Conference Agenda

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.

The society of today puts great demands on personnel in early childhood education and care (ECEC) since expectations are that personnel can support children with a wide variety of needs. Research indicate that personnel in ECEC lack knowledge regarding children with special educational needs (Hannås & Hanssen, 2016) and furthermore personnel might lack knowledge regarding inclusive practice (Lundqvist et al., 2016). For ensuring that children receive appropriate and inclusive support in regular educational settings collaboration between professionals with different competencies is a necessity. In Finland, a common collaborative approach is that early childhood special education teachers (ECSETs) deliver consultative support to personnel in ECEC (Heiskanen & Viitala, 2019). The aim of this paper is to gain an understanding of how ECSETs experience their consultative role in ECEC. We have formulated two research questions that guided the study. The research questions are as follows; `How do ECSETs experience the prevailing conditions surrounding the consultative role´ and `How do ECSETS experience the implementation of consultation and the use of consultation strategies´. For present research, a multiple-case study design was chosen since it is an effective methodology to study multifaceted issues in real-world settings (Yin, 2014). Data is collected through semi structured group interviews and ten respondents from four different municipalities are divided into three interview groups. First, the case analysis was written as a narrative report for each case followed by a cross-case analysis where shared patterns and themes were searched for (Yin, 2014). The in-depth description of each case is presented as three narratives; (a) frustrated knowledge sharer, (b) adapted and collaborative quick-fixers, and (c) satisfied reflection supporters. By comparing patterns through the lens of theory (Abbott, 1988) and earlier research two themes addressing the research question become visible: poor conditions – weak jurisdiction for conducting the consultative task and balancing between quick fixes and the use of reflection as consultation strategy. The chapter concludes that the prevailing practical conditions and a weak jurisdiction hinder high quality consultations. Furthermore, consultation is not clearly stated or implemented in policy documents or in local work descriptions nor is it clearly communicated in the ambits that ECETS operate in.

Abbott, A. (1988). The System of professions. An essay on the division of expert labor. University of Chicago. Hannås, B-M, & Bahdanovich Hanssen, N. (2016). Special needs education in light of the inclusion principle: An exploratory study of special needs education practice in Belarusian and Norwegian preschools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31:4, 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1194576 Heiskanen, N., & Viitala, R. (2019). Special educational needs and disabilities in early childhood education (Finland). In J. Kauko & M. Waniganayake (Eds.). Bloomsbury education and childhood studies. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350995925.0004 Lundqvist, J., Westling Allodi, M., & Siljehag, E. (2016). Characteristics of Swedish preschools that provide education and care to children with special educational needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 3(1), 124–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2015.1108041 Yin, R. (2014). Case study research (5th ed.). Sage.

Well-trained and motivated professionals play a crucial role in ensuring the delivery of high-quality ECEC to all children and their families (European Commission, 2021). However, the development of an interprofessional team may face challenges stemming from subjective and differently interpreted communication, as well as a lack of presumptions for success and efficient communication within the teams (D’Amour et al., 2005). This presentation explores the concept of (in)formal communication among professionals as a key component of interprofessional team collaboration in addressing the special educational needs (SEN) of children. Interprofessional collaboration and communication are characterized by active relationships among professionals from various sectors such as educational support, health care, and social support, all working together with the shared goals of joint problem-solving and service provision (Barret & Keeping, 2005; Reeves et al., 2010). In the context of ECEC, interprofessional collaboration is grounded in a holistic approach and is viewed as a prerequisite for fostering equal, partnership-based relationships, along with the complexity and integration of services (Barker, 2009). In our study, we aimed to identify and interpret communication experiences among professionals collaborating within different types of ECEC teams to address the SEN of children. The research question guiding this study was: What are the main components of interprofessional communication as identified by professionals working in contexts within special and inclusive ECEC? The research adopts ethnographic case study research design, delving into subjective meanings of participants to elucidate interprofessional communication within two ECEC settings. Specifically, the study examines implementation of communication and explores the meanings manifested in professionals' narratives (Elliot, 2005; Ntinda, 2020). The qualitative methods, including individual and group interviews and observational journals have been employed to collect data. Qualitative thematic analysis has been carried out following the inductive logics of data analysis. The findings move between concrete expressions and descriptive text on meanings of lived experiences (Van Manen, 2016; Sundler et al., 2019). The research findings are presented through group narratives, collaboratively co-constructed by both the researchers and the participants involved in the study. The findings indicate that professionals in ECEC interprofessional teams highlight the following communication aspects as crucial when addressing children's educational needs: adopting a holistic approach to child development and education; emphasizing informal everyday communication, which involves sharing professional knowledge, experiences, and collaborative problem-solving; recognizing the significance of formal communication during team meetings, encompassing functional goals, the structure of discussions, and the ability to actively participate in team deliberations

Barker, R. (2009). Making Sense of Every Child Matters: Multiprofessional Practice Guidance. The Policy Press. Barrett, G., & Keeping, C. (2005). The Processes Required for Effective Interprofessional Working. In G. Barret, D. Sellman, & I. Thomas (Eds.), Interprofessional Working in Health and Social Care: Professional Perspectives (pp.19-31). Palgrave Macmillan. Elliot, J. (2005). Using Narrative in Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage. European Commission (Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture). (2021). Early childhood education and care: how to recruit, train and motivate well-qualified staff: final report. Publications Office, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/489043 D’Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L., & Beaulie, M. D. (2005). The Conceptual Basis for Interprofessional Collaboration: Core Concepts and Theoretical Frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 1, 116–131. Ntinda, K., (2020). Narrative Research. In P. Liamputtong (Ed). Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Springer, pp.1-12. Sundler, AJ, Lindberg, E., Nilsson, C., Palmér, L. (2019). Qualitative thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology. Nurs Open, 6(3), 733-739. doi: 10.1002/nop2.275. PMID: 31367394; PMCID: PMC6650661. Van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of practice. New York, NY: Routlege. [Google Scholar]

Numerous studies have demonstrated that, on the practice level, the interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in Norwegian ECEC is often unsatisfactory and inadequate—in the sense of it being rare—while also apparently weakening the continuity and quality of inclusive ECEC (Hannås & Hanssen, 2016). A weak system of IPC can be explained by the lack of attention on the policy and legislation levels regarding central guidance and the coordination of services (Nordahl et al., 2018). Surprisingly, neither the Kindergarten Act (KA) nor Framework Plan have been able to provide a guide for IPC for how to draft the interprofessional approach, which has led to them being criticised for not being more detailed and specific about the content and design of IPC (KA, 2006; MER, 2017). Indeed, there is a reported lack of concrete measures and follow-ups on the progression of ECEC work with respect to quality and availability (Nordahl et al., 2018). The aim of this paper is to give an overview of IPC in ECEC at the legal and legislative levels. We have formulated the following question: How is IPC defined and described in Norwegian legal and legislative documents, and what guidelines are laid down for this collaboration? The empirical basis of the current paper is a document analysis. Three main legal and legislative documents which treats the concept of IPC, were chosen for analysis: Kindergarten Act 2006 (KA, 2006); Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of ECEC (MER, 2017); Meld. St. 6 (2019–2020) Early intervention and inclusive education in kindergartens, schools and out-of-school-hours care (MER, 2019). In the current study, the data consisted of texts that were analysed with the help of thematic analysis using an inductive approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The results show that there is a lack of concrete definitions of IPC in legal and legislative documents. Furthermore, the legal and legislative documents provide some guidelines for IPC but on a general level and with an unclear basis. The chapter concludes that the definition of IPC in ECEC should be clarified and explained more clearly and made more apparently related to each other, both in the legal and legislative documents. As practical implications, drawing up a common national strategy plan and common guidelines regarding IPC in ECEC can be an effective move the authorities could use to steer development in the education sector towards more inclusive ECEC, especially for children with special educational needs.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Hannås, B. M., & Hanssen, N. B. (2016). Special needs education in light of the inclusion principle: An exploratory study of special needs education practice in Belarusian and Norwegian preschools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(4), 520–534. http://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1194576 Kindergarten act (2006). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005- 06-17-64 Ministry of Education and Research [MER]. (2017). Framework plan for the content and tasks of ECECs. https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/barnehage/rammeplan/framework-plan-for-ECECs2- 2017.pdf Ministry of Education and Research [MER]. (2019). Close attention – Early intervention and inclusive community in ECEC, school and after-school care. (Meld. St. 6 (2019–2020)). https://www.regjeringen.no Nordahl, T., Persson, B., Brørup Dyssegaard, C., Wessel Hennestad, B., Vaage Wang, M., Martinsen, J., & Johnsen, T. (2018). Inclusive community for children and young people. The expert group for children and young people with SEN. Fagbokforlaget.