This article was downloaded by: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733]
On: 18 February 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 911724993]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t776628938
Children's right to participate - challenges in everyday interactions
Berit Bae a
a
Department of Teacher Education and International Studies, Oslo University College, Oslo, Norway
To cite this Article Bae, Berit(2009) 'Children's right to participate - challenges in everyday interactions', European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal, 17: 3, 391 — 406
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13502930903101594
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13502930903101594
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
Vol. 17, No. 3, September 2009, 391–406
Children’s right to participate – challenges in everyday interactions
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
Berit Bae*
Department of Teacher Education and International Studies, Oslo University College, Oslo,
Norway
European
10.1080/13502930903101594
RECR_A_410332.sgm
1350-293X
Original
Taylor
302009
17
[email protected]
BeritBae
00000September
&
and
Article
Francis
Early
Francis
(print)/1752-1807
Childhood
2009
Ltd
Education
(online)Research Journal
ABSTRACT: The article starts by illustrating how children’s right to participation
comes to the fore in legal documents regulating the field of early childhood
education in Norway. Issues regarding the views of children, understanding of
democracy and of play, which influence how this right is realised in early
childhood practice, are taken as a point of departure to discuss possible pitfalls.
Based on analyses from an in-depth qualitative study in two Norwegian
kindergartens (children aged three to six), two examples are presented to argue an
understanding of children’s participation which include more than individualistic
choice routines. The article is rounded off by taking a critical look at
conceptualisations used in early childhood practice and research, arguing that
there is a need for critical self- reflection amongst researchers in the field.
RÉSUMÉ: Cet article commence par une illustration de la façon dont le droit à la
participation des enfants se manifeste dans les textes officiels relatifs à l’éducation
de la petite enfance en Norvège. Des questions telles que les points de vue des
enfants, la compréhension de la démocratie et du jeu, qui influent sur la manière
dont ce droit est mis en oeuvre dans la pratique avec de jeunes enfants, constituent
le point de départ d’une discussion sur les pièges possibles. Basés sur des analyses
issues d’une étude qualititive appronfondie, menée dans deux jardins d’enfants
norvégiens (enfants âgés de trois à six ans), deux exemples sont présentés pour
argumenter une vision de la participation des enfants qui va plus loin que des
routines portant sur des choix individuels. Cet article se termine par un regard
critique sur les conceptualisations utilisées dans la recherche et la pratique dans le
champ de la petite enfance, et la nécessité d’une auto-réflexion critique entre les
chercheurs dans ce champ.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Zu Beginn dieses Artikels wird gezeigt, wie in
norwegischen Gesetzesdokumenten zu frühkindlicher Erziehung das Recht von
Kindern auf Beteiligung hervortritt. Als Ausgangspunkt einer Diskussion von
möglichen Stolpersteinen werden das Verständnis von Kind, Demokratie und
Spielen genannt, die die Verwirklichung dieses Rechtes in der frühkindlichen
Praxis beeinflussen. Auf der Grundlage einer Analyse einer eingehenden
qualitativen Studie in zwei norwegischen Kindergärten (mit Kindern im Alter von
3 bis 6), werden zwei Beispiele als Argument für ein Verständnis von Beteiligung
von Kindern, die mehr als nur individuelle Entscheidungs-Routinen beinhaltet,
aufgezeigt. Der Artikel schließt mit einem kritischen Blick auf Begriffsbildungen,
die in frühkindlicher Praxis und Forschung verwendet werden und es ein Bedarf
an kritischer Selbsthinterfragung bei Forscherinnen und Forschern in diesem Feld
angemahnt.
*Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1350-293X print/ISSN 1752-1807 online
© 2009 EECERA
DOI: 10.1080/13502930903101594
http://www.informaworld.com
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
392
B. Bae
RESUMEN: Este artículo parte con ilustrar cómo el derecho de participación del
niño se actualiza en legislación que se refiere a la educación infantil temprana en
Noruega. Temas que se refieren a concepciones del niño, interpretaciones de
democracia y juego, que influyen como este derecho es realizado en la práctica de
educación infantil, son puntos de partida para discutir posibles dificultades.
Basado en analices de un estudio cualitativo en dos jardines infantiles (niños de
edad 3–6 años), dos ejemplos son presentados para argumentar por un
entendimiento de la participación del niño que incluye más que rutinas para que
los niños puedan tomar decisiones individuales. El artículo finaliza con una
mirada crítica a conceptualizaciones usadas en la práctica e investigaciones de la
educación infantil, argumentando que entre investigadores del sector hay
necesidad de reflexionar críticamente sobre sus posiciones.
Keywords: children’s participation; preschool institutions; everyday interaction;
play; critical reflection
Introduction
This article addresses a theme that is high on the educational agenda in Norway and
the Nordic region, as well as some other countries; namely children’s rights to participation. While this theme has been approached from many perspectives – both theoretically and empirically – this article has a more limited focus, being primarily
concerned with children’s participation when expressing themselves in everyday
interactions in kindergartens. The purpose of the article is to shed light on possibilities regarding such participation as well as to discuss challenges connected to the
realisation of participation in practice. To contextualise the discussion, the article
starts with a reference to Norwegian documents, and highlights statements that point
to how children should be respected regarding their right to express themselves and
take part on their own terms. Such statements can be interpreted as representing
possibilities, and I briefly point to some potential pitfalls when trying to realise such
possibilities in everyday practice. Two empirically based examples from a microethnographic study are presented to illustrate how children’s rights to express themselves can be recognised in everyday practice. As the realisation of children’s rights
might challenge dominating discourses regarding relationships and adult roles, it calls
for critical reflection on some central concepts in the field of early childhood education, as well as in research practice. Some critical issues are addressed towards the
end of the article.
Background
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has inspired changes in legal documents regulating the field of early childhood education in many countries, including
Norway. To put the presentation in a social-political context, I will start by referring
to two legal documents that regulate Norwegian preschool institutions: the
Kindergarten1 Act and the Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens. In both these documents children’s right to participate is emphasised.
Inspired by article 12 in the UN Convention, The Kindergarten Act, Section 3
starts with this statement: ‘Children in kindergarten shall have the right to express
their views on the day to day activities of the kindergarten’. This is followed up in the
Framework Plan (2006), which contains the national guidelines for the tasks and
content of all Norwegian kindergartens. Here the theme of children’s participation is
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
393
emphasised in general terms, as well as allotted special section. It is underlined that
children express themselves through various modes, and that ‘staff must listen to and
attempt to interpret their body language, and must be observant in relation to their
actions, aesthetic expressions and eventually their verbal communications’ (9), as well
as ‘…respect their intentions and realms of experience’ (9). In accordance with this,
‘Children’s right to freedom of expression shall be ensured,’ (9). Formulations such
as these point in the direction of seeing children as subjects or agents in their own
right, who should be met with respect in their diverse forms of communication.
Such views must be seen in the context of the early childhood education tradition
in the Nordic countries, which is grounded in a social pedagogical approach (Bennett
2005, 11). Central in this position is the idea that ‘the pedagogical project is firmly
play-based, with much movement, choice and child autonomy’ (11). Wagner and
Einarsdottir (2006) emphasise the centrality of play as one of the unifying themes in
Nordic countries, a position that is reflected in the introduction to the Norwegian
curriculum document which emphasises a holistic pedagogical philosophy: ‘with care,
play and learning being at the core of activities’ (Framework Plan, 3). The significance of play is constantly being followed up in connection with various themes,
contents and issues.2
Another common theme or value in the Nordic tradition is that early childhood
institutions are seen as part of an upbringing to democracy (Wagner and Einarsdottir
2006; Moss 2007a). Moss argues that curricular documents in the Nordic countries are
different from their British counterparts. Documenting examples from Sweden,
Norway and Iceland, he concludes: ‘Thus while the Nordic curricula explicitly recognise democracy as a value, the English curricula do not’ (Moss 2007a, 10). This point
comes to the fore in the Norwegian framework plan through statements such as: ‘The
plan emphasises the importance of adults’ attitudes, knowledge and ability to relate to
and understand children, so that they can bring up children to participate actively in a
democratic society’ (Framework Plan 3).
Norwegian documents, then, envisage kindergartens as places where the children
should be respected a subjects in their own right, being entitled to freedom of expression. Their preschool experience should include democratic relations, along with
allowing them rich opportunities to play. These are values that professionals and staff
in early childhood institutions in Norway are obliged to understand.
Against this background it is interesting to note that empirical research from Nordic
early childhood institutions show that the quality of relationships and interactions with
children varies amongst institutions and teachers (Sheridan and Pramling Samuelsson
2001; Johansson 2003, 2004; Bae 2004; Emilsson and Folkesson 2006). Some relationships are characterised by responsive and respectful interactions, whilst others are
more distant and controlling. Such findings give reason to believe that the realisation
of the above-mentioned values will be unevenly distributed in everyday practice.
Johansson (2003) analysed views of children in various institutions, and discerned three
different groupings. Staff views were categorised under these headings:
(a) the child is a fellow being;
(b) adults know better;
(c) the child is viewed as irrational (Johansson 2003)
Following up these results, Johansson (2004) found that staff views of children
resulted in different roles for the children in their learning process. These varied from
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
394
B. Bae
the adult having confidence in the child’s capacity, to the adults’ using punishment and
reward. Such findings indicate that the views the staff hold are important regarding the
extent to which the children are allowed to take part and contribute on their own terms
in everyday interactions.
Qualitative variations regarding views of children and educational practices are
reasonable, given that images of children and adult roles are in transition. From
diverse sources (e.g., James, Prout, and Jenks 1998; Sommer 2003) it is argued that
viewing children as subjects or agents represents a shift in paradigm, transcending
ideas where children are treated as objects to be changed and formed according to
preset goals. These ideas are in accord with researchers discussing implications of the
UN Convention (Schulz Jørgensen 2000; Woodhead 2005; Smith 2008). Woodhead
(2005) argues that implementing children’s participatory rights (especially articles 12,
13, and 14 in the UN Convention) in practical situations, challenges familiar ways of
thinking about adult-child relationships and demands new role expectations for adults
who take care of children. Woodhead concludes that the UN Convention not only
changes the status of children but ‘respecting the rights of young children changes the
way we think about ourselves’ (Woodhead 2005, 95)
What is stated in official documents is no guarantee that children will be allowed
space to take part on their own terms and meet respect for their various expressions.
These statements can be said to represent possibilities. Research is needed to throw
light on how these possibilities might be realised in everyday practice. Several
researchers have analysed the relationship between democracy and various aspects of
early childhood education (Dahlberg and Moss 2005; Rinaldi 2005; Moss 2007a,
2007b) and documented various ways of making democracy happen in preschool practice (Clark 2005; Rinaldi 2005; Åberg and Lenz Taguchi 2006). Compared to these
analyses, my approach does not address participation and democracy in a broader
sense, or on an institutional or community level. My point of departure is that everyday
interactions and communications with the staff influence the realisation of children’s
participatory rights. In this article – building on formulations in the Norwegian
Framework Plan – participation is delineated to how children’s modes of communication are recognised and how children are allowed freedom of expression in spontaneous everyday processes.
In addition to exploring processes on the micro-level of communicational practices,
it seems equally important to reflect on relevant concepts that might enhance or undermine children’s participation and expressions. The intention of this article is therefore
to lead the attention both to qualities of everyday interactions and present reflections
on conceptualisations that might influence children’s participation. Two main research
questions will be addressed:
(1) What are some important aspects of everyday interactions where children take
part on their own terms and express themselves in various ways including
playful modes?
(2) What notions/concepts demands critical reflection, if children’s right to take
part and express themselves is to be enhanced in everyday interactions in
kindergartens?
Because issues of children’s rights are so high on the early childhood educational
agenda, both in terms of curricular statements and in terms of pressure on implementation processes,3 professionals in the field might feel compelled to start practical
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
395
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
work, without critical reflection on relevant concepts. In times during which diverse
views of children and of research exist in the field, it is reasonable to believe that both
practitioners and researchers will contribute to realising some possibilities as well as
face potential pitfalls. I will therefore briefly point to some possible pitfalls when
pursuing this agenda.
Possible pitfalls
The first notion I will draw attention to is the views of children. On this point I follow
other researchers who have argued the need to view children – and adults – both as
‘beings’ and ‘becomings’ (Lee 2001, Kjørholt 2008a). Human beings live in the here
and now, but at the same time as they have intentions projected into the future, trying
to realise new possibilities. If children’s rights to participate on their own terms are to
be realised in practice, it is essential that they meet teachers/staff who are responsive:
teachers who recognise their competencies and urge to develop and learn, and who at
the same time are open to aspects of vulnerability and dependence.
Eager to implement the new ideas, one pitfall might be putting too much emphasis on views of children as autonomous, competent and consistent beings, and underestimating dependent and vulnerable sides. The problems associated with such a
position have been elaborated by several researchers (Kjørholt 2005; Eide and
Winger 2006; Seland 2006; Kjørholt 2008a), pointing to educational practices that
stimulate individualistic ways of being, thus interpreting children’s participation
primarily as self-determination and individual choice. I follow Moss (2007a), who
argues that the concepts of choice can be given different meanings; for instance,
when used in connection with collective decision-making processes, as distinct from
‘the neo-liberals’ usage of “choice” as decision-making by individual consumers’
(9). What might be under-communicated when an individualistic-consumer understanding of choice dominates is that it is important for human beings to experience
emotional connection along with the pleasure of collaborating and sharing.
Another associated problem may be based in unreflective views on democracy.
From sources that have analysed what democracy might mean in the context of early
childhood education (Dahlberg and Moss 2005, Rinaldi 2005, Moss 2007a, 2007b), or
explored issues regarding education and democracy in a more general sense (Biesta
2006, 2007), it is obvious that democracy can be conceived in a variety of ways. It
might be understood primarily with reference to formal aspects such as individual
choice, elections, representation, following majority rule etc., or the emphasis might
be on democracy as a processional phenomenon being created by the participants, as
something lived (Rinaldi 2005). When the focus is on small children and their interactions with the staff, ‘…understanding of democracy as sporadic, as something that
only happens from time to time and in very particular situations’ (Biesta 2007, 25),
might be fruitful. Maybe a term such as ‘democratic moments’ might capture what
happens when staff in kindergartens allow space for small children’s participation and
freedom of expression?
I see a possible pitfall if people in the field of early childhood education automatically put emphasis on formal aspects of democratic living, such as individual election
procedures, taking part in meetings, or following rules and the principle that the
majority decides. A translation of such ‘formalities’ into early childhood settings leads
to a focus on techniques for individual choice, children’s assemblies or meetings – all
carried out in rule-regulated atmosphere, with little allowance for difference and
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
396
B. Bae
diversity. A practical illustration of this could be when children press a button on a
computer to decide where they will play for the next hour. This counts as an individual
choice that cannot be changed, on the grounds that children must learn to take the
consequences of their own actions. Bjarnadottir (2004) describes other examples
where children take part in routines drawing a coloured slip of paper to decide which
room they have to be in, regardless of any wish that they might have to play with
friends in some other room What is underestimated when relying on such methods is
that communal living is built through everyday experiences – in moments of democracy – where different intentions are met with respect, and there is room for changing
one’s mind.
One last pitfall, linked to what is said above, is that the role of play might be underestimated, or split off from the issue of children’s participation. With a limited
conception of communal living and by emphasising rule-regulated routines and individual choice, playful interactions and humour can recede in the background. When
this happens, it can be interpreted as a violation of both article 13 and 31 in The UN
Convention of the Rights of the Child. Article 13 states that:
The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom
to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,
either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the
child’s choice.
With reference to article 13, I interpret play as a medium ‘of the child’s choice’
(Bae 2006). Play is a mode through which children freely express intentions and experiences. When interviewed about what they like to do in kindergartens, play comes
out as their highest priority (Søbstad 2004). When giving their views regarding where
they have most influence in daily life, play is seen as the most influential arena (Sheridan and Pramling Samuelsson 2001). Jans (2004) argues that play provides ample
space for active agency, and discusses its value in connection with children’s citizenship. Furthermore, Kjørholt (2008b) sees Article 31 in the UN Convention, which
deals with children’s right to space for play both in early childhood institutions and
other places, as important in relation to children’s participatory rights. This is in line
with Alderson (2008) who includes Article 31, together with Article 12 and 13, as the
most important concerning children’s participatory rights. Thus, these researchers
support the view that play should be included when trying to realise children’s rights
to participate in early childhood settings.
Everyday interactions as contexts for children’s participation
Theoretical and methodological perspectives
I will now turn to research, which has focused on how qualitative aspects of everyday
practice make a difference to children’s participation. Some studies based on interviews with children address children’s own perspectives regarding participation
(Sheridan and Pramling Samuelsson 2001; Formosinho and Aruajo 2004; Eide and
Winger 2005). Others investigate everyday routines of participation and link the
procedures to neo-liberalistic trends (Seland 2006, Kjørholt 2008a). Other projects are
based on observation of everyday interactions in preschool institutions, using analysis
of communicational aspects that predispose children’s possibilities for participation
(Bae 2004, 2005, 2007, Emilson and Folkesson 2006, Emilson 2008).
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
397
Inspired from a phenomenological approach, I have been interested in trying to
grasp experiential qualities of everyday dialogues between children and their teachers
(Bae 2004). Research questions have focused on how qualitative aspects of interactions create premises for recognising children as subjects in their own right, showing
acceptance of their experiential worlds. I have in this research chosen Schibbye’s
(1993, 2002) conceptualisation of mutual recognition as a guiding theoretical tool.
This line of thinking has been found to be fruitful because it emphasises that partners
in interaction are of equal worth, and it leads the attention to how they create mutual
conditions for each other’s actions in relational processes. In this way it represents an
alternative approach to research where relationships between adults and children are
described in one-sided ways that objectify children and take the perspective of adults
for granted. A central tenet in this theoretical framework is that self reflection, including being able to see oneself from the perspective of the other, is necessary in mediating mutual recognition.
A qualitative in-depth study focusing on teacher–child relationship processes was
designed to explore how mutual recognition comes to the fore in the relationship
between teachers and children in early childhood institutions. (Bae 2004). The data
collection was based on participant observation in two preschools in Oslo (Norway),
where two teachers working with children aged three to six were filmed by the
researcher for almost a year. Everyday interactions between teachers and 14 target
children were video-filmed in three different situations: mealtime, circle-time and
free-play period.
The methodology of the research involved closeness to the children’s everyday life
in the sense that I as a researcher spent much time in their daily environment from
August until May of the following year. The children themselves were not interviewed, but they interacted with the researcher through spontaneous talk, in which
they, amongst other things, commented on my actions and filming. In addition, I often
took part in their meals, sometimes in their play and occasionally helped out when
there was shortage of staff. The teachers and I collaborated in all phases of the
research, including planning, in the fieldwork, and in analytical and writing periods.
Along with informal talks and interviews regarding their intentions with various activities, we looked at and discussed filmed material. In the final writing phase the teachers read drafts of the text and made comments which in turn influenced the final
writing up. (For a more thorough discussion of challenges in such collaboration
between teachers and researchers, see Bae 2005.)
The design and methodology of the study contributed to a rich source of videotaped material, depicting interactions in various contexts, at different times and with
different children. From this source material, short sequences have been transcribed
using Løvlie/Schibbye’s (1982, 2002) part process analysis method as a tool to delineate sequences. A total of 730 short interactions were transcribed and analysed. The
transcribed interchanges have been used as a ‘pool’ for different kind of analyses
(Bae 2005, 2007, 2009b). In this presentation I will briefly touch upon the main
differences between the patterns and delineate the focus to spacious interactional
patterns.
Spacious and narrow patterns as premises for children’s participation
In trying to capture the processional flow and reciprocity in the interaction, two
contrasting patterns, described by the metaphors of spacious and narrow interactional
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
398
B. Bae
patterns, were constructed as analytical tools (Bae 2004, 2005, 2007). The spacious
patterns are interpreted to validate the children’s experiences and enhancing their
vitality, whilst the narrow patterns seem to constrict the children’s possibilities of
having their experiential world validated. In the narrow patterns there is much control
on part of the teacher, either by asking closed questions, communicating corrections
or emphasising following rules. These features create a relational space where the
children’s possibilities to take initiative, follow up own thoughts or share feelings, are
interpreted as narrow. In contrast, the spacious interactional pattern, are seen to create
more space for the children to come forth with both thoughts, feelings and actions; at
the same time as the teacher also taking part as an active subject, sharing knowledge,
playfulness or whatever. In this presentation, I will focus on what happens in interchanges of a spacious kind, as illustrated below.
Two examples
Let me share a couple of examples, both of which bring the above mentioned qualities
closer to life in preschools. Examples are used in this research not as anecdotal illustrations from practice but as empirical documentation evolved through several analytical steps (Bae 2005, 2008), intended to throw light on how children and adults take
part and create meaning in communicational processes. The first example deals with
a boy who takes initiative to help his friend in a stressful situation.
Example 1: a boy with minority background trying to help another
The context is the so-called free-play situation. The teacher and a boy with minority
background are having a conversation where they have trouble understanding each
other. Both of them are getting worked up and irritated because the other does not
understand. Then another boy, with the same minority background comes running
over and starts to say something. As a response to his initiative the teacher turns to the
boy with a rejecting gesture and says in an irritated voice: ‘Don’t disturb! Don’t you
see that I am talking to him!’
At this response the boy hastily withdraws with an embarrassed look on his face.
The teacher, however, notices this, recomposes herself and with an inviting gesture
asks him to say what he had in mind. It turns out that he wanted to help his friend and
the teacher with their communicational problem! He spoke both Norwegian and the
minority language, and came running in order to interpret between them.
When he is invited in again, he starts to explain to the teacher what his friend is
trying to communicate. The teacher listen to the ‘the interpreter’s’ contribution and at
the same time the boy with less knowledge of Norwegian eagerly gets back into the
conversation, speaking a mix of Norwegian and his minority language. They carry on
talking in a friendly and humorous atmosphere; the three of them learning new words
from each other.
Interpreted in terms of the theoretical framework, the teacher can be said to practice self-reflection, in the sense that she seems to notice how her abrupt communication is experienced from the boy’s perspective. Instead of letting the interchange end
with her rejecting response and stopping his initiative with a sudden gesture defining
his actions negatively, she is able to shift from her own perspective to that of the boy.
By showing compassion when he hastily withdraws, the teacher takes responsibility
for what happened between them. Her ability to shift perspective from her initial
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
399
response to his point of view creates new relational premises for the older boy to help
his friend, and for the two of them to take part on their own terms.
The second example deals with recognising play and playful initiatives. Research
show that children include play and playful initiatives in a wide range of situations and
contexts (Bae 1996, 2004; Markstrom and Hallden 2008). They find possibilities for
playing at times and in places that have not been defined for playing purposes. In such
cases their ways of expressing themselves might run counter to rules that the staff
have decided or the norms that the staff associate with certain contexts. The spacious
interactional patterns, which in my study are observed both at mealtimes and in other
contexts, include an openness and acceptance of children’s playful initiatives in different kinds of situations.
Example 2: playful interaction at mealtimes
A four year old girl, who is very shy and does not use many words when communicating with others, starts at mealtimes to play with various things at the table. The
teacher who has trouble with getting in touch with her through verbal communication
in other situations, welcomes her playful expressions, and responds in confirming
ways, as shown below.
In one instance, the girl starts to play with a piece of orange peel, pretending that
it is a turtle, which moves among glasses and cutlery on the table. She pushes the
‘turtle’ towards the teacher’s hand and says in a playful voice and with a smile on her
face: ‘Ha ha, he is biting you!’ The teacher turns her full attention to the girl, responds
spontaneously and says in a thin playful voice: ‘Auuu – he bit me!’ The girl looks at
the teacher with a satisfied look on her face, and the teacher once again says ‘Auu!’
in a playful voice. The teacher and the girl keep their common focus on the ‘turtle’,
and they repeat the same playful dialogue several times, until another child breaks in
requiring help from the teacher
Analysed in terms of the theoretical perspectives, this interchange might be interpreted to mediate mutual recognition. In spite of all the differences between them,
they both take part as subjects who share a common focus and playful experiences at
the mealtime. The teacher is able to shift to the girl’s position, recognising the child’s
playful initiative and responding confirmingly to her mode of communication. By
this she creates space for the child to influence what is happening in the here and
now.
Another interpretation of the example might focus on the girl as exercising her
freedom of expression. She is choosing play as a medium to contact the teacher and
making herself seen and heard. Her playful initiative might be seen as a wish to take
part on her own terms and experience connection with others around the table.
Because the teacher is responsive towards her non-verbal and pretend mode of
communication, and takes the child’s point of view, a relational space is created where
she can express her ‘voice’. As it happened, their playful interchanges at mealtime
turned out to be the start of a long process where she gradually also expressed more
of herself through verbal and other forms of communication (Bae 2004).
Presenting and discussing this and similar examples from the meal with staff in
kindergartens usually gives rise to heated arguments. Some argue very strongly
against children being allowed to play at mealtime with comments such as: ‘Mealtime
is for eating, they can play afterwards! You have to separate the two and teach the
children norms for appropriate behaviour – good manners – at the table.’ There is no
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
400
B. Bae
final solution or right answer to such arguments, but the discussions raise the staff’s
consciousness regarding their own role in everyday interchanges.
What I have tried to illustrate through these examples is that enhancing children’s opportunity to take part as subjects, includes much more than individual selfdetermination and formal procedures linked to choice. Democratic relations also
involve accepting that sometimes people misunderstand, and that helping friends and
acts of solidarity are part of communal living. If contexts and routines within the
early childhood institutions are dominated by rigid rules and sharp distinctions, the
space for playful expressions and acceptance of different modes of communication
will be meagre, if not absent.
When summing up aspects in interactions where children are allowed participation
and freedom of expression, the following contributions from the teacher seem especially important:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
following up on the child’s initiative,
emotional responsiveness and expressivity,
an attitude of playfulness, and
the ability to shift perspective and take the child’s point of view.
These qualities are in accord with findings in other empirical studies on everyday
interaction, amongst them a Swedish research focusing teachers’ control and children’s participation (Emilson and Folkesson 2006, Emilson 2008).
Critical reflection on some central concepts
Taking as a premise that the principles put down in the UN Convention about children’s rights are radical and challenge familiar ways of thinking about adult-child relationships, there is a need to take a critical look at some central conceptualisations. In
the following, I will point to conceptualisations that influence how staff in early childhood settings understand relationships and interactions with children. In line with
others discussing early childhood theory and practice, I think it is necessary to deconstruct as well as reconstruct dominating discourse: ‘In early childhood education the
need now is to move beyond deconstruction towards reconstruction’ (Dunne 2006, 13).
If children are to be allowed space for participation and expression, this necessitates a critical look at discourses that are based on a one-sided understanding of relationships, taking the view of adults for granted. In contrast to such unilateral
discourses, conceptualisations that lead the attention to intersubjective and reciprocal
processes in relationships have the potential of granting more equity to children, and
also of making adults more conscious of how they are affected by children’s initiatives
and voices (Rhedding-Jones, Bae, and Winger 2008). As illustrated in the interpretation of the examples, in order to meet children as subjects, it is necessary for adults to
attend to how they are influenced by what happens in the here and now, including
being able to see when their own communication might function in oppressive ways
for the other. The examples also show that children are human beings dependent on
compassionate responses from others around them to express themselves fully. By
being self-reflexive regarding one’s own role and being able to shift perspectives,
teachers and other staff can take responsibility for their powers of definition (Bae
1996). Based on my research observing and analysing everyday interchanges from the
perspectives of mutual recognition and reciprocity, such concepts bring forth children
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
401
as intentional human beings who are competent in taking initiatives and influencing
their daily life (Bae 2004, 2009b).
Many researchers have addressed the theme of power in early childhood education
(Dahlberg and Moss 2005; MacNaughton 2005; Lenz Taguchi 2007) and shown the
necessity of deconstructing theories and practices to make visible the subtle work of
power in institutional arrangements and norms. Along with such explorations, it might
also be useful to take a critical look at concepts such as control, order and strategies,
which have loomed large in dominating discourses on adult child relationships.
Critical questions here might be:
(1) Do these perspectives emanate from views of children as primitive asocial
beings, whose actions are chaotic and disturbing, and who are in great need of
control in order to develop into human beings?
(2) And do these concepts mediate an image of society where law and order and
hierarchical relations are the most important norms?
As I have argued above, children’s rights to participate also mean taking into
consideration their willingness to show solidarity. Concepts that lead the attention to
friendly and trusting aspects of relations might throw new light on children’s contribution to democratic moments in preschools.
As argued earlier, play is central in early childhood education. It allows space for
children’s freedom of expression and taking part as active agents. In view of this,
dominant discourses of play need critical reflection. Researchers have warned against
the tendency to ‘idyllise’ play (Sutton Smith and Byrne 1984; Ailwood 2003). Such
discourses might lead the attention away from power dynamics and mechanisms of
excluding others – which research shows also is at work when children play (Løfdahl
and Hagglund 2006a, 2006b). In addition to ‘idyllising’ the phenomenon, much theory
and practice concerning play has also been linked to, and categorised in line with,
developmental psychology, seeing play primarily as an instrument for some kind of
predetermined developmental outcome. This might lead to practitioners trying to
regulate and control both the content and relations of children’s play. In a study called
‘The well-regulated freedom’, Tullgren (2004) analyses how staff in a Swedish early
childhood institution interfere and try to control play processes. Regulating children’s
play for instrumental purposes can be interpreted as threats to children’s right to freedom of expression through play. Such views and practices also contrast with what
children answer when asked about why they play. Their position is that they play for
the sake of playing (Søbstad 2005).
Alternative perspectives on play contesting dominant discourses are based on
ideas which originate from cultural or aesthetical studies (Guss 2005a, 2005b), and
from sources which emphasise playfulness as a human capacity to move between
modes and levels of communication (Mauritzen and Saljø 2004). Such conceptualisations offer potential for discovering children’s competence regarding communication
and their abilities to shift perspectives. And, as Edmiston (2008) argues, conceptualising play as a multifaceted dialogue where one expresses resistance and different
voices in the Bakhtinean sense is another fruitful alternative (Edmiston 2008). These
approaches draw the attention to seeing play as a practice where children exercise
freedom of speech and of thought as well as resisting norms in their surroundings.
Such strands challenge the hegemony of ‘developmentalism’ (Dahlberg, Moss, and
Pence 1999; Fleer 2005) and may offer early childhood practitioners well-founded
402
B. Bae
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
theoretical means for discovering the competence and creativity embedded in playful
interactions. An interesting question following this line of thought is: what can adults
learn from interacting and playing with children? My view is that exploring these
kinds of questions might lead to changes in adult roles in directions that create more
space for children’s participation.
Concluding and looking ahead
To sum up: according to what is emphasised in international and national guidelines,
children have the right to experience respect for their intentions and expressions in
everyday activities, be that communicated through bodily actions, when singing,
drawing, playing or what have you. Their right to participate is threatened if this is
reduced to formal routines emphasising individual choice. Such reductionistic
approaches might, on the other hand, satisfy the kindergarten owners’ need to show to
the outside world that they work with implementing children’s participation.
However, when it comes to supporting children in expressing their views and securing
their right to freedom of expression in practice, then such methods will not suffice.
Rather the opposite: they might give the children and others a false view of what
democratic processes in everyday lives involve.
Paraphrasing Woodhead’s (2005) point that articles in the UN Convention
change adults’ role in relationships, I suggest that doing research in a way that is
conducive to the realisation of children’s rights demands that researchers rethink
their role in relationship to the practical field. From my research experience in
collaborating with teachers (Bae 2005, 2008, 2009a), including extended periods of
fieldwork in different institutions, I see a researcher role that is close to children’s
everyday experiences as a prerequisite. Participation in combination with various
methodological approaches will shed new light on children as human beings and
their diverse ways of relating to their surroundings. By contesting traditional methods, some researchers are exploring ways in which to include young children in
research processes (Christensen and James 2008). Some have explored children’s
perspectives through interviews (Eide and Winger 2005) while others have followed
children’s initiatives regarding what they consider important in their environment
(Clark 2005). Such approaches seem promising in revealing children’s points of
views on their life in early childhood institutions.
If researchers unreflectively build their work on a deductive paradigm of the
theory- practice relationship (Lenz Taguchi 2007; Bae 2008, 2009a), they easily fall
into the trap of practising top-down relations. From such positions, they might take
their own perspective for granted and present programmes as ‘solutions’ to issues of
participation – approaches that contribute to silencing practitioners’ own voices
instead of empowering them to change their roles. When trying to create equity in
research relations the researcher meets several challenges and ethical problems (Bae
2005). As I experienced using video-filming as part of the methodology, this involves
a risk that the participants might feel objectified. Hence, two important questions
when doing research that involves closeness to teachers are how the researcher can
take responsibility by preparing teachers for the experience of being filmed, and what
possible feelings might arise when discussing their own behaviour as shown on the
video.
Another challenge is how to write about interactions so that the teachers feel recognised and respected. These challenges are connected with the teachers ‘feeling of
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
403
being texualised’ (Tobin and Davidson 1990, 278) and demand critical self-reflections
on part of the researcher (Bae 2005).
A critical look at conventional research concepts might also be needed. Some of
them carry warlike connotations (for instance the research front, research strategies,
theoretical confrontation) whilst others underline order and control (e.g., control variables). Self-reflection regarding the language that researchers use might bring to the
fore the fact that they are bearers of competitive and unfriendly conceptions of others
and could have a worldview that primarily values law and order. Such languages and
worldviews might pollute researchers’ visions and make it difficult to take children’s
playful vitality – as well as other expressions – seriously.
Looking ahead, I think it is important that researchers continue to develop
approaches that include both children and professionals in the field.4 My experience
with collaborative projects in kindergartens is that they challenge researchers to
contact their imaginative and playful resources along with attitudes of humbleness and
modesty. In both research practice and in texts, space should be granted to sharing
tentative lines of thinking, imagining different ways of understanding a phenomenon
and searching for new metaphors and filling in concepts in collaboration with others.
Such research practices might be the opposite of what politicians and the media
want in terms of facts, evidence-based research and definite conclusions. Instead they
involve contesting understandings and meanings in relationships filled with vitality
and friendly difference – not unlike what children do when they collaborate in play
and express their right to freedom of speech.
Notes
1. Early childhood institutions for children below school age in Norway, are called barne-
hager which, directly translated, means ‘children’s garden’, or kindergarten. The term
barnehage covers many different organisational arrangements for small children aged one
to five. At the moment around one-third of the children are between one and three years of
age. The common denominator for all kindergartens is that it must be led by a professional
educator with a bachelors degree in early childhood education.
2. In the document, which is contains 34 pages, a word-count shows that the word play is
mentioned 89 times.
3. After the revision of the Framework Plan in 2006, the Norwegian government launched a
four-year implementation plan, which must be followed up on the regional and local levels.
The issue of children’s participation is one of the prioritised areas in this implementation.
4. In no. 2 of the 2008 edition of the EECERA journal, several research project involving
collaboration with practitioners are described.
References
Åberg, A., and H. Lenz Taguchi. 2006. Lyttende pedagogikk – Etikk og demokrati i pedagogisk arbeide [The pedagogy of listening – ethics and democracy in pedagogical work].
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
Ailwood, J. 2003. Governing early childhood education through play. Contemporary issues in
early childhood education 4, no. 3: 286–99.
Alderson, P. 2008. Children as researchers. Participation rights and research methods. In
Research with children. Perspectives and Practices, ed. Christensen, P. and A. James,
276–90. New York and London: Routledge.
Bae, B. 1996 Det interessante i det alminnelige, [The interesting in the ordinary.] Oslo:
Pedagogisk Forum.
Bae, B. 2004 Dialoger mellom førskolelærer og barn – En beskrivende og fortolkende studie
[Dialogues between preschool teachers and children – A descriptive and interpretive
study]. Oslo: Høgskolen i Oslo.
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
404
B. Bae
Bae, B. 2005 Troubling the identity of a researcher: Methodological and ethical questions in
co-operating with teacher-carers in Norway. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood
Education 63: 283–91.
Bae, B. 2006 Perspektiver på barns medvirkning i barnehage, i Barns medvirkning i barnehage, Temahefte utgitt av Kunnskapsdepartementet. [Children’s Participation in Kindergartens]. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.
Bae, B. 2007. Children’s participation – Focus on dialogical patterns Paper presented at the
17th Annual EECERA conference, 29 August – 1 September, in Prague, Czech Republic.
Bae, B. 2008. Drøfting av samspillseksempler –Demokratiske møtepunkter mellom teori og
praksis? [Discussion of examples – Democratic meetings points between theory and practice?] In FoU i Praksis 2007. Rapport fra konferanse om praksisrettet FoU i lærerutdanning, Trondheim 19. og 20. april 2007, ed. T.M. Guldal, O.F. Lillemyr, G. Løkken, N.
Naastad, and F. Rønning, 45–53. Trondheim: Tapir Akademiske Forlag.
Bae, B. 2009a. Utvikling av barnehagepersonalets relasjonelle praksis – Samarbeid mellom
teori og praksisfeltet [Developing the staff’s relational practice – Collaboration between
theory and practice]. FOU i Praksis 1: 21–36.
Bae, B. 2009b. Rom for medvirkning? Kvaliteter I samspillet mellom førskolelærer og barn
[Space for participation? Qualities in the interaction between teachers and children].
BARN 1: 9–28
Bennett, J. 2005. Curriculum issues in national policy-making, European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal 13, no. 2: 5–23.
Biesta, G. 2006. Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future. London: Paradigm
Publishers.
Biesta, G. 2007. ‘Don’t count me in’. Democracy, education and the question of inclusion.
Nordisk Pedagogik 27: 18–31.
Bjarnadottir, G. 2004. Jeg er løve som også kunne være lege. Valgstund – En ramme rundt
barns lek og sosiale prosesser i barnehagen [Election time – A framework for children’s
play and social processes in kindergarten Hovedfagsoppgave i barnehagepedagogikk],
Oslo: Høgskolen i Oslo, avd. for lærerutdanning.
Christensen, P., and A. James, eds, 2008. Research with children. Perspectives and Practices,
New York and London: Routledge.
Clark, A. 2005. Ways of seeing: Using the mosaic approach to listen to young children’s
perspectives, In Beyond listening: Children’s perspectives on early childhood services, ed.
A. Clark, AT. Kjørholt, and P. Moss, 29–50, Bristol: University of Bristol Policy Press.
Dahlberg, G., and P. Moss. 2005. Ethics and politics in early childhood education, London
and New York: Routledge.
Dahlberg, G., P. Moss, and A. Pence. 1999. Beyond quality in early childhood education and
care. Postmodern perspectives. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Dunne, J. 2006. Childhood and citizenship: A conversation across modernity. European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal 14, no. 1: 5–19.
Edmiston, B. 2008. Forming ethical identities in early childhood play. London and New
York: Routledge.
Eide, B., and N. Winger. 2005 From the children’s point of view: methodological and ethical challenges. In Beyond listening: Children’s perspectives on early childhood services,
ed. A. Clark, A.T. Kjørholt and P. Moss, 71–90. Bristol: University of Bristol Policy
Press.
Eide, B., and N. Winger. 2006. Dilemmaer ved barns medvirkning [Dilemmas regarding children’s participation]. In Temahefte om barns medvirkning ed. B. Bae, B. Eide, N. Winger
and A.E. Kristoffersen. 28–50. Oslo: Kunnskapsdepartementet.
Emilsson, A., and A-M. Folkesson, 2006. Children’s participation and teacher control. Early
Child Development and Care 176, nos. 3–4: 219–38.
Emilson, A. 2008. Det ønskvarda barnet [The desirable child]. Studies in Educational
Sciences 268. Gøteborgs Universitet.
Fleer, M. 2005. Developmental fossils – Unearthing the artefacts of early childhood education: The reification of ‘child development’. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 30,
no. 2: 2–7.
Formosinho, J., and S.B. Araujo, 2004 Children’s perspectives about pedagogical interactions.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 12, no. 1: 103–114
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
Framework plan for the content and tasks of kindergartens. 2006. Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research.
Guss, G. 2005a. Dramatic playing beyond the theory of multiple intelligences. Research in
Drama 10, no. 1: 43–54.
Guss, G. 2005b. Reconceptualizing play: Aesthetic self-definitions. Contemporary Issues in
Early Childhood Education 6, no. 3: 233–243.
James, A., A. Prout, and C. Jenks. 1998. Theorizing childhood. Oxford: Polity Press.
Jans, M. 2004 Children as citizens: Towards a contemporary notion of child participation.
Childhood 111: 27–44.
Johansson, E. 2003. Att nærma sig barns perspektiv [Approaching children’s perspectives].
Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige 8, nos. 1–2: 42–57.
Johansson, E. 2004. Learning encounters in preschool: Interaction between atmosphere, view
of child and learning. International Journal of Early Childhood, 36: 9–26.
Kindergarten Act. 2006. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.
Kjørholt, A.T. 2005. The competent child and ‘the right to be oneself’: Reflections on children as fellow citizens in an early childhood centre Beyond listening. Children’s perspectives on early childhood services, ed. A. Clark, A.T. Kjørholt, and P. Moss, 51–173.
Bristol: The Policy Press.
Kjørholt, A.T. 2008a. Children as new citizens: In the best interests of the child? In European Childhoods. Cultures, Politics and Childhoods in Europe, ed. A. James and A.
James, 14–37. Chippenham: Palgave Macmillan.
Kjørholt, A.T. 2008b. Retten til lek og fritid [The right to play and leisure] Barnekonvensjonen.
Barns rettigheter i Norge, ed. N. Høstmælingen, E.S. Kjørholt and K. Sandbergred, 219–
231. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Lee, N. 2001. Childhood and society. Growing up in an age of uncertainty. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Lenz Taguchi, H. 2007. Deconstructing and transgressing the theory-practice dichotomy in
early childhood education. Educational Philosophy and Theory 39, no. 3: 275–290.
Løfdahl, A., and Hagglund, S. 2006a. Power and participation: Social representations among
children in pre-school. Social Psychology of Education 9: 179–194.
Løfdahl, A., and S. Hagglund, 2006b. Spaces for participation in pre-school: Arenas for establishing power orders. I Children and Society. DOI:10.111/j.1099-0860.2006.00054.x.
Løvlie, A.-L. [later Schibbye] 1982. Part process analysis: Toward a new method for studying
interaction. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 4: 261–273.
MacNaughton, G. 2005 Doing Foucault in early childhood studies. London and New York:
Routledge.
Markstrom, A-M., and G. Hallden. 2008. Children’s strategies for agency in preschool.
Children and Society. DOI:10:111/j.1099-0860.2008.00161.x.
Mauritzon, U., and R. Saljö. 2003. Ja vil va Samba å du e Nala: Barns kommunikation och
koordination av perspektiv i lek [Children’s communiaction and coordination of perspectives in play]. Förskolan: Barnets första skola! ed. E. Johansson and I. Samuelsson Pramling,
159–196. Lund: Studentlitteratur
Moss, P. 2007a. Bringing politics into the nursery: Early childhood education as a
democratic practice. European Early Chilhdood Education Research Journal 15, no.
1: 5–20
Moss, P. 2007b. Meetings across the paradigmatic divide. Educational Philosophy and
Theory 39, no. 3: 229–245
Rhedding-Jones, J., B. Bae, and N. Winger. 2008. Young children and voice. In Young
children as active citizens: Principles, policies and pedagogies, ed. P. Hughes, G.
Mac Naughton and K. Smith, 44–59. London and New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Rinaldi, C. 2006. In dialogue with Reggio Emilia, Listening, researching and learning,
London and New York: Routledge.
Schibbye, A.-L. 1993. The role of ‘acknowledgment’ in the resolution of a specific interpersonal dilemma. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 2: 175–89.
Schibbye, A.-L. 2002 En dialektisk relasjonsforståelse – I psykoterapi med individ, par og
familie, [A dialectical understanding of relationhips – In psychotherapy with individuals,
couples and families]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
A.
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
405
B.
C.
406
Schultz Jørgensen, P. 2000. Børn er deltagere – i deres eget liv [Children as participants in
their own life]. In Børn som informanter [Children as informants], ed. P. Schultz
Jørgensen and J. Kampmann, 9–21. Antologi, København: Børnerådet.
Seland, M. 2006. Det moderne barn og den fleksible barnehagen [The moderen child and
the flexible kindergarten]. Paper presented at Norden konferanse. 20–22. October, in
Lysebu.
Søbstad, F. 2004. Mot stadig nye mål… Tredje rapport fra prosjektet ‘Den norske barnehagekvaliteten’ [Approaching new goals… The third report from the project ‘The
Norwegian Quality of Early Childhood Education’]. Trondheim: DMMHs publication
series, no. 1/2004
Sheridan, S., and Pramling Samuelsson, I. 2001. Children’s conceptions of participation and
influence in preschool. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 2, no. 2, 164–94.
Smith, A. 2008. Children’s rights and early childhood education. Links to theory and
advocacy. www.earlychildhoodaustrarlia.org.au/austarlian-journal-of-earlychildhood/aje.
Sommer, D. 2003. Barndomspsykologiske facetter [Facets of childhood psychology]. Århus:
Systime Akademic.
Sutton-Smith, B., and K. Byrne. 1984. The idealization of play. In Play in animals and
humans, ed. P. K. Smith, 305–21. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Tobin, J., and D. Davidson. 1990. The ethics of polyvocal ethnography: Empowering vs.
textualizing children and teachers. Qualitative Studies of Education 3, 271–83.
Tullgren, C. 2004. Den välreglerade friheten –Att konstruera det lekande barnet [The well
regulated freedom – Constructing the playing child]. Lärarutbildningen. Malmö, Malmö
Högskola.
Wagner, J., and J. Einarsdottir. 2006. Nordic ideals reflected in Nordic childhoods and early
education. In Nordic childhoods and early education, ed. J. Einarsdottir and J.T. Wagner,
1–12. Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Woodhead, M. 2005. Early childhood development: A Questions of Rights? International
Journal of Early Childhood 37, no. 3: 79–98
D.
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 12:42 18 February 2010
B. Bae