The preschool practice in Sweden has recently undergone a transformation, not least through the revised curriculum for preschool (Lpfö, 2018) that came last year and which includes the concepts of ‘education’ and ‘teaching’ as outspoken goals for the preschool practice. The introduction of these two concepts emphasizes that the preschool is now part of the school system. However, the text in the curriculum is not entirely clear as to who is to engage in teaching and education within the preschool practice: preschool teachers, preschool practitioners or both? It is still to soon to tell what practical implications that this alteration in the curriculum will have for the preschool practice, but that it will affect the rhetoric around preschool and that it will imply strategically development work is quite evident. 

     In addition, since long before there is a general schism between preschool teachers and preschool practitioners when it comes to the pedagogical leadership in the preschool practice (e.g. Ackerman, 2006; Elliott, 2006; Sheridan, 2009). This has to do with that the preschool teachers have undertaken higher education and the preschool practitioners have not (e.g. Burchinal, Cryer & Clifford, 2002; OECD, 2005), leading to pedagogical issues being assigned to the preschool teachers and tasks related more generally to care being assigned to preschool practitioners. With the introduction of teaching and education in the preschool practice the discussion has arisen anew whether or not these activities should be carried out by preschool teachers only or by preschool practitioners as well. 

     In this study, groups of professionals in the preschool practice (preschool teachers, preschool practitioners, preschool managers) have come together in a joint municipally project with the purpose of enhancing children’s learning through collegial development work where the participants act as either critical friends or host to each other. Since studies of how preschool professionals with different roles construct discourses of the preschool practice together are scarce, the ambition of this paper is to do sowith the intention of uncovering any underlying conceptions on either part that can create problems in the collegial collaboration, which should be of great relevance to a European context. 

     The aim is to analyse the discursive constructions of the preschool practice that are expressed when preschool professionals with different roles meet and discuss collegial development work. The following research questions are point of departure: What is made visible in the discussions between preschool professionals on collegial development work based on an investigative approach? How are different discourses about the preschool practice constructed in their conversations? 

     The theoretical framework originates from a social constructionist perspective (e.g. Burr, 1995) with discourse theory (Fairclough, 1992, 1995; Bachtin, 1986) as methodological approach. Also, methodological guidelines from discursive psychology (e.g. Edwards, 1997; Potter, 1996) have been used in the analysing process. Lave and Wenger (1991) discuss the concept of community of practice on the basis that successful learning is the result of an increasingly central participation in a collective and productive activity. Furthermore, they describe participation as something that is about a process in which the individual progresses from a periphery position to a more central position. In fact, informal learning can often be seen as a progression from peripheral to central participation (ibid). Communities of practice as such are formed by people who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor; it has by its definition an identity defined by a shared domain of interest. In this case, the domain of interest consists of the participants’ partaking in collegial development work in preschool, as well as their joint experiences of the preschool practice. 

This article is based on a study where the empirical material consists of four group conversations with preschool professionals (preschool teachers, preschool practitioners, preschool managers) with different roles from four Swedish municipalities, who met during a whole day to discuss their collegial development work based on an investigating approach. The participants were between four and seven persons in each group and the discussions were scheduled between 9.30 am and noon (2, 5hours) and between 1 pm and 3 pm (2 hours), with a total of 4,5 hours for each conversation. The conversations were recorded by using digital devices (such as iPads and smart phones) and has been analysed by using a discourse analytical perspective. The selection of participants derives from an ongoing project where professionals with different roles within preschool, primary school and secondary school meet and work together in collegial development of their practices, acting as either critical friend or host to each other. For this study, the preschool professionals were singled out. The conversations were structured out of the content of the collegial development work each group were to work with (a total of four) as well as the planning of their upcoming collaborative work. The recordings were thoroughly listened to several times and later parts of the conversations were transcribed. Hammersley and Atkinson (1995) note that there are choices to be made regarding how speech is to be transcribed. The choices made must be based on the purpose of the study. Based on that, certain sequences where the participants discuss the preschool practice in detail were selected, as were reoccuring patterns, which were analyzed and categorized into different discourses. Discourse analysis means a view of language use as a tool by which people construct the social world (e.g. Fairclough, 1992, 1995; Bachtin, 1986). Although language use is formed in social contexts, this does not mean that this is done in a mechanical and homogeneous manner. Instead, it occurs in society, in various institutions and social domains, a variety of discourses that coexist, contrast and often compete with each other (Fairclough, 1995). It is important to examine constructions based on the assumption that the constructions that are jointly created lead to certain positions and actions being possible in, for instance, a pedagogical practice, while other positions and actions are impossible.

The preliminary result shows that several discourses of the preschool practice appear in the conversations between the preschool professionals, and that the collegial development work is illuminated from several different perspectives. For instance: preconceived notions of each other’s different roles emerge as an possible obstacle for obtaining collegial learning and collaboration, and different aspects (such as view of knowledge and learning, policy documents, ideas about children, norms and expectations) are significant in discussions regarding the preschool practice. The status of collegial learning, hierarchies within the organisation, as well as truth regimes in relation to different views of the child (as either competent or negotiating) have also emerged. These differences point out the difficulties for collegial development work. However, on the other hand there is a shared discourse about the preschool practice based in a joint, deep understanding for the preschool practice as such sprung from experience, which bring the participants together in a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). These are two strong contradictive discourses. In addition, the administrative discourse is prominent in the four discussion groups; in this context responsibility, control and regularity become the focus, where routines and reporting become important features when discussion the collegial development work.

Ackerman, D. (2006). The costs of being a child care teacher: Revisiting the problem of low wages. Educational Policy, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 85-112. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Burchinal, M., D. Cryer, & R. Clifford (2002). Caregiver training and classroom quality in child care centers. Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 2-11. Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Sage. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage. Elliott, A. (2006). Early Childhood Education: Pathways to quality and equity for all children. Australian Education Review, Vol. 50, Australian Council for Educational Research. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. London: Longman. Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: principles in practice. London: Routledge. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Lpfö (2018). Läroplan för förskolan (Curriculum for preschool). Skolverket. Förordning (SKOLFS 2018:50). OECD (2005). Teachers Matter. Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. OECD, Paris. Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage. Sheridan, S. (2009). Discerning pedagogical quality in preschool. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 245-261.