"Naming the scary thing makes us feel safer"

Resilience - The Biology of Stress and the Science of Hope

Overview of the film and my opinion

"The child may not remember, but the body remembers"

"Researchers have recently discovered a dangerous biological syndrome caused by abuse and neglect during childhood. As the new documentary Resilience reveals, toxic stress can trigger hormones that wreak havoc on the brains and bodies of children, putting them at a greater risk for disease, homelessness, prison time, and early death. While the broader impacts of poverty worsen the risk, no segment of society is immune. Resilience, however, also chronicles the dawn of a movement that is determined to fight back. Trailblazers in paediatrics, education and social welfare are using cutting-edge science and field-tested therapies to protect children from the insidious effects of toxic stress - and the dark legacy of a childhood that no child would choose. (https://kpjrfilms.co/resilience/about-the-film/)"

https://vimeo.com/137282528 (trailer for documentary)

"Naming the scary thing makes us feel safer"

Through my work I had the opportunity to view the documentary Resilience: The Biology of Stress and the Science of Hope. I was keen to view it as many of the members of the organisation I work for, National Day Nurseries Association, have viewed it and like many nurseries across Scotland have found it hugely inspiring. I also wanted to view it from the point of view of an academic researcher.

First impression of the film were that I understand why people have been inspired by this documentary. With so many problems in the world which seem unfix-able, this research offered hope and a solution to many of the world's health problems. The science explained behaviours, the release of cortisone and adrenaline, the feeling of constant stress, toxic stress and how resilience whilst not something you are born with you can learn it. The documentary made the point that not many people don't want to do good things for kids, which is a point borne out in my own research.

The documentary went on to say that when building resilience skills we should focus on transforming the lives of the adults caring for children. There then followed a case study of a young woman who had experienced many adverse childhood experiences. Her situation was to say the least sad, upsetting and desperate. The support she received changed her, it almost fixed her. This is where the documentary began to bother me a bit. Dr Vincent Felitti and Dr Nadine Burke-Harris argued a strong scientific case in support of ACEs in true American fashion. It was a hopeful, uplifting film which showed many cases of children who had an ACE score of 4 and above and who had come out the other side better people as a result of interventions based on the science of stress. A question was posed "why are we waiting for them to fall apart? we need to be where the kids are" which made me start to think this all feels like we are trying to fix these children. Let's get them fixed before they fall apart. I'm not sure life is as simple as that.

Don't get me wrong, I am not criticising the intent behind this film, but my worry is that practitioners take this and create checklists whilst not really understanding the science behind the claims (Joy, 2018). Trying to fix children as if ACEs have broken them feels a very negative way to support children. Children who have had adverse childhood experiences need the opportunity to work out who they are with those experiences as part of them. Children who have had their rights taken away  through ACEs, need to have agency to realise those rights again. As adults we need to support children to realise those rights, no matter what age. That could be through play and most definitely should be through the demonstration of love. I understand the science behind ACEs is about how we can help improve the health of children who have had these experiences, however I was disappointed to not see a mention of play or love in the list of interventions.

Some of the interventions mentioned in the film were playful but were not self directed play. There is a wealth of academic research which supports the crucial role play has in the development of the whole child, it is their safe place to explore the world. In bringing ACE's into ELC in Scotland I would suggest bringing play to the forefront of supporting children to understand how ACEs have impacted upon their lives. The following appeared in a blog on the Upstart website called "The Silence of the Weans" (24/2/18) which demonstrates the power of play in building resilience:

"play is children's inborn learning drive - it's how evolution designed them to develop human capacities they'll need to flourish throughout life. 'Messing about' in the great outdoors develops children's powers of creativity, adaptability and problem-solving; it's also about how they hone their social skills of communication and collaboration with their peers; and it's essential for the development of personal qualities like perseverance, self-control and the emotional resilience they need for long term mental health and well being"

I am more comfortable with the idea that we try to fix the society that the child is in rather than fix the child. The documentary spoke of being trauma informed where the focus is not on what is wrong with you but what has happened to you. A sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree, however the medical nature of the documentary didn't sit well with me. In my research I have identified several case studies where Lead Practitioners shared early childhood experiences which have impacted upon the way the understand and show love in their practice with children in early years. Not all who had adverse childhood experiences showed reluctance or reservation around showing love to children in their care, in the same way those who had childhood's free from adverse childhood experiences did not all naturally show love and affection. These experiences certainly formed their understanding of love but there were also other factors. These case studies make me question whether a checklist of experiences is enough to say that a child will have problems when they are older. I just think it isn't as simple as that. 

I liked the phrase "Naming the scary thing makes us feel safer" that was used by one of the researchers featured in the documentary. This I agree with. In my study participants used 92 different words to describe love to avoid actually saying it. Many commented on not being "allowed" to love children, with many examples of practitioners saying Lead Practitioners had told them off for demonstrating love to children in their care. Frequently adhering to 'policy and guidelines' came up, in my study, as a reason for a reluctance to support love-led practice. And it is true there is relatively little mention of love in policies and guidelines, however it is also relevant to note that it is difficult to find a warning against loving children in policies. Maybe policy makers just need to 'name the scary thing' love and let us all get on with loving the children in our care. Love makes us nervous, nervous in case of child protection issues, but surely children who experience real love will learn to know the difference and build resilience and trust in adults who truly care and love them. 

These are bold claims, I know, and I genuinely agreed with the sentiment of this documentary, however, I would just caution against putting all our eggs in the one basket. Understanding how ACE's impact upon future health is an important thing, but there are many other ways of building resilience in children other than medical interventions. The facilitator at the Children in Scotland event where I saw the documentary made the point that many have said that this is "just the latest fad". I hope not, I hope people working with children and young people can find the courage to not only support children who have had ACEs but also to love them a little.  Love is a powerful emotion, it is not at all fluffy or romantic, it can change a child's life. So let's name the scary thing - it is just LOVE.

Read more about ACEs https://acestoohigh.com/

Reference list

Joy, Eileen (2018). The Problem with Checklists in Child Protection Work. Blog Re-Imagining Social Work in Potearoa, New Zealand. 

www.reimaginingsocialwork.nz/2018/03/the-problem-with-checklists-in-child-protection-work/

(accessed 28 April 2018).

Palmer, Sue (2018) The Silence of the Weans. Blog: http://www.upstart.scot/blog/ (accessed 1/5/18)

Reflections on why I should be there.....

Please indulge me as I have been reflecting a lot on how I came to be doing this PhD. Those close to me know that I am continually questioning my academic ability and still think it was a huge mistake that I got into the University of Edinburgh in the first place.

My supervisor, Professor John Davis, took a chance on me in 2004 when he accepted me onto the BA Childhood Studies at the University of Edinburgh. At that point I seriously doubted whether I had the academic ability to complete a degree. But he believed I could so I gave it a go. I received a Merit for that degree, but still I did not believe I should be there. He then encouraged me to go onto the Masters in Childhood Studies. This took me out of the cocoon that was Moray House in the evening with 35 fellow students who were like me, working practitioners, into the 'real' university at George Square Campus with many students doing a whole variety of subjects. I really doubted myself at that point. But I made it through that degree as well. There then followed a series of qualifications with Edinburgh College to qualify me as a teacher which again I got on with and passed.

But still I did not believe I should be doing Higher Education qualifications. You might at this point, be reading this and think, for goodness sake woman, you are perfectly capable but this lack of self belief goes back to my school days. Now don't get me wrong, no one told me I wasn't clever, no one said I wasn't capable and I came out at the end with a set of 6 'O' grades and a couple of Highers. But nothing to shout about. But I was a pupil who just got on with her work and did okay, so there was never a focus on going to University, I was very much directed into the world of work. I found myself in Business Administration from office junior to Local Administrator. I was fairly successful. And I completed my HNC Business Studies. Now there was somewhere I felt I should be. That was me, successful. I was never going to go to University, so I never thought about it, never thought I was missing out on anything.

I did always have a hankering to be a teacher, but knowing I didn't have good enough grades for University so it just wasn't something I thought about. And I had a good job as the Local Administrator of a Social Work Centre. But, whilst I was confident in my role as the Local Administrator, I was never fully confident in areas such as budgeting, writing reports etc. I managed, but I was never confident. I never joined in heated debates about things, had no real opinion on politics. Was just not something I did. I just did not feel that confident in my wider knowledge of the world.

Then I had my children. I didn't suddenly become super confident or anything, but I did have the opportunity to return to study. I began a short course in childcare. This was the start of something amazing. Suddenly, I found confidence in my writing, I began (although it took a good few years) to voice my opinions on what I thought about what we were learning. Through a number of different childcare qualifications I found myself being accepted onto the BA Childhood Studies. By that point I had some experience working in childcare and had a grounding in child development theory and practice. I had always been successful in the business world, but this was different I understood this subject, I was passionate about it, I couldn't wait to learn more.

But still I felt like I shouldn't be at the University of Edinburgh, because I didn't get in with the right qualifications. I only had Higher English, no Higher Maths. And don't get me started on how I lacked in confident with maths, still do but I am not frighted of numbers any more. Where did this feeling of inadequacy come from. At school I was the middle of the road pupil. Nothing to worry about. I wasn't struggling and I wasn't amazing, so I was just left to get on with it. I worked hard, and I did okay. Not brilliant but okay. I don't blame the school environment at all, in some respects it is still the same today. Limited resources mean that often the children who are really struggling get the help and those who look like they could excel get extra support. Meaning the kids in the middle, who are doing okay get less support. I know this is not the case everywhere but often it is. I was one of those middle of the road kids.

But suddenly I had people like Prof Davis and Dr McNair telling me I was good and encouraging me to go further. Prof Davis has already been talking about what "we" can do next, once I complete my PhD. Which just blows my mind, he is the person who inspires me, can't imagine I would ever be good enough to actually do a piece of work with him. But gradually through my PhD I am growing in confidence and I am beginning to realise I am becoming that expert in my field. Quiet, Jane Robertson, who was the middle of the road child academically, is becoming an expert in the field of childhood practice. I have finally developed opinions which are supported by academic study and political discussion.

The BA Childhood Studies (now Childhood Practice) has given many people, like myself, the opportunity to go to University. People who just did okay at school. It has taken me to the point where I am reflecting in this blog to realise that everyone, given the right opportunity can reach their full potential. And that does not need to be University, this is not me saying that, but I think everyone should be given encouragement and support to reach their potential, to make their dreams a reality. I became a lecturer so I did become a teacher, my degree showed me that I had an interest in policy and legislation and now I am a Policy Manager advising the Scottish Government on early learning and childcare.

So maybe it is time that I realised I should be at University. Time to acknowledge I am an expert in my field. And to stop this "self deprecating nonsense" that Professor Davis keeps telling me I do.

We need to tell all of the children we work with in early learning and childcare, that they can reach for the stars, not just the ones who struggle and not just the ones who are amazing.

Oh and telling them that we love them is a good place to start!

Thank you for allowing my reflective indulgence.

Have a good and prosperous 2018!

Love Led Practice

I visited a nursery in Glasgow yesterday which has fully embraced Attachment Led Practice. I have changed the name of the nursery and the staff to maintain confidentiality, but they know who they are! It was a wonderful example of the loveliest experience that children and families can have if everyone embraces and gets comfortable with loving the children and each other. Here is a short case study of my visit.

Visit to Winkle Street Nursery, which is underpinned by attachment led practice, Glasgow.

Winkle Street Nursery is a 25 place nursery which provides Early Learning and Childcare for 2 – 5 year olds. I visited on a day when there were 12 children present, ranging from 2 to 5 years. What is unique about this nursery is its completely attachment led practice. There was a lovely feeling of love in the room. I spoke with all members of staff about why they felt it was important that they love the children in their care and that the children love them.

Manager,  Rosey*, said “The children don’t see us as doing a job, in fact one member of staff was on a half day and the children asked where she was. Another child replied ‘she must be away to work’. This made us smile as they just don’t see us as being paid to look after them, which is absolutely the way it should be, we should just be people who love them looking after them”.

There was a very calm atmosphere in the playroom. When I visited the children were all sitting around a table just spending time together. Lunch was being prepared but there was no visible routine, or hurry, and the children and staff were just chatting with each other. There was a real feeling of this being like a home. I observed the Modern Apprentice, Keith*, sitting cross legged on the floor with a child sitting in the gap made by his crossed legs, he had wrapped his arms around her and she cuddled in sucking her thumb. Within minutes the child had nodded off and he gently placed a kiss on her head.

This was a lovely natural moment, there was no fear of “not being allowed to do this”, it was right, the child clearly felt safe and comforted enough to drift off into a relaxed sleep. When I spoke to Rosey about this she said that when she interviewed Keith she just had a “feeling” that he would be right for their setting and the children. When I pressed her on what this “feeling” was she laughed and said “oh I don’t know, you just know don’t you?”. Further discussion brought her to saying it was natural instinct, connection, attachment and that he was just kind-hearted. I asked Rosey if she thought that being able to love could be taught. She made the point that you could teach all of the above things to an extent but that love needed to be the starting point and if someone doesn’t have that then they just won’t ever get it. She also said that she didn’t think you could describe it, that she didn’t want to.

Rosey and her staff talked a lot about attachment led practice. One of her staff members said “I think it goes beyond love for the children but love for the staff also. We just all spark off each other, there is a real feeling of love in the staff group and that rubs off on the children”.

With what I observed, I wonder if their practice was simply attachment led or could you go further and describe it as love led practice?

*Names of the nursery and staff have been changed to maintain confidentiality.

Boobs, boobs and more boobs.... An essay looking at language used around childcare

Boobs, Boobs and more Boobs….

Do women make it difficult for men to show love for children in childcare without meaning to?

An essay looking at language used around childcare.

Jane Malcolm

During a discussion with my PhD supervisor he pointed out that there appeared to be a lot of “boobs” being mentioned in the data I had collected. We laughed at this because he was referring to a comment from one participant, who whilst talking about intimacy, in an interview said;

 “Yeah, a girl I just walked past and one of her pals are in the tweenie room and she is in the baby room and she was joking around with them. And the staff member was joking around with the child in the tweenie room and he said to her “you’ve got boobs” and gives her a squash on the chest and she has a laugh back and it is just a bit of kind of fun, they are having a joke and have a good relationship. Yeah so particularly the baby sort of style because there is so much contact you are carrying them and cuddling them a lot of them are still kind of finishing breastfeeding when they come into the nursery, so you know you are kind of feeding a bottle, but they are cooried into a boob and that sort of feeling as well. That is intimate.”

Delightful as this comment first appears it got me thinking that maybe in this simple, innocent statement this participant is saying that “Boobs” are an important asset for childcare, or go even further are they a necessity? This participant would probably defend herself as the nursery she manages does encourage the recruitment of male practitioners and went onto to explain that she sees no difference in the roles that male and female practitioners should take on. But in that one innocent comment, it made me wonder how deep seated the values and beliefs are around who cares for children?

What was interesting when I carried out my interviews was that without having to ask many of the female participants made comments about how parents were uncomfortable with male practitioners giving intimate care to their children, the male participants however that I interviewed, whilst they showed an understanding of why parents might have reservations, were not unduly concerned about the act of showing love to the children in their care. You don’t have to look too far back in history to see that the role of childcare was that of the females in society. John Bowlby (1953) says of fathers “they have their uses even in infancy…Not only do they provide for their wives to enable them to devote themselves unrestrictedly to the care of the infant and toddler, but, by providing love and companionship, they support the mother emotionally and help her maintain that harmonious contented mood in the atmosphere of which her infant thrives.”  Thankfully the role of fathers has changed somewhat dramatically from the 50’s with both parents having equal responsibilities for childcare. But have things changed? One participant made the comment that it was a father who had a problem with a male practitioner:

“And we have got a male member of staff, well one of the Dads who is very, very, anti-males in nursery, even before he (the staff member) started there was an impression of “why is there going to be a man in the nursery?”

Another participant reported that they had parents who said to her “you would never employ a man, would you?”.  This participant went on to explain why she thought it was difficult for men to come into childcare:

“I think there is a sea-change thinking in that, I think we have come through, whenever the pendulum in society swings, it always swings too far and I think we terrified men, we frightened them in being intimate with their children and that is so sad, em because that has a knock on effect of when they grow up and become parents themselves. Men in childcare is a huge thing but it is all tied up in this, tied up in lots of things”

What I found interesting about her comment was that somehow “we” terrified men, somehow society has made men be somehow frightened to be intimate with the children in their care, their own families even. But this is a woman’s point of view. Are we, the women in childcare, still looking in on men and saying “oh yes they are just the same as us” and somehow inadvertently making the point that there might have been a difference in the first place? The male practitioners that I interviewed had varying points of view. One said he had concerns “As a male, opinion and fear of being seen wrong way. Being accused of something just by talking about love in early years.” Whereas another talked quite passionately about love being important;

“I do think it is a very important part of the whole process because we are humans who work here and it is humans who we work for and you have got to have love, I’ll use that word, love, for them, I, I mean not like the love for your own children, but we love and care them and you want to show that.”

Where do we go from here? Have we terrified men into being intimate or loving towards children? Has love become synonymous with sex and child abuse?  Returning to the point in my original opening paragraph, I turned to literature around embodiment to explore the seemingly entrenched idea that women are the best at caring for children because they have the physiology to do so.

One of my participants said “holding babies and feeding them in your arms and they are cuddling into your boobs, which is all kind of being part of intimate” another made the comment “let them (the child) sit on your hip when you are telling their Mum was a good boy he has been today”. The language in these comments could be seen as maternal. When we think of mothers we have an image of a baby sitting on their hip, breastfeeding, cuddling into “boobs”. This image is not surprising given biologically women are pre-determined to be the caregivers to the children that they give birth to. However, Voestermans and Verheggen (2013) warn that holding “the biological make-up accountable” is not really an acceptable solution for changing this perception of childcare. Maybe it is useful to consider how we got to the point where this image is so deep in the fabric of society that even female practitioners who champion the role of the male in childcare still refer to a very female discourse of care in their language. Perhaps it is useful to look at the discourse within society in terms of parental care. Whilst both men and female buy into the idea of equality, there may still a mismatch around what happens to childcare in the home (Coltrane, 2000).

Studies show that there is still a predominance of the mother as the main parent, with fathers more often than not taking on a childcare role on a more part time basis (Doucet, 2001, Sunderland, 2000). Given this phenomenon it would seem natural to expect gendered roles in childcare to be influenced by a discourse and narrative that is already in western society (Petrassi, 2012). If the language around childcare suggests that only women can look after children properly then are female practitioners inadvertently part of the reason men are both unable to accept that a male could look after their child as well or indeed why men don’t come into the sector? I understand that this may be a controversial view but it did seem to come across in this way in the discussions I was having with the participants, particularly the female participants. In a study looking at gender roles in parenting, Petrassi (2012) interviewed both mothers and fathers and determined that women, she called them “selfless mothers”, not only spoke about how hard it was for them but also that they took on a lot of work because they felt only they were able to do it properly or at the time it needed done. The fact that the study coined the phrase “shirking father” suggests an inequality in childcare. This study also looked at the language around how mothers spoke about their status in the household. They spoke about having the freedom to decide what the family would do, with one saying, “we’ve never had any battles about it, we just do what I want”. This again suggests that women feel they are positioned in a place where they are in charge. For me this goes against everything that feminism has fought against, for gender equality.  

How do we redress this imbalance? I think in the childcare setting language needs to be challenged. Questions need to be asked of the female practitioners, do they really think men can work with the children as effectively as they can? I worry that at the moment there is a culture of saying “oh a male practitioner can do everything that a female practitioner can do” when in fact the language that female practitioners use says something contradictory which perpetuates the idea that women are the ones who should care for children. This problem feels deep-seated in culture and society and whilst the culture in ELC settings is changing, albeit incredibly slowly, perhaps starting with the female workforce and working on language and discourse is the place to start.

Reference List

Bowlby, John (1953). Childcare and the Growth of Love. Pelican Original: Aylesbury.

Coltrane, S (2000). Research on household labour: Modelling and Measuring the Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 62:4 pgs 1208 - 1233.

Doucet, A (2001). 'You see the need perhaps more clearly than I have'. Exploring gendered processes of domestic responsibility. Journal of Family Issues. 22:3 pg 328 - 335.

Sunderland, J (2000). Baby Entertainer, Bumbling Assistant and Line Manager: Discourses of Fatherhood in Parentcraft Texts. Discourse and Society. 11:2 pg 249 - 274.

Voestermans, P and Verheggen, T (2013). The Social Tuning of Behaviour. Wiley Blackwell: West Sussex/Netherlands.

Research Event - 24 October 2017 - Moray House School of Education

Quite excited about my Research Event tomorrow night at Moray House School of Education.

Having done some initial analysis I have identified some gaps in the data that I have collected and have arranged a research event to which my participants and the fourth year students of the BA Childhood Practice at the University of Edinburgh are duly invited to participate. I have also been invited to talk through my own methodology as the fourth year students are about to embark upon their own research projects. I hope to inspire and encourage them with my own research experience.

I am looking for animated and thoughtful discussion around the following statements and questions:

1. Gathorne-Hardy (1972:5) makes the point that throughout history the one area of human life that has changed the least and changes the slowest is the bringing up of children. She says "We bring up very small children as we were brought up ourselves..." This statement was made in 1972 and personally I think it still stands, to a degree, we are highly influenced by our own personal experience and primary socialisation. What do you think?

2. Throughout my data collection it has been suggested that it is not professional to say you love the children in your setting or to demonstrate that love. What do you think?

3. How might the following impact upon demonstrating love in an early years setting? - ethnicity, culture, religion, age, gender.

4. Love is now something that every child has a right to expect in the setting, according to the new Health and Social Care Standards. This may be challenging to some people's personal beliefs and values. Discuss.

I am hoping that we will get some lively and informative discussions going within the groups and that this will help to clarify questions that I have about love and professionalism.

Looking forward to seeing everyone.

Interweaving Conference - University of Edinburgh - 6/9/17

I am delivering a five minute presentation at the Interweaving Conference. This is my first actual presentation at a conference of my research, up until now I have only presented posters. I could have applied to do a ten minute presentation but I thought my life is not hard enough, so I set myself the challenge of trying to deliver my topic in 5 minutes. I have watched many 3 minute thesis competition presentations in preparation and think I have got my research down to a minimal amount of information whilst still informing the audience what it is about. It is a challenge, but one I am up for.

I am however, going to hand out a short synopsis of my research, just in case I really don't make any sense! So here it is for your information too....

Love, Passion and Professionalism: The Early Years Lead Professional.

Jane Malcolm 

I came into the field of Childhood Practice in 2000 as a Childminder. Following a spell in a local community playgroup I then became a Pre-school Nursery Manager. In 2007 I became a part-time Lecturer at Edinburgh’s Telford College (now Edinburgh College). I am currently working for National Day Nurseries Association as their Policy Manager (Scotland). My academic career in Childhood Practice started with the NC and HNC Early Education and Childcare at Jewel and Esk Valley College carrying on through to BA Childhood Studies and MSc Childhood Studies at The University of Edinburgh. I’m in the 3^rd year of a part time PhD study, questioning whether love should be recognised as part of the professional identity of the Early Years Lead Professional.

Abstract

Love is generally not recognised as a professional standard, however, research tells of its importance to holistic child development. Zeedyk (2016) argues that “young human brains are wired: for relationships, for love” and Bowlby (1953) describes love in infancy and childhood as being “as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health.” My data collection methods include 2 individual interviews, a focus group, a parental questionnaire, participant reflective diaries and finally a questionnaire investigating understanding of words associated with love. I have 15 participants in my study from across the sector. Results so far have identified three themes: defining love, personal experience of love impacting on practice and professional identity. Murray (2013) talks of an internal view of professional self-being crucial because it is based on individual values and informs practice. She argues that this internal view is what allows the Early Years Lead Professional to practice their profession with integrity.  This raises a question for me as to whether having the freedom to care with passion and love is critical to inspiring professionalism (Moyles, 2010) and whether personal values and principles are an integral part of their development of professional identities. My research boldly argues that love should be recognised as part of their professional identity.

My research questions investigate the key themes outlined above:

1.   How can we best conceptualise/define love in terms of the early years lead professional’s practice?

      2.   What impact does the personal experiences of love bring to the Lead Professional’s practice?
      3.   How do Lead Professional’s see love in relation to their own professional practice?
      4.   What meanings do these perspectives have for policy?

Methods of Analysis

As three themes have naturally developed from my research methods, I am employing thematic analysis to the data collected. I am also interested in examining the language used around love in the early years and how this impacts upon our understanding of it, for this I will use narrative analysis.

Key literature:

Bowlby, John (1953). Child Care and the Growth of Love. Pelican Books: Aylesbury.
Moyles, Janet (2010). Passion, Paradox and Professionalism in Early Years Education. Early Years: An International Research Journal. www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceye20. (accessed 8/5/14).
Murray, Janet (2013). Becoming an early years professional: developing a new professional identity. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 21:4, 527 – 540.
Page, Dr Jools (2011). Professional Love in Early Years Settings: A report of the summary of findings. The University of Sheffield.
Page, Dr Jools (2016). Role of ‘Professional Love’ in early years settings studied by University of Sheffield researchers. www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/professional-love-early-years-1.543307 accessed 17/3/17
Zeedyk, Susanne (2016). How Childcare Policies are undermining our children’s capacity to love. Blog entry. www.suzannezeedyk.com accessed 10.3.17.

Jane Malcolm, University of Edinburgh, Moray House School of Education

S0458777@sms.ed.ac.uk, Mobile: 07495660561

Twitter: @JaneMalcolm7

Blog: http://janeymphd.blogspot.co.uk/ Love, Passion and Professionalism: The Early Years Lead Professional.

Can we find the Courage to Embed Love in Policy?

Recently I received an acceptance for an abstract that I submitted for the Interweaving Conference at the University of Edinburgh on 6 September 2017. This will be the first time I actually have to speak, the last few have been poster presentations. The challenge I have is to condense all of my thoughts on my research into 5 minutes. Yikes! So being at a place where I have now gathered my data and I am contemplating how to begin the laborious task of analysing it all. I have my thoughts about where my data is directing me and themes are beginning to emerge.

My first round of interviews focused on identifying personal values and professional values of the Lead Practitioner. I also asked questions to get them thinking about what the “softer outcomes” were that the Care Inspectorate look for. Initially, I was looking at these in order to find a way of making my research have an impact upon policy. These interviews, although a good place to start, really didn’t feel like I was asking the right questions for the research question that was in my mind. I was trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. So about half way through my first round of interviews I began to reflect upon what it was that I really wanted to find out. My interest lies in looking at how love impacts upon the professional identity of the Lead Practitioner and also upon the profession as a whole.

Work by Dr Jools Page led me to re-structure the plan I had for my second round of interviews. I took the research diaries which I had asked the participants to keep and looked at the content of their first interviews. At this stage it is purely a rudimentary analysis of the interview transcripts. I could see three themes developing from the interview transcripts and the diaries. The first being a need for a definition of love that makes sense for early year’s practice, the second being individual values/  personal experiences of love and the third being Professional Identify. This felt like a breakthrough in terms of my thesis and the chapters I would begin to build upon. Making this breakthrough has really freed up the way my mind is working in terms of my research. I can see now where I might go with the findings I have.

I was very focused on trying to understand love and focused on the work of Page, looking at Professional Love. However, when I realised the questions I asked in the first set of interviews didn’t quite meet my research intention I started to think about why. Firstly, I needed to build on the work of Dr Page, not simply agree with it. Because I don’t completely agree with it. I believe her theory is a good place for practitioners to start thinking about professional love, but I don’t think her idea of “de-centring” is quite right. I wanted to find out if love is something that is borne out of personal experience and if that can be brought to the childcare setting. Practitioners I spoke to kept telling me that the love that they experienced in the setting was somewhere in between Professional Love and Family Love. One said “oh for goodness sake, let’s just call it love”. So in my second set of interviews I focus on the Lead Practitioner’s own experience of love. Using the Duplex Theory of Love by Sternberg I was able to look at the discourse of love and how Lead Practitioners understood love in the childcare setting. Many talk about practitioners having “it”. When pressed on what “it” is, I began to see a pattern of different skills and knowledge.

Then came my second breakthrough. I had a really interesting second interview with one of my participants (P8). She has taken a 180 degree turn from saying “no” to love as a professional standard to saying “yes”. She said that practitioners should say that they “love” children and that “it” is made up of lots of component parts. When I pushed her on what to call this love she just said “Oh for goodness sake, let’s just call it love” but that we had to tell people what we meant by love. I returned to Dr Page’s research which created a model for Professional Love and how to help practitioner’s practice it. The model encourages the practitioner to de-centre, to remove all personal needs for love in order to start to build relationships with the child. My research, however seems to suggest that personal experiences perhaps have an integral part to play in how a practitioner practices “love” in the setting (find examples). It would therefore seem remiss to have the practitioner step away from their needs and personal experiences but rather have them be reflexive in their practice in terms of love. I am not altogether convinced that having the practitioner de-centre is a good thing to do. Being aware of their own experiences is a good idea but putting their own needs to the side might not be. Many of the participants talked about reciprocal relationships with the children and staff being really important, also the relationships between staff and staff as being crucial to loving relationships between staff and children.

I sent out a pre-interview questionnaire based on the duplex theory of love which examined the language of love and also I asked how might love be shown in practice. This proved a really useful tool in deciding what questions to ask the participants for their second interview. Further examination of both of these in the interviews set me thinking about how to come up with a way of illustrating “love” to show parents and practitioners what early years love looks like. P8 talked about how she wanted to see a “loving setting” and be able to include that in the setting’s ethos. This questionnaire also encouraged a dialogue about words such as intimate and passionate, participants considered their meanings in relation to their own personal relationships and those of the children and colleagues they work with. I then read in Dr Page’s research findings report that she felt that Sue Gerhardt (2004) said “defining love in professional roles is problematic because there is no skill set that can be applied, taught or measured”.  This struck a chord with me because on one hand I felt that it seems a shame that such a basic human emotion needs to be re-defined into a skills set in order for it to be seen as an acceptable practice for a professional child carer to demonstrate but on the other hand, my participants were definitely breaking down “it” into a set of skills and knowledges.

At this point there was a pattern emerging to the way that participants looked at the practice in their settings and how they could see love. One participant even took me through an issue she was having with one room in her setting where she could see that there was no love in the room, and on a tour of the nursery without her saying it was very evident which room it was. She said the staff functioned well enough, did all that was required of them, but “it” was just missing. Clearly there is a skills set, but what is “it”? Many of the participants talked about “it”. This is something that was examined in the second interviews.

 Professionals were all clear that love probably did exist but in a variety of forms. But the word “love” as a concept was deemed unacceptable because of the connotations derived from the language and society’s understanding of love (sexual, romantic). I am working on developing a matrix which  strives to bring “love” right back into the discourse of childcare by showing the skills set which is already in place and practice, therefore freeing professionals to simply demonstrate love freely without concern for what people might think they are doing.

I agree with Gerhardt saying that perhaps love cannot be taught however looking at the skills set love clearly can be applied and if not taught in a classroom perhaps it can be learned through vocational methods (I had an interesting discussion with P7 regarding this). The matrix will also allow for the further development of monitoring and evaluation tools therefore making love a measurable skills set. This is turn means we can bring what is a basic emotion, love, into the professional identify by turning it into a skill which can be applied, learned and measured.

This matrix is the beginning of my thought process on this, and it will be developed further. I have handed out to a small sample of parents, a questionnaire which seeks to get their input into love in the early years setting and profession. Early results from this include comments such as: ”I think the feelings of the staff are easily detected by the child and love creates a warm and supportive environment”; “”I wouldn’t be upset if someone else loved my child”; “”I certainly believe the staff are incredibly fond of my child…if fondness and affection translates to love, then yes I guess one could say they love them”; “if they (the staff) did not in practice show “love” my children would not be asking for their teachers on days off”; “yes I feel that when I leave they almost take over my role as parent, it is important that they care for my child in a way that resembles home”; “I feel with love for the children and their job our children are safer”. There are a number of questions on the questionnaire which I will analyse, and still have some questionnaires to collect, but first impressions are that the parents clearly want their children to be loved and are happy with the idea, which is something that the practitioners were at odds with. This will be interesting to examine further.

In trying to define love it has become clear that a number of different elements are already evident. None of this seems new, so I still question why practitioners seem so reluctant to use the word love in their practice? Conversations I have had that child carers already, embrace all the practice of loving the children but they are still reluctant to say that they do. My first and second round of interviews have attempted to examine why. And hopefully asking the parents/carers will shed some light on this also. P8 suggested the love for your own children/family is forever but for the children in your care it is only for a short while, I for one, am really impressed by a professional who can reach that level of passion, intimacy and love for the children that they work with in such a short space of time. That is a real skill, and I think that is why we should recognise it as a professional value/standard.

The interviews provided data which supported each of the areas in the matrix. Participants talked about how they were able to identify “it” at interview stage, how the language of passion and intimacy was difficult but clearly something that they did in practice. They talked about issues such as child protection, adult safeguarding, parental interpretation of love. They spoke about how important love was in terms of the relationships that they had in their teams. And also the importance of reflexive practice in terms of recognising how love impacted upon the children and the other relationships in the setting. All of which helped develop the matrix. I have hopefully asked questions in the second round of interviews which help build on the three themes which in turn lead to the development of the matrix.

Suzanne Zeedyk (Hassan and Barrow, 2017) implores the Scottish Government to have courage and embed love into relationship led policies which impact directly upon outcomes for children. The current policy to increase the number of funded childcare places for children aged 3 -5 aims to support parents back into work, but Zeedyk warns that "childcare operates during the most critical period of human development, laying down the physiological foundations that the individual will draw on for the rest of their life". She goes onto say that if childcare isn't of high quality then potentially these policies could damage children. She cites two authors who warn that "nearly all daycare settings provide inadequate care for babies" (Narvaez, 2014) and Mate (2010) who contends that "emotional nurturance is disrupted by Western Society".  

I find all of this quite sad, what has happened to our society that we find it hard to 'love' the children that we care for? I recently spoke with a friend who works in adult social care. She too was researching emotional labour. Her research looked at "friendships" between carers and adult recipients of that care. Her observations showed very similar results to my findings. Practitioners in social care responded in a number of ways ranging from the view that you could have friendships with clients to stating that it was definitely not appropriate for carers to hold those friendships. This pattern is also reflected in my questions to childcare professionals. They either felt very comfortable with demonstrating that they loved the children to those who said that they felt uncomfortable and that it wasn't professional to show or say that you loved the children you cared for. There are quite compelling arguments from the world of science stating that love and attachments are important for children's brain development. So why do we find it such a challenge to see love as part of our professional identity? 

Zeedyk challenged a group of delegates at the Parenting across Scotland conference in 2015 to have courage to talk about love in practice. Lead Practitioners need to find the courage to give their staff permission to deliver "it" and to give the parents courage to know that the love that their childcarers are showing their children is a love comparable to their own parental love but not a replacement for. Children will thrive if they are shown love on a natural, regular basis and policy needs to reflect this, policy makers need to have the courage to embed love in professional practice within childcare. They need to acknowledge but not be bogged down by fear, fear that every adult who comes in contact with a child will cause them some harm. This fear is depriving children of much needed love for their emotional and brain development. If we could find the courage to love the children we care for and if the Scottish Government could find the courage to embed love into the early years sector then we truly would be providing services that hold children at the heart! Let's be brave.

Am I any closer to condensing all of this to 5 minutes, probably not! But hey, all you need is love. All together now.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5ze_e4R9QY

References

Dr Jools Page (2017) Professional Love in Early Childhood Education and Care. (accessed 11 August 2017,  http://professionallove.group.shef.ac.uk).

Sue Gerhardt (2004). Why Love Matters: How Affection Shapes a Baby's Brain. Taylor Francis: East Sussex and New York. 

Zeedyk, S (2017) The Early Years Agenda. Hassan, G and Barrow, S (2017) A Nation Changed? The SNP and Scotland Ten Years On. Luath Press Limited: Edinburgh. 

Zeedyk, Suzanne (2015) Parenting Across Scotland Conference Key note speech, Our human need for love: why it is the problem and why it is the solution. (can be accessed via Youtube).

Navaez, D. (2014). Neurobiology and the Development of Human Morality: Evolution, Culture and Wisdom. W. W. Norton & Co. cited in Zeedyk, S (2017) The Early Years Agenda. Hassan, G and Barrow, S (2017) A Nation Changed? The SNP and Scotland Ten Years On. Luath Press Limited: Edinburgh. 

Mate, G. (2010). In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction. Knopf Publishers. Cited in Zeedyk, S (2017) The Early Years Agenda. Hassan, G and Barrow, S (2017) A Nation Changed? The SNP and Scotland Ten Years On. Luath Press Limited: Edinburgh.