Compensating for unequal childhoods: practitioners’ reflections on social injustice in leisure-time centres

ABSTRACT

In Sweden and other countries, children's everyday lives and educational opportunities depend on their living conditions and class backgrounds. The current study examined the manifestation of issues of social injustice and unequal childhoods in the daily practices of leisure-time centres in Sweden. The empirical data were derived from the written reflections of practitioners enrolled in a continuing education course. The results indicate that leisure-time centres play an important role by compensating for unequal childhoods and other inequalities in the society. The practitioners discussed the importance of the centres’ maintaining supplies of clothing and equipment for children who lack these essentials for participation in outdoor activities. This compensation for unequal childhoods was also expressed through the provision of a free snack every afternoon and free meals during excursions.

KEYWORDS:

• Childhood
• compensating
• leisure-time centres
• inequality
• social injustice

Introduction

Differences in children's living conditions, childhood experiences and educational possibilities have an influence on childhood equality (Harju, 2013; Lareau, 2011; Näsman, 2012). In Sweden, the widening of economic disparities over the last decade has resulted in increased segregation in living conditions (Beach & Sernhede, 2011; Sernhede & Tallberg Broman, 2014). Children of economically vulnerable families do not have the same possibilities for meaningful leisure time as children in economically stable families (Rädda Barnen/Save the Children, 2018). Over the last two decades, several educational reforms have been implemented in Sweden to improve school performance; however, studies have indicated that these reforms have had the opposite effect. Indeed, student performance has declined, and the differences among schools regarding academic success have increased. Increased segregation has been evident, with some schools having a high number of students with immigrant backgrounds and others with students of predominately majority backgrounds. Thus, the compensatory and equal educational system envisioned by the reforms has not been achieved (Dahlstedt & Fejes, 2018). Studies have shown that an equal educational system will promote social justice and compensate for unequal childhoods (Odienberg et al., 2017; Sernhede & Tallberg Broman, 2014).

Children in Sweden now spend a great deal of their time in school and at leisure-time centres. Thus, multiple educational settings are an important part of childhood. The current study focused on the everyday practices of the leisure-time centre, the Swedish school-age Educare. Leisure-time centres are governed by the curriculum for the compulsory schools, preschool classes and school-age Educare (Skolverket, 2018a). The curriculum states the following:

The educational programme, in school-age Educare, should stimulate the pupils’ development and learning, as well as offer the pupils meaningful leisure time … .The educational programme should provide the pupils with the opportunity to develop good peer relationships and to feel a sense of belonging and security in the pupils’ groups. (Skolverket, 2018a, p. 23)

Although the leisure-time centres are expected to provide equal opportunities for all children, inspections and evaluations of the leisure-time centres have long highlighted significant differences in quality between and within municipalities (Skolinspektionen, 2010, 2018; Skolverket, 2011). It is against this backdrop that the current study investigated practitioners’ reflections on and understandings of the issues surrounding social injustice and unequal childhoods in the daily practices of leisure-time centres. The study was guided by the following research questions:

1. How do practitioners understand and interpret social injustice and unequal childhoods?

2. In what situations in the daily practices of leisure-time centres does social injustice occur?

3. What are the practitioners’ strategies for compensating for unequal childhoods?

The leisure-time centre in Sweden

Leisure-time centres were once governed by the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. They were considered an element of Swedish social and family policies, and were guided by a pedagogical programme for leisure-time centres, which were complementary to parenting (Socialstyrelsen, 1988). In 1996, the responsibility shifted to the Ministry of Education and Science (Haglund, 2015). The curriculum (Lpo94, 2006) was revised to include leisure-time centres (Hansen, 2011), and the complementary function is now defined in the related policy documents (Skolverket, 2018a).

The status of the leisure-time centres in the education system is unique because they are generally governed by the same policy documents as compulsory schools; however, the goals are aspirational rather than required. Previously, the curriculum comprised three areas, two of which addressed leisure-time centres. The fundamental values and responsibilities of schools and the overall education goals and guidelines, which are not covered by syllabuses, are the third area. In accordance with the revised Education Act of 2010, the educational role of leisure-time centres was strengthened. With the curriculum revision in 2016, leisure-time centres are now required to provide students an education, not just access to recreational activities. With the 2016 revisions, a section (Chapter 4) was added in order to elucidate the aim of and the central content of education in leisure-time centres: (i) language and communication, (ii) creative and aesthetic forms of expression, (iii) nature and society and (iv) play, physical activities and outdoor experiences (Skolverket, 2018a). These changes can be understood in terms of the Swedish state's acknowledgement of the importance of leisure-time centres for children's holistic learning and development and the achievement of the national objectives set forth in the curriculum.

In Sweden, all children 6–13 years old have the opportunity to be enrolled in denominated school-age child care leisure-time centres, which are usually located in school buildings. This educational setting is heavily subsidized by the state, and this might explain the high enrolment rate. Approximately 86% of children 6–8 years old spend time in leisure-time centres early in the morning before the start of the school day, in the afternoons at the end of the school day and during holidays (Skolverket, 2018b). The increased enrolment during the last decade (Skolverket, 2018d) could be important for supporting socially equal childhoods.

The staff work in the preschool and/or the compulsory schools in collaboration with the preschool teachers and the compulsory school teachers (Skolverket, 2018d). The staff in the leisure-time centres are diverse. Only one of five holds a teacher's certificate with a focus on compulsory teaching in leisure-time centres (2018c). The leisure-time centres also benefit from staff, such as youth creation leaders and child minders, with competencies for promoting learning and child development. However, two out of five staff members lack an education that is relevant to working with children (Skolverket, 2018d). From mid-2019, successful completion of an examination for leisure-time teachers will be a requirement for all staff in the centres. Employment in leisure-time centres will not be possible without the requisite qualifications (Prop. 2017/18:194). This will present a major challenge nationwide because of the limited number of people with the requisite education background (Skolverket, 2018c).

Survey of the field

The Swedish leisure-time centre has played an important role in the creation of more equal childhoods because of its accessibility and its mission of stimulating children's holistic development and learning. Traditionally, the promotion of children's well-being and identity development has been central to the work of leisure-time centres, and the caring orientation has been a distinguishing quality of the staff (Hjalmarsson et al., 2017). The leisure-time teachers’ competence to handle care-related tasks can be described in terms of a specific care ethic, which comprises three elements: knowledge of care ethical values, knowledge of and ability to respond to the demands and expectations of colleagues and parents, and an ethical approach evidenced by the ability to adapt to situations that occur in everyday practice (Hjalmarsson & Löfdahl, 2014).

Hjalmarsson & Löfdahl(2013) found that the large number of children in the leisure-time centre groups has had a great influence on the practitioners’ abilities to offer planned activities. They also indicated that gaining an overview of the activities initiated by the children and the learning processes associated with the activities is challenging. Similar patterns have been observed in Haglund’s (2015) study. Leisure-time teachers’ main reasons for spending time in the schoolyard in the afternoons ‘was that it was easier to manage all the pupils outdoors’ (p. 218).

Equality in the leisure-time centre was highlighted in Andishmand’s (2017) ethnographic study of three leisure-time centres in different socioeconomic areas. The study concluded that the increased segregation in Swedish society has resulted in the increased homogeneity of the students in the leisure-time centres. One of the main reasons is free school choice. This has resulted in parents’ moving their children from schools and leisure-time centres in socially disadvantaged areas to those in middle-class areas with better reputations, and this has led to increased segregation. The practitioners in the socially disadvantaged areas discussed the compensatory role of the leisure-time centre regarding the children's living conditions and the families’ economic situations. Even though the practitioners indicated that, to a great extent, they compensated for the unequal childhoods, the lack of time resulted in the need to set priorities to serve the children with the greatest needs. Another dimension highlighted by Andishmand was the consequences of social exclusion and stigmatization for children who lack access to and do not attend leisure-time centres. For these vulnerable students, leisure-time centres would play an important role by compensating for unequal childhoods. In line with Andishmand, Ljung Egeland’s (2015) interview study of children with immigrant backgrounds discussed the importance of leisure-time centres for compensating for unequal childhoods, providing opportunities for children to meet other children to develop social relationships. Holmberg (2018) confirmed the risk of an increase in the gap between the children attending leisure-time centres and those who do not because the centres function as an extension of school. This therefore raises the question of the need to make leisure-time centres part of the compulsory education system.

There is no equivalent to the Swedish leisure-time centres; however, many countries provide school-age Educare, the governance and organization of which varies. Dyson and Jones (2014) reported on practitioners’ rationales for implementing a national extended service initiative in England. Drawing on case studies of 20 schools, the authors noted an emerging rationale for a developed role for schools: ‘one which sees them not just academic institutions, but as hubs for the support of children, families and communities, and as “bridges” to greater opportunities and better lives’ (p. 17). Simoncini, Caltabiano, and Lasen (2012) confirmed the importance of the extensive Australian out-of-school-hours care as potentially ‘mak[ing] up a sizable portion of children's lives and as such influenc[ing] their development’ (p. 109). Despite being in existence for more than 100 years, Australian school age care services have only recently been acknowledged as an essential part of the lives of contemporary families. However, the research on these settings is very limited (Cartmel & Grieshaber, 2014). Huang, La Torre Matrundola, and Leon (2014) discussed the tendency of American schools graded ‘lack of progress’ to use afterschool programmes as not mere safe havens for pupils but also as supplementary services to promote school engagement and academic achievement.

In sum, this review of the literature illustrates the tendencies in the field and the potential of leisure-times centres to compensate for unequal childhoods. However, the limited number of studies in the field highlight the need for further knowledge of the construction and reproduction of social injustice in the everyday practices of leisure-time centres. This study aims to provide new insights and knowledge regarding social injustice in leisure-time centres.

Theoretical framework

The current study was influenced by Bourdieu’s (1998) and Skeggs (2004) work. Investigations of the resources available to various groups in a society facilitate the exploration and understanding of the operation of class formations on the structural and concrete levels in people's everyday lives (Skeggs, 2002, 2004). Bourdieu (1998) used the concept of capital to explain the mechanisms behind social positions in a society. This model of social positions is based on the assumption that various forms of capital create different possibilities for navigating the social space. Therefore, the positions and living conditions of various groups, i.e. social class, are reproduced through their various forms of capital. The capital can be abstract or material, and it can include elements such as lifestyle, health, educational level and social networks. Bourdieu's formulation of economic capital was fundamental to the current study. Economic capital provided the theoretical framework for the analysis and discussion of the practitioners’ reflections on social injustice on the basis of the differences in the children's access to material resources in their everyday lives. In this paper, the concept of social injustice refers to the processes associated with social positions and unequal childhoods in leisure-time centres. The current study explored leisure-time centre practitioners’ reflections on the reproduction of social injustice in their daily practices and their strategies for compensating for unequal childhoods.

Data and analysis

The empirical data were derived from the written reflections of practitioners enrolled in a continuing education course arranged by Organization X at a university in Sweden. The goal of the course was to enable practitioners to increase their knowledge of Leisure time centre pedagogy and its relevance for holistic development and learning. During one school year, approximately 210 practitioners representing 14 collaborative municipalities attended seven research-based lectures that focused on education and activities in leisure-time centres. The local authorities in some municipalities had chosen to register all the leisure-time centres and practitioners; others chose to include only some of the staff. The few participating independent leisure-time centres did not collaborate with the other centres; thus, they functioned as separate units. It must be noted that not all of the participating practitioners had higher education qualifications. This mirrors the low numbers of staff in Sweden with pedagogical tertiary qualifications or educations relevant to working with children in general. All the participants in this study were denominated practitioners.

After each lecture, the practitioners approached, in their local settings, a specific task designed by the lecturer. Depending on the number of participating leisure-time centres and practitioners in each municipality, some groups included participants representing one leisure-time centre while others comprised participants representing multiple schools and leisure-time centres in the municipality. To promote fruitful and structured discussions in the groups, one member was designated the leader by the principal. The group leaders’ main task was to safeguard the members’ right to speak, to ensure respectfulness for everyone's reflections and to encourage multiple perspectives on the topic at hand. In addition, each group leader was responsible for documenting the group's discussions and its handling of the task assigned by the lecturer. The group leaders shared their reports with one another by email. They were also responsible for circulating the reports so that all of the reports could be read by all of the group members. With the aim of providing mutual support, the group leaders gathered at the university four times during the process to practice methods for structured discussion and to discuss their experiences as group leaders.

The written reflections that were analysed in the current study were related to a lecture on norm critical pedagogy in leisure-time centres. The lecture highlighted the connection between norm critical pedagogy, a concept that is now established in Swedish education, and the ‘hidden curriculum,’ which was a common concept in educational research during the 1970s. The ‘hidden curriculum’ was used for studying the knowledge, norms and values that students were expected to learn in school beyond the tasks specified in the curriculum. After the lecture, the practitioner groups discussed the assumptions made in their leisure-time centres. The aim was the exploration of the leisure-time centres’ hidden curricula regarding nationality, race, religion, gender, age, social class and economic status. They also studied the ways in which practitioners’ maintenance or undermining of norms could be problematic for individual children. The empirical data were derived from the 10 group reports, which documented the practitioners’ reflections on social justice. The current study focused on the issues surrounding social class and economic status.

The practitioners’ permission was sought for the use of the groups’ documented reflections in the current study. They were informed that the names of the schools, leisure-time centres or municipalities and the practitioners’ identities would not be revealed in any presentations of the research results. It was emphasized that the consent of all the participants in a group was needed for that group's written reflections to be included in the study. In addition, it was explained that each group member's viewpoint would be respected. Finally, they were told that the groups’ informed consent would be explicitly stated in the report on their written reflections.

Thematic analysis

The empirical data were thematically analysed. This form of analysis provides a flexible approach and it is a useful method for examining and highlighting similarities and differences in a data set and it is also useful to summarize key features in a large data set (Nowell, Norris, White, & Moules, 2017). Braun and Clarke (2006) have developed six analytic phases, or steps, that they claim are central when using thematic analysis as a methodological tool. The present study is inspired by this work and has applied those steps. To better fit the aim and design of the present study, the six steps have been slightly modified and clarified concerning how they have been defined. These steps have included the following six steps or phases: (1) familiarizing with the data, (2) initial coding of the data material, (3) searching for recurrent patterns in the data material, i.e. themes, (4) reviewing the main and sub themes, (5) defining and naming the themes and, the final process, (6) writing and finalizing the paper.

Results

In our analysis three main themes connected to social injustice and the leisure-time centres’ attempts to compensate for unequal childhoods emerged (c.f. Braun & Clarke, 2006; Nowell et al., 2017): (i) norms surrounding outdoor activities, (ii) loans of clothing and equipment and (iii) the provision of meals. These will now be described and analysed.

Norms related to outdoor activities

The Education Act requires that leisure-time centres ‘stimulate the students’ development and learning and offer them meaningful free time and recreation’ (SFS 2010:800). The Education Act also requires leisure-time centres to foster the children's development of social relationships. For the practitioners in the current study, recreation was clearly one of the everyday practices. The various forms of recreation reflect the norms and family expectations regarding outdoor activities.

We have discussed that the pedagogical practices revolve a lot around outdoor activities. During the winter time, this means that the children need warm and proper clothing. So, in a way we actually expect that the families have the financial resources to purchase the necessary clothes, but this is not always the case. (Group B)

Wearing the appropriate clothes during winter time was considered crucial. In the part of Sweden where the practitioners work, the winters are often very cold and snowy; thus, warm clothing is necessary for outdoor activities. The practitioners reflected that all of the families did not have the financial resources to meet these demands. They also discussed the norms of the catchment areas from which the children came.

Depending on the catchment area, different norms are created in the daily practice. For example, in one school there might be several children who have no gym wear and have to borrow clothes from the school. In many schools, we take for granted that all children bring suitable clothes for all activities, and then this becomes a norm. (Group P)

The practitioners’ self-reflections revealed a hegemony regarding the catchment area. In areas where a majority of the children were growing up in families with good stable financial resources, the parents’ ability to provide the necessary clothing was assumed; however, this was not the case for all children. Recurrent in the answers were the leisure-time centres’ assumptions that families had the financial resources to provide their children with suitable clothes and footwear.

It is taken for granted that everyone has sufficient economic resources for purchasing clothes that are suitable for the leisure-time centre's excursions to the woods and other winter activities. (Group G)

It is easy to assume that all children have suitable clothing and that they participate in the free time activities: that they have gym clothes, skates or rubber boots and so on. (Group V)

Recurrent in the practitioners’ answers regarding outdoor activities were the norms surrounding appropriate clothing and equipment. The practitioners’ reflections on the importance of having the appropriate clothing and equipment for participation in the activities was related to the leisure-times centres’ obligation to provide recreation activities. For the children to participate on equal terms and to receive an education regardless of their social backgrounds, the families need to have the financial resources to purchase the necessary equipment; however, not all families have the resources (c.f. Odenbring, 2018; Harju & Thorød, 2011). The practitioners in the current study created several strategies for dealing with these issues. This will be discussed in the next two sessions.

Loans of clothing and equipment

In leisure-time centres, one way to compensate for unequal childhoods during outdoor activities is to have equipment for children to borrow. Occasionally, leisure-time centres donate clothes that have been left behind to children in need.

We can make sure that there are clothes and equipment that the children can borrow when we are going on excursions. (Group C)

At the leisure-time centre, we try to collect things that we can lend, or we donate clothes or equipment that has been ‘left’. How we treat the children is really important. It is important that we have awareness and that we do not plan activities that might make children feel excluded. (Group V)

The practitioners highlighted not only the importance of maintaining a supply of clothes and equipment but also the careful planning of activities. This indicates not only an awareness of the disparities in the material resources of the families but also the extent to which the activities could exacerbate and maintain the inequalities among the children. Even though the practitioners expressed awareness of the disparities in the children's living conditions and explained their strategies for compensating for unequal childhoods, there was also the acknowledgement of leisure-time centres with limited resources such that they did not have enough equipment to lend to children in need.

When we arrange activities elsewhere, such as skiing, skating and downhill skiing, specific equipment will be required. Even if we have some equipment that we can lend, it is still taken for granted that at least some of the children will bring their own equipment. (Group Y)

Another dimension that the practitioners raised with regard to lending clothes and equipment was the children's perspectives and experiences about this practice. The practitioners had varying opinions. Some of them discussed the advantages, and others raised the challenges.

We have noticed that there are big differences regarding the children's clothing and equipment. We try to make sure that we have clothes and equipment that the children can borrow. The children do not mind, as far as we understand. (Group L)

Unlike the answer presented by the group in the extract above, another group dicussed the possible stigma and shame experienced by the children who always have to borrow equipment to be able to participate in the activities organised by the leisure-time centre.

The children who lack suitable clothes for the activities in school and in the leisure-time centre are a huge problem for us. The children who always need to borrow clothes might feel ashamed about it. We have to be better and more courageous to discuss these issues with the parents. (Group P)

Although providing clothes and equipment for the children who need them is rooted in good intentions, it could create emotional difficulties for the children concerned. The feelings of stigmatization could even be exacerbated. The practitioners raised another important dimension: the need for courage to have dialogue and to collaborate with the parents. The charitable organization Majblomman [the May Flower] was mentioned as a possible vehicle for supporting families experiencing economic hardship. Group A reflected on the best approaches for encouraging families to apply for funding from Majblomman: ‘What is the best way to contact families that need support and charitable assistance? What kinds of information do we need to provide them?’ The importance of involving charitable organizations has been discussed in previous studies (Odenbring et al., 2016; Näsman, 2012). Interviews with school professionals on student welfare teams indicated that the need for this kind of charitable assistance has grown as a result of increased segregation and the failures of social safety net to provide adequate support for vulnerable families (Odenbring et al., 2016).

Provision of meals

Compensation for unequal childhoods also revolved around the importance of the nutritious meals provided by leisure-time centres. Sweden's Education Act requires that preschool classes and primary and secondary schools provide free nutritious lunches. In addition, students do not pay tuition fees (SFS 2010:800). This is not the case for the leisure-time centres. Parents and guardians pay an income-based tuition fee. For school excursions, children can be asked to bring packed lunches as long as the parents and guardians have been informed and have given their consent. The critical questions, however, are whether the parents have been informed and whether they consider the request voluntary or whether they consider the request an unspoken demand from the school. The practitioners participating in the current study raised this issue with regard to their own pedagogical practices.

We have observed that there are differences between the school and the leisure-time centre when it comes to excursions. At the leisure-time centre, we never ask the children to bring their own fruit or snacks to the excursions. We make sure to provide food for everyone. (Group O)

Previous studies on child poverty have indicated that children experiencing economic hardship are often forced to develop alternative strategies when school excursions require extra expenditures (Fernqvist, 2012). Some children have used their own pocket-money to purchase food for the packed lunches, and others have avoided these activities and stayed home instead (Harju, 2013; Näsman, 2012). As has been suggested in recent studies, the schools can play an important role in supporting children who are growing up in poverty by providing free packed lunches for everyone (Odenbring 2018) . This would reduce the stigma and pressure that children feel about being forced to bring fruit or packed lunches to school (Harju & Thorød, 2011).

In the current study, compensating for unequal childhoods was also discussed in relation to the afternoon snack that is served in leisure-time centres. The practitioners discussed it in terms of its being the last meal of the day.

The afternoon snack at the leisure-time centre might be the last meal during the day for several of our children. (Group A)

For some children, the lunches that are served at schools and the afternoon snacks that are provided in the leisure-time centres are their only meals.

We have understood that the meals the children are served in school and leisure-times centres are the only meals they get. (Group W)

The compensating role of the leisure-time centres was also framed by the discussions about the importance of the afternoon snack. As has been done in the current study, recent studies have demonstrated the importance of free school lunches for the most vulnerable students (Odenbring 2018). These meals are important because hungry children cannot participate equally in school or leisure-time centre activities on empty stomachs. Some schools even prepare extra food before and after the weekends because the school professionals know that there are children who will not have enough, or any, meals during the weekend (Majblomman, 2017).

Discussion and conclusions

This study investigated practitioners’ reflections and understandings regarding issues of social injustice and unequal childhoods within the context of the daily practices of leisure-time centres. Three main themes connected to unequal childhoods emerged in the empirical analysis: (i) norms surrounding outdoor activities, (ii) loans of clothing and equipment and (iii) the provision of meals. The results of the current study indicate that children's differential material resources and economic capital exert a great influence on the reproduction of social injustice in their everyday lives (c.f. Bourdieu, 1998; Lareau, 2011; Skeggs, 2002). The practitioners who participated in the current study made efforts to compensate for the disparities in the life conditions and class backgrounds of the children in the leisure-time centre groups (c.f. Bourdieu, 1998). The results indicate that the outdoor activities organised by leisure-time centres are supported by strong norms surrounding the possession of appropriate clothing and equipment. The practitioners raised the importance of not only the children's having the appropriate clothing and equipment for participation in activities but also the school's having extra clothing and equipment to lend to children in need. Compensation for unequal childhoods was also expressed by the provision of a snack every afternoon and free food packages during excursions.

The practitioners’ written reflections indicated that the leisure-time centres generally played a crucial complementary role to the children's home environments in their support of more socially equal childhoods. Because this complementary role (Socialstyrelsen, 1988) is no longer articulated in the policy documents (SFS 2010:800; Skolverket, 2018a), the practitioners’ efforts at compensating for the differences in the children's living conditions tended not to be acknowledged and valued. The results of the current study demonstrate the importance of practitioners’ awareness of social injustice and child poverty. They also show the importance of developing strategies and concrete methods in the daily pedagogical practices of the leisure-time centres to compensate for unequal childhoods.

The main contribution of the current study is to provide insights into practitioners’ management of social justice issues in the everyday practices of leisure-time centres and the pedagogical considerations guiding their actions. Although the data were gathered from a large data sample, this study also has limitations with regard to the methodological approach. For example, an interview study with individual practitioners would have provided opportunities to ask more specific questions regarding the inequalities in the leisure-time centres and to ask follow-up questions about specific themes to further enrich the empirical analysis.

In conclusion, this study has contributed new insights and knowledge about social injustice in a specific educational setting, namely the leisure-time centre, an educational configuration that is still under-researched. Few studies have focused on inequalities and social injustice in the early years of the educational system in Sweden and the other Nordic countries. The results from this study will provide useful tools for practitioners in their daily work. In addition, this article could be beneficial reading in teacher education programmes.

As was suggested by Lareau, more research about inequalities and social class is needed: ‘Studies are required that investigate wide swaths of social life in order to determine how social class makes a substantial difference in children's lives and also acknowledge those areas of life that may be largely immune to class influence’ (Lareau, 2011, p. 30). Future research around these issues could for example include ethnographic fieldwork. Ethnographic research has the advantage of being able to explore the everyday practice and work of the leisure-time centre during a longer period of time and to analyse how social injustice emerge and critically discuss practitioners’ different expectations of children and their families. The current study therefore argues for the necessity of additional research on unequal childhoods and the manifestation of social injustice in leisure-time centres.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Maria Hjalmarsson, is an Associate Professor of Educational Work at the Department of Educational Studies, at Karlstad University, Sweden. Her main research interests are in the field of gender studies and social justice in the leisure-time centre.

Ylva Odenbring is as an Associate Professor of Education at the Department of Education, Communication and Learning, at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Her main research interests are in the field of gender studies and social justice in early childhood education as well as in primary and secondary school levels.