Toddler agency and conversation analysis

Toddler agency and conversation analysis

Bryndis Gunnarsdottir and Amanda Bateman

Introduction

Examining the social reality of toddlers has increasingly become a significant issue within early childhood education and care (ECEC) because of the growing number of these children in ECEC settings around the world (OECD, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2015; Woodhead, 2007). How these young children are spending their time in the ECEC settings and the impact it is having on their lives is a research topic worth examining, because children’s early experiences have a great influence on their future lives as well as on their lives in the here and now. Valuable research has already been published in the last decade indicating that children can benefit socially, developmentally, economically and academically from attending ECEC settings (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Greve, 2005; OECD, 2006; Løkken, 2004; Sylva et al., 2006). Looking at what children are doing in these settings and how they are influencing their environment and making use of it for their own benefits has also been researched to some extent (Alvestad, 2010; Bae, 1996; Corsaro, 2003, 2015; Denzin, 2010; Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1993; Greve & Solheim, 2010; Pramling Samuelsson & Asplund Carlsson, 2008; Ryan, 2005). What is needed, though is more research on how this relates to the toddler age group.

This paper will examine how using CA can be beneficial when researching the social lives of toddlers within ECEC settings, and how it has the potential to deepen our already existing understanding of the subject, as well as giving us new knowledge that can have a great impact on the quality of the care and education children are receiving in these settings. This will be achieved initially with a general discussion on the toddler peer group, followed by a specific focus on how CA has been useful for researching the toddler age group, and finally how this research can inform teacher practice.

The toddler peer group

William Corsaro (2015) has extensively researched the peer group and the peer culture for decades. He defines ‘peer culture’ as “a stable set of activities or routines, artifacts, values, and concerns that children produce and share in interaction with peers“ (Corsaro & Eder, 1990, p. 197). He identifies two major themes in children‘s initial peer cultures: children try to get control over their lives and they want to share this control with other children. This they do through cultural routines, which they construct within the peer group. These routines both provide the children with security, because they are predictable and give the children a sense of belonging to a group, and empower them because the security gives them space to develop, interpret and construct new knowledge. Corsaro uses the term ‘interpretive reproduction’ to explain this collective action:

The term interpretive captures the innovative and creative aspects of children´s participation in society. In fact ... children create and participate in their own unique peer cultures by creatively taking or appropriating information from the adult world to address their own peer concerns. The term reproduction captures the idea that children are not simply internalizing society and culture but are actively contributing to cultural production and change. (Corsaro, 2015, p. 18).

One of the most crucial factors within this theory of interpretive reproduction is that the focus is on participation and how children reproduce and interpret their world rather than on how the individual child internalises the adult world. It is not the individual that is being examined; but the routines within the peer group (Corsaro, 1992).

Most of Corsaro’s research on this topic has been with children over the age of 3 years, and he has done extensive work with pre-schoolers in the US and Italy (Corsaro, 1979a, 1979b, 2003, 2005; Corsaro & Eder, 1990; Corsaro & Molinari, 1990). He has, however, in collaboration with Luisa Molinari (1990) also conducted a study in an Italian asilo nido (an ECEC for under 3 year-old children) and found that those toddlers did indeed construct their own routines, often consisting of re-arranging furniture in the room. They then shared those routines with each other and participated in the construction of the routine as a group. These routines, Corsaro and Molinari argued, gave the children control over the physical environment they were in. Examining those routines further could provide interesting information on toddlers’ social lives within ECEC.

In many countries around the world the view of the child as a competent and strong social being has all but overtaken the traditional view of the deficit child (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005). This understanding has, however, not always found its way to toddlers. The dominant understanding of child development (e.g. Piaget’s theory of stages of development: Piaget, 1959) still categorises toddlers as egocentric and unable to play well with others. Although stage theories like Piaget’s have been critiqued, these deficit views still dominate the discourse (Salamon, 2011), with catch phrases like the ‘terrible twos’ still being widely used by parents and carers alike, and social commentators making claims like

[t]he vast majority of development in children is done on their own or with adults, not with other children, who are in their own fantasy worlds and find it hard at so young an age to co-operate and enjoy each other’s fantasy worlds” (Oliver James, cited in Naughton, 2014, p. 15).

Research into the social lives of toddlers, showcasing their agency and capabilities, will hopefully help to shift such discourse regarding toddlers as well as shedding more light on their competencies.

A few other researchers have studied the social worlds of toddlers. According to research conducted by the Norwegian Gunvør Løkken (2004), toddlers express their understanding of each other’s meaning and purpose in play through body language because they often do not have a common verbal language. Their friendship is based largely on physical interactions, repetition, impressions, and humour. Through interactions and play they develop ‘us-culture’, togetherness in a group that forms over time. Løkken (2000) maintains that the toddler style is “recognisable in varied ways of running, jumping, trampling, twisting, bouncing and shouting, falling ostentatiously and laughing ostentatiously” (p.173). Through these physical characteristics, toddlers construct their own rituals and routines, games and community.

Anne Greve’s (2005, 2007, 2008, 2009) research on toddler friendship supports Løkken’s research, and she concludes that the “common we” is important as toddlers seek each other out to create meaning together and relate to each other through physical play and humour (Greve & Solheim, 2010). The “common we” is a method children use to build their togetherness in the peer group (Bateman, 2012, 2014), which is important because in the peer group children learn strategies they need to negotiate and navigate a tricky social play world. The skills toddlers can learn through social interactions in the peer group can be vital for building social relationships and friendships (Ashby & Neilsen-Hewett, 2012). This aspect of the toddler peer group needs to be emphasised and fostered, because it is crucial for the children to feel a sense of belonging. It can be empowering for a child to experience being one of the ‘we’. This feeling of belonging is emphasised in both Te Whariki, the New Zealand early childhood curriculum, and in the Australian early-years learning framework (Belonging, Being and Becoming). Both of these frameworks place a strong emphasis on children and families being secure and feeling content within the early-years setting, because it is the basis of all further development and learning for the child (Austalian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009; Ministry of Education, 1996). For teachers to be able to provide the conditions for toddlers to build those social relationships and a sense of belonging, we need to know more about what it looks like and what is important for the children. One way of examining these skills is through a detailed study of social interactions through conversation analysis.

In many countries around the world the view of the child as a competent and strong social being has all but overtaken the traditional view of the deficit child. This understanding has, however, not always found its way to toddlers. The dominant understanding of child development still categorises toddlers as egocentric …

Conversation analysis in toddler research

Studies utilising CA are based within the paradigm of social constructionism, which holds that the social world is constructed through “... shared processes of communication and social interactions“ (Hammersley, 2013, p. 36). Within social constructionism, different methods of research have emerged, many looking at both how we construct our shared world as well as what we are constructing (Holstein & Gubrium, 2011). One of these methods is conversation analysis, which was developed in the 1960s as a reaction to the quantitative focus on the study of human interactions. It was Harvey Sacks’s study on the structure of interactions at the Center for the Scientific Study of Suicide in Los Angeles in 1963-64 that marked the beginning of CA as we know it (ten Have, 1999). Sacks was interested in investigating “the levels of social order which could be revealed in the everyday practice of talking” (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008, p. 15). Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) were the first to discuss “the organization of turn-taking for conversation” (pp. 696-697), where they claim order is observable in any conversation. They argued that routine conversations are a structurally ordered and organised phenomenon and turn taking is fundamental for conversation and interactions. The focus of study is naturally occurring interactions between two or more people, the process and structure of interactions that co-produce social order through analysing turns at talk, and people’s understanding of and responses to those interactions (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008; Sacks et al., 1974). In CA, video or audio recordings of naturally occurring interactions are analysed by identifying “recurrent distinct interactive practice” (Peräkylä & Ruusuvuori, 2011, p. 534), or items in talk that the participants themselves orient to as significant.

Although CA is called conversation analysis, it is not only interested in verbal conversational talk. It does indeed analyse ‘talk-in-interactions’, what is said in those interactions and how it is said, but it also examines the subtleties of gaze, gesture and tone of voice (Bateman & Church, in press; Filipi, 2009; C. Goodwin, 1987, 1993; Kidwell, 2005).What is actually being studied is the “interactional organization of social activities” (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008, p. 12). Seminal CA work on the importance of studying paralinguistic features of interaction (such as gaze, tone of voice and touch) with older children has been conducted by Marjorie Harness Goodwin (1990; 2008; 2011; Goodwin & Cekaite, 2012; Goodwin, Cekaite, & Goodwin, 2012; Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2012). Her research has shed light on the complexities of children’s interactions and has given an inside view of how interactive and fascinating the processes of creating and maintaining the peer culture is. She and her husband, Charles Goodwin (1993), have analysed interactions through the combination of both verbal actions and non-verbal gesture and gaze, as well as looking at voice prosody for shifts in tone and pitch, in order to enrich their understanding of social lives (ten Have, 1999).

The following transcription taken from Bateman (in press) demonstrates how paralinguistic resources are identified with CA transcription conventions formulated by Jefferson (Sacks et al., 1974) (see appendix for full list of transcription conventions). In this interaction, the children are using puppets to play out a story that has just been read to them by their teacher. The $ sign indicates that Sienna is smiling as she talks, the double brackets note the gesture, and the pauses are recorded in tenths of a second (for example, on line 16). Gaze is noted as important in the interaction here, as Matai looks at his puppet as he speaks to it (line 22), treating the puppet as he would a human recipient of his talk. Sienna responds to Matai (also marked by her gaze towards him) as she tells him that it is his turn (not the puppet’s) by placing emphasis on your, and Matai continues his pretence of ‘being’ the puppet through the act of ventriloquism (Bateman & Church, in press), as he talks for the puppet with his gaze fixed on it. (For further exploration of these issues please see the article).

14Sienna: $what can ↑ this: ↓ monster do$ ((lifts puppet

15up to ‘audience’ and waggles it))

16(2.2)

17$I can [fl::y$ ((holds it in the air))

18Matai: [>°oh oh ay ay< ((pulls curtain over to the

19side with his bird puppet))

20Sienna: whe::°sh° ((moves the puppet through the air and

21then lands it behind the theatre))

22Matai: right your o::n ((looking down at his puppet))

23Sienna: now it’s your: turn no:::w ((looks at Matai))

24Matai: no wait I need to go shower ((looking at puppet))

This inclusion of gaze and gesture has been especially useful when investigating toddlers’ social worlds. For example, Mardi Kidwell’s (2005) research on toddlers’ and their caregivers’ gazes found that “[b]eing looked at is a complex communicative matter” (p.443), where the toddlers responded differently to different types of ‘looks’ from adults. Further work by Kidwell (2009) demonstrates how toddlers also monitor the gaze of their peers to respond to the situation around them and the likelihood of caregivers intervening, therefore showing how intelligently toddlers ‘read’ their social environment. Anna Filipi (2009) used CA to analyse the structures of gazes as well as the gestures and pointings of infants’ and toddlers’ communication with parents, showing that they are capable of complex interaction long before they can communicate verbally. Michael Forrester and Sarah Cherington (2009) examined the development of conversational repair skills by following a young child (Forrester’s daughter) from the age of 1 year to the age of 3 years 10 months. Their results indicate strongly that a very young child has the capability to take part in complicated conversations and that the child understands and can interpret others’ responses competently. Burdelski and Morita’s (2017) study of Japanese toddlers’ initial assessments in conversations shows how able they are to ‘read’ social interactions and figure out what is an appropriate response within conversations even at such an young age. These previous studies illustrate that CA is a useful tool when examining toddler interactions.

Informing ECE teacher practice

Studying the ‘social activities’ of toddlers inherently involves looking at gaze, gestures and body language as their verbal language skills are still evolving. The detailed examination of turn taking and problem solving within interactions in the toddler peer group therefore has the potential to showcase the subtleties and complexities of social interactions between very young children, we can see them as ‘knowledgeable’ (Bateman & Church, in press). Because adults are not members of the toddler peer group, looking at the toddlers’ interactions in natural settings in great detail through CA can give us a unique view of their conversations and social interactions, and it can help us see what is important to the children themselves (Church, 2007). CA is a particularly useful tool for early childhood teachers to use in their research with children; they can become teacher-researchers who are precise in their analysis of video footage that explores social relationships and peer groups in their centres. CA can also provide teachers with insight and reflection into their own teaching practices where they video-record their interactions with children and examine them in detail to reveal more about how they use questions, and the responses of the children to those questions.

CA has, then, the potential to showcase toddler peer culture and the communication and interaction that goes on within the peer group, as well as the potential to understand further teacher–toddler interactions. This method allows us to “focus on what children do, rather than what we think they do, or what we think they think or feel” (Bateman & Church, in press, p. 3). By using video recordings, a researcher can develop an in-depth analysis of what toddlers do and how they do it through examining their verbal and non-verbal interactions and by examining how they communicate what is important to themselves and their peers. The best way to understand what is important to young children, is to look for repetitions in interactions and shared routines, which signal things they value and look for in their social relationships with their peers. Conversation analysis is an excellent tool to examine what is important because it can capture all the nuances in their interactions, which can also give us an opportunity to showcase their agency through shining a light on their complex interactions with others.

Final words

This paper has discussed how CA can be a useful tool when doing research in the toddler peer group. It has the potential to offer new and interesting data as we go deep into a social group that adults no longer have access to. It has discussed how we can utilise CA methods to look beyond the superficial and the verbal, and by also examining the non-verbal communication we can identify what is important to the toddlers themselves. This investigation into the toddler social word can also help us showcase their agency by focusing on what they are capable of rather than what they are lacking. The social world of toddlers is a complex and tricky world and the more we know about it, the better equipped we are to support and assist them in their daily lives in ECEC settings around the world.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editors of this journal for the opportunity to write this paper for this special edition and the anonymous reviewers who provided valuable comments and feedback that helped us improve this paper. All errors and mistakes are our own.

CA is a particularly useful tool for early childhood teachers to use in their research with children; they can become teacher-researchers who are precise in their analysis of video footage that explores social relationships and peer groups in their centres.

References

Alvestad, T. (2010). Preschool relationships : Young children as competent participants in negotiations Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Ashby, N., & Neilsen-Hewett, C. (2012). Approaches to conflict and conflict resolution in toddler relationships. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 10(2), 145–161. Retrieved from https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/10.1177/1476718X11430070

Austalian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2009). Belonging, being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/belonging_being_and_becoming_the_early_years_learning_framework_for_australia.pdf

Bae, B. (1996). Det interessante i det alminnelige : En artikkelsamling [The interesting in the common place: An article sample]. Oslo, Norway: Pedagogisk Forum.

Bateman, A. (2012). Forging friendships: The use of collective pro-terms by pre-school children. Discourse Studies, 14(2), 165–180. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611433630

Bateman, A. (2014). Young children’s English use of we in a primary school in Wales. In T.-S. Pavlidou (Ed.), Constructing collectivity: We across languages and contexts (pp. 361–391). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Bateman, A., & Church, A. (in press). Children’s knowledge-in-interactions: An introduction. In A. Bateman & A. Church (Eds.), Children’ knowledge-in-interaction: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 1–11). Singapore: Springer.

Burdelski, M., & Morita, E. (2017). Young children’s initial assessments in Japanese. In A. Bateman & A. Church (Eds.), Children’s knowledge-in-interaction: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 231–255). Singapore: Springer.

Church, A. (2007). Conversation analysis in early childhood research. Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 14(2), 1–12.

Corsaro, W. A. (1979a). “We’re friends, right?”: Children’s use of access rituals in a nursery school. Language in Society, 8(3), 315–336.

Corsaro, W. A. (1979b). Young children’s conception of status and role. Sociology of Education, 52(1), 46–59. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2307/2112593

Corsaro, W. A. (1992). Interpretive reproduction in children’s peer cultures. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 160–177.

Corsaro, W. A. (2003). “We’re friends, right?”: Inside kids’ cultures. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.

Corsaro, W. A. (2005). Collective action and agency in young children’s peer cultures. In J. Qvortrup (Ed.), Studies in modern childhood: Society, agency, culture (pp. 231–247). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Corsaro, W. A. (2015). The sociology of childhood (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Corsaro, W. A., & Eder, D. (1990). Children’s peer cultures. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 197–220.

Corsaro, W. A., & Molinari, L. (1990). From seggiolini to discussione: The generation and extension of peer culture among Italian preschool children. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 3(3), 213–230. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839900030302

Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. London, UK: Routledge.

Denzin, N. K. (2010). Childhood socialization (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Edwards, C. P., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.). (1993). The hundred languages of children. The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Filipi, A. (2009). Toddler and parent interaction : The organisation of gaze, pointing and vocalisation. Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10364088

Forrester, M. A., & Cherington, S. M. (2009). The development of other-related conversational skills: A case study of conversational repair during the early years. First Language, 29(2), 166–191.

Goodwin, C. (1987). Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica, 62, 29–49.

Goodwin, C. (1993). Recording human interaction in natural settings. Pragmatics, 3(2), 181–209.

Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Formal cultural procedures for the construction of a gossip dispute activity. American Ethnologist, 7(4), 674–695.

Goodwin, M. H. (2008). The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status, and exclusion. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Goodwin, M. H. (2011). Engendering children’s play: Person reference in children’s conflictual interaction. In S. A. Speer & E. Stokoe (Eds.), Conversation and gender (pp. 251–271). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, M. H., & Cekaite, A. (2012). Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of Pragmetics 46(1), 122-138.

Goodwin, M. H., Cekaite, A., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Emotion as stance. In M.-L. Sorjonen & A. Peräkylä (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 16–41). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Goodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. (2012). Peer language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 365–390). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Greve, A. (2005). Friendship relations among toddlers. Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 12(1), 11–20.

Greve, A. (2007). Vennskap mellom små barn i barnehagen [Friendship among young children in ECEC]. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oslo, Oslo.

Greve, A. (2008). Friendships and participation among young children in a Norwegian kindergarten. In D. Berthelsen, J. Brownlee, & E. Johansson (Eds.), Participatory learning in the early years: Research and pedagogy (pp. 78–92). New York, NY: Routledge.

Greve, A. (2009). Vennskap mellom de yngste barna i barnehagen [Friendship between the youngest children in ECEC]. Tidsskrift for Nordisk Barnehageforskning, 2(2), 91–98.

Greve, A., & Solheim, M. (2010). Research on children in ECEC under three in Norway: Increased volume, yet invisible. International Journal of Early Childhood, 42(2), 155–163. Retrived from https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-010-0013-7

Hammersley, M. (2013). What is qualitative research? London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2011). The constructionist analytics of interpretive practice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 314–357). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Kidwell, M. (2005). Gaze as social control: How very young children differentiate “the look” from a “mere look” by their adult caregivers. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(4), 417–449. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3804_2

Kidwell, M. (2009). Gaze shift as an interactional resource for very young children. Discourse Processes, 46, 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728926

Løkken, G. (2000). Tracing the social style of toddler peers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 44(2), 163.

Løkken, G. (2004). Toddlerkultur: Om ett- og toåringers sosiale omgang i barnehagen (Toddler culture: Social interactions of one and two year olds in the barnehage). Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.

Ministry of Education. (1996). The Whariki. Early childhood curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media. Retrieved from https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Early-Childhood/te-whariki.pdf

Naughton, L. (2014). Teaching toddlers. Community Practitioner, 87(6), 14–16.

OECD. (2001). Starting strong: Early childhood education and care. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/education/starting-strong_9789264192829-en

OECD. (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/education/starting-strong-ii_9789264035461-en

OECD. (2011). Starting strong III: A quality toolbox for early childhood education and care. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/education/starting-strong-iii_9789264123564-en

OECD. (2015). Starting strong IV: Monitoring quality in early childhood education and care. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/earlychildhoodeducationandcare.htm

Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2011). Analyzing talk and text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 529–543). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child (3rd ed.). London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Asplund Carlsson, M. (2008). The playing learning child: Towards a pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(6), 623. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830802497265

Ryan, S. (2005). Freedom to choose: Examining children’s experiences in choice time. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood education (pp. 99–114). London, UK: Open University Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2307/412243

Salamon, A. (2011). How the early years learning framework can help shift pervasive beliefs of the social and emotional capabilities of infants and toddlers. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 12(1), 4–10.

Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Sammons, P., Melhuish, E., Elliot, K., & Totsika, V. (2006). Capturing quality in early childhood through environmental rating scale. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(1), 76–92.

ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Woodhead, M. (2007). New evidence, new service, new transitions. In M. Woodhead & Peter Moss (Eds.), Early childhood and primary education: Transitions in the lives of young children. London, UK: Open University.