Who am I? What am I?

Examining The Professional Identity of the Early Years Lead Practitioner (from a Scottish Early Years perspective).

The National Review of the Early Years Childcare Workforce (2006), in Scotland, led to a program of development which saw Early Years Lead Practitioners move towards degree level qualifications. Ten years on  many Early Years Lead Practitioners still struggle with what it is to be professional and where they fit within a multi-agency profession.

Several recent reports indicate that the workforce development has indeed improved outcomes for children and families. However, what about the workforce themselves? Siraj and Kingston (2015:46) indicated in their review that the Early Years Sector should still continue to “professionalise the workforce”. It is relatively easy to provide courses for practitioners, support them to develop professional skills and expertise. But does all of this make the workforce feel professional? One of the main struggles for Early Years Lead Practitioners is balancing the dichotomy of care and education. Can you manage a setting professionally whilst still maintaining care, love and passion for the children they provide services for? I will investigate what it really means to the individual to feel like a professional and how the sector might move forward in supporting professional self-awareness.

Part one of this paper will examine the identity of the Early Years Professional. Part two will try to define love and whether it is possible to consider this as a professional skill and standard. I will investigate the current literature examining the concept of professional identify and in particular how the Lead Practitioners see themselves following qualification. I will be drawing mainly on up to date reviews but also on older, more historical literature. It is important to take a view on what has gone before as this is a rapidly emerging professional workforce which as stated above only really began its journey in 2006. Other countries have also gone through a similar process of development so it will be useful also to consider those perspectives. Finally, conclusions will be drawn making the argument for love to be recognised within the Professional Benchmark Standards.

In 2006 the debate in Scotland, about what the newly emerging professional would look like was only just beginning (Scot Exec, 2006:49). It described a “profession” as “being a group of workers possessing a unique set of skills, knowledge and values”. One of the aims that the National Review of the Early Years and Childcare Workforce (Scot Exec, 2006) set out, was, the development of the workforce through a series of professional qualifications at three levels (support worker, practitioner and lead practitioner). The aim was to align these qualifications with a new set of benchmark standards (The Standards for Childhood Practice) in order to create a professional workforce capable of delivering quality care for children and families.

Now, almost ten years on, several investigations (Educ Scot, 2012; Davis, 2014; Siraj and Kingston, 2015) report that there have been improved outcomes for children and families as a result of this workforce development. The most recent review (Siraj and Kingston, 2015) identifies increased quality in a variety of areas such as the quality of adult-child verbal communication, higher levels of parental engagement, deeper knowledge and understanding by staff of child development and curriculum planning. However, what is more difficult to source is the impact that the workforce development is having upon the Lead Practitioners themselves (although there is a considerable amount of literature focusing on Early Years Teachers). The following section will consider who and what the Early Years Professional is.

1.       Who am I? What am I?

Lawler (2014:9) suggests that “Identity works as an object (or set of related objects) in the social world: it works to delineate both persons, and to differentiate between them”. This would imply that different groups of people can be separated out into different identities. But how might this be done? Calhoun (1994:28 in Lawler, 2014:10) describes identities as “often personal and political projects in which we participate, empowered to greater or lesser extent and ability, culture and social organisation”.  This could go some way to explaining the fragmentation of the Early Years Workforce. What we see now as a single workforce, following the review in 2006, was formed from a variety of different childcare and education providers. These providers had their own structures, their own cultures and their own social organisation. To bring these together to form one workforce was always going to be a challenge. Adams (2008) writes that the title of a person’s job role can help or hinder their employment prospects and in the case of childcare can confuse the parents or carers. Perhaps the most difficult challenge the Early Years Review faced in 2006 was the diversity of job titles that came with the Early Years Sector in Scotland (2006:4,5). There were a number of different job titles such as Playgroup Manager, Nursery Manager, After School Club Manager, Nursery Officer, Senior Nursery Nurse, Deputy Nursery Managers, Room Supervisors to name but a few. All of these roles held primarily the same function, to be leaders and managers of the setting. Such diversity perhaps led to the confusion as to what an Early Year’s Professional was or would look like. Job titles such as “Teacher”, “Social Worker” have clear definitions and are well known as professionals. However, because of the lack of a singular title for the professional in charge of an early years setting it may, as Adams described, make it difficult for others to pin point exactly where that person sits within the professional world. Siraj and Kingston (2015:18) suggest that “language is powerful in influencing people’s attitudes and views” and that perhaps in order for the status of the Early Years Professional to be improved the term “Lead Practitioner” should be reconsidered as part of a review of the childcare workforce. Martin et al (2010) also consider the importance of language in the struggle to understand the Early Years Professional, asking what they are; teacher, providers, practitioners, care givers. They also discuss how difficult it is to bring all of the different professionals within the early year’s sector into one single workforce, citing a wide range of qualifications, experience and resources developed to meet individual professional needs. Siraj and Kingston (2015) also addressed this when they suggested a review of the qualifications offered for specific professionals such as Early Years Specific Teacher training, Froebel training and Post Graduate courses. The danger with creating several different degree level qualifications is that the workforce returns to the same fragmented position it was in prior to the National Review in 2006. This fragmentation came about because different settings saw themselves as independent and not part of a wider sector of childcare providers (Scot Exec, 2006).

Harwood et al (2012) discuss a combined model of delivery across the early education and childcare sector, which delivers a shared curriculum, service provision model. They give the example of Sweden which has “a common occupational model where educators have been trained and provided with opportunities to work across both sectors” (Oberhuemer, 2005 in Harwood et al, 2012). Oberhuemer (2005) herself analyses the split system model, where childcare and education are seen as two separate provisions. She continues to argue the case for having one integrated model where both are provided by the same professional. In the case of Sweden, which as mentioned has opted for the integrated model, it would appear that the Early Years Lead Practitioner has been brought in under the role of teacher, which I am not sure is the correct term for the Scottish sector, however, she does describe this role has having “educational, social and health elements” which does encompass all that the Lead Practitioner has responsibility for in Scotland (2005:10). She then concludes by saying that one of the outstanding features of this integrated model is that it brings together schools, early childhood centres and out of school services much closer as there are not separate professionals leading each provision. The notion that there should be different professionals delivering the same service provision may well be part of the difficulty of defining what the professional status of the Early Years Lead Practitioner. The creation of one single role, whether qualified as a Teacher or a Lead Practitioner, may well be the way to streamline the professions. Although I would advise against the title Teacher, as this does suggest education rather than the wider provision of childhood practice. The next section attempts to consider what the professional identity of that Early Years Professional looks like.

Professional identity

Studies which consider Early Years professional identity (Morton, 2006; Adams, 2008; Martin et al, 2010; Harwood et al, 2012) talk about shared knowledge, skills and values. But I would argue that it is deeper than this. The Early Years Review talked about childcare in 2006 being seen “as a job anyone can do” (2006:48).  It also recognised that this is clearly not the case but that the purpose of the workforce development was to ensure that the newly emerging set of professionals had the skills to deliver the outcomes for children that the Government wanted to see. If achieved, and all the recent reviews suggest it is happening, then this is a positive outcome for children in Scotland. But what of the staff themselves? What do they gain out of it? They have the shared knowledge, skills and values but what is it that truly makes them professional? Recently I was speaking to a student, completing the PDA Level 9 Childhood Practice, who manages an Early Years Playscheme which provides term-time provision for children with additional support needs, and she commented on how she felt it has taken her a long time to recognise that she is a professional within early years. She has a Community Education degree already but felt that the role she has within the sector at present was not professional because it was caring in nature and not educational. She felt it is only now that she is half way through her course that she is beginning to see that she has something special in being able to cross between care and knowledge and indeed that this may be what makes her professional. This relationship between care and academia is clearly an important aspect in the self-recognition of professionalism. The Early Years Review was correct, not everyone can work in childcare (the reasons for this will be examined later) the role takes a certain kind of person, with particular skills who can cross the boundaries of practical caring and academic understanding. Manning-Morton (2006) describes the Early Years Professional as having the “Professional Identity of a critically reflexive theoretical boundary crosser”. I shall return to this later.

Defining the Role of the Practitioner

A number of studies attempt to define the role of an Early Year’s Professional (Colley, 2006; Osgood, 2006; Martin et al, 2010; Horwood et al 2012; McGillivray, 2015). One of the main issues which is considered in these studies is the effect of the traditional view of gender on roles. Historically, roles which were seen as academic were equated with masculinity whereas caring roles were seen as feminine (Manning-Morton, 2006). This creates a real dichotomy for the Early Years Professional because whilst the role is very much practical there is also the need to have knowledge and understanding of how to support the child fully in their holistic development. At the Practitioner level this is the expected role, however when those practitioners become Lead Practitioners there is the struggle to distance themselves from the practical role in order to be seen as equals in the professional world in which they must work (Manning-Morton, 2006). Osgood (2006) argues that “being professional, is a performance, which is about what practitioners do at particular times, rather than a universal indication of who they are”. This is a real struggle for the Early Years Practitioner because as natural carers their instinct is to care, both physically and emotionally, for the children in their setting. It is difficult, therefore, to balance valuing knowledge and understanding with “the art of care-giving” without devaluing that care. (Manning-Morton, 2006:45). Colley (2006) examines how the early year’s workforce learns to work with emotion and how this fits with professionalism. She identifies firstly, that, as with other caring professions such as nursing, the general acceptance of a low rate of pay would indicate that there is a real commitment to caring and that it also means that there is a real care for the children who are being cared for. A lecturer, taking part in Colley’s study, indicated “I mean, if you’ve worked as a nursery nurse, the money’s rubbish. You don’t do it, you know, for any other reason other than you love working with children and families…”.

Colley (2006) then goes onto describe attributes of a child carer as “displaying sensitivity, gentleness, enthusiasm, effort and enjoying contact with the children…”. These are attributes which support the feminine identity that was described earlier. McGillivray (2015) argues that by using feminised identities the professional identity of the early year’s worker will naturally be shaped and reinforced, which makes challenging the status of the Early Years Professional difficult as discussed earlier. I have been very careful, that whilst I am speaking about the role of the child carer as being a feminine performativity, I am not referring to either male or female workers as the role of the practitioner is the same regardless of gender. Butler (1990:25) describes gender as “the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a sort of being”, this being the case then it matters not whether the practitioner is male or female but that they are repeatedly carrying out acts which historically appear as feminine. Whether these acts should still be regarded as feminine is another question which is not going to be answered in this paper.

“Critically reflexive boundary crosser”

To return to Manning-Morton’s (2006:50) suggestion that an Early Year’s professional must be a “critically reflexive theoretical boundary crosser” it is perhaps important that we turn to looking at how being a reflexive practitioner can support the feeling of professionalism. Osgood (2006) makes the point that “early years practitioners must develop a professional approach that combines personal awareness with theoretical knowledge”. The workforce has, since 2006, been gradually becoming more reflective in their practice, with qualifications as NC Early Education Children and HNC Early Education and Childcare including reflective units such “Developing an understanding of working with children and workplace experience” (NC) and “Personal Development Planning” (HNC), encouraging support workers and practitioners to begin the process of reflective practice. Moyles (2001) speaks passionately about how practitioners in early years have long devalued their own professional identity, imagining that somehow care was not as “professional” as education. She goes onto describe the early years professional as someone who has a specialised knowledge which needs to be recognised as an academic discipline in its own right rather than “the also ran of the education system” (2001:93). The heart of this issue for me is to work out how early years practitioners can feel professional within themselves. Siraj and Kingston (2015:46) propose that one of the aims of the new qualifications in Scotland is to “professionalise the ELC workforce”. If it were as simple as gaining a qualification then would the entire workforce not feel professional the instant they got that bit of paper? Harwood et al (2013) consider how early years professionals can begin to define their own professionalism from within. Their research study, including practitioners from Canada, Nigeria and South Africa, looked at clarifying professionalism and philosophy which examines their own perceptions of themselves as professionals. Dalli, 2008:183) describes this process as “reconceptualised definitions of professionalism”. As mentioned earlier, reflective practice is becoming very much the norm in terms of practitioner training however now we require practitioners to consider their practice more reflexively. Practitioners have become very good at reflecting on their practice in terms of their own personal development which means they are seeing the links between care and knowledge, however now what they need to do is consider the impact of their professionalism upon the people they work with.

Harwood et al (2012), in their study of the Canadian, South African and Nigerian Early Years Sectors, posit that emerging early years professionals should be given the space to reflect upon and articulate their own sense of professionalism in order to discover professionalism from within (Osgood, 2010). Karila (1997:219) examines the job descriptions, responsibilities and obligations of the lead practitioners and notes that there has been a shift towards all staff in Early Years settings, in Finland, having an “everyone does everything” work distribution. Which is something that can be seen in Scotland also with Lead Practitioners often describing themselves as “hands on” managers. Many Managers find it disheartening that they are no longer working as frequently with the children when their passion and love was for the children they work with in the first place. Deacon (2011) held this view stating that “the time of the Early Years Workforce is precious too and we should remember that” and continues by agreeing, with practitioners, that there are far too many activities and processes which take up time but are not adding any value to their work.

Murray (2013) talks of an internal view of professional self being crucial because it is based on individual values and informs practice. Murray argues that this internal view is what allows Lead Practitioners to practice their profession with integrity. It would appear that having the freedom to care with passion and love is critical to inspiring professionalism within Lead Practitioners (Moyles, 2010) and personal values and principles are an integral part of that. Transforming love into a pedagogical tool would allow practitioners that freedom to care both instinctively and professionally (Dalli, 2008). Indeed, Taggart (2011) supports this view suggesting that love should be a “central plank of professionalism in the care professions and needs no apologies” (2011: 85) It is perhaps at this point that I will try to define what is meant by love and if indeed it could be recognised as a professional skill or standard.

1.       Love and Passion – Can we ever define them?

Love is a subjective thing. It isn’t easy to define, which is what makes this research difficult. But when love and passion appears to be one of the most important qualities (Colley, 2006; Moyles, ? ; Osgood, 2006; Taggart, 2011) a Lead Practitioner possesses when working with children and their families, defining it is something that I must at least attempt to do.

The Philosophy of Love is an ancient one with legends told in both Greek and Roman Mythology. In Greek Mythology Aphrodite is the Goddess of Love, her offspring or attendant (there are varying opinions) being Eros, the God of Love. Roman mythology describes Venus, equated with Aphrodite, as being the Goddess of Love and Beauty. The Romans borrowed Eros and named him Cupid. Cupid was seen as Love’s Messenger (Lindemans, 2015). Aristotle considered love to be pure describing it as “two bodies and one soul” whereas Plato presented the idea that love could be characterised by a number of different concepts from intimate love to a more intelligent love, which now may be described as Platonic Love (Moseley, 2015). Aquinas (Catholic Priest in the Dominican Order, Medieval Philosopher and Theologian) picks up on the idea that we should love in the name of friendship also (IEP, 2015). There are many other philosophical debates around the origins and meaning of love (this not being the place to examine them in any detail) however what is clear is love means many different things to different people. We can therefore assume that there is not one single definition of love. It would appear that love may perhaps be a state of being, have a natural character of its own. Moseley (2015:8) argues that “love is physical, i.e. that love is nothing but a physical response to another …”. He then goes onto suggest that the Philosophy of Love is inextricably linked to language and the theories of the emotions. One such theory which is useful to consider is Theory of Mind.

Seyfarth and Cheyney (2013) hypothesised, in their research study with chimpanzees, that humans have developed a reflective theory of mind (the ability to read others thoughts, feelings and emotions) which allows them to consider how best to support and care for others using the ability to read minds. Without getting into the complex area of Theory of Mind it is worth taking into consideration that this is something which humans develop to be able to live alongside others and therefore is useful in understanding why some people feel able to love and care for others to innately. Baren-Cohen (1996:2) examines the concept of mind reading and describes it as “the capacity to imagine or represent states of mind that we or others might hold”. This could begin to explain why Early Years Practitioners appear to have an innate propensity for caring, loving and understanding children in their care. Baren-Cohen’s work looks at what he describes as “Mind-blindness” in children with Autism, where there has been a failure to develop Theory of Mind. Again, supporting the thought that some people are capable of understanding and responding instinctively to the needs of others.

So taking into account the mythology around love and also thinking about the natural ability to empathise and care for another human, what drives the Early Years Practitioner to love and care for the children in such a personal way?

Schuaber (2009:32) considers the possibility that love and passion are character traits which are permanent mental properties, describing them as “durable principles of the mind”. She then suggests that these durable principles are passions which are capable of causing actions. It is worth noting however, that Schuaber says these character traits do not always cause actions as it is possible that other circumstances can stop this happening. Schauber (2009:37) also analyses Hume’s hypothesis that character traits, such as passion, can play a central role in the motivation of actions. She continues by suggesting that in practice it is generally believed that “we think that actions are regularly produced by a certain kind of “force” in actors – and more specifically – we believe that certain kinds of actions are produced by certain kinds of motives and desires”. Perhaps, and this is just conjecture, this is what drives an Early Years Professional to constantly but naturally care and love the children they are working with. This is hugely simplifying both the hypothesis of Hume and also the analysis of Schuaber, but it serves to support the understanding of what drives Early Years Professionals to feel love and passion and explain their innate desire to love and care for the children they work with.

I have yet to find an Early Years Professional who does not love or at least like children. This would seem an odd thing to say but given how natural it would seem that people working with children come to care for them it is at least important to analyse how that love is interpreted by different Professionals. I am particularly interested in identifying if there are differences that can be drawn between the love that is expressed for the children when working as a Teacher or as a Lead Practitioner? I would argue that there are differences. My argument being that whilst the Teacher will undoubtedly love working with the children and motivating them to do their best academically; the Lead Practitioner working with babies and young children will express a more maternal love.

On examination of literature I was particularly drawn to a description of Pedagogical Love (Maatta and Uusiautti, 2013). Pedagogical love, it would appear, can be considered to be at the core of being a good teacher. Pedagogical Love can be described as the ability to maintain order and discipline, set reasonable goals whilst considering each child’s abilities and needs and being there for each child to support them to learn, develop and grown with positive learning experiences. Maatta and Uusiautti (2013:97) suggest that pedagogical love can “contribute to the pupil’s learning and success by providing them with positive learning experiences, initial excitement and perceived success”. They posit that pedagogical love is a way of teaching not just a way of feeling and that it must be recognised as such. It is not something which should be left to chance or to appear naturally. In a study examining the ethics of care Vogt (2002) asked a number of Primary School Teachers what they thought caring whilst teaching meant. There were mixed results; some teachers considered that they cared, just in different ways from perhaps those who worked with very young children, some felt it was not physical love but definitely care and finally one teacher commented “We are responsible for them, but we’re not their parents. We’re there to teach them… I mean you’re not their parent, you’re not there to wipe their bottoms” (Vogt, 2002:260). There was absolutely no doubt that the message from this study was that teachers felt they did care, one said “I think a good teacher is equal to a caring teacher” and that caring could be understood as a commitment to teaching (Vogt, 2002:258). However, many of the teachers in this study shared a reservation with the term “caring” because it is associated with mothering, which they perceive as not compatible with professionalism (Vogt, 2002; Manning-Morton, 2006). Taggart (2011) supports this idea that teachers do display pedagogical love in saying “…teachers talk of love as a guiding metaphor in their work. They talk of their love of teaching, their love of students, their love of subject matter and their love of teaching”. Goldstein (2004) also argues that “in effective pedagogy, love is present in terms of passion, commitment…” (Taggart, 2011:89). Thus, it would appear that teachers do feel love for their pupils but in a pedagogical, guiding way.

Which brings me to the love that Lead Practitioners express for the children in their care. From Support Worker up to Lead Practitioner love and care are absolutely part of the job description. Taggart (2011) makes the point that often in sector standards, such as the Codes of Practice for Social Service Workers and Employers (SSSC, 2009) and The National Care Standards: Early Education and Childcare up to the age of 16 (Scot Govt, 2005), caring and loving is often something which is just taken for granted. Indeed the only reference to care in the National Care Standards is Standard 7 – A Caring Environment. Point 2 suggests “You experience a service where mutual trust, respect, confidence and a caring ethos are evident” (2005:19). He suggests that there is almost an acceptance that the ability to care and love are lower level skills upon which higher level professional skills can be built.  It is this lack of recognition of love and care as a professional skill, within official benchmark standards that should be disputed. Without love,   the care that the Early Years Professional provides would be nowhere near as professional and competent as it is. I would argue that there should be a stronger acknowledgement of love and care as a professional standard. Taggart agrees indicating that “the ethic of care is highly prized within the informal discourse of practitioner professionalism.” (2011:87).

Perhaps the difficulty in recognising love as a professional standard is because of its connotations of domesticity? We only need to look to popular culture to see the strength of a mother’s love for her child in “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” (J K Rowling, 2001). Lily Potter died saving her son (Harry) with the power of her love. This is a light hearted look at maternal love but in truth I believe this is what stops people from recognising love as a professional standard. As Taggart said love is something which is taken for granted and is naturally, although not correctly, aligned with a feminine model of care, the child’s mother. In contrast to the reservations of the teachers in Vogt’s study, Taggart reports that early years practitioners often refer to “love” as a key professional quality. Hochschild (1983:52) describes compassionate qualities, referred to as “emotional labour” to explain how early years practitioners might use love to deal with difficult emotional situations with children “To be warm and loving towards a child who kicks, screams and insults you – a child whose problem is unlovability – requires emotional work”. Whilst this is a historical comment it is still very relevant today as working with children in their early years of development can often be challenging work and maintaining love and care is often a real skill.  Taggart (2011) makes the point that Early Childcare and Education often blurs the boundaries between the child’s home and childcare. This brings into sharp focus the ethics of care in terms of instinctive love and the professional standards of care by which the sector is benchmarked. Loving in this maternal way worries some as it is not seen to be professional to become too close to a child or their family. The challenge for the Early Years Professional is to balance love with ethics of care and Professional Benchmark Standards. I also feel very strongly that we should, as a sector, recognise and acknowledge love as a professional skill and standard.

Have I defined love? I’m not sure that I have. But I can say that it is without doubt in my mind that anyone who works with children feels an innate love for the child they are working with. How that love manifests itself is different amongst professionals. Teachers may practice pedagogical love in order to motivate and inspire their young students whereas early years practitioners may use love in a more practical and maternal sense in order to support the child through those early, often difficult, years of holistic development. What I think is key to my argument is that there is not enough recognition given to love as a tangible, recognisable professional skill or standard. It should not be something that is “just taken for granted”, not everyone has the capacity to love other people’s children in this way.

Conclusion

It is clear from a number of reviews that outcomes for children and families have improved through the workforce development following the National Review of the Early Years and Childcare Workforce however what was not clear was the impact this had on the self-awareness of the Early Years Professionals. It is undoubtedly challenging to separate out care and education and I would argue that perhaps trying to do this is unnecessary as the role of the Early Years Lead Practitioner is to lead both the care and education of children in the early years. The argument for one single title for the role of the Early Years Professional, whether from a teaching background or not, is a strong one. Recognising the importance of both care and education in equal measures is the way forward and developing the profession to be led by a suitably named professional would strengthen the provision of services for children in their Early Years. How the sector supports Lead Practitioners to develop a strong sense of professional awareness is another challenge. Perhaps encouraging Professionals to be aware of their own values, what experiences has brought them to their professionalism and what is truly important in terms of their own practice would go some way to doing this. However, I would argue that it is deeper than this. I have discussed the importance of love, passion and professionalism and how it is noteworthy that the role of the Lead Practitioner be one which is seen to include those attributes as part of a new paradigm and not simply emotions which Early Years Practitioners display. By embracing a new paradigm which includes love and passion then the Early Years Professional can practice with integrity and confidence in their own professional identity.

Reference List

Adams, Kate (2008). What’s in a name? Seeking professional status through degree studies within the Scottish Early Years context. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, Vol 16, No2, June 2008, 196 – 209.

Education Scotland. (2012). Making the Difference. The impact of staff qualifications on children’s learning in early years.

Baren-Cohen, Simon. (1996). Mindblindness: An essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. MIT Cog Net.

Butler, Judith (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.

Calhoun, C. (1994:28). Social Theory and the politics of identity. In C. Calhoun, Carrington, B (2007) Social Theory and the Politics of Identity. Oxford:Blackwell. Cited in Lawler, S. (2014) Identity: Sociological Perspectives. 2^nd Edition. Cambridge: Polity.

Colley, H. (2006). Learning to Labour with Feeling: class, gender and emotion in childcare education and training. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. Vol 7, No 1. 15 -29.ol 7, No1. 42 -52.

Goldstein, L S. (2004). Loving Teacher Education. In Teaching, learning and loving: reclaiming passion in educational practice. Ed D Liston and J Garrison. London: Routledge. Cited in Taggart, G. (2011). Don’t we care? The ethics and emotional labour of Early Years Professionalism. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 31:1, 85-95.

Hochschild, A. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialisation of Human Feeling. London:University of California Press. Cited in Taggart, G. (2011). Don’t we care? The ethics and emotional labour of Early Years Professionalism. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 31:1, 85-95.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2015). Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). www.iep.utm.edu/acquinas. Accessed 2/7/15.

Karila, Kirsti. (2008). A Finnish Viewpoint on Professionalism in Early Childhood Education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. Vol 16, No 2. 210 – 223.

Lindemans, Micha F. Aphrodite. Encyclopedia Mythica Online. https://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/aphrodite.html. Accessed 2/7/15.

Lindemans, Micha F. Eros. Encyclopedia Mythica Online. https://www.pantheon.org/articles/e/eros.html. Accessed 2/7/15.

Lindemans, Micha F. Venus. Encyclopedia Mythica Online. https://www.pantheon.org/articles/v/venus.html. Accessed 2/7/15.

Maatta, Kaarina and Uusiautti, Satu. (2013). Many faces of love. Chapter 2. Rotterdam; Boston: Sensepublishers.

Moseley, Alexander (2015) Philosophy of Love. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/love/#SH1a. Accessed 2/7/15.

Moyles, Janet. (2001). Passion, Paradox and Professionalism in Early Years Education. Early Years: An Interntional Journal of Research and Development. 21:2. 81–95.

Murray, Janet. (2013). Becoming an early years professional: developing a new professional identity. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 21:4, 527 – 540.

Oberhuemer, P. (2005). Conceptualising the Early Childhood Pedagogue: Policy approaches and issues of professionalism. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 13:1, 5 – 16.

Osgood, Jayne. (2006). Rethinking “Professionalism” in the Early Years: perspectives from the United Kingdom. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Vol 7, No 1.

Osgood, Jayne. (2006). Deconstructing Professionalism in Early Years Childhood Education: resisting the regulatory gaze. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. Vol 7, No 1.

Osgood, Jayne. (2010). Reconstructing professionalism in ECEC: the case for the “critically reflective emotional professional”. Early Years: An International Research Journal. 30:2, 119 – 133.

Rowling, J K. (2001). Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Scholastic Inc: New York.

Schauber, Nancy. (2009) Complexities of Character: Hume on Love and Responsibilities. Hume Studies, Vol 35: No 1 and 2. 29 – 55. Published by Hume Society.

Scottish Executive (2006) National Review of the Early Years and Childcare Workforce. Report and Consultation. Published by The Scottish Executive: Edinburgh.

Seyfarth, R M and Cheyney, D L. (2013). Affiliation, Empathy and the origins of Theory of Mind. Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences of the United States of America. www.pnas.org.pzproxy.is.ed.ac/uk/content/ito/supplement_2/10349.full.

Siraj, Prof I and Kingston, D (2015). An independent review of the Scottish Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) Workforce and Out of School Care (OSC). UCL Institute of Education, University College, London.

Taggart, Geoff. (2011) Don’t we care? The ethics and emotional labour of Early Years Professionalism. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 31:1, 85-95.

Vogt, Franziska. (2010) A Caring Teacher: Explorations into Primary School Teachers’ Professional Identity and Ethic of Care. Gender and Education. 14:3, 251 – 264.