dan argues
L“. beckoning to the office and that the bank president
permission to enter. does not keep records
PRACTICE Damage appears to be due and cannot prove that

 

to accidental falling.

 

 

money was missing.

 

 

 

173

 

 

 

 

Figure 4d. Timeline Of Court Trials 17-19 In The Transition Period

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Court Trial 17 Court Trial 18 Court Trial 19
Tom v. Marie’s Marie’s Dongls v. Tom Josh v. Tom for Destruction of
DooDads for for Disturbinq the Peace Progeny”
Disturbing the Marie's lawyer, Sally, Defendant Tom is in an angry
Peace argues that Tom was mood, and when his defense
TOPIC OF Tom’s lawyer, Dan, playing a loud videogame attorney quits mid-trial, he
TRIAL presents evidence during free time and would demands another lawyer. He
that customers at not turn it down when is insulting and obnoxious and
Marie’s DooDads asked by customers of is found guilty without benefit
were talking loudly Marie’s Doodads. of representation.
during free time.
Judge Ann finds in
favor of the plaintiff.
COMMUNITY Sally has regained Sally pursues countersuit By the time Tom’s lawyer has
her law license and on behalf of her client, quit, Tom has personally
SUBTEXT is seen here defe- Marie against Torn. insulted everyone in the
nding teacher courtroom. Must the court
Marie. provide council for a social
._ _ . 7
tio-lnCa'IT-‘dealri‘azfighfi'd Sally and Marie do. not nursance.
has been battling ftphedule enough time for Afterwards, Will discusses the
for control with err trial. Marie needs to problem with Sell . A broken
. leave to take over we y .
Mane, a teacher, . . . foster home placement IS
. school duties as court IS In , .
over control issues. . Tom s basrc problem. Sally
. . sessron. Judge Ann takes . .
ThIS IS an offence at this dis mi ssi n advocates wrth Councrl
extension of the ’ 9 President Dan for Tom.
the case.
battle.
ACTIONS No conflict between No conflict between extant Plaintiffs Attorney Ann
extant practice and practice and provision of pursues the case with more
SUPPORT- the provision of legal representation. than her usual vigor, declaring
|_N_G_ legal that she has never seen such
representation. behavior in court.
EXTANT
Judge Dan threatens
PRACTICE defendant Tom with contempt
of court, denies him an
opportunity to get another
lawyer, and finds him guilty
without benefit of
representation.
ACTIONS With Silly as a Both sides have lawyers, On the next school day, the
lawyer again, both which is consistent with verdict is overturned by the
SUPPORT- sides have practices of universal legal Kidsville Council with the
iN_G representation in representation. advocacy of Council member
this court trial, Sally and Council President
m which is consistent gel
with later practices
Ifl of universal legal The original case is not
representation. pursued further by Josh
PRACTICE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As Figure 4 illustrates, leaders take points of view and express their
opinions in a continuing dialogue about representation practices of the court and
about specific inequities that come about during court trials. In some situations
a leader speaks as a voice for extant practice, teaching and modeling those
practices for others, and enforcing extant practices of governance. At other
times, the same leader may respond to inequity in the Kidsville Court by voicing
dissent or disagreement concerning extant practice. Leaders sometimes take
new courses of action in response to inequities caused by court practices.

When leaders teach, model, and enforce conformity, and also when they
challenge the practices of the court, they influence and change the behaviors of
others. Sometimes their challenge to practices of the court results in lasting
changes to those court practices. The practices of the court, and the leaders’
active response to those practices, contribute to the learning of individual court
participants.

Specific features of the Kidsville Court activity frame this historical process
of change and the individual processes of learning. The activity provides
practices for the settlement of individual problems, and it provides for the
participants to modify those practices as needed. The activity acts as a self-
referential framework for its own maintenance and change. The activity has a
conservative function, where it is a repository of past collaborative practice and
meaning. Further, the activity serves as a forum for new shared experience and
collaboration, for dissent, and eventually for change. Figure 4 shows that court

trials of the transition period provide a forum in which historical events and

 

 

 

 

 

personal experience emerge. Extant practices of the activity guide and influence
the developmental outcomes in equity practices for both individuals and for the
activity itself.

In essence, the Kidsville Court activity provides a mutable framework for
support of the learning by participants about social problems, lawful solutions,
and legal equity. It does this in several ways. The practices of the court define
the roles and responsibilities of the actors: bailiff, defendant, judge, lawyer,
observer, plaintiff, and witness. Court practices also define effective behavior in
this miniature society how to complain, advocate, adjudicate, handle success,
and surmount defeat. Each role has sets of expectations, and some of these are
very specific. These role definitions provide a focus and an accessible blueprint
for appropriate behavior both in the court trials and in the court activity, and they
provide this access not only to leaders but to all participants. Chapter Nine has
shown that children in their roles as court officials have opportunities to discuss
and make decisions about matters of equity in their local court system.

The practices of the Kidsville Court activity define and provide differential
statuses and duties for leaders. This is true both for those who have acquired
status as a result of acts of task organization and for those who act in the roles
defined by the activity. These individual leaders are more often listened to by
others because that is a part of the defined appropriate behavior for court
participants. In this way, Kidsville Court activity empowers its leaders both in the

court trials and in the local court system of jurisprudence.

 

 

 

 

Essentially the Kidsville Court activity is a recursive system, which both
constrains and focuses the actions of individual leaders and empowers those
leaders to modify the activity. The leaders provide the acts and voices through

which this is carried out.

177

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter Ten: Conclusions From The Study Of The Kidsville Court

This chapter examines the key findings from this study of the Kidsville
Court and relates them to the literature of childhood leadership. It is shown that
leadership is not purely an attribute of the individual nor of the situation; it can be
best viewed as an essential part of, and as emerging from, cultural activities.
This study of Kidsville Court leaders has shown that individual child leaders can
be quite influential in how activities are conducted, and they are active in
decision-making within the activity, but leaders are also recognized by their
conformity and adherence to the practices of the activity.

This chapter proposes a definition of equity leadership as a particularly
important kind of leadership within activities. Any activity has cultural
expectations for how to distribute limited resources. In this study of the Kidsville
Court, legal representation is a limited resource that can usually be obtained by a
litigant through payment of Kidsville money, although it is helpful to have high
status in the Kidsville Court and have friends who are lawyers. After changes in
the legal practices of the court take place, leaders are responsible for assuring
equitable distribution of resources and for making changes in practices of the
Kidsville Court when these practices prove to be inequitable. The final two
sections of this chapter discuss dissertation limitations and the practical and

research implications.

178

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.1 Key Findings Of The Study

In this dissertation there are three analysis chapters. This section
discusses the key findings of each of the analysis chapters in order. Chapter
Seven provides an analysis of frequencies of leadership and non-leadership
behaviors in the early and late periods of the Kidsville Court. For purposes of
this analysis leadership behaviors were defined by the actions of the individuals
in organizing court trial events (see Appendix A for coding scheme). The
analysis identified several leaders of the activity who consistently perform task
organization behaviors during court trials. The analysis also found that
leadership and non-leadership behaviors are strongly role-dependant. Court
officials, including judges, lawyers, litigants and bailiffs, produce almost all of the
leadership behaviors observed in this set of data. Non-officials produce very few
of the leadership behaviors. Persons acting in the role of judge produce a
greater frequency of leadership behaviors than persons participating in any other
role. It is clear from this analysis that persons demonstrate leadership behaviors
and non-leadership behaviors appropriate to their role functions in the operation
of the Kidsville Court. Persons change their roles from court trial to court trial,
but their behavior conforms to expected role-appropriate practices.

The quantitative comparison of early and late court trials in this data set
demonstrates some changes over time in the court activity. Frequencies of both
leadership and non-leadership behaviors increase over time. This finding
indicates change in the Kidsville Court activity over this six-month period of time,

possibly because court trials become more complex over time. Change in

179

 

 

frequencies of leadership behaviors is also role-specific. For judges, the ratio of
leadership to non-leadership behaviors quadruples from the early period to the
late period, whereas ratios of leadership to non—leadership behaviors for
participants in other roles remain relatively stable over time. This finding may
indicate increased differentiation over time between roles, with the judge role
becoming more important in later court trials.

The analysis in Chapter Seven shows that it is not possible to fully
separate the influence of individual leaders versus the influence of the social
setting, role expectations, and court practices on development of leadership.
Individual leaders fill roles within a complex activity system, and they are
constrained and afforded by those roles. Access to the roles of court officials is
also constrained by the practices of the court, where not everyone can attain the
roles of lawyer, bailiff or judge. To act as a lawyer or bailiff, one must have a
license issued by the President of the Bar Association. Law licenses must be
signed by all five members of the Kidsville Council in order to be valid. There is
no licensure requirement forjudges, but judges are usually chosen from Kidsville
members who have experience in court. The production of leadership and non-
leadership behaviors are a joint construction. Changes in the social organization
influence the behaviors of individuals and vice versa.

Because leadership behaviors produced by individuals are based in the
social organization of the Kidsville Court, it makes sense to study that social
organization if one wants to understand the development of leadership. The

tenets of activity theory indicate that change in social organization can be

 

 

 

 

understood through study of the development of activities over time (Leont’ev,
1981; Engestrom, 1991; Cole, 1996). To provide a more detailed analysis of the
joint construction of leadership between leaders and the social organization of
the court, Chapter Eight analyzes the development of one set of practices in the
Kidsville Court: practices of legal representation. Practices of legal
representation were chosen as a topic for study for several reasons. First, a
preliminary research project indicated that practices of legal representation
changed over time in the Kidsville Court. Second, Kidsville Court lawyers and
judges would be expected to change their behaviors if important changes in
practices of legal representation were established. Third, practices of legal
representation are an important element of procedural justice in modern
American courts of law. According to modern principles of procedural justice, the
provision of legal representation is essential in a court of law, especially for
defendants who may be unable to act in their own defense.

Chapter Eight compares early court trials and late court trials on practices
of legal representation. All indicators studied in Chapter Eight show
improvements in the provision of legal representation for litigants. This is
demonstrated by increased provision of defense attorneys and by provision of
lawyers for younger Kidsville Court litigants. The data show that in the early
period there is no expectation that court participants would be provided with legal
representation, and in the later period participants consistently show an
expectation of such representation. One possible reason for improvements in

practices of legal representation is that impediments to the provision of

 

 

 

 

 

representation seen in the early period are overcome by the time of the late
period. These impediments include limited availability of licensed lawyers, high
cost of legal representation in Kidsville money, lack of consistent judging, and
lack of an expectation that legal representation should be provided to litigants.

Chapter Eight again demonstrates that it is not possible to neatly delineate
the effects of individual leaders from the effects of social practice on
development of leadership. Changes in practices of legal representation are
observed primarily through change in the behaviors of leaders in their provision
and assurance of such representation for others. The practices of the court
change, and individual leaders change in their behaviors of providing and
assuring representation.

It has been argued throughout this dissertation that one cannot know the
causes of developmental change without studying the period of transition during
which change takes place. Chapters Seven and Eight show changes in
individual task management behaviors of leaders and in representation practices
of the activity. Chapter Nine provides an analysis of the transition period between
the early and late periods in order to determine what specific events lead to
changes in the court activity and in the behaviors of leaders.

Chapter Nine shows that Kidsville Court leaders confront a contradiction
between equity and resource distribution. This contradiction is manifested locally
in Kidsville Court practices when conflicts arise between an expectation of legal
equity to all participants and a fact of unequal distribution of legal resources

among participants. As larger American society, some Kidsville participants

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

have lawyer friends, money to pay for a lawyer, and the ability to act competently
in their own defense. Other Kidsville participants who do not have these legal
resources are unable to protect themselves legally. lnequities come about during
court trials, resulting in discussions, arguments, and decisions made by leaders.
Thus, during the transition period specific local manifestations of inequity in legal
representation come under scrutiny by the individual leaders of the court.
Eventually, through repeated challenges to practices that cause inequity, the
Kidsville Court leaders adopt new practices of legal representation.

The findings in Chapter Nine provide evidence that individual leaders
influence changes in legal representation practices of the court. Conversely,
development in legal practices of representation results in changes in the
behaviors of individual leaders. In this respect, the practices of the activity can
be seen to provide a zone of proximal development for individuals and for the
leaders as a group.

The analysis provides evidence of the interdependence of the activity and
the individual leader, and shows that the production and gradual resolution of
contradiction is what motivates the development of the activity over time. The
following section ties the findings of the Kidsville Court study to previous studies

of leadership in children, with am emphasis on the great man, situationist, and

values-based models of leadership.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.2 How The Findings Of This Study Relate To The Literature On

Leadership In Childhood.

Rogoff (1998) sums up the status of research on collaborative processes in

child groups:

1.

2.

 

There has been little study of the social and cultural aspects of how
people determine the problems, goals, and means of their collaborative
efforts;

We know little about collaboration when children and adults are in each
other’s presence without interaction as their agenda, when interaction is
controlled by children seeking assistance, or when groups of children
are not in the presence of adults.

The dynamics of groups larger than the dyad have received little
attention. Even when larger groups have been studied, they are often
treated simply as collectives of more individuals, interacting with each
other as successive dyads rather than as integrated groups; there is
insufficient information regarding populations other than middle-class
European American groups, or in situations other than those devised by

middle-class European American researchers. (p. 697).

This study of leadership in the Kidsville Court activity provides analysis of

social and cultural aspects of group interaction and takes into account the

interdependence of individuals and the activity. This study of the Kidsville

184

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Court provides an analysis of group leadership as a fundamental element of
group collaboration, culture-making, and group dynamics.

There are three basic approaches to defining leadership: great man
definitions (Bales, 1953; Bales and Slater, 1955; Gardner, 1995), situationist or
contingency models (Dachler and Hosking, 1995; Fisher and Ellis, 1990; Katz
and Kahn, 1978; Misumi1985; Smyth and Ross, 1999; Walker, et. al., 1996), and
values-based models (Heifetz, 1994; Block, 1993; Colby and Damon, 1992; De
Pree, 1997). In this section, the findings of the Kidsville Court study are used to
critique and inform these three different ways of defining leadership. Great man
models of leadership define leadership as a set of traits, particularly power-
wielding traits of individual leaders. Situationist or contingency models of
leadership define situations that bring about certain leadership behaviors
(Dachler and Hosking, 1995; Heifetz, 1994). It should be noted that many
current writers espouse some combination of great man and situationionist
leadership descriptions, because of repeated findings that both individual and
situational characteristics contribute to the production of leadership behaviors.
Proponents of value-based approaches are critical of both great man and
situationist definitions of leadership. Heifetz (1994) argues that both great man
and situationist models implicitly emphasize the importance of prominence,
influence, and authority, but they do not clearly address the purpose(s) to which
influence should be put. Heifetz (1994) argues that leadership should help
organizations to choose between different values, and to make values-based

decisions. Leadership should be defined as helping groups and organizations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

weigh and decide between values for the purpose of adapting to their

environments.

10.2.1 Great Man Models: Implications For The Study Of

Leadership As A Trait Of The Individual

As children mature, managerial leadership in the peer group begins to
become differentiated from simple domination. A number of studies have found
that leadership behaviors are consistently displayed by the same individuals
(Fukada, Fukada, and Hicks, 1997), and that leadership is related to other
individual traits, such as social competence or personality traits (Petit, Bakshi,
Dodge, and Coie,1990; Edwards, 1994)

Leadership behaviors first become evident in preschool. Leadership
behaviors include organizing or directing the activity of a peer, making
suggestions, demonstrating an activity, leading by the hand, and appointing
peers to roles in play. LaFrenier and Sroufe (1985) over a year of study found
that certain individuals more often engaged in leadership behaviors and that
leadership was positively related to peer social competence in four and five year
olds in one of the groups studied. An unexpected outcome was that leadership
behaviors were not correlated to individual social competence in the other group,
which had a greater number of children with behavioral problems. Fukada,
Fukada, and Hicks (1997) studied students in three Japanese preschool classes

and found that central play group members regularly demonstrated

186

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

consideration/ evaluation behavior toward playmates than did the other subjects.
This set of behaviors included giving directions for rules of play, giving approval,

or criticism based on play rules, worrying about or helping others, and protecting
others.

Petit, Bakshi, Dodge, and Cole (1990) found that leadership predicted
dominance rank in play groups of third graders but not in the first grade groups
they studied. Edwards (1994) studied naturally occurring leadership among
fourth, fifth and sixth graders enrolled in Girl Scout troops. The researchers took
several measures of leadership, including adult rating scales of different
personality traits, peer descriptions of personal qualities, and adult and peer
ratings of frequency of formal and informal leadership within the troop. Results
showed that a managerial leadership style (as perceived by adults and peers)
consistently distinguished leaders from non-leaders. Furthermore, leadership
style was relatively stable over time and predictable from personality
characteristics

This study of the Kidsville Court leaders confirms some of the above
findings. The study found that during court trial events Kidsville leaders
performed a number of managerial functions in organizing court trial events.
There were four specific individuals who performed the majority of these
managerial leadership behaviors over the course of the six month period of this
study. Kidsville Court leaders can easily be identified by their performance of

task-organization behavior in court trials. This is consistent with findings from

187

 

 

 

 

 

other studies of children’s managerial competencies and the task-organizational
function of child leaders.

Kidsville Court findings also provide some contrasts to the current
literature on leadership as a trait of individuals. In the Kidsville Court, child
leaders performed leadership behaviors while fulfilling role expectations of court
officials. The analysis shows that task organization behaviors are role-dependant
and the leaders did not perform these organizational behaviors if they were not in
one of the official roles during a court trial.

Another finding was that leadership in Kidsville Court trials frequently
required organizational work on the part of multiple participants coordinating their
efforts. The judge has specific organizational responsibilities, and lawyers have
others. Bailiffs have their own responsibilities in the organization and smooth
operation of the court. Other studies of leadership in children do not show if
leaders are coordinating their task—organization efforts, or if they are solo actors.

One activity-dependant feature of leadership in the Kidsville Court data is
that court officials are allowed to gain official roles only through processes of
licensure or appointment. In this study, the role of judge began to increase in
importance over time since the ratio of leadership behavior to non-leadership
behavior quadrupled for persons acting the in role of judge in the late court.

The basic study of leadership has shown that certain persons more often
engage in the task organization of activities, and that there may be certain
individual traits or competencies that such individual have. Although this may

also be true for the Kidsville Court leaders, there are some other questions that

188

 

 

 

 

seem to be more interesting, which involve how the leaders coordinate their
efforts together and also their abilities to drop the leadership behaviors when

other persons are assigned those roles.

10.2.2 Situationist Models: Implications for Situational Influences

On Childhood Leadership Behavior

Situationist and contingency approaches have advantages for the study of

 

leadership in children because these models assume that leadership
requirements vary broadly across history and across cultures. In fact, the

qualities of successful governmental or business leaders (great men) may not be

 

appropriate or relevant for child groups. Roach, et. al. (1999) argue that “actual
and emerging youth leadership may differ in significant ways from established
adult leadership” (p.13), and the study of youth leadership should focus the ways
youth themselves define, value, and enact leadership. Even in adult
organizations, successful leaders may not have identical qualities because in a
complex task persons with different skills may be needed coordinate their efforts
to meet organizational goals (Katz and Kahn, 1978). This section elaborates
four specific situational factors in childhood leadership that have been studied:
leadership in mixed-age groups; task complexity as a factor in leadership; cross-
cultural differences in leadership; and the situational importance of
argumentation and rhetorical speech in leadership. In the final part of this

section, the insights gathered from the Kidsville Court data are discussed.

189

 

 

Childhood leadership behaviors may be more common in mixed-age
groups (French, Wass, Stright, and Baker, 1986) than in same-age peer groups.
Furthermore, peer interaction in communities, neighborhoods, and clubs often
takes place in mixed-age groups (Ellis, Rogoff, and Cromer, 1981). Brody,
Stoneman, and MacKinnon (1982) found that during a board game, older siblings
assumed dominant roles, such as teacher and manager, with a younger sibling,
but they assumed egalitarian roles, such as playmate, with a friend. French,
Wass, Stright, and Baker (1986) compared the leadership behaviors of same-age
and mixed-age triads in a cooperative picture-choosing task. Asymmetries in
leadership behaviors were most pronounced in mixed-age triads composed of
one 9-year-old and two 7-year-olds. In these groups, older group members
showed increased frequencies of task organizing behaviors and solicitations of
opinion than their counterparts in same-age groups. *

Task complexity may be another situational feature of leadership. French,
Wass, Stright, and Baker (1986) found that in older mixed-age groups, their
study did not result in increased leadership behavior in older children, probably
because the task was too easy for all of the subjects.

Another situational feature of leadership may be cross-cultural differences
in how children work together to attain a cooperative goal. Ellis and Gauvain
(1992) compared pairs of Navajo and Euro-American 9-year—olds who were
asked to teach a game to 7-year—olds. Pairs of Navajo 9—year-olds were more
likely to build on each other’s comments and collaborate in trying to teach the

task to the 7-year-old student. Together the Navajo child teachers provided

190

 

 

 

useful task information, remained engaged in the task, and observed their
partners. In contrast, European American 9-year-olds tended to offer parallel
and unrelated lines of instruction to 7-year—old students.

The place of argumentation and uses of rhetorical skill also appears to be
a situational feature of leadership, which is sometimes displayed and sometimes
not seen. French, Wass, Stright, and Baker (1986) found that in a simple
picture-choosing task, group leaders solicited the opinions of others but did not
contribute their own opinions. The authors indicated that the leaders may not
have had much investment in the task. Some research in American and
European child groups has shown that co-construction of a peer society requires
complex forms of practical argumentation in which children can advocate for
themselves and justify their positions (Corsaro, 1992; Corsaro and Rizzo, 1988;
Schwartman, 1976). Sometimes child leaders are influential participants in
persuasive dialogue, negotiation, argument, and decision-making about how to
best structure activities (Rogoff, 1998).

The Kidsville Court data contribute information to the growing literature on
situational aspects of leadership. The Kidsville Court is certainly a ”mixed age
group, with many opportunities for interactions among children aged 6 to 12
years old and their teachers. The Kidsville Court activity is also highly complex,
providing ample opportunities for multiple leaders to co-construct court trial
events. In the Kidsville Court multiple leaders had to coordinate their efforts.

The judge, bailiffs, and lawyers had specific organizational responsibilities. This

 

 

 

indicates that the cross-cultural differences in leadership could be due to
differences in how different groups learn to coordinate action.

Although the Kidsville Court participants are Anglo—American, one could
also say that Kidsville and its court provide a local culture, which is partially
borrowed (Corsaro, 1992) with its own meanings and expectations. Since
Kidsville Court is a court of law, it is not surprising that a feature of leadership
behavior in the court is argumentation about the cases that come to trial.
Possibly a more surprising finding is that argument and discussion on the part of
Kidsville Court leaders goes beyond arguing cases. The Kidsville Court leaders
are involved in a set of arguments and decisions about inequities and about how
to best structure their court system in order to provide fair court trials. In the end,
the court leaders make changes in their court that result in a more equitable
distribution of legal resources so that their court provides legal representation.
Due to the decisions of court leaders, there are changes over time in the specific
responsibilities that leaders have to provide legal representation to others.

The Kidsville Court data seem to provide some insight into the situationist
position on leadership, in that the Kidsville Court task complexity, coordination of
efforts of multiple leaders, use of a mixed-age group, use of legal argumentation,
and development of court practices over time could provide a model for some of
the features that situationist models could explore as group features that would

encourage leadership of different kinds to develop.

192

 

 

 

 

10.2.3 Values-Based Models: Implications For The Study of

Childhood Leadership As An Influence On Values

Heifetz (1994) views influence and authority as the primary mga_n_s_ used
by leaders, but leadership outcomes are judged by the adaptive work that
leaders encourage in others and in groups. Rather than viewing leaders as
unique great men or viewing leaders as defined by situations, Heifetz views
leaders as those who are influential in changing culture in adaptive ways.
Leaders not only organize tasks and help maintain group cohesion, they are
involved in making and changing group cultures.

It has been argued in this dissertation that leadership is a necessary part
of interventions that improve group functioning. Kohlberg and Higgins (1987)
found that peer groups had to actively take responsibility for their members’
welfare in the “Just Community” intervention programs, including formally
enforcing rules in order to protect their communities against peer abuses of
power. Although Kohlberg does not discuss leadership in his writings, this is a
feature of valued-based leadership when members take responsibility for
member’s welfare and to uphold the values of their community. Trela and Conley
(1997) found that peer conflict negotiators may have to act as leaders in their
school communities in order to be effective and the authors conclude that many
aspects of peer mediation are closely related to leadership traits (Wyach, 1992;

Rost, 1991).

193

 

 

This study of the Kidsville Court leaders shows the work of child leaders
toward adaptive changes in their activity. Adaptive work (Heifetz, 1994)
sometimes requires that groups change their structures and even re-organize
their uses of power. This dissertation shows that leadership behaviors are due to
a complex combination of individual and activity. In this setting, one function of
leadership is providing, assuring, and determining what equity means for the
group. In other words, leaders become responsible for assuring a more fair
distribution of legal resources.

This study shows that the enactment of leadership practice is an
interdependent function between individuals who occupy leader roles and the
specific purposes and functions of the activity. By viewing the activity as a
developmental unit over time, this study is able to observe leaders working
together to alter their legal representation practices and ultimately change one of
the purposes of the court activity. The purpose becomes not only to settle
disputes, but to do so in a manner that provides legal representation to all
participants. With changes in legal representation practices, judges and lawyers
of the court need to change their leadership responsibilities. They have a new
responsibility to provide and assure legal representation to others.

Leadership is not a quality that can be attributed entirely to the individual
nor entirely to the requirements of the activity. Although for purposes of analysis
one can alternate one’s focus of attention between the individual and the activity

setting, the study of leadership should take both the practices of the activity and

194

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

also the abilities of the individual into account with the understanding that the two
are interdependent in lived reality.

Individual leaders of Kidsville Court are personswho encounter
contradictions in the legal representation practices of their court, and who make
specific contributions to change in those practices. As a result, practices of legal
representation are improved and a new leadership function is added to the
Kidsville Court activity, that of providing and assuring legal representation. The
director of the school, Will, also influences the forces of change by allowing
contradictory practices to emerge, encouraging discussion of contradiction, and
in some cases making contradictions explicit. He does not solve contradictions
for the Kidsville Court participants, but provides guidance and support to the

leaders as they work together toward change.

10.3 Redefining Leadership In An Activity Theory Model: The Development

Of Equity Leadership In The Activity.

Leadership has not been a focus of activity theory research to date. This
section briefly reviews basic elements of the study of activity that were introduced
in Chapter Five. It then defines equity leadership as an element of the
development of an activity consistent with this study.

Activities serve some purpose or purposes. (Leont'ev, 1981; Engestrom,
1991) This study demonstrates that the purposes of activity are not reducible to
any of the individual participants, although they are dependant upon the

participants for their enactment or attainment. Activities can be analyzed at

195

 

 

 

 

various levels, but the units used for analysis are always defined in terms of the
functions they fulfill This study of the Kidsville Court employs two levels of
analysis of activity.

One level of analysis used in this study is the goal-directed actions of
individual leaders. The actions of individuals are not reducible to the activity, but
they depend on the activity for their meaning and opportunity. Individuals do not
carry out their social goals without social activity. The primary mechanism of
individual development in this study can be summed up in Rubinshtein’s (1986)
definition of creative self-activity.

The subject is not only revealed and manifested in his actions and

in the acts of his creative self’activity: he is created and determined

in them . . . . The possibility of pedagogy rests on this alone . . . . In

creating his work of art, the artist creates himself and his own

aesthetic individuality in the process. The creator himself is created

in the act of creativity. [emphasis added] (pp. 15-16).

A second and primary level of activity analysis in this study is that of
practice of legal representation. Activity and its practices evolve through social
interaction in historical time. The practices of the activity are organized, refined,
and re-organized through the coordinated actions of individuals who participate in
the activity. Persons and coalitions of individuals use influence and power
(Raven, 1992; French and Raven, 1959; Heifetz, 1994) in order to influence
change in the practices of activity. This study demonstrates that child leaders
individually and collectively contribute to changes in the functions of the court

activity when they begin to restructure their court practices of legal

representation.

196

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership practices are those practices by which participants engage in
the activity, carry out the purposes of the activity, and also by which they are
recognized as leaders by other observers and participants. In this study,
specific leadership practices include task organization, adjudication, and legal
representation. Leadership also includes argumentation and decision-making
about changes over time in the equity practices of the activity. Through the
study of leadership practices one discovers the interdependence of leaders and
of activity.

Equity is defined here as a culturally defined value of “distributive fairness”
that is embodied in practices of activities. Clearly, different cultural activities
have different expectations for the basis of equitable distribution of resources. In
the Kidsville Court equity practices change over time. In the early court
practices, it is considered equitable that persons who have power, Kidsville
money, and legal friends are usually able to get someone to get a lawyer if they
want one. Persons who have no power, Kidsville money, nor legal friends are
expected to fend for themselves. This distribution of legal resources in the
Kidsville Court is simply a reflection of the distribution of resources in the
Kidsville Town. Not surprisingly, the leaders of the court and the town are the
persons who have the most resources. Likewise, it is not a surprise that the
Kidsville leaders do not have much awareness of the plight of those who cannot
get a lawyer when they need one. Kidsville Ieaders’ solution to the problem of
lack of legal representation is basically one of “If they can’t afford a lawyer, let

them represent themselves.” Unfortunately, younger children who have no

 

 

 

 

training in Kidsville law are not effective at representing themselves, which soon
becomes obvious.

Developmental change in the Kidsville Court activity takes place through
the transformation over time of contradictions between equity and resource
distribution. Inequity begets a challenge to the extant practice which created the
inequity. This ongoing dialogue over issues of equity provides motivation that the
activity needs to have the possibility for reorganization. In the attempt to
resolve inequities, new practices are developed or created, resulting in more
equitable practices of legal representation which are made available to all
Kidsville Court participants. Over time the result is a change in the equity of
distribution of legal resources in the Kidsville Court. Equity leadership is a
feature of development of the Kidsville Court activity and the individual leaders of
the court. Important developmental changes in activity come about when
contradictions in social practices result in renegotiations among social factions.

The development of equity leadership in the Kidsville Court activity and
the related creative self-activity of child leaders is a cycle of dynamic
transformation of both the equity practices of the activity and of the individual
leaders who participant in equity discussions and decisions. Engestrcm (1991)
describes an expansive cycle in the following quote:

It is quite natural to endeavor to represent reproduction as cycles

resulting in the formation of a new social structure on the basis of

some preceding one (Shchedrovitskii, 1988, p. 7, italics in the
original). Such an irreversible time structure may be called an
expansive cycle (Engestrcm, 1987) . . . . The trajectory of an
activity system moving through such an expansive cycle seems to

go through phases of “far from equilibrium” conditions (Prigogine
and Stengers, 1985) . . . . [fjhe expansive cycle of an activity

198

 

 

 

 

system begins with almost exclusive emphasis on internalization,
on socializing and training the novices to become competent
members of the activity as it is routinely carried out. Creative
externalization occurs first in the form of discrete individual
innovation . . . . Externalization reaches its peak when a new
model for the activity is designed and implemented. As the new
model stabilizes itself, internalization of its inherent ways and
means becomes again the dominant form of learning and
development. . . . From the viewpoint of historicity, the key feature
of expansive cycles is that they are definitely not predetermined
courses of one-dimensional development. (p. 14).

The development of equity leadership in the Kidsville Court activity is illustrated

by Figure 5, based on Engestrom’s conceptualization of the expansive cycle.

Figure 5. The Development Cycle Of The Kidsville Court Activity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although this study of the Kidsville Court does not include data from the

inception, or original organization phase of the Kidsville Court, it does study court

199

 

 

trials over time and the microcosm of change in the Kidsville Court. The activity
forms out of the facilitative compromises that individuals and coalitions make with
others. The start of the activity will be observable in the creative self-activity of
its participants, which becomes over time a willing conformity to agreed upon
practices, including equity practices, that make up the activity. In the production
of their shared activity the participants generate roles as part of the differentiation
of persons and tasks to be completed. Shared experience with the activity and
its practices is a natural consequence of participation, and this helps the activity
participants, including leaders, to codify or develop routine practices of the task,
including leadership practices and expectations for equity.

The standardization phase of activity development can be seen in the

early period of this data on the Kidsville Court, which shows that many aspects of

 

the Kidsville Court practices have been agreed upon and codified by participants
into extant practices that have come out of shared experiences. In this period of
the activity’s development, leaders in the Kidsville Court function to preserve the
practices of the activity through their uses of task organization leadership
practices. People can work on their skills and abilities in performance of their
respective roles due to the codification of the role requirements. Task
organization functions require that leaders keep up or preserve routine or
codified practices of the activity, and also that younger, less experienced, or
newcomers to the activity are trained and incorporated into the proper functioning

in their roles.

200

 

 

Many things can upset this ecology of the roles, practices, and functions of
the activity causing the activity to undergo transformation. One may see the
entrance of new persons to the activity. Individuals who acquire status may want
to negotiate new roles, practices, and functions from their new positions of
power. Resources may dry up or new resources may be generated. In the
Kidsville Court data, the extant practices of the court come under scrutiny when
some citizens complain that these practices cause inequities in specific legal
outcomes.

During the transition period, individual leaders confront inequities that
arise from ordinary court practices by a complex series of transformations as
follows. Specific court trials result in problematic outcomes because extant
practices do not fit the specific needs of the situation. Someone objects that the
court practice is personally unfair. The problem is a personal equity issue which
is challenged in the public forum of the court. Such a public challenge to court
practice creates an open contradiction, and the problem is transformed into a
public issue. A need is created for public resolution. Leaders are speakers for
and against change, taking stands for and against specific solutions to the
contradiction. Thus,lwhat starts out as an equitable practice is transformed into a
personal injustice and then is transformed by into a public issue or contradiction.
Finally, through public argument, the issue is transformed into shared
experience. It becomes a part of the public life of the participants, and it is
integrated into the historical events of the activity. Over time, as they encounter

equity contradictions that will not easily go away, leaders have to work out

201

 

 

 

changes in the equity practices of their activity. The accumulation of public
historical events results in new practices of the Kidsville Court.

Leaders act as agents of change in the activity, and over time they change
the leadership functions that they serve for the activity and its participants. The
practices of the activity can be observed as the embodiment of the social
contract of the participants, complete with missing pieces of the contract that are
worked out in conflicts and sometimes result in contradictions. Leadership
practices serve to further this social contract by providing willing conformity to the
practices of the activity and also providing opportunities for individuals and
groups to engage in innovation and flexibility in the social contract that is
constantly being re-negotiated.

In the late period of this data, the activity has gained a new organization, a
reformulation that includes the transforming actions that allow for new equity
practices in legal representation. These new practices are teleological. They
are agreed upon and enacted by the participants as if they will be used in the
future and will continue into the future. Although the future of the activity is
ultimately unknowable, in the final phase of these data the participants are seen
creating and organizing the activity in preparation for their future uses of it. In
fact, the activity continues for the next three school years. The cycle of the
activity development begins again with the creative and collaborative self-activity
of the participants as they indoctrinate new members and gain new roles and
statuses, and as the activity provides new functions for the community. This sort

of change in the values of the activity would seem to be what Heifetz (1994) and

202

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

others mean by their use of the term “values based leadership.” The value to
equity is a particularly important one for children because it is something that
they can understand and that they also experience in their daily lives. The

leadership decisions about equity that Kidsville Court leaders make provide a

new way to view values-based leadership in children.

10. 4 Study Caveats And Limitations

The analysis of the Kidsville Court activity and its leaders is limited to
study of pre-existing videotaped events and shares disadvantages that are
common to retrospective studies. The research work in this dissertation and in
the pilot study has been based on laborious transcriptions of court trial events
from repeated viewings of relatively poor-quality videotape. In some cases, it
has been impossible to decipher entire dialogues. About half of the transcripts
were insufficient to allow for coding of individual statements for the analysis in
Chapter Seven, although the majority of the transcripts were adequate for the
analysis in Chapters Eight and Nine. Because data were gathered many years
ago and for purposes other than research, there is no way to talk to the
participants to gather information that would fill in the blanks, except that the
director of the school is able to give some insight into his actions.

As with most studies involving a single classroom, neighborhood play

group, or other naturally occurring group, there is no opportunity to use

203

 

 

 

experimental controls such as random assignment to groups, control groups, or
manipulation of potentially confounding variables.

Furthermore, the Kidsville Court is clearly an unusual child activity in an
unusual school setting. Readers may, in fact, find that child participants of the

Kidsville Court differ in a number of ways from their experiences of other groups

 

of elementary school children. Due to its unique nature, the Kidsville Court does
not lend itself to generalization to other settings in its details. The Kidsville Court
participants have created among themselves a unique sub-cultural setting, and
most readers will identify that there may be no way to replicate the same
outcomes with another group of participants.

The purpose and scope of this study is quite ambitious. The study seeks
to demonstrate various functions of leadership within the same activity as well as
analyzing the complex interdependence between task organization behaviors of
leaders, organization and reorganization of the activity, and developing
leadership functions within the activity over time. The study includes three

research questions with three distinct research methods used to address them,

 

and any of these research questions could be an entire study in itself, allowing

the analysis to be covered in greater detail. Because this study of the Kidsville

 

Court and its leaders covers so much ground, it may not cover particular topics in
full detail.

In spite of the above limitations, this study will be useful to those who are
interested in the developmental study of leadership as co-constructive adaptive

work of the group . The unusual nature of leadership in the Kidsville Court raises

204

 

 

 

 

 

the possibility that local child cultures can provide potentially profound learning
opportunities for children. There are aspects of this study that can be
generalized to other research, especially research on local child cultures and the
co-constructive nature of local adaptation over relatively brief periods of time.
These possibilities are discussed further in the next section.

Some researchers and methodologists are questioning traditional
approaches to generalizability in the study of development, primarily because
strict requirements of statistical generalizability and experimental control often do
not result in studies that capture the variable, changing, and unpredictable nature
of co-constructed development among individuals, groups and activities.
Valsiner (1987) has been a major influence in the methodology of this study, and

he writes the following about generality of findings.

Generality is evidenced in variability, rather than in uniformity in
behavior and thinking. Variability is not a source of “error” in the
case of complex phenomena in psychology, but an indicator of
psychological processes that can generate a variety of
psychological outcomes, the function of which is to both adapt the
organism to the environment and to accommodate the environment
to the organism. ( p.23)

Chapter Five of this paper has argued that developmental psychology should
involve analyze variable developmental processes, rather than reaching
satisfaction with the study of invariant outcomes of development only.

This dissertation of the Kidsville Court has shown that given time,

motivation and support, a group of children can develop a complex and unique

205

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

local culture. In the process of that development, the Kidsville Court participants
confront and overcome contradictions in equity, and they change the ways in
which they practice leadership. This study is able to shed light on some of the
adaptive processes by which this happens, including examples of teacher
intervention and support, specific illustrations of decisions by individual leaders,

and detailed descriptions of collaborative efforts of multiple group members.

10.5 Future Directions For Research And Practice

Some developmental psychologists (Cole, 1996; Valsiner, 1987; Bugental
and Goodnow, 1998; Rogoff, 1998) are questioning current methodologies in
psychology, and this study may further the search for new methodologies.
Detailed longitudinal studies such as this can provide ways to understand peer
group development and illuminate potential problems with traditional
developmental methodologies. The methodology and theoretical model used in
the current study are taken from a coherent theory of activity and can be used for
other research on the development of child leaders within changing activities.

The principle success of this research has been to view the
interrelationship between individual development and activity development
without attempting to reduce one level of analysis to the other. The dissertation
shows that one can productively study the interaction between two levels of
development, that is the developmental analysis of activity and its practices, and

the developmental analysis of individual leaders. Leadership positions within

206

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

group activities are especially important in such a study because persons in
positions of power within activities have authority or influence to alter the
practices of activities.

This dissertation demonstrates Harris’ claim (1998, 2000) that outside-of—
the-home child enculturation and culture-making take place in specific peer
group settings with local ways of doing things and unique ways of belonging.
These local ways are developed over time, and they are passed on or changed
over the course of time through peer group processes, including processes of
leadership development. Cole (1995) calls this level of study a “mesogenetic”
approach to the study of cultural mediation. He says that the basic strategy for
his research on the Fifth Dimension activity has been to create a “system of
activities with its own standing rules, artifacts, social roles, and ecological setting,
that is its own culture . . . ” (p. 194) .

In the Kidsville Court, the children created their own system of activities
with support from their teacher. Although the Kidsville Court activity has unique
qualities, children often gather into groups and make activities of their own, such
as playing certain games, making a fort or a club, or creating and elaborating an
imaginative world. Such activities and their leaders could be studied as
developmental entities over time, as this study of the Kidsville Court
demonstrates. School activities likewise can be studied as developmental
entities, especially if child participants have choices in how the activity is

structured and if they are able to make changes in their uses of the activity.

207

 

 

 

The focus of this study on childhood leadership in a natural setting has specific
implications for the study of leadership. The study demonstrates ways to study
leadership as a group function rather than as purely an attribute of the specific
leader. This provides an opportunity for researchers to examine leadership as
interaction between the individual and the affordances and constraints of the
activities in which individual leaders are studied. Different styles and uses of
child leadership can be examined in other settings with quite different
characteristics, that would result in a much deeper understanding of leadership
as a unique function of local activity settings. Specifically there are four basic
problems that this study poses for current studies of leadership in child groups.
One, as has been noted in the research literature review, leadership is
traditionally studied and defined as an individual trait or set of abilities.
Research on leadership in children has mostly analyzed the quantity of certain
task organization behaviors demonstrated by individuals. This study shows that
the quantity of leadership behaviors in childhood may be due to the situations
that researchers generally study. (French & Stright, 1991; French, Wass, Stright,
and Baker, 1986) These situations are usually controlled by the researcher or by
the teacher. In some cases, there may be little necessity or opportunity in
research settings or in education settings for children to engage in leadership,
since these settings are managed and controlled by adults. Leadership as a
response to teacher or curriculum expectation may be very different from
leadership as a response to a community. In the Kidsville Court, one sees a

situation in which there is not only the opportunity for childhood leadership, but

208

 

 

 

also a necessity for the judges, lawyers and bailiffs to maintain organization in
their court. It is clear that if the children want to have a court, they will have to
organize and maintain it, although the adults will support their efforts.

Two, studies of childhood leadership are not generally designed to
examine change over time. Some longitudinal studies have shown that
leadership behaviors or statuses are relatively stable in groups, with the same
individuals serving leadership functions over time. This conclusion is justified in
the current study. However, this study also provides an opportunity to study
change over time in leadership functions provided by the court and its leaders.
Specifically, there is a change in the activity itself, which results in changing
needs to provide and assure legal representation to others.

Three, studies of childhood leadership do not systematically study child
leaders as agents of change in their activity. This analysis shows Kidsville
leaders as they affect dramatic change in their activity, which then results in
changed leadership functions of the court and changed leadership behaviors of
individuals. This study has used several measures to address the leadership
functions in the Kidsville Court, including quantitative analysis of frequencies of
specific task organization behaviors and also qualitative analysis of changes in
the activity over time. Both types of longitudinal analysis have demonstrated

changes in the activity; however, the study of qualitative change over time has

 

yielded the majority of information about processes of change of leadership in the

Kidsville Court.

209

 

 

 

 

 

 

Four, the development of leadership is not generally considered to be part
of a developmental process that takes place in the interaction between activities
and persons. The developmental process illuminated in this study is that of
qualitative transformation of practices of the efforts of leaders to overcome
contradictions in the activity. The activity undergoes development as the leaders
cause, encounter, and confront contradictions in their participation in the court
activity. Their actions in response to contradictions result in transformations of
individual events. Over time, repeated confrontation of these contradictions
results in changes in contradictory practices themselves. Through this process,
individuals act as leaders serving several functions simultaneously: task
organization, advocacy for others, and advocacy for and against change in

practices of their activity.

10.5.1 Practical Implications: The Importance And Difficulty Of

Experiential Learning In Civic Participation

The setting of the Kidsville Court is one in which there are many
opportunities for experiential learning in leadership and in social group
organization. Experiential learning in civic responsibilities has been advocated
by many educational theorists and practitioners, including Dewey. Dewey (1916)
argues that participation in a democratic form of government requires that
individuals experience democratic governance in their educational setting, which

then prepares them for their duties as citizens. Proponents of practical

210

 

 

 

 

 

 

democratic theory (Boyte and Karl, 1996) represent a modern model for civic
learning in democratic communities.

Kohlberg and Higgins (1987) and others who have attempted child
participation in democratic forms of government have found that providing
experience in democratic responsibilities is not an easy matter to accomplish in
practical settings. This is seen in the Kidsville Court, as well. In this study, the
director of the school can be observed walking a careful line between providing
guidance in the making of a court but avoiding the temptation to co-opt the
children’s activity in favor of an academic lesson. The creation of a democratic
experiential community such as the Kidsville Court clearly is not something that
can be accomplished in a brief period of time. It requires a great deal of effort
and motivation on the part of the participants, which may not be easy to maintain
if the teacher takes responsibility for the activity and applies scholastic goals to it.
In this study of the Kidsville Court, it is clear that children need time, support, and
multiple opportunities to create their court, experiment with it, and to discover and
change the problems in their court practices.

Another major implication for practice in leadership education is that for
children to experience leadership, activities need to provide opportunities for
task organization and task re-organization. There is a longitudinal function of
leadership in groups which possibly cannot be hurried into existence. In this
study court leaders are seen practicing leadership in the relatively less

challenging work of organizing a specific court trial, but they are also allowed to

211

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

make mistakes as a group and to take the time and effort needed to make
changes in the practices that they have created.

Bruner (1978) argues that the opportunity for many important cultural
learning experiences come about because there is a more experienced adult or
trusted older person who provides the safety that is needed to experiment and to
try new behaviors. This study shows that the school director provides a safe
place, allowing for exportation and experimentation for the participants in these
court trials. When Will steps in and intervenes in the court activity by backing
one or another of the participants, this is done in a way that helps to protect
participants from potential harm. Through his indirect form of teaching, the
director is able to guide the Kidsville Court child leaders into a solution to their
issue of legal representation. The result is a solution which provides safety for
younger participants and reduces potential of bullying uses of the court, while at
the same time this solution comes from the child leaders themselves because
they are allowed to experience the possible consequences of lack of legal
representation.

The argument was made earlier in this chapter that the Kidsville Court
activity provided a zone for proximal development for the group. As the court
practices became more sophisticated they were already part of a system that the
children knew, and so the individual children were able to use their existing
knowledge to make the next steps into further difficulty. The group created a
system that eventually challenged the child group, as a whole, to become more

sophisticated in their views of fairness and equity and to co-create new practices

212

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to assure a new form of equity which had not existed for them before they
experienced problems in the Kidsville Court. The opportunity to build their
activity from simple to more complex over time gives them the experience of

making a local culture.

10.5.2 Directions For Future Research

This dissertation of the Kidsville Court and its leaders provides a basis for
further research on the development of leadership in the Kidsville Court. The
following paragraphs suggest some directions that such research could take

Some writers argues that there is a task organization and also a group
maintenance function of leadership (Fukada, Fukada & Hicks, 1997;
Misumi,1985). In this dissertation, these two sets of leadership behaviors were
condensed into one code because of the relative paucity of examples of group
maintenance leadership behavior during the formal court trials. However, as was
briefly noted in Chapter Seven, child leaders were seen engaging in tutoring,
helping, and guiding others. These behaviors usually occurred before or after
formal court trial events, and thus were not included in the data for this study. By
focusing this study on the formal court trials only, and not the events leading up
to the trials and after the trials, this has the unfortunate effect of emphasizing
task organization leadership at the expense of group maintenance leadership in
this data. An analysis of the leadership behaviors of group maintenance, which
are outside of the formal court trials would provide for a more balanced view of
the court leaders, and further our understanding of this function of leadership in

group maintenance.

213

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is an aspect of this study that requires further research because of
its importance in practice, and this is the function of the teacher in this setting in
his encouragement of leadership in others. The examples that are given within
this study suggest that the teacher performs as a leader of leaders by providing
opportunities for the child leaders to perform leadership functions, by providing a
model for leadership behaviors, and by giving feedback for improvement of the
activity. It would be valuable to study in specific the style of teaching that is used
to allow such child leadership to develop.

One feature of the Kidsville Court setting is its playlike aspect. Play theory
(Pellegrini, 1995) could provide a very valuable view of the study of Kidsville
Court. Kidsville Court is serious, but there is an aspect of the Kidsville Court that
is playlike. More importantly, many of the Kidsville institutions seem to have
originated in play, and then developed their more serious functions. The
literature review indicates that play is a setting in which much experimentation
with the social world is made possible because in play children are able to
engage in social conflicts without serious consequences. The current study does
not emphasize the playlike features of the Kidsville Court and its allowance for
error and for experimentation, but this would be an exciting possibility for study.

There is an entire literature on children’s argumentation and
argumentative discourse that could be enriched by a study of the arguments and
reasons of the Kidsville Court lawyers. This study has not focused on the

children’s development of styles of practical argumentation, and on their uses of

214

 

 

 

 

 

 

evidence in their reasoning, but some of the arguments that are seen in the
transcripts are worthy of further analysis from a linguistic point of view.

It is well understood that leadership and followership are complementary
functions within groups, but since this study focuses on leadership and on
specific leaders in the Kidsville Court, other participants do not receive as much
attention in this analysis. There are a number of children, including some
emotionally impaired children and younger children, who participate actively in
the Kidsville Court. These children are also influential in their own ways, and
study of their experiences can shed light on the Kidsville Court as a collaboration
of leaders and of followers.

Finally, although the Kidsville Court cannot be replicated, Cole (1996)
recommends a form of research that he calls “creating model activity systems.”
Cole’s (Cole, 1995; Nicolopoulou and Cole, 1993) research on an activity system
called the “Fifth Dimension” demonstrates the usefulness of such research. Cole
and his colleagues created a system of games, activities and computer tasks
called the “Fifth Dimension” and set up the materials and instructors in several
settings for after-school clubs. The activity system is meant to operate as a
microworld, with its own meanings and sets of accomplishments. Cole argues
that such microsystems provide a perfect opportunity to observe the cultural
development of groups that regularly attend the activity. The same would be true
if one could set up a type of Kidsville experience for children and then research

the way in which the activity develops.

215

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES

216

 

 

APPENDIX A

217

Appendix A: Coding Scheme For Coding Of Leadership And Non-

Leadership Behaviors

Task-Organization Leadership Behaviors:

The focus of the leader (and others) is on organizing the court trial task itself.
The focus is on getting everything in order to “do the court trial.”
gqanize The Physical Environment.

-arrange the chairs, tables, stools to get the court set up physically, and
help people to get into proper places (“You’re a witness, so you sit here.”
“Observers have to sit behind the bar”).

gganize Court Procedures.

-assign/ distribute roles to others or exclude others from participation
(“Jerry, you’re the bailiff.” “Susan, you can’t be a lawyer.” “You need to go away,
we’re busy here.” “Come here, because we need you as a witness.” )

-give approval, reminders, correction, and/or criticism to participants to
maintain turn-taking, focus on task, and/ or ensure rule-following (“The plaintiff
will please state the case,” “Would you like to call a witness?” “It’s not time for
presentations yet”)

-initiate a new procedure or rule or initiate changes to an existing
procedure or rule ("We’re not going to allow objections during presentations

anymore.” “I think we should swear in all the witnesses from now on. )

218

 

 

 

 

Organize Ideas.

-solicitation of opinions, ideas of others (“Do you have any other
statements to make?” "I still don’t understand what are you suing for?”)

-Summarize ideas, clarify points of view, relate ideas to each other to
enhance meaning (“You mean that you want him to pay you for the cost of the
contract?” “There is no law against it, so I think that this case should be
dismissed”)

-relate, state or enforce the decisions of the court (“That objection is
overruled.” “You will have to pay the Kidsville money to him by Monday.” “My

decision is ‘not guilty.”’)

Helping Or Sanctioning Leadership Behaviors
Helping and sanctioning behaviors are specific to helping or guiding a specific
other person, so that they can use the court, be supported in the court, or so that
they are helped to avoid inappropriate behavior:

-help, guide, teach, give instruction to a specific other person that will help

them (“If I were you, I’d get a lawyer and sue him.” “You need some help with

your witness? Bring him over here”)

-give helpful advice, information, praise, constructive criticism to a specific

other (“You did really well with that case.” “I thought you made a good decision,

but the fine was too high”)

-offer emotional or interpersonal support or protection, or instrumental

support to a specific other (“I’ll be your lawyer,” “Don’t worry, he can’t get away

219

 

 

 

 

 

with it. We’ll sue him.” “You need to pull yourself together so you can answer the
quesfionsf)

-answer questions, respond to requests for information in a helpful manner
to a specific other. (“Here, follow me and I’ll show you how to do it.”)

-sanction inappropriate behavior, take action to stop inappropriate
behavior (“Order in the court, Jim” “Stop yelling.” “You have to settle down, or

you’ll have to leave”)

Non-Leadership Behaviors

~Compliance Or Followership

-agree with another, comply with commands or directions of other

-ask for help, advice or information (“what do I do in this court?” “Would
you be my lawyer?” "What happens if he doesn’t pay it?”)

-physically follow, observe other(s), wait for others (observers sit quietly
waiting for the judge to call court to order).

-simple procedural comments that are related to task, but not needed by
the group in the organization of the task at that moment. (After the judge has
made a prompt, another participant echo’s it.)

-simple statement of opinion, evidence, or position (“I don’t like it.” “Did

you see him do it?” “It’s against the law.”)

220

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Off-Task Or Inappropriate Behaviors:

-irrelevant or off-task comments or behaviors (“Hey judge, look at this
book I found. It’s been lost about a year”)

-angry outbursts, teasing, taunting, insulting, gloating, threatening (“I’m
going to get you back for this, Andy.” “You’re going to lose this court trial, and I
think it’s funny.” “Nobody is going to help you”)

-disobey, ignore, argue with a legitimate command/ direction/ direct order
(“I don’t care what the judge says, I’m not going to pay it.” “I don’t care about
‘order in the court,’ you can’t tell me what to do.”)

-whining, complaining about, or mocking task-related behavior of others
(“Why don’t you just say something, huh?” “Can you hurry it up so we can go to

lunch?” “Well, that’s a dumb decision”)

221

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

222

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Adler, P.A. & Adler, P. 1998. Peer Power: Preadolescent Culture and Identity.
NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Adler, P.A., Kless, S.J., & Adler, P. 1992. Socialization to gender roles:
Popularity among elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of Education, 65
(3), 169-187.

Baker-Sennett, J. Matusov, E., & Rogoff, B. 1992. Social processes of
creativity and planning: Illustrated by children's playmaking. In P. Lightfoot & G.
Buttervvorth (Eds), Context and Cognition: Ways of Learning and Knowing.
Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.

Bales, RF. 1953. The equilibrium problem in small groups. In T. Parsons, R.F.
Bales & E.A. Shils (Eds), Workipq Pagers in the Theory of Action. Glencoe, IL:
Free Press.

Bales, R.F. & Slater, PE. 1955. Role differentiation in small group decision
making groups. In T. Parsons & R.G. Bales (Eds), Familyjocialization, and
Interaction Processes. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

 

Barge, J. & Hirokawa, R. 1989. Toward a communication competency model of
group leadership. Small Group Behavior, 20, 167-189.

Bass, BM. 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. New York:
Macmillan, Inc.

Bayles, MD. 1990. Procedural Justice: Allocating to Individuals. Boston, MA:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Block, P. 1993. Stewardship: Choosing Service Over self-interest. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett—Koehler Publishers.

Boccia, J. 1997. Students Taking the Lead: The Challenges and Rewards of

Empowering Youth in Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass (Education
Series).

223

 

 

 

Boyte H.C. & Kari NM 1996. BuildingLAmerica: The Democratic Promise of
Public Work. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Bretherton, I 1986. Symbolic Play New York: Academic Press.

 

Brice, L.M. 1998. Democratic public discourse and small group discussion in a
high school social studies classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University.

Brody, G.H., Stoneman, Z., & MacKinnon, C. E. 1982. Role asymmetries in
interactions among school-aged children, their younger siblings, and their friends.
Child Development, 53, 1364-1370.

 

Bruner, J. 1976. The nature of uses of immaturity. In J. Bruner, A. Jolly, & K.
Sylva (Eds), Play -- Its Role in Development and Evolution. New York: Basic
Books, Inc.

 

Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Bugental, D.B. & Goodnow, J.J. 1998. Socialization processes. In W. Damon
& N. Eisenberg (Eds), Handbook of Child Psychology, Fifth Edeol. 3,
Chapter 7.

Clark, K.E. & Clark, MB. 1988. Measures of Leadership. West Orange, NJ:
Leadership Library of America, Inc.

Colby, A. & Damon, W. 1992. Some Do Care. New York: Macmillan.

Cole, M. 1995. Socio-culturaI-historical psychology: Some general remarks and
a proposal for a new cultural-genetic methodology. In J.V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio &
A. Alvarez (Eds), Sociocultural Studies of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.

Cole, M. 1996. Cultural Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Corsaro, WA. 1992. Interpretive reproduction in children’s peer cultures. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 55 (2), 160-177.

Corsaro, W.A., & Eder, D. 1990. Children’s peer culture. Annual Review of
Sociology, 16, 197-220.

Corsaro, W.A., & Miller, P.J. (Eds), 1992. Interpretive Approaches to
Socialization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

224

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corsaro, W.A., & Rizzo, TA. 1988. Discussions and friendship: Socialization
processes in the peer culture of Italian nursery school children. American
Sociological Review, 53, 879-894.

Dachler, H.P. & Hosking, D-M. 1995. The primacy of relations in socially
constructing organizational realities. In H.P. Dachler & K.J. Jergan (Eds),
Management and Organization;Relational Alternatives to Individualism.
Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co.

Damon, W. 1984. Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 5, 331-343.

Damon W. & Phelps, E. 1987. Peer Collaboration as a Context for Cognitive
Growth. Paper presented at Tel Aviv University School of Education, Tel Aviv,
June.

De Pree, M. 1997. LeadingWithout Power: Finding Hope in Serving
Community San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

Dewey, J. 1916. DemocracLand Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy
of Education. New York: The Free Press.

 

Drucker, PF. 1977. Chapter 22: The ethics of responsibility. An Introductory
View of Management. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

 

Dunn. J. & Slomkovski, S. 1992. Conflict and the development of social
understanding. In C. Shantz and W.W. Hartup (Eds), Conflict in Child and
Adolescent Development. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, CA. 1994. Leadership in groups of school-age girls. Developmental
Psychology, 30 (6), 920-927.

 

Eifermann, RR. 1971. Social play in childhood. In R.E. Hurron & B. Sutton-
Smith (Eds), Child‘s Play. New York: Wiley.

 

Ellis, 8., & Gauvain, M. 1992. Social and cultural influences on children’s
collaborative interactions. In L.T. Vinegar, & J. Valsiner (Eds), Children’s
Development Within Social Context, Vol. 2, 155-180. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

Ellis, 8., Rogoff, B., &Cromer, CC. 1981. Age segregation in children’s
social interactions. Developmental Psychology. 17(4), 399-407.

Emler, N.P. & Hogan, R. 1981. Developing attitudes to law and justice: An

integrative review. In S. Brehm, S. Kassin, and Gibbons (Eds), Developmental
Social Psychology: Theory and Research. New York: Oxford University Press.

225

 

 

 

 

Emler, N.P. & Hogan, R. 1991. Moral psychology and public policy. In W.M.
Kurtines and J.L. Gewirtz (Eds), Handbook of Moral Behavior and
Development. Vol. 3: Application. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Englund, M.M., Levy, A.K., Hyson D.M., &Sroufe, LA. 2000. Adolescent
social competence: Effectiveness in a group setting. Child Development, 71
(4), 1049-1060.

Engestrom, Y. 1987. Learning by Expanding. Helsinki: Oreinta-Konsultit Oy.

Engestrcm, Y. 1991. Activity theory and individual and social transformation.
Activity Theory, 7 (8), 6-16.

Fein, G.G. 1981. Pretend play in childhood: An integrative review. Child
Development, 52, 1095-1118.

 

Fishbein, H.D. 1996. Peer Prejudice and Discrimination. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Fisher, B.A. & Ellis, DC. 1990. Smallgroup decision-making: Communication
and the group process 13"” Ed), New York: McGraw Hill.

Foot, H.C., Shute, R.H., Morgan M.J. & Barron, A. M. 1990. Theoretical issues
in peer tutoring. In H.C. Foot, M.J. Morgan & R.H. Shute (Eds), Children
Helping Children. New York: Wiley.

Foreman, E.A. & Cazden, CB. 1985. Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in
education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In Wertsch, J. (Ed),
Culture, Communication, and Cognition: Vygpotskian Perspectives. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.

French, D.C. & Stright, AL. 1991. Emergent leadership in children’s small
groups. Small Group Research, 22 (2), 187-199.

French J.R.P. & Raven, EH. 1959. The basis of social power. In D. Cartwright
(Ed), Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

 

French, D.C., Waas, G.A., Stright, A.L. & Baker, J.A. 1986. Leadership
asymmetries in mixed age children’s groups. Child Development, 57,1277-1283.

Fukada, H., Fukada S., & Hicks J. 1997. Structure of leadership among
preschool children. Journal of Genetic Psychologv, 155 (4), 389—395.

Gardner, H. 1995. LeadingMinds. New York: Basic Books

226

 

 

 

 

 

 

Garvey, C. 1982. Communication and the development of social role play. In D.
Forbes & M. Greenberg (Eds), New Directions in Child Development: Children’s
Planning Strategies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey—Bass.

Gauvain, M. & Rogoff, B. 1989. Collaborative problem solving and children’s
planning skills. Developmental Psychology, 25,139-151.

Gearhart, M. 1979. Social Planning: Role Planning in a Novel Situation. Paper
presented at the meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development,
San Francisco, March. (cited by Rogoff, 1998)

Gentry, D.B. & Benenson, WA. 1993. School-to-home transfer of conflict
management skills among school-age children. Families in Society: the Journal
of ContemporarLHuman Services, Feb., 67-73.

 

Gerber, S. 1999. Does peer mediation really work? Professional School
Counselipq, 2 (3), 169-171.

 

 

Giffin, H. 1986. The coordination of meaning in the creation of shared make-
believe. In I. Bretherton (Ed), Symbolic Play. New York: Academic Press.

 

Gilligan, C. 1982. In a Different Voice: Pschhological Theory and Women’s
Develqgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Harris, JR. 1995. Where is the child's environment? A group socialization
theory of development. Psycholpgical Review, 102 (3), 458-489.

Harris, JR. 1998. The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way
They Do. New York: Free Press.

Harris, JR. 2000. Socialization, personality development, and the child’s
environments: Comment on Vandell (2000) Developmental Psyphology, 36 (6),
71 1-723.

Heifetz, RA. 1994. Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Howes, C., Unger O., & Matheson, CC. 1992. The Collaborative Construction
of Pretend: Social Pretend Play Functions. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.

Ilyenkov, E.V. 1977. Essay Ten: Contradiction as a Category of Dialectical Logic.
Dialectical Logic. Moscow.

227

 

 

 

 

 

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, RT. 1996. Conflict resolution and peer mediation
programs in elementary and secondary schools: A review of the research.
Review of Educational Research, 66(4), pp. 459-506.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, RT. 1994. Constructive conflict in schools. Journal
of Social Issues, 50 (1), pp. 117-137.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Dudley, B. 1995. The impact of peer
mediation training on the management of school and home conflicts. American
Educational Research Journal , 32 (4), 829-844.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Dudley, B. & Acikgoz, K. 1994. Effects of
conflict resolution training on elementary school students. The Journal of Social
Psycholgqy, 134 (6), 803-817.

 

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Dudley, B., & Magnuson, D. 1995. Training
elementary school students to manage conflict. Journal of Social Psychology,
135 (6), 673-686.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Dudley. B., Magnuson, D. & Ward, M. 1993. 111p
Impact of Peer Mediation on Conflict Resolution in an Elementary School.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Cooperative Learning Center.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., Mitchell, J., Cotten, 8., Harris, D. & Louison, S.
1996. Effectiveness of conflict managers in an inner-city elementary school. I_h_e
Journal of Educational Research, 89 (5), 280-285.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. 1978. The Social Psmhology of O_rganizations @d ed),
New York: Wiley.

Kauffman, K. 1990. The prison as a just community. In D. Schrader (Ed),
The Legacy of Lawrence Kohlberg. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

 

Kindermann, T. & Valsiner, J. 1995. Epilogue: Directions for the study of
developing person-context relations. In T.A. Kindermann & J. Valsiner (Eds),
Development of Person-Context Relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Kindermann, T. & Valsiner, J. 1989. Research strategies in culture-inclusive
psychology. In J. Valsiner (Ed), Child Development in Cultural Context.
Lewiston, NY: Hogrefe and Huber Publishers

Kohlberg, L. 1981. Essays in Moral Development, Vol. I: The Philosophmf
Moral Development. New York: Harper and Row.

228

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kohlberg, L. & Higgins, A. 1987. School democracy and social interaction. In
W.M. Kurtines & J.L. Gewirtz (Eds), Moral Development Through Social
Interaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kurtines, WM. 1987. Sociomoral behavior and development from a rule-
governed perspective: Psychosocial theory as a nomic science. In W.M.
Kurtines & J.L. Gewirtz (Eds), Moral Development Thropcyh Social Interaction.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

LaFrenier, P.J. & Sroufe, LA. 1985. Profiles of peer competence in the
preschool: Interrelationship between measures, influence of social ecology, and
relation to attachment history. Developmental Psychology, 21 (1 ), 56-69.

 

Lancy, D. 1976a. The play behavior of erlle children during rapid cultural
change. In D.F. Lancy & B.A. Tindall (Eds), The Anthropological Study of Play:
Problems and Prospects. Cornwall, NY: Leisure Press.

 

Lancy, D. 1976b. Socio-dramatic Play and the Acguisition of Occupational
Roles. Paper presented at the second annual meeting of the Association for the
Anthropological Study of Play. Atlanta, GA, April.

Lancy, D. 1975. The Role of Games in the Enculturation of Children. Paper
presented at the 74th annual meeting of the American Anthropological
Association, San Francisco, CA, December.

 

Lancy, D. 1974. Workjlay and Leamingin a erlle Town. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Pittsburgh.

Lancy, D. 1971. An Experimental Analysis of Riddles and Rule-Based Problem
Solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Applied
Anthropology, April.

Lasswell, H., & Kaplan, A. 1950. Power and Socieiy. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.

 

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. Situated Learning quitimate Peripheral Partichoation
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

 

Leont’ev, A.N. 1981. The Problem of Activity in Psychology. In J.V. Wertsch
(Ed), The Concept of Activityin Soviet Psycholpqy. Armonk, NY: ME. Sharpe,
Inc.

Lewis, A. April 20, 2003. The silencing of Gideon’s trumpet. New York Times
Magazine, p. 50.

 

229

 

 

 

 

 

Light, P. & Glachan, M. 1985. Facilitation of individual problem solving through
peer interaction. Educational Psychology, 5, 217-225.

Light, P., Littleton, K., Messer, D., & Joiner, R. 1994. Social and commutative
processes in computer-based problem solving. European Journal of Psychology
and Education, 9, 93-109.

Luria, AR. 1979. Iazyk i Soznanie. Moscow: Moscow State university Press.
(Cited in Valsiner, 1987).

Markell, RA, 8 Asher, SR. 1984. Children’s interactions in dyads:
interpersonal influence and socioeconomic status. Child Development, 55, 1412-
1424.

Matusov, E. 1996. Intersubjectivity without agreement. MindyCulture, &
Activity, 3(1), 25-45.

Mills, CW. 1956. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

Misumi, J. 1985. The Behavioral Science of Leadership: An Interdisciplinary
Japanese Research Program. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Montessori, M. 1965. Spontaneous Activity in Education. F. Simmonds
(Trans). New York: Schocken Books.

New York Times. Jan 10, 2003. Detaining “Enemy Combatants.” New York
Times (Late Ed). p. A22. New York.

Nicolopoulou, A. 1996. Narrative development in social context. In DJ. Slobin,
J. Gerbardt, J. Guo, & A. Kyratzis (Eds), Social InteractionySocial Contextyand
Language: Essays in Honor of Susan Ervin-Tmp. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

 

Nicolopoulou, A. & Cole, M. 1993. The fifth dimension, its play-world, and its
institutional contexts: The generation and transmission of shared knowledge in
the culture of collaborative learning. In E.A. Foreman, N. Minnick & C.A. Stone
(Eds), Contexts for Learning: Sociocultural Dynamics in Children’s
Development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Parsons, T. 1957. The distribution of power in American society. World Politics,
10, 123-143. (cited in Wentworth, 1980).

 

Pavitt, C., 86 Curtis, E. 1990. Small Group Discussion: A theoretical Approach.
Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch, Scarisbrick Publishers.

230

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petit, G.S., Bakshi, A., Dodge K.A. 86 Cole JD. 1990. The emergence of social
dominance in young boys’ play groups: Developmental differences and
behavioral correlates. Developmental Psychology, 26 (6), 1017-1025.

 

Pellegrini, AD. 1995. The Future of Play Theory. Albany, New York: State
University of New York Press.

Piaget, J. 1962. Play Dreamspand Imitation in Childhood. New York: Norton.

 

Piaget, J. 1977. The Essential Piaget. H.E. Grubber and J.J. Vone’che (Eds),
New York: basic Books, Inc. (Except taken from Piaget, J. 1933. Moral
Judgement of the Child, New York: Free Press.

 

 

Powers, T.F. 2003. Can we be secure and free? Public Interest, Spring, p. 3.
Washington.

 

Prigogine, l. & Stengers, l. 1985. Order out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with
Nature. London: Fontana.

Raven, EH. 1992. A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French
and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7 (2),
217-244.

Reed, D.R.C. 1997. Following KohlbergpLiberalism and the Practice of
Democratic Communigg. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

 

Roach, A.A., Wyman, L., Brookes, H., Shavez, C., & Heath SB. 1999.
Leadership giftedness: Models revisited. Gifted Child Quarterg, 43 (1), 13-24.

Roth, A. & Roth, J. 1989. Devil’s Advocates: The Unnatural History of Lawyers.
Berkley, CA: Nolo Press.

Rubin, K.H., Fein, G.G., & Vandenberg B. 1982. Play. In E.M. Heatherington
(Ed), Carmichael's Manual of Child Ppychologyiol. 4. New York: Plenum.

Rubinshtein, S.L. 1986. The principle of creative self-activity (philosophical
foundations of modern pedagogy). Voprosy Psikhologii, 4, 101-108.

Rogoff, B. 1998. Cognition as a collaborative process. In D. Kuhn & RS.
Siegler (Eds), Handbook of Child Psychology, Fifth Ed., Vol. 2, Chapter 14.

 

Rogoff, B. 1994. Developing understanding of the idea of community of
learners. Mind, Cultureyand Activity, 1 (4), 209-229.

Rost, JG 1991. Leadership for the TwenthFirst Century. Westport, CT:
Praeger.

231

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Savin—Williams. RC. 1979. Dominance hierarchies in groups of adolescents.
Child Development, 50, 923-935.

Schwartzman, H. 1978. Transformations: The Anthropologyof Children's Play.
New York: Plenum.

Schwartzman, H. 1976. Children's play: A sideways glance at make-believe. In
D.F. Lancy & B.A. Tindall (Eds), The Anthropological Study of Play: Problems
and Perspectives. Cornwall, NY: Leisure Press.

 

Shchedrovitskii, GP. 1988. Basic principles of analyzing instruction and
development for the perspective of the theory of activity. Soviet Psycholpqy, 26
(4), 5-41.

Smyth, E. & Ross, J. 1999. Developing leadership skills of pre-adolescent gifted
learners in small group settings. Gifted Child Quarterly 43 (3), 204-211.

Strayer, F. & Trudel, M. 1984. Developmental changes in nature and function of
social dominance among young children. Ethologyand Sociobiology, 5 (4), 279-
295. '

Sui-Lan, T. & Moghaddam, FM. 1999. Positioning in inter-group relations. In R.
Harre' & L. van Langenhove (Eds), Positioning Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishers.

Taylor, C. 1987. Interpretation and the science of man. In P. Rabinow and
WM. Sullivan, (Eds), Interpretive Social Sciences: A Second look. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.

Terry, B. 1997. An Evaluation of a High School Peer Mediation Prpqram.
Unpublished thesis, Cheney, WA: Eastern Washington University.

Trela, P.E. & Conley, M.J. 1997. Understanding student leadership through
peer mediation. In J. Boccia (Ed), Students Taking the Lead: The Challenges
and Rewards of Empoweripq Youth in Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey—
Bass (Education Series).

Turiel, E. 1983. The Development of Social Knowledge: Moralitmnd
Convention. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

 

Tyler, TR. 1988. What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess
the fairness of legal procedures. Law and Society Review, 22 (2).

232

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valsiner, J. 1994. Bi-directional cultural transmission and constructive
sociogenesis. In W. de Graaf & R. Maier (Eds), Sociopenesis Reexamined.
New York: Springer-Verlag.

Valsiner, J. 1987. Culture and the Development of Children’s Action: A Cultural-
Historical Theory of Developmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Valsiner. J. & Cairns, RB. 1992. Theoretical perspectives on conflict and
development. In C. Shantz and W.W. Hartup (Eds), Conflict in Child and
Adolescent Development. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

 

Von Gloscoe, CA. 1980. The work of playing "Red light." In H.B. Schwartzman
(Ed), Playand Culture. West Point, NY: Leisure Press.

Voss, H-G. 1996. Learning, development, and synergenetics. In J. Valsiner &
H-G. Voss (Eds), The Structure of Learning Processes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Corp.

Vygotsky, LS. 1935. Umstevennoie razvitie detei vprosesse obuchenie.
Moscow-Leningrad: Gosudarstennoie Uchebnopedogogicheskoie Izdotel’stvo.
(Cited by Voss, 1996).

Vygotsky, LS. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
_P_ro_ce§s_e§. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, LS. 1967. Play and its Role in the Mental Development of the Child.
Soviet Psycholpqy, 5, 6-18.

Vygotsky, LS. & Luria, A.R. 1930/1993. Studies on the History of Behavior:
ApeyPrimitive and Child. Hillsdale, NJ: Earbaum.

 

Walker, H.A., llardi, B.C., McMahon, A.M., & Fennell, ML. 1996. Gender,
interaction, and leadership. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, (3), 255-272.

Weber, M. 1964. The theory of social and economic cpcmrization. T. Parsons
(Trans). New York: Free Press.

Weber, M. 1958. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. H.H. Gerth and C. W.
Mills (Eds. and Trans). New York: Oxford University Press.

Weiser, B. Jan 14, 2003. Lawyers renew plea to meet terror suspect in Navy
brig. New York Times jLate Edp, p. A13.

 

Wentworth, WM. 1980. Context and Understandipg: An Ingmiry into
Socialization Theogr. New York: Elsevier.

 

 

233

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wertsch, J. 1984. The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues.
In B. Rogoff & J. Wertsch (Eds), Children’s Learnipq in the "Zone of Proximal
Develcyament." San Francisco, CA: Jossey Boss.

 

Wertsch, J.V. 1981 . The concept of activity in Soviet psychology: An
introduction. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed), The Concept of Activity in Soviet
Psychology. Armonk, NY: ME. Sharpe, Inc.

Wilcox, C.D. & Beach, K.D. 1996. Order in the Court: A Sustained Play Activity
in an Elementary School. Paper presented at the ISSBD 14’” Biannual Meeting,
Quebec.

Wilcox, CD. 1996. Order in the Court: An Activity Theory Analysis of a
Children’s Play Courty Unpublished research practicum presented to practicum
committee, Michigan State University.

Znaniecki, F. 1925. The Laws of Social Psychology. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

234

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll

lllll

ll

llllll

1293 024

3

l

lll

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LlBFlAFIlES

'n‘».

...~-i

.-h"u

a e

.; L ...
kegs: