In the sociology of childhood, understandings of the child and childhood are viewed as historically and culturally contingent (Alanen, 2009; Prout & James, 1997). Childhood institutions, as central determinants of modern childhood (Kampmann, 2004), function as arenas in which childhood and children are produced and negotiated (Leonard, 2019). In this paper, I engage in scientific debate on how a child as a social and cultural category is produced in the context of early childhood education and care (ECEC) institution (Dahlberg, 1999; Leonard, 2016). The theoretical basis of my research is on new institutionalism and its discursively oriented branch, discursive institutionalism (DI), which conceptualize institutions as social orders that both produce their actors and are continuously shaped by them (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991; Schmidt, 2008). Institutions contain assumptions about what is desirable, expected, or normal, and these assumptions guide the forms of agency made possible within them. DI highlights how culturally shared ways of speaking and discourses constitute institutional logics and shape actors’ possibilities (Schmidt 2008).

From this perspective, children can be seen as institutional actors whose identities are discursively constructed and negotiated in ECEC settings. Alasuutari and Markström (2011) found that discussions of early education plans in ECEC centres emphasized social skills as key expectations for “normal” children, constructed through generational and gendered norms. Examining Finnish ECEC plan forms, Alasuutari and Karila (2010) showed that children were depicted through family contexts and personality traits but not as actors. Franck and Nilsen (2015) observed that ideals of the competent child and early intervention practices created positions of deviance for some children in ECEC settings. Heiskanen, Alasuutari, and Vehkakoski (2018) demonstrated how pedagogical documents positioned children with special needs in ways that emphasized their difficulties, interpreting children according to developmental ideals and institutional expectations (Heiskanen, Alasuutari & Vehkakoski, 2015). These studies indicate that discursive practices in ECEC rely on assumptions about what constitutes a “normal” or ideal child, thereby guiding institutional expectations, actions, and decisions. Consequently, institutional “truths” about the child become context-bound while remaining open to continuous negotiation (James & Prout, 1997).

However, existing research has largely examined discursive constructions of children within centre-based ECEC activities. In my research, I extend this examination to include other forms of ECEC as well. Family day care has long been a form of ECEC alongside centre-based provision in many European countries (Mooney & Statham, 2003), yet research on it has focused mainly on professionalization (e.g. Bauters & Vandenbroeck, 2017) and quality issues (e.g. Zheng & Yu, 2023). Far less attention has been paid to how family day care as an institutional form shapes constructions of children and childhood. My aim is to fill this research gap by studying the both forms of ECEC side-by-side and the discourses concerning children in these settings. To do this, I use the case of Finland, which provides a fruitful research context. In Finnish ECEC family daycare plays an important role alongside centre-based provision. Both forms are governed by uniform legislation and a national curriculum and serve as full-time ECEC options for families with young children (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018). By analysing discourses across these Finnish institutional settings, my study broadens the understanding of how diverse ECEC contexts contribute to the construction of childhood.

My research questions are:

1. What kinds of discourses structure talk concerning children in centre-based ECEC and family daycare in Finnish ECEC?
2. How is a child constructed within these discourses?

Previous studies show that how children are produced in ECEC are closely linked to the professionals involved, for example through early childhood education plan discussions (Alasuutari & Markström, 2011) or through pedagogical documents used in ECEC settings (Alasuutari & Karila, 2010; Heiskanen, Alasuutari & Vehkakoski, 2018). To examine the discourses through which children are constructed in centre-based ECEC and family daycare, I draw on focus group discussions (Hennink, 2014) with early childhood education professionals working in these settings. I understand professionals’ conversations as discursive practices—speech acts embedded in the social order of ECEC institutions—that actively produce children as institutional actors (Alasuutari & Markström, 2011; Powell & Di Maggio, 1991; Schmidt, 2008). The data consist of focus group interviews with 25 ECEC professionals, including centre directors, special education teachers, early childhood education teachers, childcarers, and family daycare childminders working in municipalities of various sizes across Finland. In these discussions, the professionals reflected on issues related to both centre-based ECEC and family daycare. I analyse the material using discourse analysis, focusing on the specific words, expressions, and interpretative practices through which children in these settings are portrayed and made sense of. Certain ways of speaking make versions of the child intelligible and legitimate, while simultaneously excluding other possibilities; these constructions could always be otherwise (Wood & Kroger 2012). Consequently, language use does not reflect a single, stable essence of the child but produces multiple possible “versions” of the child. These versions—and the discursive practices that create them—are the focus of my analysis, rather than determining whether one version is more accurate or “real” than another (Wood & Kroger 2012).

I am currently analysing the data, which is why the results are still preliminary. The analysis so far indicates that in both centre-based ECEC and family daycare, children are constructed through three distinct discourses. In the educational discourse, children are viewed through the lens of educability. Children are produced as representatives of their age group who are expected to practice social skills for school in ECEC settings. This discourse emphasises goal-orientedness and interprets children within the framework of age-appropriate psychological development. The discourse of spontaneous growth functions as a counterpoint to this. It seeks to soften the perceived demands of the education system by presenting children as individuals who grow at their own pace, supported by a caring adult rather than structured pedagogical goals. Here, peaceful, self-paced development is prioritised over school-readiness targets. The discourse of support constructs children from a systemic and professionalised perspective. In this discourse, certain children are separated from the broader group and identified by professionals as needing monitoring, intervention, or therapeutic services. The emphasis lies on organising support practices and positioning the child within institutional systems. These discourses appear to be emphasised differently across the forms of ECEC. The educational and support discourses are strongly associated with centre-based ECEC activities, whereas the discourse of spontaneous growth is more prominent in family daycare.

Alanen, L. (2009). The generational order. In J. Qvortrup, W. A. Corsaro, & M.-S. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies (pp. 159–174). Palgrave Macmillan. Alasuutari, M., & Markström, A.-M. (2011). The making of the ordinary child in preschool. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(5), 517–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.555919 Alasuutari, M., & Karila, K. (2010). Framing the Picture of the Child. Children & Society, 24(2), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00209.x Bauters, V., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2017). The professionalisation of family day care in Flanders, France and Germany. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25(3), 386–397. https://doi-org.libproxy.tuni.fi/10.1080/1350293X.2017.1308164 Dahlberg, G. (1999). Constructing the early childhood institution: What do we think it is? In G. Dahlberg, P. Moss, & A. Pence (Eds.), Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Languages of evaluation (pp. 63–86). Routledge. Finnish National Agency for Education. (2018). National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care. Franck, K., & Nilsen, R. D. (2015). The (in)competent child: Subject positions of deviance in Norwegian day-care centres. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 16(3), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949115600023 Heiskanen, N., Alasuutari, M., & Vehkakoski, T. (2018). Positioning children with special educational needs in early childhood education and care documents. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(6), 827–843. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2018.1426443 Hennink, M. (2014). Focus group discussions. Oxford University Press. James, A., & Prout, A. (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. Falmer Press. Kampmann, J. (2004). Societalization of childhood: New opportunities? New demands? In H. Brembeck, B. Johansson, & J. Kampmann (Eds.), Beyond the competent child: Exploring contemporary childhoods in the Nordic welfare societies (pp. 127–152). Roskilde University Press. Leonard, M. (2016). The sociology of children, childhood and generation. SAGE. Mooney, A., & Statham, J. (Eds.). (2003). Family day care: International perspectives on policy, practice and quality. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 303–326. Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2012). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. SAGE. Zheng, C., & Yu, D. (2023). Features, measurement, and quality improvement in family childcare: A systematic literature review (SLR). Early Child Development and Care, 193(15–16), 1667–1699. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2023.2273793