Conference Agenda

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?

This study examines how ostracism takes shape in the everyday life of toddlers (children under three years old) in ECEC settings, focusing on how moments of exclusion are produced and what forms they take. Ostracism typically refers to being ignored or excluded, whether intentionally or unintentionally, often without explanation or overt negative reactions (Williams, 2007; 2001). It´s commonly understood as a process in which person experiences a series of reactions that unfold over time as they are overlooked and left out (Williams, 2007). Ostracism is common, affects all age groups, and has serious consequences for individuals affected by it (Lei Y et al., 2024; Timeo et al., 2019). Previous research shows that ostracism is detrimental to self-esteem, well-being, and fulfilment of basic needs, leading to experiences of loneliness and exclusion (Williams, 2001). The study is guided by the following research question: What kinds of sociomaterial elements produce situations of not-noticing in the everyday life of toddlers in ECEC?

Ostracism has been studied through the experiences of people of different ages and using a variety of methods, such as surveys, self-assessments, and interviews, particularly among adults and young people. Despite its relevance, research on the mechanisms of ostracism remains limited (see Kiuru et al., 2024), and studies focusing on children under the age of three in ECEC settings are especially scarce. For example, study by Woodward and colleagues (2023) shows that children aged 4-6 negatively evaluate peers who excluded others and are less willing to engage with them. Zheng and colleagues (2024) study demonstrated that threats to basic psychological needs due to ostracism begin to emerge around ages 8-10, while mood-related effects are observable as early as 6-8-years. Notably, even a brief re-inclusion was shown to mitigate these negative effects. Quadrelli and colleagues (2023) on the other hand studied the reactions of one-year-old babies to ostracism and suggest that even very young children may be sensitive to ostracism. Although previous studies highlight the developmental relevance of ostracism, they have paid less attention to how exclusion manifests in everyday life in ECEC settings, particularly among toddlers.

In research literature, the phenomenon at the center of this study is typically described through the concepts of ostracism in social psychology and exclusion in sociology and psychology. In this study, the term exclusion is used to refer to these earlier conceptualizations, specifically as a situational phenomenon. Furthermore, the sociomaterial approach made visible an additional form of exclusion, which is in this study conceptualized as not-noticing. Sociomaterial theory (DeLanda, 2016; Orlikowski, 2007) makes it possible to examine this perspective that has received limited attention in previous studies - how spaces, people, institutional practices in ECEC, material arrangements, and on the other hand toddler´s typical ways of communicating nonverbally may together produce situations of exclusion. So, this study aims to address that gap by examining how exclusion is situationally produced through temporary arrangements of people, spaces, objects, and practices (see Suchman, 2007), including institutional responsibilities and obligations and rules that shape participation and exclusion in those everyday situations (Paananen & Grieshaber 2024). In other words, the premise of this study is that exclusion is not only socially produced; it emerges in entanglement with the material environment.

By focusing on children under three years of age, that has received little attention in previous ostracism research, this study contributes to understanding how exclusion may affect individuals already in early childhood. It also highlights how ECEC across Europe could ensure and support children´s equal opportunities to be heard and seen. This perspective is crucial for ongoing European and international efforts to strengthen equitable ECEC.

Digital competence is becoming increasingly more important as the world around us is digitalising rapidly. Digital competence is most commonly defined as a set of knowledge, skills and attitudes that are needed for using digital devices (Ferrari, 2012). Participation in everyday activities and social life increasingly depends on these skills. The development of digital competence begins in early childhood, as early encounters with digital devices can support later digital learning (Hardersen & Guðmundsdóttir, 2012). An important yet underexplored question, therefore, is where children should acquire these digital skills.
Empirical evidence on teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of where children should learn ICT-related skills is limited, especially across countries, as previous research has been mainly focusing on evaluating children’s and teachers’ achievements and participants’ views on digital competence (Su & Yang, 2024). This study addresses this gap by examining parents’ and teachers’ views on where children should learn different ICT-related skills in early childhood education, and how these views differ across countries.
The study is driven by the European DigComp framework for citizens’ digital competence (Vuorikari, Kluzer, & Punie, 2022), which outlines key areas of children’s digital competence. In addition, the analysis draws on sociocultural perspectives on learning (Rogoff, 2003) and ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) to understand children’s digital learning as situated across home and kindergarten settings and shaped by broader national contexts.
The study is based on survey data from 1992 respondents (821 teachers and 1171 parents) from four countries (Estonia, Germany, Latvia, and Slovenia). Respondents were asked where children should learn five ICT-related skills, ranging from basic familiarisation to critical understanding and digital production.
Descriptive analyses revealed a clear and consistent pattern across skills and countries. Parents were constantly more likely than teachers to locate ICT learning primarily at home, while teachers rather favoured shared responsibility between home and kindergarten, and in some cases kindergarten alone.
Chi-square and Fisher exact tests revealed the same statistically significant differences between parents and teachers for most skills in Estonia and Germany, with small to moderate effect sizes (Cramer’s V between 0.18 and 0.30). In contrast, Latvia showed few differences between parents and teachers, indicating more aligned views. Slovenia displayed a mixed pattern, with differences emerging for some skills, particularly ICT selection and production.
To further clarify the direction of these differences while accounting for country context, ordinal regression analyses were conducted for two key skills: recognising ICT opportunities and risks and producing ICT products. Results confirmed that teachers were significantly more likely than parents to support kindergarten involvement or shared responsibility, even after accounting for country differences. Country comparisons showed that respondents in Germany and Slovenia were less supportive of kindergarten involvement than those in Estonia, particularly for ICT production, while Latvia did not differ clearly from Estonia.
Overall, these findings reveal systematic differences between parents’ and teachers’ views on where children should learn ICT-related skills. Furthermore, notable variation across national contexts is also present. These differences point to underlying misunderstandings in how responsibility for children’s digital competence development is divided. By examining the views of parents and teachers across multiple countries, the study contributes to a European dialogue on the role of early childhood education in children’s digital competence development.
From an educational research perspective, the results suggest that digital competence in early childhood cannot be understood solely in terms of skills or access but must also be analysed as a relational and institutional issue involving cooperation between families and educational institutions. The findings raise important questions for European policy and practice about how shared responsibility for children’s digital competence is conceptualised, communicated and supported within early childhood education systems.

Everyday preschool life unfolds within spaces shaped by the relations of those immersed in them. These spaces are not neutral settings, but carriers of meanings continuously produced and negotiated by the participants through everyday activities and engagements.

In research on human–environment relations, a distinction is commonly made between space and place. Drawing on humanistic geography, space is understood as openness characterised by physical movement, while place refers to those parts of space that have been endowed with meaning, value and subjectivity through lived experience (Tuan, 1977). From this perspective, places are not defined solely by their physical properties, but by the meanings and interpretations that emerge through everyday practices and relations.

Within educational research, place is approached as a relational and socially constructed phenomenon that is integral to educational experience rather than as a purely physical setting. Place-conscious perspectives emphasise that educational processes are always situated and that places both shape, and are shaped by, the practices, emotions and relations unfolding within them (Gruenewald, 2003; Schroder, 2006).

More recent perspectives extend these approaches by questioning their anthropocentric assumptions and by attending to more-than-human dimensions of educational situations. Informed by actor–network theory (Latour, 2010), education is increasingly understood as a network of relations involving human and more-than-human actors, including material objects, spatial arrangements and everyday practices. From this viewpoint, place becomes an active participant in educational processes rather than a passive backdrop.

Building on these perspectives, place-conscious perspectives intersect with insights from embodied and multimodal theories of cognition, which emphasise that meaning-making is grounded in bodily action, sensory engagement and situated interaction with the environment. From this viewpoint, children’s engagements with place are not primarily articulated through verbal reflection, but emerge through movement, gesture, rhythm, touch and interaction with material elements of their surroundings. Multisensory experience thus constitutes a fundamental mode through which young children perceive, express and communicate meanings of place, particularly in early childhood settings where cognition, action and perception remain closely intertwined.

The methodological focus on the Mosaic Approach and Child-Led Tours carries an international and inclusive potential. By relying on embodied, multisensory and multimodal forms of communication rather than verbal language alone, the research design enables the participation of children from diverse linguistic, cultural and educational environments

Accordingly, the presentation explores selected empirical moments from an ongoing qualitative study with children aged 3-6. The guiding research question asks:
How are meanings of place communicated and made accessible through children’s embodied and multisensory forms of engagement in preschool settings?
Rather than offering a comprehensive account of children’s relations with place, the focus is on illustrating how meanings emerge and are shared through multisensory communication within the research process.