Positioning in Relationships between Parents and Early Years Practitioners

Wendy Sims-Schouten, University of Portsmouth

Abstract

Early years care and education have been high on British political agendas. This includes partnership

working between early years practitioners and parents. Yet, more research is needed to examine

how child care staff engage with parents and vice versa. ‐ This study addresses the role of position

and positioning in parent-practitioner relationships, through two small-scale studies. Study 1 is a

quantitative study with two groups of early years students (N=74); study 2 is a qualitative study with

parents and early years practitioners, drawing on ‘synthesised’ discourse analysis as a

methodological framework. Although exploratory, in both studies parents are positioned as the

infant’s first and foremost educators. In addition to this, parents are positioned in terms of

deficiencies, in relation to their priorities, and background. At the same time, practitioners are

positioned as supportive, and willing to cooperate. More research is needed, with a view to

empowering both early years practitioners and parents.

Key words: positioning, parent-partnerships, engagement

Introduction

With increasing numbers of children spending at least part of the day in day care, early

years care and education have been high on British political agendas. At the same time

research has shown that the primary care system needs to be improved so as to better

support children’s transitions from home to daycare (Ebbeck and Yim, 2009; Osgood, 2009;

Spiteri and Borg Xuereb, 2011). Parent participation has moved from the psychological to

the political arena, and it has become important for early years practitioners to have a clear

understanding of how to improve effective communication with parents about supporting

children in their learning (e.g. Athey, 1991, Kennedy Reedy and Hobbins McGrath, 2010;

Whalley, 2007). This includes understanding how parents might participate. The EPPE-

project (Effective Provision of Pre-school Education), a longitudinal study of the overall

effect of different types of preschool provision on child development in England and Wales,

which took place between 1997-2003, advised the then Labour government with regard to

factors that characterize and promote young children’s learning; one factor highlighted was

parental involvement in preschool settings (Siraj-Blatchford, 2009; Sylva et al, 2007; Sylva et

al, 2010). The latter is also emphasised by the statutory framework for the Early Years

Foundation Stage, which comprises the early years curriculum in England, suggesting that

“the EYFS seeks to provide partnership working between practitioners and with parents

and/or carers” (DfE, 2014, 5).

Research has consistently highlighed the significance of parents in young children’s lives.

Take, for example, the Plowden Report (Department for Education and Science, 1967) on

primary education, published more than forty years ago, which found that parents’ attitudes

towards their children’s schooling are more significant in influencing children’s performance

in schools, than either variations in home circumstances or in schools. These findings have

been replicated by more recent studies (e.g. Sylva et al 2010; Harris and Goodall, 2008)

reinforcing the crucial role of parents in supporting their children’s learning. Parent-

partnerships with a focus on helping practitioners to engage more effectively with families

have now become key in government policy for improving developmental outcomes for

children. The REPEY (Researching Effective Pedagogy in Early Years) study, which explored

factors linked to effective practice, suggests that:

where a special relationship in terms of shared educational aims has been developed with

parents, and pedagogic efforts are made at home good outcomes may be achieved (Siraj-

Blatchford et al, 2002, p. 100).

It follows that children benefit the most from their experience in daycare if their parents are actively

involved (Nalls et al, 2010). Working well with parents results in consistent, significant and lasting

benefits, e.g. in relation to children’s achievement, attitude and behaviour (Bastiani, 2003; Ebbeck

and Yim, 2009; Hadley, 2012). However, this is only the case when parental involvement is

reciprocal, constructive and empowering (Grady, Ale and Morris, 2012; Morrow and Malin, 2004;

Sims-Schouten and Riley, 2014). Yet, more research is needed to examine how child care staff ‐engage with parents and vice versa. In essence, this means reflecting with parents and practitioners

on their roles and relationships within this so-called parent-practitioner partnership. This study

addresses the concept of position and positioning in relationships between parents and early years

practitioners. In line with Bastiani (2003) and Siraj-Blatchford et al (2002) parent involvement is

defined in terms of co-production in the learning and development of the child.

Positioning

Positioning theory looks at the normative frames within which people live their lives, especially in

relation to the ‘rights’ and ‘duties’ that people are bound by (Harre et al, 2009). As such, positions

are more often than not part and parcel of the everyday practice of different groups of people. Harre

et al (2009, 12) argue that what you are is partly constituted by what roles you have – in

conversations, both personal and social. Generally, positioning theory is concerned with revealing

the explicit and implicit patterns of reasoning that are linked to the way that people act towards

each other and how they construct themselves and their own position within this. Positioning theory

fits within the realm of both cognitive and discursive psychology. Whilst the first encompasses a

focus on the cognitive processes that are instrumental in supporting the actions people undertake

and the meaning of these actions, the latter places the actions, and in particular the normative

constraints and opportunities within this, within an unfolding story-line (Harre et al, 2009; Haste,

2014). Positioning can be thought of as operating on the inter-personal, intra-personal, intra and

inter-group levels (Harre and Davies, 1990; Harre and Moghaddam, 2008).

Narratives are a source of positioning. The current study draws on the notion (as promoted by

Bermudez, 2012; Harre and van Langenhove, 1991; Haste 2014) that positioning is a discursive

process by which a person manipulates power relations and entitlement between self and others, in

direct dialogue or in reported speech. Here, social narratives and cultural repertoires provide the

infrastructure for positioning, as well as the rhetorical resources for counter positioning (Haste,

2014). This is relevant in relation to relationships between early years workers and parents.

Identities are constantly re-created in each new situation and an individual’s active engagement

with the social world (Martsin, 2010). Here positioning can be perceived as an unfolding narrative,

something that happens in the course of an interaction. Cottle and Alexander (2014) found that

parents tend to be positioned as either deficient or as active agents in terms of their engagement

with early years settings, thereby oversimplifying the highly complex relationships and issues to do

with class and culture. This in and of itself leads to social stigmas, where parents are positioned in

terms of their social economic status, ethnic diversity and home situation (Cottle and Alexander,

2014; Osgood 2012). At the same time there is evidence that early years practitioners are

constructed in terms of ‘lacking’ and ‘in need of transformation’ in policy discourse (Allen, 2011;

Osgood, 2009). Following Nutbrown (2012, 4), it is still the case that working in the early years is too

often seen as a low level job which involves ‘wiping noses’ and ‘playing with kids’, and it is not

necessarily regarded as a professional occupation that demands good qualifications and expertise.

Methods of research in positioning theory are specifically designed to gain insight into the meaning

of interpersonal encounters, and bring to light the normative frames within which individuals carry

on their lives. Here, positions are treated as clusters of beliefs that are more often than not

imminent in everyday practices of groups of people (Harre at al, 2009). Harre et al (2009) describe

the act of positioning in terms of a phased procedure , with the first phase referred to as

‘prepositioning’, where the character and/or competence of the person who is being positioned is

established. This often taken for granted phase involves attributes of skills and character traits

deemed relevant to whatever positioning is going forward. Positioning and repositioning that follow

on from this, occur in the course of an interaction. The notion of positioning is further explored in

the two small-scale studies below. Study 1 is a quantitative study, which offers the background

context for study 2, which is a qualitative study.

Both studies were located in the South East of England, which is the third largest region of

England.The South East does not have very large cities like other regions, but is characterised by

several regional hubs and market towns. Diversity is a word which describes the South East, both in

terms of its people (ethnicity and social economic contexts) and landscape; study 1 and 2 are

discussed in more detail below.

Study 1

Study 1 was part of a larger study on academic and professional identities of students undertaking a

degree in early childhood care and education, and was stimulated by the increased focus on raising

the qualifications and status of early years workers in England (Nutbrown, 2012; Osgood, 2009;

Sims-Schouten and Stittrich-Lyons, 2014; Sylva et al, 2010). Data was collected through semi-

structured interviews and questionnaires. The analysis of the interview data led to specific themes

in relation to how participants positioned themselves and parents (intra-personal and inter-group

positioning), e.g. ‘confidence’, ‘willingness to engage’, ‘relationships’ ‘key roles’ and ‘home

situation’, that were used to construct the questionnaire. The questionnaire results will be the focus

of study 1 in this paper.

The questionnaire was presented to two groups of early years practitioners; all of whom had prior

and current experience of working in early years settings in the UK, and all were finishing off a HE

degree in early years. One half of the group (N=36) consisted of participants with less than two

years of experience working in early years settings, and were in the third year of their BA (Hons)

Early Childhood Studies; the other half (N=38) were participants with more than five years full time

experience in early years settings and were undertaking a Foundation Degree (FD) in Early Years Care

and Education. The reasoning behind this was to increase the validity of the study by obtaining the

viewpoints from two different groups of practitioners/students; the BA (Hons) Early Childhood

Studies is a full time undergraduate course, whilst the Foundation Degree in Early Years Care and

Education is a part time vocational course and caters specifically for practising early years

practitioners and counts towards 2/3 of a BA (Hons) Degree. All participants were female and ages in

the first group ranged from 20-30, and the second group 24-55; students on both courses were in

the third year of their studies. The groups were ethnically and economically diverse. Geographically,

students on the BA Early Childhood Studies course came from all over the UK, whilst the students on

the FD in Early Years Care and Education were all local to the University, based in the South East,

where they were doing their degree.

All participants had experience of working in early years settings, either day care centers or as

childminders, catering for children aged between 3 months and four years of age. In addition to

differences between past experience of working in early years settings, there was also a difference

between the groups in relation to current experience; whilst the BA (Hons) students were in full time

education and most of them engaged with practice on a part time basis, the students on the

Foundation Degree were in full time early years practice and involved in part time study. Ethical

principles were adhered to throughout the study, i.e. participants were informed of their right to

withdraw and the questionnaire was administered in a confidential and anonymous manner. Within

the process itself, an issue that needed to be acknowledged was that of position of power, as

students may have felt obliged to participate or respond as the researcher had taught some (not all)

of the students during their three years at the University. In order to avoid power imbalance, a

colleague unrelated to the research handed the questionnaires out in her lectures and collected

them at the end.

Study 1 - Results

The questionnaire consisted of five questions. The first two questions addressed notions to do with

‘confidence’ and parents’ ‘willingness’ to talk about concerns, referring to intrapersonal and inter-

group positioning (Harre et al, 2009). A Likert-scale (1-5, where 1= strongly disagree and 5=strongly

agree) was used here:

I am confident in talking to parents about issues relating to their child

1-2-3-4-5

Parents are generally willing to talk about concerns with regard to their infant’s social, emotional

and cognitive development.

1-2-3-4-5

There was a significant difference in the score for the students on the Foundation Degree (M=4.45,

SD .602) and the BA (Hons) (M=3.74, SD= .729), conditions; t(67)= -4.405, p=0.01 in relation to the

first statement ‘I am confident in talking to parents about issues (emotional, social) in relation to

their child’. The findings suggest that more early years practitioners on the foundation degree

indicated that they were confident to talk to parents. This is not surprising considering that these

participants spend more time in direct contact with parents, and are more experienced compared to

the other group. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding the second

question, ‘Parents are generally willing to talk about concerns with regard to their infant’s social,

emotional and/or cognitive development (t(70)= -1.529, p<.01; see table 1 for group statistics). Given

the fact that there was very little difference between the group averages, the overall answers to this

question are quite interesting. Looking at the group as a whole, 1.4% disagreed, 39.2% neither

disagreed nor agreed, 48.6% agreed and only 8.1% strongly agreed with this statement. See below

for the group statistics.

Table 1 – Group Statistics: Parents willing to discuss child development concerns

Degree N Mean SD Std Error MeanBAFD

3438

3.533.76

.662

.634.114.103

Two more questions addressed intra-group and inter-group positioning:

Parents play a key role in their child’s emotional and social well-being 1-2-3-4-5

Early Years practitioners play a key role in children emotional and social well-being 1-2-3-4-5

Again, the group results were very similar, for the first question (BA (Hons)=4.67; Foundation

Degree= 4.74) and the second question (BA(Hons) group= 4.20; Foundation degree=4.35). Of the

group as a whole 96.1% agreed/stongly agreed that parents play a key role and 91.9%

agreed/strongly agreed that early years practitioners play a key role.

The final question was slightly different to the previous questions. Here the participants were asked

to put a value on the importance of a number of factors in relation to how/whether they influence

infant development and behaviour in daycare. As well as asking participants to evaluate their own

role here, they were also asked to reflect on the role of the home situation and the child’s

relationship with their parents. In addition to this, in line with research (e.g. Elfer and Dearnley,

2007; Grogan, 2012; Kochanska and Kim, 2012; Siraj-Blatchford, 2009; Whalley and the Pen Green

Early Years Centre, 1997) they were also asked to reflect on the role of the child’s temperament and

character and the role of the settling in programme of the setting.

Put in order of importance (1 for most important and 5 for least important). Infant behaviour

(positive and negative) in day care is influenced by:

Home situation and relationship with parents

The child’s character and temperament

How the infant is settling in

Relationship between parents and practitioners

Table 2: Importance of factors in relation to infant development and behaviour in daycare

Degree N Mean Std Deviation

Importance of home situation BAand relationship with parents FD

35 37

1.46 1.65

.741 1.160

Importance of child character BAand temperament FD

35 37

3.03 2.89

.954 1.125

Importance of how the child BAis settling in FD

35 37

2.69 3.08

1.078 1.010

Importance of relationship BAbetween parents and practitioners FD

35 37

2.86 2.81

1.353 1.266

As can be seen from the table above, the mean scores for the two groups are very close. Z-scores

were computed for the raw scores (importance of home situation and the relationship with the

parents, z=-.135; the child’s temperament and character, z=-.633; how the child is settling in, z=-

1.639; importance of relationship between the parents and practitioners, z=-.190). Using an alpha of

0.01 it is expected to have a distribution of 0.005 in each tail with a critical value of 2.575. Thus, the

z-scores show that there are no differences between the groups on any of the factors presented to

them (i.e. accept the Ho at P<0.01). Table 2 shows that participants valued the home situation and

the relationship with the parents as most important; see table 3 for group statistics.

Nb: the lower the number the higher the importance (as opposed to likert scale questions above)

Table 3: Group statistics - Importance of factors in %

Importance

of child

character and

temperament

%

Importance of

home situation

and child’s

relationship

with parents %

Importance of

how child is

settling in %

Importance of

relationship

between

parents and

practitioners %

Valid Most Important

Important

Neutral

Little Important

Least Important

Total

Missing 99

Total

8.1

24.3

33.8

25.7

5.4

97.3

2.7

100

64.9

20.3

5.4

4.1

2.7

97.3

2.7

100

10.8

24.3

29.7

29.7

2.7

97.3

2.7

100.0

17.6

25.7

21.6

20.3

12.2

97.3

2.7

100.0

From the table above it can be seen that the infant’s home situation and the quality of the child-

parent relationship were perceived as most significant (see table 3). At the same time, the opinions

in relation to the other categories were far more divided, showing a difference in the way the

participants ranked the relative importance of settling in and parent/practitioner relationships.

Study 2

Study 2 is a qualitative study into parent-practitioner partnerships. Thirty-four participants

participated in seven in-depth focus group discussions; three were with Early Years Practitioners,

two with mothers of children aged between 2-4 years old, and two were a mix of mothers and

practitioners. There were between 4-7 participants in each focus group, and interviews lasted for up

to two hours. The focus groups with the early years practitioners, and one of the mixed groups,

were mixed gender; participants in all groups were ethnically and economically diverse. Participants

were approached through our partnerships with local early years settings. As such, this was a self-

selected sample, consisting of participants who volunteered to take part in the study. It should be

noted here that it cannot be claimed that the sample is in any way representative; participants may

have volunteered for various reasons e.g. they would have ‘something to say’ on the topic, e.g.

either as parents or practitioners, and were comfortable talking to the interviewer and each other

(see also Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990 for more information with regard to focus group).The

interviews with the parents and one of the mixed groups took place in the preschool setting that

they were involved in, whilst the interviews with the practitioners and the other mixed group took

place at the University; this was based on convenience, with the latter groups coming from different

settings. Kitzinger (1994) argues that whilst focus groups can provide insight into the experiences of

individual participants, the real value of group data is to be found from analyzing the interaction

between participants. However, it should be noted here that the positions and perceptions that are

expressed under focus groups conditions are constructions of that specific conversation alone.

Following Haste (2014) boundary negotiation takes place through the rhetorical positioning of in-

group versus out-group. The focus group discussions were unstructured, and participants were

presented with a general topic at the start, i.e. how parents and practitioners work together to

support child development and behaviour in early years setting. Ethical principles were adhered to

throughout the study; informed consent was obtained and participants were informed of their right

to withdraw.

The interviews were analysed using a two-level ‘synthesized’ discourse analysis (Sims-Schouten and

Riley, 2014; Wetherell, 1998). Firstly, drawing on discursive psychology, the focus was on the

interactive accomplishments of talk, such as managing facts, blame and accountability (Potter,

1997). Discursive psychologists affiliate with conversation analytic traditions (Sacks, 2001), and are

primarily concerned with what people do with their talk, e.g. disclaiming and making extreme

statements (Pomerantz, 1986). The second level of discourse analysis focused on the wider

discourses that participants drew on to make sense of themselves, including common sense

discourses and ideologies (Billig, 1989, 2001). For discursive psychologists, mind and reality are seen

as first and foremost resources for participants in dialogue. Here, analysis focuses specifically on

examining how, on what occasions and in the service of what kinds of interactional practices

discourse manages its objective and subjective bases (Edwards, 1997). Focussing on how ‘we’ and

‘they’ are located in the dialogue between the participants in the focus groups, complete with self-

justifications and self-representations allows a more interactionally and dynamically focused

resource for analysis. Data was transcribed in detail, drawing on Jefferson (1985); attention was

given to aspects of talk in relation to intonation (↑↓ in the extracts for rising and lowering

intonation), pauses, speeded up talk (> <), quiet speech (◦ ◦), to give a few examples. See appendix

for transcription notions.

Study 2 - Results

Below are the findings from the focus group discussions with the parents, practitioners and mixed

groups, with a specific focus on key notions and stategies in relation to positioning. The extracts

below represent key themes in relation to intra-group and inter-group positioning. The parent focus

groups were characterised by a focus on parents as responsible for the child. At the same time, the

mixed focus groups showed evidence of normative expressions and negotiations (including self-

justifications and self-representations), with parents being positioned in terms of their (social)

background and practitioners in relation to their duties and impact on the child. The focus on the

social background of the parents was also adopted in the practitioner focus groups.

Parents:

The first extract comes from a focus group with four mothers; all were using the same nursery, a day

care centre which caters for children aged between 3 months and five years old. The extract below is

part of a discussion around the role of parents. By reflecting on their own role and parents as a

group, the participants engage in a form of intra-group positioning; the extract starts 15 minutes into

the interview.

1. W1: ↑Obviously, if he is n↑aughty in nursery .hh you feel bad a::s as a p↑arent,

2. >because at h↑ome< you’re, you’re disciplining them, >you know<, and th:en, then

3. they do it in n↑ursery, you kn↓ow, you fee:l (2.0) they can be nasty to other children

4. (2.0) and you’re thinking, ‘well, I’m d↑oing what I can at home ◦you know◦, I’m not

5. just doing n↑othi[ng.

6. W2: [Cause that is what we do as parents, we try to make them

7. good .hh (1.0) ◦so you want them◦ (2.0) you want them (1.0) they go elsewh↑ere

8. (1.0) >you want someone to come back and say< ‘your boys were r↑eally l↑ovely’

In the first half of the extract (lines 1-5) parents are constructed as being responsible for their child’s

behaviour, in and outside the home. This is introduced as a given through the use of the word

‘↑Obviously’ (line 1), which suggests that this is common sense and also indicates that the others in

the focus group (as parents) are in a position to agree with this (see also Edwards, 1997). The

popular ideal of the 'good mother' as someone who knows what her infant needs, and is responsible

for them to ‘turn out right’ are the child-centred ideals that are now very much mainstream (McKie

et al, 2001; Phoenix and Woollett, 1994). This is also evident from the three-way-list completer (this

refers to the tendency to use three arguments to support a point, see Antaki and Wetherell, 1999)

that participant W1 uses to position herself and parents in general. Here she uses three arguments

‘>because at h↑ome< you’re, you’re disciplining them’ (line 2, with the reference to h↑ome being

uttered very quickly, indicated by ><), followed by ‘ well, I’m d↑oing what I can at home’ (line 4) and

‘I’m not just doing n↑othi[ng’ (lines 4,5) to back up her key argument that ‘you feel bad a::s as a

p↑arent’ (note the emphasis on bad here) if your child is naughty in nursery. The use of ‘you know’

in lines 2 and 3 hints at common knowledge (Edwards, 1997), again positioning parents as ultimately

responsible for how the child behaves; the relatively long pauses of 2.0 seconds in lines 3 and 4

suggest that this participant may have some trouble with the subject (see also Speer and Potter,

2000). Positioning theory brings to light the normative frames within which people carry on their

lives, with ‘duties’ being shorthand terms for clusters of normative presuppositions that people are

believed to be bound by (Harre et al, 2009). This in and of itself can lead to guilt when those duties

and reponsibilities are not met.

The duties and responsibilities of the ‘good parent’ are also flagged up in lines 6-8 of the extract

above. Here the participant constructs making the child good (line 7, specifically stressing ‘good’

here) as a category-bound-activity (inferences concerning typical activities of their incumbents, see

Silverman, 2001) of parents. In what follows, the participant makes an indirect reference to parent-

practitioner relationships by saying ‘>you want someone to come back and say< (line 8, which is

presumably a reference to the nursery, which is referred to in line 1) that your boys are ‘r↑eally

l↑ovely’.

The next extract takes the notion of parents as being responsible for how their child turns out a step

further. Here, the participants construct parents in terms of two groups, one who are the involved

parents and one consisting of parents who are not involved, with the latter group being positioned

as not meeting their normative duties. By doing this, they engage in a form of inter-group

positioning, distancing themselves from the insufficient group of parents. The interview is with five

mothers (all are using the same preschool setting, which caters for children aged between 9 months

and five years of age) and is part of a discussion around how parents and practitioners work together

to support child behaviour. Interestingly, whilst the participants discussed the role and duties of

parents in detail, very little reference was made to the role of practitioners here (around 30 minutes

into the interview).

1. W3: I think sometimes (2.0) err sometimes you can sort of t↑ell (2.0) with,

2. wi:th the parents that are more involved with their children, tha::n the ones

3. that just let them get ↑on with it. I think you can tell the d↑ifference.

4. The ones that d↑ont err interact with them m↓uch, u↑sually, have more

5. naughty children, ◦obviously not always◦

Again, parents are positioned as being responsible for their child’s behaviour. Not only that, as with

Study 1, parent-child relationships are treated as playing a significant role here. At the same time,

the participant in the extract above is careful in how she constructs this, which is evident from her

use of ‘sort of’ in line 1 and ‘◦obviously not always◦’ (line 5), as well as the long pauses in line 1 – all

of this serves to innoculate the participant against doubt and disagreement from others who may

not be in a position to agree with this (Hepburn and Potter, 2011).

Mixed Group

In the mixed groups there was clear evidence of inter-group positioning, with the participants

negotiating their positions in different ways. Interestingly, this often resulted in the parents

positioning the practitioners in terms of having a ‘real’ impact on their child in positive terms, and

the practitioners engaging in more generic discussions in relation to the child’s home situation and

background. As with the extracts above, parents are made ultimately accountable and are

positioned in terms of engaging in good or bad practices in relation to their child. The extract below

is part of a discussion around the importance of interactions outside of the family (10 mins into the

focus group). The focus group consists of six participants, with four early years practitioners, one of

which was male, and two mothers; all participants had links to different early years settings.

1. W2: I’ll be h↑onest .hh ↑erm, I totally agr↑ee with what W1 said because with my

2. ↑oldest one (1.0) I err didnt go to parent and toddler groups ◦and stuff◦ when he

3. started (1.0) >when he started<, when he started sch↑oo::l he did find it h↓ard

4. erm (1.0) ◦to communicate with other children◦ erm, but at the s↓ame ti::me,

5. I d↑o think it’s down to practitioners or pre-school teachers to h↑elp him and

6. >encourage him as well<, and to stop the other children ◦making him◦ (1.0) that

7. person or chil to be p↑in pointed as w↑[ell

8. W1: [And don’t forget that some children come

9. from different backgrounds, and some children don’t actually get the attention when

10. they deserve attention >some children get l↑ots of attention, they’re sp↑oilt

11. r↑otten< .hh and some chi:ldren err, their parents j↓ust have th children for the

12. sake of having children, and you can see the difference in the child

Note that in the extract above, W2 is a mother, and W1 is an early years practitioner; W2 responds

to W1’s suggestions that it is important for children to interact with different people. W2

wholeheartedly agrees with this, which is evident from the extreme case formulation ‘I totally

agr↑ee’ in line 1 (see also Pomerantz, 1986). This argument is strengthened by linking this to her

own stake and interest (‘I’ll be h↑onest’). In the bit that follows, she constructs being able to

communicate with other children (line 4) as a membership categorisation device (i.e. the

recognizability of people and situations as having certain functions, Silverman, 2001) of attending

parent and toddlergroups. Yet, although she positions the parents as being indirectly responsible

here, by not fulfilling their duty of attending the relevant parent and toddler groups, she also

engages in inter-group positioning by ascribing accountability to practitioners here as well. This is

evident from the disclaimer ‘but at the s↓ame ti::me’ (line 4), after which she uses a three-way-list

completer (Antaki and Wetherell, 1999) (‘it’s down to practitioners or pre-school teachers to h↑elp

him’, ‘>encourage him as well<’ and ‘stop the other children’, lines 5, 6) to highlight that

practitioners also have specific duties in relation to the children in their care.

The response from W1 in lines 8-12 is interesting, as instead of picking up on W2’s utterance in

relation to the role of practitioners, she relates the argument back to parents and social background.

By introducing this as a fact ‘And don’t forget’ (line 8) she is innoculating against any doubt and

disagreement (Speer and Potter, 2000). Here, she makes a direct link between ‘different

backgrounds’ (line 9) and the amount of attention children get, thereby again positioning parents as

reponsible for how their child turns out and behaves in the setting. Not only that, she also draws on

her own experience here, providing a strong warrant for factual accuracy: ‘and you can see the

difference in the child’ (line 12). Cottle and Alexander (2014) also found that parents tend to be

positioned (by early years practitioners) as either deficient or as active agents in terms of their

engagement with early years settings, leading to social stigmas, where parents are judged in terms

of their social economic status, ethnic diversity and home situation.

The next extract is part of a discussion around supporting young children, and treating children as

individuals, and comes from a focus group with four participants, two of which are parents and two

practitioners. All participants are female and all are involved in the same early years setting, a

nursery which caters for children aged between three months to five years old.

1. W2: So, I think it’s down to like err (1.0) >you know<, you let the children

2. be ch↑ildren.

3. W3: Yeah

4. W1: And, I erm, I t↑otally agr↑ee, I to::tally, you know agr↑ee with >what she’s

5. saying<, because you know, my::, my three-year-old (1.) his >before he started

6. pre-school< he::, he >you know< .hh he would o:nly st↓ay w:ith m↑e and his, his

7. dad >and stuff< and when (1.0) >and when we had ◦family gatherings and stuff◦<

8. it was m↑ore, more of a >confidence issues he had<, and we were trying to,

9. trying to:: get him like (1.0) encourage him doing you know >playing with children

10. and stuff<, he would s↑ee the children there (1.0), he would f↑eel that he was

11. >you know<, probably felt really small, so he was coming to use for, you know

12. >for us to build up confidence<, as soon as he started pr↑e-school, they have

13. done s↑o much work with him >as well as stuff at home< b↓t just with someone

14. indep↑endent to (1.0) .hh to enc↑ourage him and ermm get him to talk a bit

15. mo:re and get him to interact with other children.

Participants W2 and W3 in the extract above are both practitioners, and W1 is a parent. Two broad

things are happening in the discussion above. Firstly, participant W1 shows strong support for W2’s

suggestion to ‘let the children be ch↑ildren’ (lines 1, 2); this is evident from the extreme case

formulation (Pomerantz, 1986) in line 4 ‘I t↑otally agr↑ee, I to::tally, you know agr↑ee’. Not only

does she completely agree with W1, she also positions the practitioners in the early years setting as

having done a lot for her child (line 13 ‘done s↑o much work with him’). Yet, as well as highlighting

the difference that the practitioners have made in encouraging her child to talk a bit more and

interact with other children (lines 14, 15), she also attributes this to her and her partner’s role.

However, she goes into far more detail in her discussion in relation to her own role, as a parent,

suggesting that this perhaps requires more justification. Here she uses a number of strategies. In

lines 8/9 she positions herself (and her partner) as encouraging her child to be social. By giving a

specific example, complete with ‘◦family gatherings and stuff◦’ (line 7), she provides a strong warrant

for factual accuracy (see also Speer and Potter, 2000). In addition to this, she shows that she has a

good relationship with her child as ‘he was coming to us’ (line 11). Lastly, when she refers to how

much the practitioners have done for her child, she also refers back to her own role, very quickly

(line 13, indicated by ><) ‘>as well as stuff at home<’. Moreover, as well as dedicating some time

and effort to positioning herself as a ‘good parent’, she also staves of any sense that any of the

confidence issues highlighted in lines 8 and 12 might be down to problems with her child; instead,

she refers to his size here ‘probably felt really small’ (line 11).

Practitioners:

The next extract is part of a discussion around priorities, and how parents choose daycare settings

and starts thirty minutes into the interview; the focus group consists of four females and two males,

all participants work in different early years settings.

1. W1: .hh What is conv↑enient, err how early does it ↑open (1.0) how late is it open, 2. is it close to h↑ome, .hh err >I think< a lot of th::ose are the priorities (1.0) a::nd >will 3. my child be h↑appy< ◦for◦, for s↑ome p↑arents comes >comes quite far down the list<4. .hh and they err, they think my child will adapt to ↑it. Yet, it is the relationship we::, 5. w↑e have with parents >that is key here< a:nd, and the parents’ willingness to eng↑age, 6. for a child to settle [in.7. W2: [Yeah

This extract paints quite a grim picture of parents. Here, parents are positioned as prioritising issues

of convenience (through the three-way list completer: ‘how early does it ↑open’, ‘how late is it

open’ and ‘is it close to h↑ome’, lines 1,2) over the needs of the child (see line 3). This is softened by

the use of ‘s↑ome p↑arents ‘ (line 3), suggesting that not all parents are like that. After this (lines 4-

7), the practitioner turns to the’relationship’ (stressed in line 4) between parents and practitioners .

Research consistently highlights the significance of parent-partnerships (e.g. see Athey, 1991;

Bastiani, 2003; Easen et al, 1992; Hadley, 2012; Whalley, 2007). This includes establishing ways to

actively engage with parents (see also Whalley and Pen Green Early Years Centre, 1997). Yet, as with

Study 1, issues to do with parents’ ‘willingness to eng↑age’ (line 5) are raised here. This is done by

adopting a form of inter-group positioning, where unlike the parents, practitioners are constructed

as pro-active in stimulating participation and cooperation (evident from the stress on ‘Yet, it is the

relationship’ in line 4). In addition to this, what happens in the setting is directly linked to parent-

partnerships (‘for a child to settle [in’, line 6).

The next extract is part of a discussion around the role of the child’s home situation, and starts about

ten minutes into a focus group interview with five participants, one male and four females.

(10 mins); all participants work in different settings.

1. W1: >I think it can be to do with their s↑oc↓ial background<, because if their

2. parents aren’t parenting them at home {all agree}

3. W1: ◦telling them they need to share, they do need to be gentle◦ .hh or they might

4. have a culture at home erm (1.0) in one particular instance, (1.0) erm, so a very very

5. lovely family >◦with children that are coming to preschool◦<, but daddy, daddy’s been

6. >taking his little boy to boxing<, and he’s, he is ↑only thr↑ee, and he goes boxing,

7. s↑o it’s natural to him to come ↑in and .hh want to box with the children, because

8. that is what he does with daddy {laughs}, so for them (1.0) the family feels that’s

9. that’s perfectly f↑ine.

Again, ‘what happens at home’ and how the child gets on in the setting is extended to the role of

the parents and the notion that parents are their child’s first and foremost educators (Whalley,

2007). Here, participant W1 flags up and emphasises (evident from the rising intonation and stress

on ‘s↑oc↓ial background’, line 1) the role of the child’s background, and links this to the notion of

whether parents are or aren’t parenting their child at home; all participants appears to agree with

this (line 2). In the bit that follows (lines 3-9), a number of strategies are at play. Effectively, what W1

is saying is that the parenting practices and ‘culture’ (line 4) of one of the families that she deals with

in her setting are such, that it is affecting the child’s behaviour in the setting (see line 7). However,

here she is making this family’s social background, rather than their intentions, accountable, which is

evident from her focus on the fact that this is ‘a very very lovely family’ (lines 4, 5). By doing this,

she is also innoculating against doubt and disgreement, as well as positioning herself as a fairly non-

judgemental person (see also Eriksson-Barajas and Aronsson, 2009). Not only that, her laughter in

line 8, suggests that she may have some trouble with the subject (Edwards, 2000). As well as being

careful in not making the parents completely accountable here, she also constructs the child as

innocent, which is evident from her utterance that it is ’natural to him to come ↑in and .hh want to

box with the children’ (line 7).

Discussion and Conclusion

In this paper, parent involvement has been defined in terms of co-production in the learning and

development of the child (Bastiani , 2003, Siraj-Blatchford et al, 2002).Some of this is reflected in

study 1 and 2, with parents being positioned in terms of the child’s first and foremost educators, and

practitioners in terms of their impact and influence on the child. Yet, although there is evidence of

an awareness of the importance of collaborative and mutual relationships in both study 1 and 2,

there are perhaps some ongoing stigmas and labels that need to be tackled here. For example,

parents were often constructed as lacking, e.g. in their ‘willingness to engage’ (study 1 and study 2),

and their involvement, priorities and ability to fulfill their parenting role (study 2). Here different

forms of positioning were at play (Harre et al, 2009). For example, in study 1 the participants put

value on both their own position as a practitioners and the parents in playing a key role in the child’s

emotional and social wellbeing. Yet, within this they valued the relationships between parents and

practitioners as far less important, compared to the role of the child’s home situation (see table 2

and 3). Some of this is mirrored in study 2, where the parents in the parent focus groups used a form

of intra-group positioning, highlighting the importance of their own parenting role (‘as a parent..’). In

addition to this, inter-group positioning was applied in discussions around ‘good’ and ‘bad’ parents.

Yet, whilst the parents appeared defensive at times in their positioning of themselves and their

parenting role, no such thing appeared to happen with the practitioners. In both the mixed and

practitioner focus groups, a sense was created of early years practitioners as being supportive and

willing to engage and cooperate with parents. Yet, parents were often constructed as deficient,

either in terms of having the wrong priorities or due to their cultural and social-economic

background.

There are some lessons to be learned here. Parent involvement plays a key role in the statutory

framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage in England, and there is evidence that children

benefit the most from their experience in daycare if their parents are actively involved (DfE, 2014;

Nall et al, 2010). Duncan (2005) uses the term ‘moral rationalities’ to describe mothers’ perspectives

regarding their roles and responsibilities, including in relation to daycare. He discusses this along

three dimensions, i.e. in relation to how mothers perceive their children's needs, their own needs,

and the balance between the two sets of needs. Following Duncan (2005), in relation to their

children's needs, mothers’ views centred on the need for a child to have a secure emotional tie with

a carer, as well as the need for education, child development, and more general socialisation.

Effective parent involvement and participation in early years settings is key here. Yet, this is only

possible if partnerships are reciprocal, constructive and empowering (e.g. Grady et al, 2012). Here it

is also important to take the training, personal histories and beliefs of early years practitioners into

account, as it is the belief that practitioners hold about their capabilities that makes the difference

between success and failure (Sims-Schouten and Stittrich-Lyons, 2014). Research indicates that

professional identity in early years is often derived from status through qualifications and knowledge

base and the respect and confidence that comes with this (e.g. Osgood, 2009). Yet, defining

professionalism in the early years workforce is the subject of much debate, and there is a need to

recognise the complexity of professional identity and positioning within this, also if we want to

tackle the unhelpful positions described in this paper. More needs to be done to promote the role of

parent-partnerships at the earliest stage and in the education and ongoing CPD (continuing

professional development) of early years practitioners.

This study has some limitations; due to the small-scale set up of study 1 and study 2, this paper can

only really be perceived as an exploratory study, providing an initial view into the positioning of

parents and practitioners. In addition to this, whilst a number of authors (e.g. Butler and Hamnett,

2007; Vincent and Ball, 2006) have identified social class as a key variable in the interactions

between parents , early years practitioners and teachers, the sample of the present study was such

that class as a variable could not be readily explored. More research is needed to gain an insight into

parent-partnerships, including notions to do with class, social background and ethnicity, with a view

to empowering both early years practitioners and parents within this.

Bibliography

Allen, G. (2011). Early Intervention: The Next Steps. An Independent Report to Her Majesty’s Government. HM Government.

Antaki, C. and M. Wetherell. (1999). Show Concessions. Discourse Studies 1 (1), 7-27.

Athey, C. (1991). Extending Thought in Young Children: A Parent-Teacher Partnership. London: Sage.

Barnes, J., Leach, P., Malmberg, L-E, Stein, A. and Sylva, K. and the FCCC Team (2009). Experiences of Childcare in England and socio-emotional development at 36 months. Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 180, Issue 9, 1215-1229.

Bastiani, J. (2003). Materials for Schools. Involving parents, raising achievements. DfES Publications, http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/9814/1/PICE-IPRA.pdf, ref: PICE/IPRA.

Bermudez, A. (2012). The Discursive Negotiation of Cultural Narratives and Social Identities in Learning History. M, Carretero, & M., Asensio. (Eds.) History Teaching and National Identities. International Review of History Education. Vol. 5. Charlotte, CT: Information Age Publishers

Billig, M. (1989). The argumentative nature of holding strong views: A case study. European Journal

of Social Psychology 19, 203-223.

Billig, M. (2001). Discursive, Rhetorical and Ideological Messages. In: Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., and Yates, S.J. (Eds.), Discourse Theory and Practice. A Reader, (pp. 210-222), London: Sage.

Butler, T and Hamnett, C. (2007) The Geography of Education: An Introduction, Urban Studies: Special Issue on the Geography of Education, Vol. 44,(7), 116-1174.

Cottle, M. and Alexander, E. (2014). Parent partnerships and ‘quality’ early years services: practitioners’ perspectives. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 22(5), 637-659.

Department for Education and Science (1967), Children and their Primary Schools. A report of the Central Advisory Council for Education (England) [Plowden Report], London:HMSO.

DfE (2014). Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for children from birth to five. Reference: DFE-00337-2014. https://www.education.gov.uk.

Duncan, S. (2005) Mothering, Class and Rationality, Sociological Review, 53, 2, 50-76.

Easen, PP, Kendall, P and Shaw, J (1992). Parents and educators: Dialogue and developing through partnership, Children and Society, 6, 4, 282–96.

Ebbeck, M. and Yim, H.,Y.,B. (2009). Rethinking Attachment: fostering positive relationships between infants, toddlers and their primary caregivers, Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 179, Issue 7, pp. 899-909.

Edwards, D. (1997), Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.

Edwards, D. (2000). Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33 (4), 347-373.

Elfer, P. and Dearnley, K. (2007), Nurseries and emotional well-being, Early Years. An International Journal of Research and Development. 27, 3, 267-280.

Eriksson Barajas, K., & Aronsson, K. (2009). Avid versus struggling readers: co-construed pupil

identities in school booktalk. Language & Literature, 18(3), 281–299.

Grady, J.S., Ale, C.M. and Morris, T.L. (2012). A naturalistive observation of social behaviours during preschool drop-off, Early Child Development and Care, 182,12, 1683-1694.

Grogan, K.E. (2012). Parents' choice of pre-kindergarten: the interaction of parent, child and contextual factors. Early Child Development and Care, 182, 10, 1265-1287, DOI:10.1080/03004430.2011.608127

Hadley, F. (2012). Early Childhood Staff and Families’ Perceptions: diverse views about important experiences for children aged 3-5 years in early childhood settings. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13, 1, 38-49.

Harre, R. and Davies, B. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 20, 43-63.

Harré. R. & Van Langenhove, L. (1991) Varieties of positioning. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 21(4), 393-407

Harre, R., Moghaddam, F.M., Pilkerton Cairnie, T., Rothbart, D. and Sabat, S.R. (2009), Recent Advances in Positioning Theory. Theory & Psychology, 19(1), 5-31.

Harre, R and Moghaddam, F.M. (2008). Intrapersonal conflict. In: Moghaddam, F.M., Harre, R. and Van Langenhove, L. (Eds.), Positioning Theory: Moral contexts of intentional action,(65-78), Oxford: Blackwell.

Haste, H. (2014) Culture, tools and subjectivity: the (re) construction of self. In

Magioglou, T. (Ed) Culture and political psychology. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishers, 27-48.

Hepburn, A. and Potter, J. (2011), Threats: Power, family mealtimes, and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 50, Part 1, 99-120.

Jefferson, G. (1985). An Exercise in the Transcription and Analysis of Laughter. In: Dijk, T.A. van (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Discourse and Dialogue. Volume 3 (25-34). London: Academic Press.

Kenney Reedy, C. and Hobbins McGrath, W. (2010). Can you hear me now? Staff–parent communication in child care centres, Early Child Development and Care, 180, 3, 347-357, DOI:10.1080/03004430801908418

Kitzinger, J. (1994) The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of Interaction Between Participants, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 16, no. 1, 103 - 121.

Kochanska, G and Kim, S. (2012). Early Attachment Organization with Both Parents and Future Behavior Problems: From Infancy to Middle Childhood. Child Development, 84, 1, 283-296.

Mahadevan, J. (2011). EYFS has improved childcare in England, Ofsted finds. Children and Young People Now. Retrieved from http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/1054139/EYFS-improved-childcare-England-Ofsted-finds.

Martsin, M. (2010). Identity in Dialogue. Identity as Hyper-Generalised Personal Sense. Theory & Psychology. 20(3), 436-450.

McKie, L.; Bowlby, S. and Gregory, S. (2001), Gedner, Caring and Employment in Britain. Journal of Social Policy, 30, 2. 233-254.

Morrow, G. And Malin, N. (2004). Parents and professionals working together:turning the rhetoric into reality. Early Years. An International Journal of Research and Development. 24, 2, 163-178.

Nalls, A.M., Mullis, R.L., Cornille, T.A., Mullis, A.K. and Jeter, N. (2010), How can we reach reluctant parents in childcare programmes? Early Child Development and Care. 180, 8, 1053-1064.

Nutbrown, C. (2012). Foundations for Quality. The independent review of early education and childcare qualifications. Final report. Runcan: Department of Education. Available from: www.education.gov.uk/nutbrownreview.

Osgood, J. (2009). Childcare workforce reform in England and the ‘early years professional’: a critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy. 24, 6, 733-751.

Osgood, J.( 2012). Narratives from the Nursery: Negotiating professional identities in Early Childhood. London: Routledge.

Phoenix, A. and Woollett, A. (1991), Motherhood, Social Construction, Politics and Psychology. In: Phoenix, A., Woollett, A. and Loyd, E. (Eds.), Motherhood, Meanings, Practices and Ideologies. (13-28), London:Sage.

Pomerantz, A. (1986), Extreme Case Formulations: a new way of legitimating claims. In: Button, G., Dew, P. and Heritage, J. (Eds.), Human Studies. Interaction and language use (Special Issue), Vol. 9, 219-230.

Potter, J. (1997), Discourse Analysis as a Way of Analysing Naturally Occurring Talk. In: Silverman, D, (Ed), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. (144-160), London: Sage.

Sacks, H.(2001). Lecture 1: Rules of Conversational Sequence. In Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S.J. (Eds.), Discourse, Theory and Practice. A Reader, (111-119), London:Sage.

Silverman, D. (2001), Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for Analysing Talk, Text Interaction. London: Sage (2).

Sims-Schouten, W. And Riley, S. (2014), Employing a Form of Critical Realist Discourse Analysis for Identity Research: An Example from Women’s Talk of Motherhood, Childcare and Employment. In: Edwards, P., O’Mahoney, J. and Steve Vincent (Eds.), Studying Organizations Using Critical Realism. (46-66), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sims-Schouten, W. And Stittrich-Lyons, H. (2014). “Talking the Talk’: Practical and academic self-concepts of early years practitioners in England.” Journal of Vocational Education & Training. Vol. 66, Issue 1, 39-55.

Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R. and Bell, D. (2002). Researching effective pedagogy in the early years. Norwich: DfES, Queen’s Printers.

Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2009). Quality teaching in the early years. In: Anning, A., Cullen, J. and Fleer, M. (Eds), Early Childhood Education. Society and Culture. (pp. 147-157), London: Sage.

Speer, S.A. and Potter, J. (2000). The management of heterosxist talk: conversational resources and prejudiced claims, Discourse & Society, Vol. 11 (4), 543-572.

Spiteri, G. And Borg Xuereb, R. (2012). Going back to work after childbirth: women’s lived experiences. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology. 30, 2, 201-216.

Stewart, D. W. & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus Groups: Theory & Practice. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.

Sylva, K., Taggart, B., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Totsika, V., Ereky-Stevens, K., Gilden, R. and Bell, D. (2007). “Curricular quality and day-to-day learning activities in preschool.” International Journal of Early Years Education. 1 (1), 49-65.

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E, Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B. (2010). Early Childhood Matters. Evidence from the Effective Pre-school and Primary Education project. London and New York: Routledge.

Vincent, C. and Ball, S.J. (2006), Childcare, Choice and Class Practices, London: Routledge.

Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society, 9 (3), 387-412.

Whalley, M. and Pen Green Early Years Centre (1997). Working with Parents (Child Care Topic Books), Abbingdon, Oxon: Hodder Education

Whalley, M (2007), Involving Parents in their Children’s Learning. (2) London: Paul Chapman.

Transcription Notions

◦ ◦ Encloses speech that is quieter that the

surrounding talk.

(1.0) Pause length in seconds.

- Hyphen Word broken off.

↑ Rising intonation.

↓ Lowering intonation.

CAPITAL LETTERS Talk that is louder than the surrounding

talk.

Underline Stress/emphasis.

> < Encloses speeded up talk.

( ) Encloses words the transcriber is unsure

about. Empty brackets enclose talk that is

not hearable.

.hhh In-breath.

[ ] Overlapping speech.

[ Onset of overlapping speech.

{ } Clarification, referring to tone or gesture,

e.g. {laughs}

::: Extended sound.

= Marks the immediate ‘latching’ of

successive talk, whether of one or more

speakers, with no interval.

(Edwards, 1997; Jefferson, 1985)