Interlinking personal, professional and political perspectives in early childhood research

I now believe that the biographical journeys of researchers greatly influence their values, their research questions, and the knowledge they construct. (Banks 1998)

Some readers of this editorial may agree with this statement by James A. Banks. It certainly resonates with my own personal and professional history. A key experience during my student days in London was listening to a lecture by Basil Bernstein at the Institute of Education in which he presented his views and theoretical position on ‘aspects of the management of knowledge’. It was a critique of the traditional compartmentalisation of school knowledge into subject areas. Even today, over four decades later, I can still recall the buzz of post-lecture discussion, the feeling of heightened awareness and consciousness, the sense of new ground being broken. Years later, I realised that Bernstein was stimulating a ‘paradigm shift’¹ – a consideration of basic assumptions within newly defined parameters, a restructuring of commonly accepted modes of thinking and behaving, a realigning of perspectives on certain taken-for-granted beliefs and realities.

Moving from one country (England) to another (Germany) fairly early on in my professional career, from one working language to another, and from one particular image of ‘the ECEC professional’ to other constructs and alternatives, has demanded a constant recoding of personal and professional knowledge and attitudes. This recoding process has taken place within the framework and ‘mindset’ of an ECEC system which emerged under vastly different historical, political, cultural and organisational traditions and conditions to those I had known in my country of origin. The biographical necessity of constant adaptation at the personal and professional levels subsequently led in my particular case to an enhanced interest in the politics and policies of early childhood education and care in different national contexts. The ways in which ECEC systems are governed, regulated, funded and organised, the priorities given, or not given, to supporting all families and children, and in particular the status and working conditions accorded to the workforce (Oberhuemer and Schreyer 2017), are not only deeply rooted in country-specific histories of ECEC, but are also intricately linked to socio-political, philosophical and ethical stances.

If we can accept that education in general is a highly political institution that is historically and socially constructed (Alexiadou 2014, 133), and that educational science, too, is embedded in such constructions and therefore open to contesting and alternative perspectives (Lubeck 1994; Moss 2014), this assumption is arguably heightened in the case of early childhood education and care. Underpinning values and views are often so deeply entrenched in taken-for-granted ways of thinking and acting that standing back and reflecting on them, unravelling and disentangling them, is no easy task, particularly in a field where strong views prevail. Moreover, the act of disentanglement is becoming even more maze-like through the overlapping of ‘national’ designs and ‘global’ influences on policy making (Ball 2012). The late German sociologist, Ulrich Beck (2006), suggested that ‘the universal and particular, the similar and the dissimilar, the global and the local are to be conceived, not as cultural polarities, but as interconnected and reciprocally interpenetrating principles’. Our theories, understandings, research approaches and questions are inextricably embedded in this maze, and it is a personal challenge to continually reflect on how deeply anchored in often conflicting ethical and social-political issues the concept of ‘being a researcher’ or ‘being a professional’ in early childhood education and care is.

Against this background, I therefore find it fascinating to reflect on the topics and approaches chosen by researchers from different cultural and national contexts – and often find myself looking for an explicit contextualisation of the research questions in focus. It is with this underpinning interest and perspective that I have been reading the articles in this issue of the European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. Of the 10 papers presented here, the first 5 focus on research relating to specific aspects of ‘being a professional’ in the context of four differently organised early childhood education and care (ECEC) systems.

Switzerland is a country with a split-sector 0–6 system in which provision in the childcare sector for under four-year-olds is largely privately financed or co-financed. In their article on burnout in the childcare profession, Olivia Blöchliger and Georg Bauer frame their study within research evidence which suggests that burnout symptoms are likely to intensify if there is a mismatch between the perceptions of employees and their work environment in six key areas: workload, control, reward, community, fairness and values. Using these six dimensions as a conceptual framework, the study draws on survey data provided by 220 childcare educators and the centre heads in 59 co-financed childcare centres. The greater majority of staff (79%) had completed a vocational apprenticeship as a childcare educator, and 19% held an academic degree. The linear mixed-effects model used to analyse findings suggests that the working context and conditions provided by the childcare centre have a significant effect on the perceived burnout levels. Lower control (extent of individual autonomy and decision-making) and reward (recognition in terms of societal status and level of pay) combined with higher workload (as defined by the centre heads) were associated with higher burnout levels, suggesting an urgent need to address both the individual and the work context levels when aiming to prevent this significant dimension of occupational stress.

In times of crisis, as Lazzari (2014, 429) noted in a previous EECERJ editorial, a reconsideration of the role of research in informing political decision-making becomes both a priority and a necessity for all stakeholders in the ECEC field. Against an ongoing context of uncertainty, permanent flux and precarious working conditions in Spain, José Miguel Correa Gorospe, Asunción Martínez-Arbelaiz and Lorea Fernández-Olaskoaga have utilised their roles as researcher-stakeholders in early childhood teacher education to focus on the situation of newly qualified teachers in the Basque Autonomous Community and to consider possible policy implications. Across Spain, no support measures are provided for career beginners, and the authors suggest that this may well contribute to increased personal insecurity at this critical point in young teachers’ professional biography. As part of a larger project on the construction of ECE teacher identity during initial professional development and the first years of work, this article focuses specifically on the question of how three novice teachers discursively construct their sense of personal engagement and professional identity in a time of social and economic instability. Using a micro-ethnographic approach, the researchers compile fascinating biographical narratives through interviews, observations and analysis of personal texts. The three cases chosen illustrate the very different individual approaches of beginning teachers towards coping with the challenges of their first year as employees in the education system, when often a feeling of ‘limited belonging’ hinders their emerging professional engagement.

This complex, multi-layered concept of ‘belonging’ is the focus of the next paper, an exploratory study in the Australian context. A teacher-researcher, Valerie Tillett, and a university-based researcher, Sandie Wong, teamed up to explore and analyse early childhood educators’ conceptualisations and understandings of ‘belonging’ in relation to their professional work. Although the concept features prominently in key policy documents in Australia (and in other countries), it tends not to be well defined. In the research literature, too, it appears to be one of those taken-for-granted concepts which have received scant scholarly probing, particularly from the perspective of early childhood educators. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight educators who had differing formal levels of initial professional education and analysed with reference to a 10-dimensional cartography of perceived forms of belonging. Whereas the participating educators showed a strong sense of belonging in social, emotional, spatial and temporal domains of their work, understandings were more limited in the cultural, moral/ethical, political and legal dimensions. Whilst acknowledging the limitations of a study drawing on the views of such a small sample and suggesting the need for a broader empirically driven analysis of the issues at hand, the authors come to the following conclusion: ‘The act of belonging (or not) is always political and therefore requires careful critical reflection’.

Critical reflection plays a central role in a professional learning programme (VIDA) developed in Denmark, a country with a unitary ECEC system, universal provision up to school entry age and core practitioners qualified at Bachelor level. Bente Jensen and Ulrik Brandi report on the programme's aims and procedures in terms of stimulating early childhood professionals’ awareness of their potential – individually and collectively – for supporting children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. Over a period of two years, the centre leader and one educator (pædagog) from each of the participating 127 ECEC centres attended 17 one-day, theory-based sessions addressing issues of social inequality, sharing ideas and strategies with the centre team afterwards. Analysis of individual and focus-group interviews with participants suggested that a productive synergy took place, with theory-based knowledge informing practice, and joint reflection on experiential knowledge stimulating more flexible conceptualisations of pedagogy. Beyond the positive outcomes regarding a more systematic professional approach towards ensuring inclusive practices at all levels of centre activities, the authors also pinpoint the tensions that can arise in teams as a consequence. Changes are challenging – at many levels. In their conclusions, the authors highlight not only the key role of centre leaders in managing change, but also the roles of those representing the policy framework at the local municipal and national ministerial levels in terms of providing the conditions for ongoing and probing reflection on professional issues related to social policy goals.

A ‘facilitative infrastructure’ is considered a key factor when evaluating change processes, particularly at the intersection of two contexts with divergent core concepts, philosophies and practices – in this case the transition from ECEC settings to schools in the state of Victoria in Australia. Alma Fleet, Katey De Gioia, Lorraine Madden and Antony Semann describe a multi-perspective evaluative framework which ‘seeks richly complex layers of interpretation rather than linear simplicity’. Known as the Situated Learning Model, the framework was developed during professional learning initiatives aiming to enhance dialogue between ECEC educators, school teachers and local communities and to minimise the ‘myths and misconceptions’ that may hinder innovative practices.

The research reported in the five papers in the second half of this issue focuses primarily on children's learning environments in ECEC settings. Like the previous article from Australia, ‘Inside School Readiness’ looks at the transition from kindergarten to school, this time in the Dutch context and with a strongly contrasting methodological approach. In a country where children enter the primary school system at an early age (four years in most cases, five years on a compulsory basis), Robert Hamerslag, Ron Oostdam and Louis Tavecchio seek to answer the question as to what role ‘socioemotional and behavioural adjustment problems’ play in the learning process of young children in the final year of ‘kindergarten’ (defined here as the first two years in primary school) and first grade, which in the Netherlands represents a change from a play-based to a more structured and systematic approach towards learning. For this purpose the researchers utilised an instrument imported from the United States called ‘Adjustment Scales for Early Transition in Schooling’, looking both at the problem behaviour itself (phenotype) and the context in which it occurs (situtype). Twenty-four teachers from nine schools rated 144 items relating to 2 children in their class considered to have behavioural problems and 2 other children (86 children in all) and completed standardised tests on language and numeracy for each. Findings suggest that by no means all children are ready for a more structured approach. In a policy context strongly focused on eliminating learning deficits (starting before entry into primary school), the authors make a case for expanding the common cognitive-related definition of ‘school readiness’ and for paying greater attention to the socioemotional and behavioural aspects of the learning process.

The next three articles report on research in Norway where, as in Denmark, a universal, unitary system of early childhood education and care is in place. However, rapid expansion in recent years has led to increasing concerns about the ‘quality’ of provision in ECEC settings, particularly for the under-threes. All three papers are linked to a national longitudinal study, fuelled by an OECD recommendation for ‘more large-scale research’ in Norway.

Erik Eliassen, Henrik Daae Zachrisson and Edward Melhuish examine the relationship between observed ECEC quality and children's cognitive development at age three, drawing on a sample of 800 children in both public and private settings (all state subsidised). As the authors note, ‘much of the current evidence on the effect of ECEC quality on children's cognitive development comes from the U.S. – a sociopolitical context where children either attend targeted programs for disadvantaged children, or market-based programs chosen by parents’. Thus there is a need for additional evidence from more egalitarian systems. An instrument developed outside the Norwegian context (Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised Edition [ITERS-R], also originating in the United States) was adapted by the researchers to assess aspects of the setting environment. Children's cognitive performance was tested using a British standardised measure, and interviews were conducted with the children's parents. No evidence was found that verbal or non-verbal abilities at age three are associated with ECEC quality, and no association was found between ECEC quality (as measured by ITERS) and the cognitive outcomes for either advantaged (high SES) or disadvantaged (low SES) children. One explanation offered by the authors concerns the validity of the rating scale for the Norwegian context, where early childhood pedagogy may differ from that in the context where the instrument was developed.

Elisabeth Bjørnestad and Ellen Os also used the ITERS-R rating scale to assess instrument-related aspects of quality in 93 Norwegian ECEC centres attended by 2811 toddlers. Three-quarters of the settings had ‘small and stable groups’ and the remaining quarter ‘large and flexible groups’. The authors summarise the various points of critique previously directed at the instrument before outlining its benefits, among them time efficiency, making it attractive for large-scale research. Minor adjustments were made to accommodate strong Norwegian cultural beliefs, such as the importance of outdoor play and sleeping outside regardless of temperatures. The global ITERS scores proved to be surprisingly low in a country highly regarded for its structural quality indicators, which are generally considered to be predictors of process quality (which ITERS fails to assess). Studies in other European countries such as the Netherlands and Portugal have also shown low scores on ITERS in terms of global quality ratings. The authors question the value of such comparisons, since it is a focus on the subscale items (which this study provides) that gives a more detailed picture on specific aspects of quality, which in turn provide valuable pointers for improving practices. The presence of qualified teachers, a higher staff-to-child ratio, and an overall organisation in small and stable groups all appear to positively impact the quality of toddler ECEC.

The third paper from Norway, by Joakim Evensen Hansen and Marit Alvestad, focuses on four ECEC settings which had been rated highly on the ITERS subscale ‘Listening and Talking’. In a context where – as in most countries – language learning is highly valued in the national curricular framework, the study seeks to elicit and analyse the views and practices of teachers with high scores in this area. Based on semi-structured, in-depth interviews with six ECEC teachers working with one- to three-year-olds, the article provides a rich body of teachers’ perspectives on effective language stimulation at this early age. These include creating a holistic and rich learning environment; being responsive to children's attempts to communicate; contextualising language learning within a wide variety of formal and informal everyday situations; using diverse situated strategies for extending conversations; planning within the requirements of the national curriculum; and using assessment tools flexibly.

The final paper in this issue is set in a national context of curricular requirements which promote ‘play-based learning’ – which could arguably lead to a goal-led rather than a child-owned perspective on play. Babs Anderson chooses a qualitative constructivist ethnographic approach to observe 18 three- and four-year-olds’ strategies of sustaining free play activities in one local context, a nursery setting in England. She suggests that adults’ intentional goal-seeking in children's play activities may hinder them from ‘freeing up’ their observations to make way for a clearer perception of the children's ownership of their learning processes. Researcher observations were conducted for one afternoon a week over a 10-month period. Different levels of play intensity were observed within a ‘framework of engagement’ established for this purpose. The author focuses in particular on the concept of ‘convergent play’ for in-depth analysis, considering this to have potential impact on ‘the children's sense of ownership and agency of their activity’, helping them to become ‘aware of themselves as authors of ideas as well as being able to recognise the intentions and ideas of others’.

These 10 articles provide a rich array of differently focused research topics, perspectives, positionalities and designs, but also of linkages and interrelationships. More than once we are reminded of ‘interconnected and reciprocally interpenetrating’ personal, professional and political aspects of research in the early childhood field. According to Labaree (2017, 278), ‘ … the best research is a provocation. It compels you to think about familiar issues in fresh ways … ’. One example is that of well-known and widely-used research instruments that continue to be utilised for in-country and cross-country analysis but also increasingly adapted and questioned in terms of whether they can provide a valid picture when applied in contexts with different underpinning cultural beliefs and values. To sum up: the issue presents ‘a mix of variation and convergence’ (Labaree 2017, 277) in early childhood education research practices.

Notes

1 It must be noted that this particular strand of Bernstein's theoretical work failed to make a lasting impact on educational policy in the UK in subsequent years. The National Curriculum – introduced into primary schools in 1988 – cemented the compartmentalisation of knowledge in a hitherto unknown way in this sector of the education system.