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. 2nd 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.
Karila, Kirsti. (2008). A Finnish Viewpoint on Professionalism in
Early Childhood Education. European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal. Vol 16, No 2. 210 – 223.
Maatta, Kaarina and Uusiautti,
Satu. (2013). Many faces of love.
Chapter 2. Rotterdam; Boston: Sensepublishers.
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.
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.
