We aim to present the newly published book, "Interprofessional and Family-Professional Collaboration for Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care" (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-34023-9), which provides insights from various countries including Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. The emphasis of this Symposium will be on delving into the dynamics of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) within the context of inclusive ECEC in three European countries, namely Finland, Lithuania, and Norway.Formos viršus

Most countries in the world follow the international education priority that is emphasised in UN Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning for all (UN, 2022). European countries have significantly reformulated their ECEC systems with inclusive education in view. Nevertheless, across the countries, there is still an incomplete provision of equal educational opportunities for all, particularly for children with special educational needs (Hanssen et al., 2021). Therefore, a systemic approach to inclusive ECEC services and a strong collaboration between the different sectors, such as education, health and social is being emphasised.

To address the main internationally agreed priorities related to ECEC, this anthology focuses on ‘inclusion’ in ECEC (UNESCO-IBE, 2008, p. 18). Across the chapters of the book, it is clear that themes, serving as a ‘red thread’ throughout the volume, are related to collaboration in ECEC in various European countries. Initially, our focus was to examine IPC within the realm of ECEC across diverse social-cultural contexts. In the context of inclusive ECEC, IPC is considered as precondition for the holistic child and family practice, partnership-based professional relations, coordinated services, spread of competences, and innovative activities within teams and organisations (Payler & Georgeson, 2013). IPC is a significant factor for the effective provision of inclusive education especially for children with special educational needs and their families aiming to address challenges when jointly acting with representatives from different professions.

Research show that in reality IPC often is a challenge (Hong & Shaffer, 2015). The reasons for this relate to, among other issues, lack of research defining the concept and the structure of IPC, i.e. subjective and different interpretation of the IPC conception, lack of presumptions for success and sufficiency of IPC, issues of professional power, professional identities and relations, and diversity of professional languages and roles (Alisauskiene & Gevorgianiene, 2015). Reflecting   on   the   past   experiences,   it   is   evident   that   the   role   of   a  professional  was  strictly  defined  by  the  precise  set  of  functions  described  in  a  certain  professional  code  and  did  not  foresee  interdisciplinary and interprofessional  cooperation  nor  flexibility  in  professional  roles  and  functions. The  emphasis  on  professional  identity  was  strengthened by historically  developed  “niche”  of  certain  professions and their status and prestige in society. In this aspect, the discussion can be based on P. Bourdieu’s conception of habitus, capital (knowledge, linguistic, cultural, etc.), and “practical theory”, which emphasizes virtuous interactions between individuals (King, 2000). The IPC in ECEC might be problematic, when professionals encounter a variety of complex new roles in multi-service settings. Moreover, a common feature is that none of the countries have entirely fulfilled the pledge of strong collaboration between various professionals in ECEC in educational practices (Sundqvist, 2021). Therefore, the countries’ knowledge and experiences can encourage interest in discussions about realising a fruitful interprofessional collaboration within inclusive ECEC. According to Ainscow (2021), learning from what happening on the other places, when we visiting other countries it is like a mirror, it makes us to think about what we do in our context. Insights into diverse approaches adopted by European countries, such as Finland, Lithuania, and Norway, can significantly enhance our comprehension of the distinct collaborations in ECEC.

Ainscow, M. (2021). Foreword. In N. B. Hanssen, S.E. Hansén, & K. Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the Development of Inclusion: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. xiii–xxii). Routledge. Alisauskiene, S., & Gevorgianiene, V. (2015). Exploring professional boundaries: a shift to inter-professional early childhood intervention practice in Lithuania. Society. Integration. Education, 3, 15-30. Hanssen, N.B, Hansèn, S-E, & Ström, K. (Eds.) (2021). Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the Development of Inclusion: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives. Routledge. Hong, S.B., & Shaffer L.S. (2015). Inter-Professional Collaboration: Early Childhood Educators and Medical Therapist Working within a Collaboration. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3 (1), 135-145. King, A. (2000). Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: A 'Practical' Critique of the Habitus. Sociological Theory, 18 (3), 417– 433. Payler J., & Georgeson, J. (2013). Multiagency Working in the Early Years: Confidence, Competence and Context. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 33 (4), 380-397. Sundqvist, C. (2021). Moving towards inclusive schools: Teacher collaboration as a key aspect of the development of inclusive practices. In N. Bahdanovich Hanssen, S.-E. Hansén, & K. Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the Development of Inclusion: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives (pp. 203-217). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367810368.