SWANSEA UNIVERSITY
Assessed coursework submission
SCHOOL OF Name: A. S. Evans
HUMAN MSc Early Childhood):
SCIENCES
Student number: 492992
Level of study: Masters Post Graduate
Module code: RE: EYXM06
Module title: International Perspectives on Play
Lecturer: Howard J. L
Actual word count: 3,630
Word count required: 3,500
I have registered with the disability office as OFFICE USE:
Verified (initial and date):
having dyslexia
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
I certify that this is my own work, except where otherwise indicated as collaborative work within
a School/Department and that use of material from other sources has been properly and fully
acknowledged in the text. I have read the University’s definition of Unfair practice including
plagiarism and the School’s/Department’s advice on good academic practice. I understand that
the consequence of committing unfair practice, if proven, may include failure. I also certify that
neither this piece of work, nor any part of it, has been submitted in the same format in
connection with another assessment.
I understand that I have to submit my work electronically via the JISC plagiarism detection
service on the same day as paper submission or my work may be deemed as to have been
improperly submitted.
Signature: Date: 12/05/2009
COURSEWORK SUBMISSION FORM
For Office use Initials: Date received:
Receipt stamp:

Consider the key differences in play amongst children from one culture that is different
from your own. Demonstrate how understanding these differences, is important for
professional play practice (within an educational, recreational or therapeutic context).
===============================================================
A Comparison of Inuit Children With British Children
Introduction
Parents, teachers, early years practitioners and health workers, etc are faced with a variety
of family types and methods in which children are being brought up. Children vary in
personalities as well as coming from differing social classes and ethnic backgrounds. It is
important for adults who are in contact with children to try to understand some of these
diversities. A way of doing this is to be aware of the variation in play behaviour based on
cultural and sub cultural factors. This paper looks at some of the cultural differences
between Inuit children and British children in the areas of play and education.
Definition of Culture
“Culture is a conglomeration of different, sometimes incompatible, views and
understandings in a given society or community” (Penn, 2005, pg 92)
Differences And Complexities In Culture
There are a number of differences within any culture including beliefs, attitudes,
traditions and rituals. The cultural settings in which children grow up have a profound
influence on how they develop and play.
One of the most striking differences between the two cultures based in tradition is the fact
that Inuit children can be brought up as a boy or a girl. The decision to bring a child up as

a member of the child’s opposite sex is made at birth. A boy can be raised as a girl and
vice versa. Sometimes this is done to reincarnate a dead child and sometimes because the
parents had wanted a child of the opposite sex. The child participates in every activity
thereafter as a member of the chosen sex.
Children’s play is more likely to reflect rituals and customs in traditional societies
(Roopnarine, 1998, pg 20).
Inuit children struggle for survival in harsh conditions. They are encouraged to take risks
in order to measure and understand the limits of their ability. British children may only
experience high risk taking in play if they were involved in a more autonomous pedagogy
such as Reggio Emillia or if they were living outside the stringent rules and regulations
within British society.
Briggs (1991) suggests that play takes many forms for the Inuit including playing with
objects, feelings and interpersonal situations. They take apart items like radios and
watches to see how they work or what else they can be used for. Boys and girls alike
engage in this kind of play. As soon as a child understands a task they are expected to
help with it. There are no set times or ages at which children progress from one status or
stage of development to another. Each child’s achievement is noted and celebrated as it
occurs. Their first duck egg collected, their first seal kill, their first hand made pair of
mittens, etc.
Inuit children are continually tested by adults in a playful manner e.g. when traveling
along complex mazes of fjords and ice floes the adult will ask, ‘where are we’? Or ‘In
what direction is the town’? This playful testing of children by adults is accepted, as play
becomes a mode of exploration, which is fundamental to the Inuit way of life. A British
child being asked a series of testing questions may see it at as teasing rather than a
playful mode of exploration.
The struggle for survival for the British child is not dependent on their ability to hunt for
food. The hunting and gathering skills may surface in their education and play in a far

more subtle form. Collecting frogspawn, fishing for sticklebacks or merely observing
rock pools by the seaside may be as close as they will ever get to hunting. British children
may celebrate some of their achievements but in a far less ritualistic way however, a
British child may well celebrate their first kill on a hunt and there are rituals associated
with this.
Skiing is accessible to most Inuit children. They play and ski whilst learning essential
skills for hunting and survival. It is a necessity in their culture. It is a preparation for adult
life. In the U.K. skiing is seen by some as a luxury and is not part of every day life for
children. It is not accessible to all children and is usually a taught activity. Traditionally it
has been the prerogative of the wealthy. Changes in society means that skiing has become
more accessible to children in the U.K.
Kalliala (2006) suggests that the changes we are seeing in society as a whole are
impacting on the lives of children and adults. Kalliala (2006) suggests that we do not
realize the way in which these changes influence the way children play. Kalliala (2006)
believes that the reason we do not see the changes is because they do not influence
children’s play culture directly but indirectly.
Conclusion
Some of the key differences in play between Inuit and British children are based around
each of their respective cultures, traditions and environments. Inuit children have to
survive in harsh conditions and are encouraged to learn survival skills from an early age.
Inuit children’s play is often a preparation for survival. It involves a lot of risk taking and
physical play. Children are allowed to form independence as it is seen as a strength,
which equips them for adult life. There is not a stringent health and safety regime
governing the environment in which Inuit children play.
The struggle to survive is not as acute for British children. Risk taking in play does exist
but not as frequently or to such a high degree as the Inuits. Changes in British society in

the area of play and development are indirectly influencing the way children play.
Stringent health and safety regimes are limiting the opportunity for children’s risk taking
in play.
Inuit children are allowed to play with danger and learn to enjoy the complexities and
challenges of it. When everything goes well they are reassured. Their experiments
through play may be one of the reasons that the Inuit way of life endures.
Similarities in children’s play can exist in different cultures especially in the areas of
information technology (I.T.) Computers are becoming accessible in countries all around
the world. Children from British and Inuit cultures are grasping the use of I.T. for
playing, learning and social networking. It is advantageous for sharing knowledge and
understanding between cultures.
The British community is made up of people from all around the world. They are
bringing their traditions including children’s games with them. As professionals we could
examine, learn and include some of these games in our practice.
Children from both cultures are curious about their environment. The freedom of the
child to explore the environment in both cultures can be dependent on parents, teachers or
older siblings. Inuit children’s experiences with their environment and adults teach them
to feel, think and practice attitudes and skills required for everyday life. British children’s
experiences have been traditionally based on preparation for school, which in turn was
seen as preparation for life.

Bibliography
Briggs, J. L. (1991). Expecting the Unexpected: Canadian Inuit Training for an
Experimental Lifestyle. Ethos, Vol.19, no.3, pp 259-287.
Cohen, D. (1987). The Development of Play. London. Croom Helm.
Johnson, J. E, Christie, F. J & Yawkey, T. D. (1987). Play and Early Childhood
Development. USA. Harper Collins.
Kalliala, M. (2006). Play Culture in a Changing World. Maidenhead. Open University
Press.
Penn, H. (2005). Understanding Early Childhood; Issues and Controversies. Maidenhead.
Open University Press.
Perey, A. (1986). What are Children’s Minds Waiting For? Including: Aspects of Inuit
Culture and Its Relation to People Everywhere. International Periodical of the Aesthetic
Realism Foundation, No 683, May 7th, 1986.
Roopnarine, S., Lasker, J., Sacks, M. and Stores, M. (1998) The cultural contexts and
children’s play, in Saracho, O. and Spodek. B. (Eds) Multiple Perspectives on Play in
Early Childhood Education. Albany NY: Steele University. New York.
Sayeed, Z. & Guerin, E. (2001). Early Years Play: A Happy Medium for Assessment and
Intervention. London. David Fulton Publishers.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP7XC88NdNU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d8EymQPiqk
www.athropolis.com
www.arcticphoto.com
www.telegraph.co.uk
www.openlearn.open.ac.uk

Differences in Play
Why and how do cultural differences manifest in children’s play?
Evaluate appropriate research evidence to support your answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cultural settings in which children grow up have profound influences on how
children develop and play.
Penn (2005) described culture as a:
“ ..a conglomeration of different, sometimes incompatible, views and understandings in a
given society or community…..” (Penn, p92).
For this paper I will use Penn’s definition of culture to investigate its influence on
children’s play. Research papers on play and culture point to many causal factors for
cultural differences manifesting in play. This paper will highlight these factors with
research evidence.
One of the factors noted by researchers that can affect play is parental beliefs and
behaviours. Play behaviours are not only influenced by immediate and social context, but
also by the beliefs, attitudes, and values {inner psychology of the parents and teachers
concerning the importance of play in early development} Roopnarine, Shin, Jung and
Hossain (2003).
Adult modelling of children’s play has been investigated in an experimental setting by
Nielson and Christie (2008).

Nielson and Christie investigated the effect on modelling on children’s behaviour. The
children aged 27-41 months were given 4 minutes free play with a dolls house and
associated toy props. An experimenter then acted out a series of scenes using the dolls
involving object substitutions, imaginary play and attribution of properties. The children
were given another 4 minutes of free play {post-modelling). The researcher’s findings
were that:
The children exhibited more pretend play after modelling. The children were also more
likely to generate their own novel pretence, as they were to copy the actions
demonstrated by the experimenter. The children increased the number of novel symbolic
acts involving imaginary play from the pre-modelling phase to the post-modelling phase.
Farver and Lee (1997) studied pretend play amongst Korean-American and Anglo-
American pre-schoolers. The children (46 Anglo-American and 46 Korean-American)
were observed during free play activities and videotaped in an experimental toy setting.
Cultural differences were examined in the frequency of social pretend play,
communicative strategies and pretend play.
The researchers found that the Anglo-American children engaged in more pretend play
during free play activities than Korean-American children. In this experimental setting
there were no cultural differences in the frequency of pretend play. There were however,
significant differences in children’s communicative strategies and in their play themes.
Korean-American children’s play included everyday activity and family role themes. The
Anglo-American children enacted danger in the environment and fantastic themes. The
Anglo-American group also described their own actions and rejected their partner’s
suggestions and used directives. The Korean-American‘s described their partner’s actions
and used tag questions, semantic ties and statements of agreement and polite request. The
study showed that play is a common activity, but the thematic content and the
communication strategies used to structure and maintain pretend play are influenced by
culture.

In an earlier study Farver, Kim, And Lee (1995) found that Korean American children
living in Los Angeles preferred academic activities over play. Here, perhaps we see
children manifesting their parent’s belief in academic achievement at an early age. Even
in societies that are concerned about academic achievement, parents have now placed
play as an important factor for socialisation and self-expression (Holmes 2001). A study
in Japan (Ishigaki and Lin, 2000) found that 67.6% of teachers in Japan, 78.5% in Korea
and 56.7% in China endorsed play as part of the schools curriculum.
Research in experimental settings perhaps has limitations on viewing culture and its
influences on play in a more natural setting. Studies of parent and child play in the home
appear to have some critical value on defining play behaviours. It could be argued that
the variations of play behaviours in culturally diverse children could be rooted in the
child’s experience of parent-child play. Roopnarine and Johnson (2001) catalogued the
incredible variation in the style and the amount of parent-child play across cultures:
Roopnarine (2001) documented studies finding that parent-child play at home had strong
links with the peer social system in a nursery setting. Macdonald and Parke (1986)
researched parent-child interactions of boys aged 3 to 5 at a Californian nursery. The
boys were rejected, neglected or considered popular by their peers. Fathers of neglected
boys engaged less affectively in arousing physical play than the fathers of popular and
rejected boys. There was more over stimulation or parental direction of the rejected boys.
The rejected boys would in turn avoid stimulation or would be less likely to join in
discussions or make suggestions in the classroom setting.
Macdonald and Parke (1986) found that there was also a negative relationship between
physical play and the age of the parent. There were strong gender differences in parental
engagement in physical games with the children, limb movement games, bouncing and
lifting games were more characteristic of the play of fathers. Conventional games like pat
a cake and peek a boo were more characteristic of the play of mothers.

Cross-cultural literature on parent-child rough play is small, but it is interesting.
Roopnarine and Johnson (2001) stated that generally rough play begins in infancy peaks
in pre-school and is uncommon after 10 years of age. Boys are more likely to be the
recipients of physical play than girls.
Roopnarine has carried out extensive research into rough play in Asian cultural settings.
In New Delhi, India, during the infancy period physical play, described here as rough,
tossing, tickling, bouncing, poking was observed in relatively low frequencies: Less than
one incident per one hour of observation. (Roopnarine, Taluker, Jain, Joshi and Sirvastav
1992). In Chi Chi, Dongkong, Taipei and Kalishung, Taiwan, rough play was recorded
on average less than one incident per one hour of observation. (Sun and Roopnarine
1996). Among older children, however, it accounted for about a third of play activities of
mothers and fathers and school children residing in Chang Mai Province in Northern
Thailand. Rough play was still infrequent and researchers recorded lass than one incident
across families in two hours of observations. (Tulananda and Roopnarine 2001).
Parent child games appear to be universal in their common form, but there are noticeable
stylistic differences. Games that involve face-to-face encounters may be more
characteristic of parents and children in some cultures than in others.
Research has revealed profound postural differences in parental engagement across
cultures. Japanese mothers loom in and out, tap infants to create visual displays and hold
and touch the infant continuously. White American mothers use their voice and are more
responsive to the infant’s vocalizations during face-to-face encounters. (Fogel, Nwokah
and Kerns 1993). In India early parent child games involve specific texts. Igbo and
Sinhala mothers include songs, lullabies, poetry or rhymes in face to face encounters
(Roopnarine, et al 1998).
During these playful interactions with their parents they learn and absorb aspects of their
cultures. Roopnarine (1998) summarised the themes that emerged when traditional and
non-traditional cultures were compared:

*Children’s play is more likely to reflect rituals and customs in traditional societies.
* One-to one play is more common in non-traditional societies.
* Group participation, interdependence and community values are transmitted through
play in traditional cultures. Self-reliance, independence and competition are encouraged
by non-traditional cultures.
* In traditional cultures play tends to occur in work-related settings.
* Variations of games such as peek-a-boo and pat a cake played between parents and
their children can occur across traditional and non-traditional cultures. Roopnarine et al.
(1998).
Research on the cultural differences in play has extensively focused on how boys and
girls play differently. Parents have been seen to contribute to the gender role development
of children. Lindsey, Mize, Pettit (1997) examined the extent of mother’s and father’s
involvement in children’s play. The stylistic variations in that play were examined among
pre-school children. The gender differences revealed that boys were more likely to play
more physically than girls and that girls were more likely to engage in pretence play.
Both girls and boys would play at pretend more in the presence of mothers than fathers.
The analysis of parental involvement in this study revealed some interesting stylistic
variations in the parent and child play behaviours. Parents of girls were more likely to be
involved in pretence play than parents of boys. Father’s of boys were more likely to be
involved in physical play than fathers of girls or mothers of boys and girls. Parents of
girls were more likely to comply with their children’s play leads than were parents of
boys. Mothers were more likely to comply with children’s play directives than were
fathers. The data suggests that parents may contribute to children’s gender specific types
of play and influence children by modelling particular play behaviours and/ or providing
differential patterns of reinforcement to sons and daughters. (Lindsey, Mize and Pettit
1997)

Other gender differences emerge in the way girls and boys communicate with their peers
in a play a setting. Serbin et al. (1982) found that girls use polite requests and persuasion
to get what they want in the play situation, whereas boys relied on commands and
physical force.
In observations of children’s play in London inner city schools Sayeed and Guerin (2001)
noted separate play patterns between boys and girls. Boys tended to re-enact fantasy
situations such as fighting, cops and robbers, whereas girls tended to act out real
situations from their immediate culture. Examples of girls play behaviour were feeding a
doll in the role of a mother. Sayeed and Guerin (2001) suggest it was debatable whether
gender preferences for particular types of play were the result of a socialisation process
where expectations around what boys and girls play and how they play are learned. This
is perhaps illustrated in research by Martin and Little (1990), which showed that young
children only needed a rudimentary understanding of gender differences prior to the
children learning about sex stereotypes and prior to showing sex-typed preferences for
peers or toys.
The social class or economic situation that a child is born into can be a contributory
factor in cultural differences in play. Early research viewed children from a low socio-
economic class as being deprived of play or were deficient in imaginative play behaviour
in comparison to their middle-class peers. (Smilansky 1968) Later researchers, Johnson,
Christie and Yawkkey (1987) discussed these controversies and concluded that evidence
suggested that materially deprived children or children from a low social-class engage
differently in imaginative play than middle-class children.
Sutton-Smith and Heath (1981) described differences in imaginative play style related to
culture. They analyzed two styles of imaginative behaviour in the form of story telling.
They compared a sample of stories told by working class black children in Piedmont,
Carolina, and a sample of stories by middle-class white children in New York. Stories
told by the working class Afro-American children tended to be relatively personal and
taken mostly from real-life experiences. The White middle-income group of children told

stories in the third person and which were more fantasy-like in content. Of the New York
stories, 95% were in the third person, but only 30% of stories by the Afro-American
children were. In their study Sutton-Smith and Heath (1982) found evidence of the very
different imaginations that children possessed. The Afro-American children were able to
show their imaginative talents in a more collective context. Sutton-Smith and Heath
suggested that children who come from more orally based than literary based cultures
appear more imaginative and playful when words are the main activity.
Researchers have drawn attention to the cross-cultural link between play and work. The
distinction between play and work become clearer as children age. In the UK the shift
towards less play based activities seems to occur at the transition from pre-school early
years settings to school. (Sayeed and Guerin 2001). Sayeed also suggests that ‘play-time’
during the school day can create the distinction for children of what is play and what is
not play.
Kalliala (2006) focused on hobbies as a direct way for parents to educate their children.
In her study of Scandinavian children she found that many 6 year olds had up to 3 weekly
hobbies e.g. Music, dance or sport after a full day at school or day care setting. Many of
the parents in her study encouraged their children to use technology. The parents believed
that technology would help advancement in their child’s adult life.
Penn (2005) argues that as children age in developing countries like Africa adults are less
likely to play with them. The reasons are given as economic, as parents have little time to
play with children and have to earn a living. From the ages of 5 years children in settings
such as Kenya are given more work according to the seasonal changes of their
environment. (Whiting and Edwards 1988), an example may be tending to animals,
herding, fishing and selling. Children from such communities mimic the adult roles in
preparation for an adult life. (Bloch and Adler 1994).
In both developed and developing countries material poverty does not prevent a child
from playing. The child will develop a sense of playfulness if the environment is

stimulating and will invent simple materials from nature or rejects from adults. (Bloch
and Pelligrini 1989).
Culture and society today is continuously being reshaped as people from different
communities, ethnic backgrounds, religions and countries come into contact with each
other. This is probably seen most obviously within cities where populations become more
diverse with the influx of migrants and refugees. Roopnarine and Johnson 2001 described
children’s play as a ‘social bridge’ between people of diverse cultures, that could help
foster a universal multi cultural education for early year’s settings.
Kalliala (2006) considered urbanisation, changing work patterns of parents and a more
middle-aged population having affected changes in society. Certainly societal influences
on children’s play may now be reflected through changes in family dynamics. Kallila
(2006) found that parents were more likely to adopt the role of a permissive parent,
placing importance on their child’s social skills and individual competence than a more
traditional approach that the child should internalize shared values without questioning
authority. Kallila found that some parents in her study adopted a ‘Pal’ parenting
approach. The ‘Pal’ approach being one of more guidance parents were more friends’
confidants and advisors. Hierarchical orders in the family group were rejected and the
parents appealed to children through discussion. (Kallila, p13).
Most researchers would agree that the status of play is ambiguous and constantly
changing. At an international level the child’s right to play has been recognised in Article
31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Hodgkin and Newell (1998)
proposed that play is exclusively an activity of children without the control of adults or
constraints of rules. Putting these ideals into practise would mean changes in adult
attitudes, resources and government cooperation.

Bibliography
Bloch, M. and Adler, L. (1994) ‘African children’s play and the emergence of sexual
division of labour’, in Roppnarine, J., Johnson, J. and Hooper, F. (eds) Children’s Play in
Diverse Cultures. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Bloch, M and Pelligrini, A. (1989) The Ecological Context of Children’s Play. New
York: Ablex.
Farver, J. and Lee, Y. (1997) ‘Social pretend play in Korean- and Anglo-American pre-
schoolers’. Journal of Child Development. Vol 68, No.3, pp544-556.
Farver, J., Kim, Y.K, and Lee, Y. (1995) ‘Cultural differences in Korean and Anglo-
American preschoolers’ social interaction and play behaviours. Journal of Child
Development, 1995, 66, pp1088-1099.
Fogel, A., Nwokah, E., and Karns, J. (1993) ‘Parent-infant games as dynamic social
systems’ in: Macdonald, K. (Ed) Parent-Child Play. Descriptions and Implications.
SUNY press. New York.
Hodgkin, R. and Newell, P. (1998) Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the
Rights of the Child. USA: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
Holmes, R. M. (2001) Parental notions about children’s playfulness’, in: ‘Theory in
Context and Out’ Edited by Reifel, R.S.
Ishigaki, E. H, and Lin, J. (2000) New perspectives of early childhood teacher education
in Japan. (Concerning new revisions of guidelines and the juvenile welfare law).
Departmental Bulletin Paper. Osaka-Kyoiku University Press. Japan.

Johnson, J. E, Christie, J. F and Yawkey T. D (1987) Play and Early Childhood
Development. Harper Collins. New York.
Kalliala, M. (2006) Play Culture in a Changing World. Open University Press.
Maidenhead.
Lindsey, E. W, Mize, J., and Pettit, G. (1997) ‘Differential play patterns of mothers and
fathers of sons and daughters: Implications for children’s gender role development.’
Journal of Sex Roles. Vol 37, No 9-10, Nov 1997.
Macdonald, K, and Parke, R.D. (1986) ‘Parent-child physical play with rejected,
neglected and popular boys’ Developmental Psychology, 1987, vol 23, 5, pp 705-711.
MacNaughton, G. (2003) Shaping Early Childhood: Learner, Curriculum and Contexts.
Open University Press. Maidenhead.
Martin and Little (1990) The relation of gender understanding to children’s sex-typed
preferences and gender stereotypes. Journal of Child Development, 1990, 61, pp
1427-1439.
Nielson, M. and Christie, T. (2008) ‘Adult modelling facilitates young children’s
generation of novel pretend acts.’ Journal of Infant and Child Development
Penn, H. (2005) Understanding Early Childhood: Issues and Controversies. Open
University Press. Maidenhead.
Roopnarine, J.L., Shin, M., Jung, K., Hossain, Z. (2003) Contemporary Perspectives on
Play in Early Childhood. Weisport.
Roopnarine, J. L and Johnson, J. E. (2001) Play and Diverse Cultures: Implications of
Early Childhood Education.

Roopnarine, J. L, Lasker, J., Sacks, M. and Stores, M. (1998) ‘The Cultural contexts and
Children’s Play’, in Saracho, O. And Spodek, B. (Eds) Multiple Play Perspectives in
Early Childhood Education. Albany NY: Steele University. New York Press.
Roopnarine, J. L., Talukder, E., Jain, D., Joshi, P and Sirvastav, P. (1992) ‘Personal
Well-Being, Kinship tie and Mother-Infant and Father- Infant interaction in Single-Wage
and Dual-Wage Families in New Delhi, India.’ Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54,
293-301.
Sayeed, Z. and Guerin, E. (2000) Early Years Play. A Happy Medium for Assessment
and Intervention. David Fulton. London.
Serbin, L. A., Sprafkin, C., Elman, M. and Doyle, M. B. (1982). ‘The early development
of sex-differentiated patterns of social influence’, Canadian Journal of Social Science 14,
350-63.
Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool
children. New York: Wiley.
Sun, L. C and Roopnarine, J. L. (1996) ‘Mother-infant, father-infant interaction and
involvement in childcare and household labour among Taiwanese families.’ Journal of
Infant Behaviour and Development, Vol 19, issue 1, January-March 1996, pp 121-129.
Sutton-Smith, B., and Heath, S. B (1981) Paradigms of Pretence. Quarterly Newsletter of
the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 3, 41-45.
Tulananda, O., and Roopnarine, J.L. (2001) ‘Mothers’ and fathers’ interactions with
preschoolers in the home in northern Thailand’ Journal of Family Psychology 2001. Dec,
15 (4), pp 676-687.
Whiting, B. B. and Edwards, C. P. (1988) Children of Different Worlds. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.