Conference Agenda
| Session | ||
28 SES 05 A: Sociologies of Early Childhood Education
Paper Session | ||
| Presentations | ||
28. Sociologies of Education
Paper Men Future Early Childhood Education Teachers in Greece: Attitudes and Perceptions Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Presenting Author:All over the world only a tiny proportion of early childhood education teachers are male, with a global average of 2-6% (Rohman et al, 2021), despite the commitments made to increase the involvement of males (European Commission Network on Childcare, 1996). In Greece this percentage is even lower, reaching 1,4% in 2021. Even though there does not appear to be any formal data about the numbers of males studying to become early childhood education teachers, it is assumed that they are also a very small minority. At the Department of Education Sciences in Early Childhood, in Democritus University, Greece, male students account for around 3-4% of the student populations each year. The purpose of this study is to investigate males who choose to study early childhood education. What are the reasons behind their choice? Is it made by chance or is it something they wanted? How do they construct their identities as male students and future professionals in early childhood education? The theoretical framework that underpins this study draws upon Connell’s (2009) analysis of gender as a social construction, embedded in societal structures, from the personal to university and workplace order. The way gender is constantly constructed and reconstructed influences the roles in the public sphere, in the studies and in employment aspirations. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper focuses on data from an ongoing postdoctoral research. Qualitative data from male students was collected through semi-structured interviews, that allowed participants to talk about their perceptions and constructions (Silverman, 2010) in a space where the respondents could engage in a dialogic process and feel more at ease and less mechanical in their relationship with me as the researcher (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). A feminist methodological approach was followed (Stanley & Wise, 1990; Iglessi, 2001) adopting a humanist paradigm (Pourkos, 2010) in order to understand and give meaning to the participants’ talk. Power relations were always kept in mind, as the researcher is also part of the teaching staff at the same university. Participants were informed about the purpose of the research and the time of the interviews was negotiated. They took part voluntarily and were able to withdraw at any time. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The results show that in contrast to other research (i.e. Mousena & Sidiropoulou, 2018; Rentzou & Ziganitidou, 2009), the majority of the students who participated in the presents research “drifted” into early childhood education studies, but they keep on studying because they either became interested in it, or because they realized there are better employment opportunities than in other professional fields. Also, it does not seem to be widely accepted that social perceptions about male and female professions have changed, especially when care of children is involved. By last, it is argued that early childhood education should be promoted as a profession for both females and males in order to raise male participation. References Connell, R. W. (2009). Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) (2005). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE European Commission Childcare Network (1993). Men as Carers: Report of an International Seminar. Ravenna, Italy, 21-22 May 1993 Igglesi, Ch. (2001). Reflexivity in Feminist Research. Athens: Odisseas [in Greek] Mousena, E. & Sidiropoulou, T. (2018). Contemporary Challenges and the Rise of Men in Early Childhood Education and Care in Greece. Paper presented on the 28th ECERA Annual Conference, 30/8/2018, Budapest, Hungary. Pourkos, M. (2010). The Meaning of Theory and Its Role in Social Science Research: The 'Crisis' and the Key 'Paradigms'. In M. Pourkos, & M. Dafermos, (Ed.). Qualitative Research in the Social Sciences: Epistemological, Methodological and Ethical Issues. Athens: Topos, pp. 59-130. [in Greek] Rentzou, K., & Ziganitidou, K. (2009). Greek Male Early Childhood Educators: Self and Societal Perceptions Towards Their Chosen Profession. Early Years, 29(3), pp. 271-279 Rohrmann, T., Brody, D. & Plaisir, J. Y. (2021). A Diversity of Cultural and Institutional Contexts. In D. Brody, K. Emilsen, T. Rohrmann, & J. Warin (eds) Exploring Career Trajectories of Men in the Early Childhood Education and Care Workforce. Why They Leave and Why They Stay. London: Routledge, pp. 28–40 Silverman, D. (2010). Doing Qualitative Research: A practical handbook. London: SAGE Stanley, L. & Wise, S. (1990). Method, Methodology and Epistemology in Feminist Research Processes. In Stanley, L. (ed.) Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology. London: Routledge, pp. 20-62 28. Sociologies of Education
Paper Future Visions for Early Childhood Education in Finland University of Eastern Finland Presenting Author:
In this study the aim is to examine views on the future of early childhood education (ECE). Finnish ECE has faced many changes since 2010, for the ECE-policy has not been stable. The transfer of ECE from the social welfare and health care sector to the Ministry of Education and Culture took place in 2013. This transfer reflected the rationale of educational continuity and cohesion (Paananen, 2017). Since 2015 The Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE) became as a national expert office for ECE. FNAE guides and develops ECE and is also responsible for the National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education. The first ECE curriculum as a norm was implemented in 2016 (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016). The curriculum emphasized pedagogy and education and set goals for high quality in ECE which set challenges to the competence of ECE staff and the actual quality to services (Puroila, Kinnunen & Keränen 2017). This was and still is not easily done because there was a huge shortage of qualified teachers. (lähteet). One other structural change concerning Finnish ECE is privatization. Finland is internationally known as a ‘latecomer’ in the league of countries favoring market-friendly and private provision of ECE (Dovemark et al., 2018). After 2010 the private sector on ECE has increased substantially and currently in Finland we have both for-profit and non for-profit organizations (Ruutiainen et al., 2020; Valkonen eta a., 2021). According to Laiho and Pihlaja (2022) privatization has become part of Finnish ECE through tacit and invisible steps, both in legislation and also in municipal services illustrating hidden privatization (see Ball and Yodell, 2007). The next change was the reform that was launched in 2022 when the three-step support system came into force (Pihlaja, Mikkola and Kumpulainen 2025). This reform followed the support system that was at that time also in basic education and in pre-school education. However, this support system changed in pre-school and basic education in 2025 and again in ECE and basic education have different support systems. The national ECE policy has tried to achieve higher structural quality while at the same time there are factors that challenge it. In addition to shortage of qualified teachers the current Government has proposed overruled some ECE norms. This takes place in a situation where several municipalities tighten up ECE activities. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used In this study we used the Delphi method (Kuusi 2014; Jorm 2025). The material was gathered in two phases. At first, 20 participants (10 ECE leaders and 10 special teachers) participated in individual interviews where the researcher and the interviewee discussed what kind of ECE policy should be in future both at the municipal and at the national level. The thematic content analysis was used in order to form 11 future claims related to the future of ECE. The claims were formed based on the synthesis of the interview data. This material was gathered via webropol survey. The claims described broader education and societal policy developments in ECE. In this survey respondents were asked to evaluate future claims in two dimensions: on the one hand, to assess the likelihood of the claims and, on the other hand, their desirability. So-called gap analysis was used in the analysis of the claims. Gap analysis is a method that can be used to identify the difference between the current state and the desired future. The gap analysis was performed by adding up the values obtained by all eleven variables and dividing the sums by the total number of respondents (Likert average). Thereafter, average differences (probability - desirability) were calculated from the Likert averages. The mean difference was expressed as a gap. The greater the gap, the greater the difference between the current state of ECE and the desired early childhood education. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The analysis that is still going on revealed some tensions concerning the current situation e.g. on the support system. The strongest hopes were for the possibility of having a reduced amount of children in a child group with a full-time special education teacher. In addition, it would be highly desirable if the municipal had a sufficient budget reserve during the operating period to meet the resource needs of children´s support. The claim “preschool education is organized as part of early childhood education and activities in the ECE institution are the responsibility of the manager who has completed the master's degree in education” was also a desirable one. According to the respondents, the status of ECE as a part of the education system should be strengthened and early childhood education, pre-primary education and basic education should be under the same legislation. The gap-analysis is currently in the works. References Ball, S. & Yodell, D. (2008). Hidden Privatization in Public Education. Brussels: Education International. Dovemark M, Kosunen S, Kauko J, Magnusdottir, B., Hansen, P., & Rasmussen, P. et al. (2018) Deregulation, privatisation and marketisation of Nordic comprehensive education: social changes reflected in schooling. Education Inquiry 9(1), 122–141. Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016). The National Curriculum for Early Childhood Education. Jorm, A. (2025). Using the Delphi Method to Establish Expert Consensus. Springer Nature. Laiho, A. & Pihlaja, P. (2022). Is Finnish early childhood education going private? Policy Futures in Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103221074474. Kuusi, O. (2014). Delfoi-metodi [Delphi-method]. https://metodix.fi/2014/05/19/kuusi-delfoi-metodi/ (10.1.2025) Paananen, M. (2017). Imaginaries of Early Childhood Education: Societal Roles of Early Childhood Education in an Era of Accountability. University of Helsinki. Pihlaja, P., Mikkola, A., & Kumpulainen, K. (2025). Tuen reformi varhaiskasvatuksessa -tuen päätökset ja rakenteellisen tuen toteutuminen varhaiskasvatuslain muutosten jälkeen 2022. Oppimisen ja oppimisvaikeuksien erityislehti, 35(1), 25 – 43 Ruutiainen, V., Alasuutari, M. & Karila, K., (2020) Rationalising public support for private early childhood education and care: the case of Finland. British Journal of Sociology of Education 41(4): 32–47. Valkonen, S., Pesonen, J., & Brunila, K. (2021). Varhaiskasvatuksen markkinat - Näkökulmana yksityistyvät palvelut. Kasvatus 52(2), 223 – 234. 28. Sociologies of Education
Paper Bourdieu and Digital Educational Inequalities in the Age of AI—A Systematic Review Universität Klagenfurt, Austria Presenting Author:Where earlier debates on generative AI primarily focused on transformations of the labour market and the potential automation of routine-intensive occupations, AI has increasingly become a subject of educational and policy-related discussions due to its “transformative potential in the field of education” (Cooper, 2023, p. 444). This development is reflected in the EU AI Act, in which the European Parliament (2024) classifies AI systems used in educational contexts as high-risk applications. While the use of generative AI in learning processes undoubtedly also entails new opportunities, for instance regarding individualised learning and instant feedback, the scientific discourse (e.g. Deng et al., 2024)—similar to current policy debates—has also highlighted several risks. Existing debates thereby predominantly address issues such as copyright and data protection as well as environmental costs related to the high energy consumption of AI-based systems. By contrast, considerably less attention has been paid to the risk that generative AI may intensify pre-existing educational inequalities through socially differentiated patterns of use. Despite its clear relevance for educational research and policy, sociological perspectives on the use of generative AI in educational contexts remain underdeveloped. In this regard, research building on Pierre Bourdieu’s social theory offers particularly promising points of connection for the analysis of AI-related digital educational inequalities for two reasons. First, Bourdieu’s theory of reproduction (1964) is firmly established in research on educational inequality; second, Bourdieu’s social theory has also been employed in analyses of the digital divide (e.g., Ragnedda and Ruiu, 2020). Yet their application to current developments in generative AI in education remains fragmented. Against this background, this contribution provides a systematic review of digital educational inequalities from a Bourdieusian perspective, with a special focus on AI. It aims to (1) systematise theoretical conceptualisations, (2) identify dominant methodological operationalisations and their limitations, and (3) clarify the empirical status of generative AI within the reviewed literature. In doing so, the review situates debates on AI in education within broader traditions of inequality research and highlights avenues for future empirical studies. The central research question guiding the presentation is How is Bourdieu’s social theory theoretically mobilised and methodologically operationalised in research on digital educational inequalities, with particular reference to artificial intelligence? The relevance of generative AI for social inequality becomes particularly evident when digital inequality is conceptualised not merely in terms of access, but also regarding competencies, skills, and knowledge required for the meaningful use of information and communication technologies (ICT) (Rudolph, 2019, p. 104–105). In direct reference to Bourdieu (2002, pp. 172, 193), these resources can be understood as technological capital. As a specific form of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 2012), technological capital has increasingly become a decisive resource in contemporary knowledge societies—both in educational settings and in the labour market (Drossel et al., 2019, p. 380). From a European perspective, prior research indicates that even in countries with comparatively low levels of digital inequality, such as Finland, socially patterned differences in the use of ICT persist (Cruz-Jesus et al., 2016, p. 81). In the context of European educational cooperation, the European Union (2020) had already formulated the objective of addressing not only inequalities in access, but also differences in digital skills and usage among students prior to the rapid diffusion of generative AI. Digital educational inequalities can thus be understood as a structural challenge of contemporary education systems in Europe which gains renewed urgency in light of recent developments in generative AI. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used To provide an analysis of the available literature on digital educational inequalities from a Bourdieusian perspective and to address the research question, a systematic review was considered a particularly suitable methodological approach. It follows the PRISMA guidelines and incorporates Alexander’s (2020) field-specific considerations for educational research. For the literature search, the international bibliographic databases SCOPUS and Web of Science Core Collection were consulted. The initial search was conducted on 18 December 2025 and was based on the following sequence of search terms: bourdieu AND (“digital divide” OR “digital inequality” OR “media habitus” OR “digital habitus” OR “digital capital” OR “technological capital”) AND (education OR school OR learning OR classroom OR instruction OR lesson OR student OR teacher OR teaching). The search yielded 41 records in SCOPUS and 222 records in the Web of Science Core Collection. After the removal of 24 duplicates, a total of 239 publications were identified for inclusion in the systematic review. These publications are screened first on the basis of their titles and abstracts, and thereafter through full-text assessment, with regard to their relevance to the research question and the inclusion criteria outlined below. All included publications must be available in English or German. In addition to qualitative and quantitative empirical studies as well as mixed-methods designs, conceptual contributions will also be included. Given the manageable number of publications identified within this systematic review, and the fact that the relevant literature is predominantly recent, no temporal restrictions will be applied. Preliminary results indicate that approximately three quarters of the identified publications were published within the last ten years, and that almost all included studies date back no more than twenty years. Including the small number of publications from the early 2000s allows the research field framed by the chosen search terms to be synthesised from its inception. In light of the dynamic nature of the research field, articles currently in press for publication in peer-reviewed journals will also be considered for inclusion. The final selection of studies will be described during the presentation using a PRISMA flow diagram. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The systematic review is expected to provide an analysis of how Bourdieusian social theory has been theoretically mobilised and empirically operationalised in research on digital educational inequalities, with particular attention to studies addressing or touching upon the use of generative artificial intelligence in educational contexts. First, the review will likely identify a set of dominant theoretical entry points through which Bourdieu’s concepts are applied to questions of digital inequality in education. It is anticipated that Bourdieu’s concept of technological capital, alongside more recent notions such as digital capital and digital habitus, serves as a central analytical bridge between classical research on educational inequalities and contemporary digitalisation processes. Second, the review is expected to reveal considerable heterogeneity in the methodological operationalisation of Bourdieusian concepts. While qualitative approaches may predominantly focus on habitus-related dimensions of technology use, quantitative studies are likely to operationalise digital inequality primarily through proxy indicators of access, skills, or usage frequency. The results may point to a tension between theoretically ambitious frameworks and empirically reductive measurements. Third, regarding empirical findings, the review is expected to show consistent evidence that variables such as (parental) education and occupation, first language, migration background, and gender are associated with differentiated patterns of technology use in educational settings as well as overall technological competences. However, it is anticipated that explicit analyses of generative AI applications remain scarce, fragmented, or only implicitly addressed. Overall, the review is expected to identify substantial research gaps, particularly concerning the systematic integration of generative AI into Bourdieusian analyses of digital educational inequalities. Insights into the application of Bourdieusian theoretical frameworks and their methodological operationalisation for studying digital educational inequalities are expected to provide a valuable basis for empirical research on the role of generative AI in shaping digital educational inequalities. References Alexander, P. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of educational research, 90(1), 6-23. Bachsleitner, A., Lämmchen, R., & Maaz, K. (Eds.). (2022). Soziale Ungleichheit des Bildungserwerbs von der Vorschule bis zur Hochschule. Eine Forschungssynthese zwei Jahrzehnte nach PISA. Waxmann Verlag GmbH. https://doi.org/10.31244/9783830996248 Bourdieu, P. (2002). Der Einzige und sein Eigenheim. VSA-Verlag. Bourdieu, P. (2012). Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. In U. Bauer, U. H. Bittlingmayer, & A. Scherr (Eds.), Handbuch Bildungs- und Erziehungssoziologie (pp. 229–242). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18944-4_15 Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1964). Les héritiers: les étudiants et la culture. Les Éditions de minuit. Cooper, G. (2023). Examining science education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of generative artificial intelligence. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(3), 444–452. Cruz-Jesus, F., Vicente, M. R., Bacao, F., & Oliveira, T. (2016). The education-related digital divide: An analysis for the EU-28. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.027 Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2024). Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Computers & Education, 105224. Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., & Vennemann, M. (2019). Digitalisierung und Bildungsgerechtigkeit–die schulische Perspektive. DDS–Die Deutsche Schule, 111(4), 379-390. European Union. (2020). Digital Education Action Plan 2021–2027: Resetting education and training for the digital age (COM (2020) 624 final). Publications Office of the European Union. https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document-library-docs/deap-communication-sept2020_en.pdf European Parliament. (2024). Amendments adopted on 14 June 2023 on the Artificial Intelligence Act. Official Journal of the European Union. Neumann, K., Kuhn, J., & Drachsler, H. (2024). Generative Künstliche Intelligenz in Unterricht und Unterrichtsforschung – Chancen und Herausforderungen. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 52(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-024-00212-6 Ragnedda, M., & Ruiu, M. L. (2020). Digital capital: A Bourdieusian perspective on the digital divide. Emerald Publishing Limited. Robinson, L., Cotten, S. R., Ono, H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch, G., Chen, W., Schulz, J., Hale, T. M., & Stern, M. J. (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532 Rudolph, S. (2019). Digitale Medien, Partizipation und Ungleichheit: Eine Studie zum sozialen Gebrauch des Internets (1st ed. 2019). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden Imprint: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26943-2 | ||