Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20
International Journal of Inclusive Education
ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20
Characteristics of Nordic research on special
education in preschool: a review with special focus
on Swedish conditions
Linda Palla
To cite this article: Linda Palla (2018): Characteristics of Nordic research on special education in preschool: a review with special focus on Swedish conditions, International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1441337
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1441337
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Published online: 28 Feb 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 330
View Crossmark data
Characteristics of Nordic research on special education in
preschool: a review with special focus on Swedish conditions
Linda Palla
Faculty of Education and Society, Department of Children, Youth and Society, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden
ABSTRACT
The article identifies and reviews current Nordic research on special education in preschool. The research question was: What characterises Nordic research on special education in preschool between the years 2006 and 2014? The analysis that was applied was configurational and the procedure included a content analysis. The results of the present review indicate that the included studies are characterised by intimacy and depth in relation to preschool practice, with predominantly qualitative data created through interviews and with a variety of theories. Teachers’ voices dominate, while special educators, and parents’ voices are heard to some degree. Children’s voices are rarely heard and then only through video recordings in which the adult interprets the child.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 17 November 2017 Accepted 31 January 2018
KEYWORDS
Children in need of special support; inclusion; Nordic; preschool; special education; special educators
Introduction
In an inclusive preschool, children’s well-being, development, and learning become central issues. All children are entitled to both receive the support and be presented with the edu-cational challenges they are perceived to be in need of (UNCRC1989; Unesco1994). The concepts of inclusion and inclusive education were central parts of the agreements in the Salamanca Statement (Unesco1994). Inclusion can be defined as something qualitatively different than integration, since inclusion requires that all children are seen as a part of the whole (Ahlberg2013) and that the education suits all (Egelund, Haug, and Persson2006). Inclusion is closely linked to the ideas of democracy, equal rights and participation
(Ahlberg 2013). One could argue that with the absence of exclusion or segregation,
there is no need for integration.
Preschool has been said to welcome all children (Palla2011). The concept‘preschool for all children’ has changed in meaning during the past century in, for example, Sweden. The early forms of preschool primarily focused on physical accessibility for all. In recent years, more attention has been directed towards special education content. With preschool being regarded as the first step in the education system and special education being seen as a key area in matters concerning preschool quality, research on special education in preschool
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
CONTACT Linda Palla linda.palla@mau.se Faculty of Education and Society, Department of Children, Youth and Society, Malmö University, Nordenskiöldgatan 10, SE-205 06 Malmö, Sweden
has a central role to play. As today’s preschool in the Nordic countries is a part of the edu-cation system, with an enhanced learning focus and inclusive ideals, there is a need to study the terms and conditions for an inclusive preschool.
The Nordic early childhood research field has not yet developed in accordance with the strive of preschool being an institution of prevention, equalisation and early intervention. The research field is in need of strong growth and strategic efforts (Tallberg-Broman
2015). A large part of the existing Nordic special education research has been conducted in other parts of the school system, so it is important to identify the research that has been carried out in preschool.
The latest comprehensive research overview (Emanuelsson, Persson, and Rosenqvist2001) carried out in the special education field dealt primarily with Swedish research that had been completed and published in 1995 and later. The overview includes Nordic and international comparisons. Since 2001, no similarly comprehensive and comparative Swedish research over-view appears to have been published that specifically relates to special education in preschool as a field of knowledge. However, other knowledge and research overviews may be attributed to the special education field, since they include preschool to some extent, such as overviews of research on dyslexia (Myrberg2007) or on special education from an international perspective (Nilholm2006). Nilholm and Björck-Åkesson (2007) have argued that research on special education in general in Sweden is in a phase of expansion.
With this background, one could argue that research on special education in relation to preschool as the first step in the education system is in need of greater visibility and sys-tematisation. It is important to periodically identify and review prevailing and relevant research to guide future research. A Nordic perspective may then serve as a first entry in identifying and creating knowledge about the research field of special education in pre-school. This could contribute to a greater understanding of what constitutes the research field, and furthermore, it´s base of knowledge.
The forms of preschool in the Nordic countries have somewhat different titles, but are similar in character, purpose, and content, which has motivated the present review. The Nordic countries as well as the other OECD countries are, according to Jensen (2009), a part of the field of early childhood education where‘intervention in daycare/pre-school is con-sidered the best way to give children a good beginning in life, particularly socially endangered children’ (p. 11). The Nordic model is defined by its specific character and wide mission. The preschool in the Nordic countries is well developed, has extensive opening hours, relatively low fees and a large participation of children from one to six years. The preschool is based on a
combination of education and care; the Nordic EDUCARE model (Tallberg-Broman2015).
The main occupational groups working in, and in relation to, preschool are care givers, pre-school teachers and special educators, or similar.
This review is a limited and developed part of a larger study that was conducted as one of the research reviews carried out in conjunction with the establishment of the Swedish Institute for Educational Research. Therefore the article reflects Swedish conditions to a somewhat greater degree and the concept‘preschool’ is used throughout the article.
Aim and research questions
The aim of this review is to identify and review current Nordic research on special edu-cation in preschool. The main research question is: What characterises Nordic research
on special education in preschool between the years 2006 and 2014? More specifically, the subquestions in this article are: (1) What characterises the aims of the research in terms of closeness to the preschool practice, (2) What data collection methods are used in the research, and what characterises the data and analytical approaches used in the research, (3) What theories are used in the research, and (4) Which participants voices take pre-cedence in the research?
Methods and data
Analytical strategy
The analytical strategy can be described by Åkerstrøm Andersen’s (1999) words, namely that the analytical strategy is a strategy for how researchers construct others’ observations by expressing what they themselves express. Since the review includes studies using differ-ent theories, as well as both quantitative and qualitative approaches, the analysis is config-urational, in an exploratory sense. The strive in this strategy is to create, organise and
present a meaningful picture of the included research (Levinsson 2015), in the parts
and as a whole. The procedure includes a thematic content analysis, to identify, compare and report the findings in a way that is fruitful to professionals in preschool (see also Analysis Process). Thematic analysis is often used to analyse primary qualitative
research (Thomas and Harden2008), as in this case. To summaries and synthesise the
findings of this review this approach was found to be suitable.
According to it instructions, the Swedish Institute for Educational Research is, for example, to validate research results in the area with respect to quality and relevance, sys-tematically compile research results of good scientific quality and present these results in a way that is of use to professionals in the education system, identify areas in the education system where there is a lack of relevant practice-centered research (www.skolfi.se).
Selection process
The complexity of special education, both as a concept and as a research and knowledge area, has affected the work of identifying what may be said to constitute the research field of special education in preschool in this review. Special education as a field of knowledge is interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary. The special education knowledge base has long been dominated by medical and psychological research (Helldin2002). This narrow focus has been criticised both in the Nordic region and internationally. The development of special education research has meant, among other things, a significant increase in studies con-ducted in a number of research environments and scientific disciplines (Emanuelsson, Persson, and Rosenqvist2001), for example such areas as education, sociology, and phil-osophy. Special education has a special relationship with education. They are both fre-quently cited as intimately connected with each other and sometimes difficult to distinguish.
This Nordic-oriented research review was based on research in the educational science sphere, and databases in the educational area were selected. To take stock of prevailing and relevant research the review included dissertations and peer-reviewed articles between 2006 and 2014. The following selection criteria were used in the search process. The
studies should (a) be published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal or as a licentiate or doctoral dissertation, (b) be published during the 2006–2014 period, (c) explore preschool contexts in Nordic countries, and (d) regard special education in preschool as the first step in the education system.
Search paths
Studies included in this research review were identified online in five databases– ERIC via EBSCO, Education Research Complete (ERC), the Nordic Base of Early Childhood
Edu-cation and Care (NB-ECEC), SwePub, and LIBRIS – and in three journals – the Nordic
Early Childhood Education Research Journal, Educational Research in Sweden, and Research on Teaching and Learning– as well as in manual searches. The search strings, or the equiv-alent when the search phrases were not applicable, used in the research review were as follows. Similar terms and concepts were included in the searches (‘expanders’).
The Location:
Preschool, or ECEC, or ECE, or early education, or early education and care The Phenomenon:
Special education, or special needs, or special needs education Children in need of special support
Early intervention Special educator
Inclusion or inclusive education Normalisation.
Limitations of the data
This research review did not cover topics of general educational character or development in general, such as participation linked to influence, bi- or multilingualism, general issues of ethics, development plans, or evaluation and assessment in general. The review also did not cover research on general preschool interventions for a specific age or similar, nor did it address standards or normality issues related to ethnicity, gender, or similar. In addition, the review excluded studies of social categories or studies on such themes as‘vulnerable children’ where preschool is seen as a general factor for success. In contrast, the review included studies of social vulnerability and physical and mental health difficulties specifi-cally related to special education. Writings on the profession, the training, professional roles, and similar in special education were included in the selection process only if they explicitly focused on current or future special educators in preschool.
Profile of the search data
The following section describes the searches in the databases and the manual searches, and the outcome of these searches. The NB-ECEC database were the primary database since it collects quality assured research. It contains a topic overview with a total of 78 subject cat-egories. To find the relevant studies, all subject categories were reviewed. The first selec-tion identified 16 studies as relevant for further review. The second selecselec-tion review yielded 14 studies.
The search in SwePub produced 31 hits, of which 5 were licentiate dissertations, 21 were doctoral dissertations, and 5 were journal articles. The review in selection 1 identified
3 licentiate dissertations and 6 doctoral dissertations warranting further review. None of the 5 scientific articles was found to be relevant for further review. Selection 2 retained 3 licentiate dissertations and 5 doctoral dissertations.
The results based on the searches in LIBRIS were a total of 12 licentiate and doctoral dissertations. Of these, 7 were found relevant for further investigation in selection 1, and then also in selection 2.
The outcome of the search in ERIC was that in selection 1, 7 of the 19 search hits were found relevant for further review. The outcome of selection 2 was 4 studies.
Based on 6 search hits in the ERC database, the outcome of selections 1 and 2 was one article seen as relevant for further review.
To ensure that relevant studies even from the most recent years were included in this search process, and as a supplement to the database searches, a complete search of all articles published in the Nordic Early Childhood Education Research Journal between the years 2008 and 2014 was conducted. The manual search revealed a total of 2 articles in selections 1 and 2. Similar searches were conducted in Educational Research in Sweden (between 2006 and 2014) and in the practice-oriented journal Research on Teaching and Learning, with no results from either journal. Four dissertations with relevant keywords
and content were identified in additional searches on such websites as www.
avhandlingar.se and www.skolporten.se and in newsletters. These dissertations were included in the final selection.
Search and analysis process
For the database and manual searches and the subsequent analyses, the following pro-cedure was employed. First, the location (preschool) was defined. Then the location was combined with the search phrases defined above. The search process was implemented in collaboration with a search specialist/librarian at Malmö University.
After an initial review of the comprehensive information retrieved through the data-bases and manually, the abstracts from the documents that were identified in the first review were read (selection 1). The reading of the abstracts resulted in a number of pub-lications that were read in a more detailed manner (selection 2). The in-depth reading of the publications prior to selection 2 resulted in an assessment of each study based on its relevance to the present review’s aim and research questions. Selection 2 then consists of the studies that were finally selected for inclusion in the review.
The selected studies were first assessed in relation to their aim and content. A crucial question was whether the studies provided knowledge of special education in preschool. The content was validated in relation to the Swedish preschool context.
The analysis was made using content analysis (Graneheim and Lundman2004) including the process of making thematic synthesis (Thomas and Harden2008). Thorough readings of the included studies were made. The analysis process entailed the selected studies being reviewed and analysed in their separate parts as well as holistically, to see whether they were in accordance with the review’s aim and research questions. Thomas and Harden (2008) argues that
In the case of synthesis, reviewers translate themes and concepts from one situation to another and can always be checking that each transfer is valid and whether there are any reasons that understandings gained in one context might not be transferred to another (n.p.).
The focus of the analysis was on characteristics, including main themes and variation, regarding (a) aims; (b) data collection methods, data and analysis approach, (c) theories, and (d) participants voices. In thefinal part of the analysis, these categories were related to each other to synthesise and conclude what characterises Nordic research on special edu-cation in preschool.‘In situations in which the primary studies are concerned directly with the review question, it may not be necessary to go beyond the contents of the original studies in order to produce a satisfactory synthesis’ (Thomas and Harden2008, n.p.).
Since the review includes studies with different theories, and both quantitative and qualitative approaches, the analysis that was applied was configurative. The analysis con-tained both quantitative (frequency) and qualitative (descriptions, texts, narratives) elements. When comparing and contrasting findings across the studies with configurative and explorative processes, four concepts were used as a way to organise and categorise the studies in relation to the aims.
The concepts were intimacy and depth versus distance and width. Intimacy and depth stands for closeness to the study object, with possibilities to meet the respondents face-to-face and to engage in in-depth interviews and observations. Distance and width signals a focus on statistical relationships and measurability, with possibilities to reach a greater number of participants. Other concepts that were used to categorise the studies were quali-tative versus quantiquali-tative data and analysis approaches. No specific categories were used regarding data collection methods or theories. The categories regarding voices were tea-chers and other staff, special educators, parents, and children.
Since qualitative approaches were most prominent, and to present the results in a way that is of use to professionals in preschool, the Result section uses texts as well as tables to describe and explain, and narratives from the reviewed studies to highlight, the findings. The narratives serve as examples in each category. According to Thomas and Harden (2008) thematic synthesis allows us to stay close to the empirical results in the reviewed studies, synthesising them with transparency. The tables in each section serve to document and summarise the findings in a transparent way.
The empirical data
The searches in the various databases generated in some cases duplicates, with some of the studies being included in more than one of the databases. These studies were counted and reviewed once. Finally, the search came to include 31 publications. Of these 31 publications, 13 are scientific articles and 18 are dissertations: 3 licentiate dissertations and 15 doctoral dissertations. Five of these 18 dissertations are compilation dissertations, which means that they consist of several (2–4) scientific articles that have been published or are about to be published– referred to as either being ‘in press’ or having been ‘accepted’ for publi-cation– in a scientific journal. One of the compilation dissertations is a licentiate dissertation and the rest are doctoral dissertations. The remaining dissertations are written in the form of monographs. The compilation dissertations were reviewed both in their separate parts and as a whole, but each dissertation was regarded as one source. The dissertations are volumi-nous in character and comprise between about 80 and 300 pages.
All the sub-studies/articles in a compilation dissertation could potentially involve pre-school. The dissertation could also contain sub-studies published in article form. A number of these sub-studies could be relevant for the preschool field.
Several of the 31 reviewed studies included preschool as well as compulsory school. The sub-studies/articles in the compilation dissertations were written by different authors, while the introductory chapter giving the overall aim of the compilation was written by the licentiate or doctoral student in question. In the monographs, the respective licentiate/doctoral student is the sole author. All 31 works are known as orig-inal empirical research, which means that they were based on one or more empirical studies. Some of the authors are responsible for more than one publication, such as both their licentiate and doctoral dissertations, or have contributed a number of scien-tific articles.
Results
The following section focuses on highlighting common themes and variation in the included studies, presented in a narrative style and with examples from the studies. When needed, quantitative elements and tables are supplementing the narrative style. Aims
Overall, it can be pointed out that the 25/31 reviewed studies were aimed at understanding specific phenomena and issues, rather than at, for example, identifying statistical relation-ships. An example of such aims is drawn from Bygdeson-Larsson (2010):
The overall aim of the Educational Process Reflection (EPR) studies has been to develop a better understanding concerning interaction between adults and children and the conditions for children’s peer play and interaction within the pre-school arena. The ultimate goal of the present study is to explore how practitioners through the use of EPR may develop the dimen-sion of social interaction between practitioners and children and between children, in order to consciously create a more healthy and inclusive experience for all children and especially for children at risk. (Abstract section, paragraph 1)
The review revealed that 25/31 aims are characterised by intimacy and depth in relation to preschool practice (see Table 1). Each study was categorised in the table based on its primary affiliation.
An example of both intimacy and depth is Gjermestad’s (2009, 14) study of the dyadic interaction between teacher and children with severe developmental disabilities, which had the following aim:
The study’s purpose is mainly to win insight and understanding of what characterises every-day dyadic interaction between children with developmental disabilities and adults who have close relationships with them in school and preschool.… The purpose is to move a step closer to an understanding of the interaction with children with profound developmental dis-abilities. (my translation)
Conclusively, the majority (25/31) of the studies were aimed at understanding specific phenomena and issues, and were characterised by intimacy and depth in relation to pre-school practice. Thisfinding indicates that in the implementation of an empirical study, the researcher is located concretely in the preschool environment. As a result, the researcher has the opportunity to be close up to, for example, learning and interaction situations.
Data collection methods
The most common (23) approach was to combine several research data collection methods, known as triangulation, and thus generate different types of data.
The researchers combined a range of methods in varying ways. The combinations included observations and interviews, along with field notes, video recordings and obser-vations together with interviews and discussions, and surveys and interviews. In addition, researchers also chose to use questionnaires in combination with observations.
The researchers also combined interviews and discussions with various forms of docu-ments and document analysis. Studies included eledocu-ments that can be grouped under the concept of intervention or were part of a specific intervention programme.
In some of the studies, the researchers adopted an explicit ethnographic approach that emphasised the use of different methods and materials such as videos, interviews, discus-sions, and field notes as a supplementary source.
Overall, interviews (and similar) were the most common (26) method for acquiring knowledge in these studies. The interviews were mainly semi-structured. In addition, researchers used the deep interview method, as well as more free-flowing conversations and narratives. The interviews were done either individually or in groups. The number and type of interviews completed in each study varied, ranging from one deep interview with an individual teacher, to approximately 20 interviews with 20 individuals. Regarding
Table 1.Characteristics of the reviewed studies’ aims.
Author(s) (N = 31) Intimacy & Depth (n = 25) Distance & Width (n = 6)
1 Åmot (2012) X
2 Arnesen (2014) X (diff to def)
3 Björklund (2012) X
4 Bygdeson-Larsson X
5 Cameron and Tveit (2011) X 6 Drugli, Clifford, and Larsson (2008) X
7 Fisker (2010) X
8 Gjermestad X
9 Hagström (2010) X
10 Hillesøy, Johansson, and Ohna (2014) X
11 Holst (2008) X
12 Holst and Pihlaja (2011) X
13 Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2013) X 14 Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2014) X
15 Lansheim (2010) X 16 Lillvist (2010) (4/4 art) X 17 Lindqvist (2013) (2/4 art) X 18 Luttropp (2011) (2/2 art) X 19 Lutz (2006) X 20 Lutz (2009) X 21 Melin (2013) X 22 Palla (2011) X
23 Sajaniemi, Suhonen, and Kontu (2010) X
24 Sandberg and Ottosson (2010) X
25 Siljehag (2007) X
26 Svensson (2013) (2/4 rel art) X
27 Tveit and Cameron (2012) X 28 von Ahlefeld Nisser (2009) X
29 Warming (2011) X
30 Westman Andersson (2013) (4/4 art, unclear relevance)
X (closer to dist than to intimacy and depth, but not to great width)
the methods or approaches to data collection, it should also be emphasised that 8 of the researchers used different types of surveys and questionnaires. Observations including video recordings were used in 15 cases.
Conclusively, the researchers combined a range of data collection methods in varying
ways (SeeTable 2). Interviews were the most common method for acquiring knowledge,
followed by observations including video recordings. Other methods that were used are other parts of interventions, writing field notes and diaries, or collecting written documen-tations in different forms.
Data and analysis approaches
The empirical material in the 31 studies consisted of predominantly (27/31) qualitative data and analysis, although in seven cases, the researchers also used methods that gener-ated quantitative data and analysis (seeTable 2).
In cases where the researchers used questionnaires or surveys, these tools yielded data that were suitable for either quantitative or qualitative analysis or for both forms of analy-sis. Some of the reviewed articles are part of a larger study from which the author had selected a limited part as the basis for a scientific article and qualitative analysis (see
Table 2). Conclusively, the empirical material in the majority (27/31) of the studies con-sisted of qualitative data and analysis approaches.
Theories
The theories, theoretical analysis tools, theoretical influence(r)s, or similar used in the reviewed studies represent a range of approaches in pursuit of an understanding of specific phenomena and issues (seeTable 3).
There appears to be no distinct picture or particular dominance of theory in the research field of special education in preschool. In these studies, the researchers employed theories with a great span, including organisational theories, theories of learning, com-munication and language theories, attachment theories, and theories of power, and the-ories of risk factors for child abuse. The theoretical approaches used also varied in prominence in the studies.
Several studies clarified the researchers’ overall theoretical stand, giving examples as variation theory, sociocultural theory, social constructionism and post-structural theory. Other theoretical strings used in the studies include system theory, activity theory, grounded theory, critical realism, and critical social theory.
The researchers varied in the way they described the more specific theoretical concepts or approaches they had used in their study. For example, one researcher chose to use criti-cal discourse analysis and social constructionist theory linked to organisational theory. Some of the researchers elected to combine several theoretical approaches. In some of the studies, it was not possible to deduce whether the researchers had used a specific theor-etical approach to create meaning in their empirical material.
To analyse their materials, the researchers relied on a number of theoretical models of explanation and understanding, analytical strategies, and methodological‘tool boxes’. The researchers had different emphases in the various studies, which means that they pre-sented their theoretical and/or analytical grounds in different ways. Some researchers used discourse analysis as their analytical strategy. Others viewed a phenomenological
Table 2.Characteristics of the reviewed studies’ data collection methods, data and analysis.
Author(s)
(N = 31) Data Collection Methods
Qual. Data & Analysis Appr (n = 27)
Quant. Data & Analysis Appr (n = 7)
Åmot (2012) Observations, focus group interview X
Arnesen (2014) 3 studies. Interventions, questionnaire, interviews X
Björklund (2012) Deep interview, videographic observations X
Bygdeson-Larsson Observations, narrated experiences by preschool practitioner X
Cameron and Tveit (2011) Observations, interviews, field notes X
Drugli, Clifford, and Larsson (2008) Interviews X
Fisker (2010) Observations, video recordings, interviews, conversations X
Gjermestad Video observations, conversations X
Hagström (2010) Mapping, conversations, education sessions, written narratives X
Hillesøy, Johansson, and Ohna (2014) Video observations X
Holst (2008) Interviews X
Holst and Pihlaja (2011) Self evaluation, survey X
Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2013) Video observations, field notes, interviews X Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2014) Video observations, field notes, interviews, informal conversations X
Lansheim (2010) Interviews, conversations, participants diary notes X
Lillvist (2010) Survey, observations X X
Lindqvist (2013) Questionnaires, interviews X X
Luttropp (2011) Observ, video, surveys, interviews, written doc X X
Lutz (2006) Meeting with discussion, written doc, interviews, policy doc X Lutz (2009) Meeting with discussion, written doc, interviews, policy doc X
Melin (2013) Part of an intervention programme. Observations, field notes, conversations X (yet frequency measures, histogram, particip profiles, time profiles)
Palla (2011) Interviews, group conversations, written documentation X
Sajaniemi, Suhonen, and Kontu (2010) Intervention programme, tests, video recordings X
Sandberg and Ottosson (2010) Interviews X
Siljehag (2007) Group meetings, interviews, policy documents, archive material X
Svensson (2013) Survey X
Tveit and Cameron (2012) Interviews X
von Ahlefeld Nisser (2009) Interviews, logbooks, network meetings, web forum X
Warming (2011) Group interview X
Westman Andersson (2013) Part of an intervention programme. Tests, Observations, questionnaire, interviews X Wetso (2006) Play process as intervention, researcher initiated activities: educating, tutoring, conversations,
observations, video, questionnaire, interviews, diary
X L. PA L L A
approach as important in their analyses. Yet other researchers sought to combine phe-nomenology and hermeneutics or to undertake a distinct phenomenographic study.
It may also be the case that the so-called narrative approach became central in some studies. Other researchers carried out statistical analyses by measuring significances, in order to compare and assess children or to assess effects of interventions and did not relate to any specific theory.
Conclusively, there appears to be no dominance of theory. The researchers employed theories with a great span, in different ways and combinations.
Voices
In the majority (29/31) of the studies, the researchers focused their attention on ensuring professionals, and primarily teachers’ (25), voices were heard, particularly by holding
Table 3.Characteristics of the reviewed studies’ theories.
Author(s) (N = 31) Theories, Theoretical Analysis Tools, Theoretical influence(r)s or similar Åmot (2012) Descriptive phenomenology
Arnesen (2014) No obvious theory. Briefly mentions learning theory as part of ABA Björklund (2012) Variation theory of learning, phenomenography
Bygdeson-Larsson Activity theory (Engeström, EPR model), hermeneutics, sociocultural theory and object rel theory (Winnicott)
Cameron and Tveit (2011) Lipsky and Habermas Drugli, Clifford, and Larsson
(2008)
Grounded theory
Fisker (2010) Metatheor rel developm perspective, Vygotsky, Sommer
Gjermestad Theories about dyadic relations, intersubjectivity and learning, phenomenology and hermeneutics
Hagström (2010) A range of diff theories on for example teachers learning, attachment theory, affect theory
Hillesøy, Johansson, and Ohna (2014)
Sociocultural theory
Holst (2008) No obvious theory Holst and Pihlaja (2011) No obvious theory Kristoffersen and Simonsen
(2013)
Ethnography, sociocultural theory
Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2014)
Ethnography, sociocultural theory
Lansheim (2010) Social constructionism, Mead, Foucault and more Lillvist (2010) System theory
Lindqvist (2013) Critical pragmatism, Cherryholmes, Skrtic, Abbott Luttropp (2011) Developmental ecology
Lutz (2006) Social constructionism, critical discourse analysis, Fairclough, Foucault, organisation theory, Giddens
Lutz (2009) Social constructionism, critical discourse analysis, Fairclough, Foucault, organisation theory, Giddens
Melin (2013) Critical realism
Palla (2011) Poststructuralism, discourse analysis, Foucault, Butler Sajaniemi, Suhonen, and
Kontu (2010)
No obvious theory
Sandberg and Ottosson (2010) Phenomenology Siljehag (2007) Critical social theory
Svensson (2013) Theories regarding child abuse, ecology model
Tveit and Cameron (2012) Ethnography, deliberative communication (theoretical approach based on ‘argumentative’, power-free and respectful communication)
von Ahlefeld Nisser (2009) Social constructionism, deliberate communication, the theory of argumentation by Habermas, critical theory, discourse analysis
Warming (2011) Discourse analysis, Fairclough, Foucault, Giddens and Bourdieu Westman Andersson (2013) No obvious theory
interviews with teachers and other professional groups, such as special educators, and also by conducting surveys/questionnaires (seeTable 4).
8 studies explicitly focused on special educators in preschool. In these studies, other types of schools and professional groups besides preschool and special educators were included. Parents’ voices are heard only in 5 cases, and then in the form of the parents of a specific child or where parents constitute a category of the whole study group. Obser-vations and video recordings of different contexts or situations in preschool give some degree of space for children’s voices to be heard through the researchers, other respon-dents, and/or the camera. No studies were directed specifically to children’s perceptions of their situation. One of the few researchers who sought to approach the children’s own perspectives, including children with severe disabilities, is Gjermestad (2009). Her research took the form of video recordings and interpretations of what she called the ‘child’s voice’ in translations by individuals who related closely with the children.
Examples of studies where it became more evident that the voices of teachers and other professionals take precedence were studies including teachers’ descriptions of individual children’s behaviour, teachers’ perceptions of their personal early childhood special edu-cation competence, or when listening to different professionals working with children in need of special support.
Conclusively, the review shows that when it comes to research on special education in preschool, it is primarily the preschool teachers’ voices (25) that are being heard. Characteristics of Nordic research on special education in preschool
In this final section on the results of the review, the results are synthesised and reconnected to the overall research question of what characterises Nordic research on special education in preschool between 2006 and 2014. Conclusively, the results revealed that the studies in this review have the following characteristics:
. The majority (25) of the studies’ aims reflect the researchers’ greater desire to
under-stand specific phenomena and issues, rather than, for example, to identify statistical relationships (6).
. The majority (25) of the studies are characterised largely by intimacy and depth in
relation to preschool practice. This means that the researchers had the opportunity to be close in learning and interaction situations, and thus often had a limited study or survey area.
. The majority (23) of the researchers used several methods in collecting data, which gen-erated a variety of rich empirical material.
. Of the data collecting methods used in the studies, interviews (and similar) were the most common method (26) for gaining knowledge.
. The researchers predominantly (27) collected qualitative data and used qualitative
analysis approaches, but in 7 of the studies, they also handled more quantitatively-oriented material. This material in turn contained data that had undergone quantitative and/or qualitative analysis.
. Together, the studies represent a variety of theories that were used in creating an under-standing of the empirical material.
. The researchers allowed preschool teachers’ voices to dominate (25), while special edu-cators’ (8) as well as parents’ (5) voices were heard to some degree. Children’s voices were rarely heard (0) and then only through video recordings in which adults inter-preted the children.
Discussion
The aim of this review was to provide a compilation and overview of Nordic research in the field of special education in preschool, with a special focus on Swedish conditions, which might then serve as the basis for identifying possible merits and shortcomings, and indicating the need for further research in this field.
The results
The included research on special education in preschool predominantly drew on qualitat-ive data and approaches, which provided the opportunity for intimacy and depth in the analytical process and also in the consideration of complexity. Larger studies with quan-titative data accounted for one fifth of the studies in this review. Quanquan-titative and
Table 4.Primary voices in the reviewed studies. Author(s) (N = 31)
Preschool Teachers & oth Staff (n = 26) Special Educators (n = 8) Parents (n = 4) Children (n = 0) Åmot (2012) X Teachers, staff
Arnesen (2014) X ABA-supv & teachers, staff
Björklund (2012) X Educator spec in educ children w spec needs Bygdeson-Larsson X Teachers, staff
Cameron and Tveit (2011) X Teachers, nurse X X Drugli, Clifford, and Larsson (2008) X Teachers
Fisker (2010) X Educators Gjermestad X Adults/staff Hagström (2010) X Teachers
Hillesøy, Johansson, and Ohna (2014) – – – –
Holst (2008) X Teachers
Holst and Pihlaja (2011) X Teachers X Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2013) X Teachers
Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2014) X Staff
Lansheim (2010) X Future + special ed
Lillvist (2010) X Teachers Lindqvist (2013) X Staff, ed. leaders Luttropp (2011) X Teachers, staff Lutz (2006) X Staff, actors Lutz (2009) X Staff, actors Melin (2013) X Teachers
Palla (2011) X Staff X
Sajaniemi, Suhonen, and Kontu (2010) – – – –
Sandberg and Ottosson (2010) X Teachers, prof X Siljehag (2007) X Teachers bec. special eds Svensson (2013) X Staff
Tveit and Cameron (2012) X Teacher, nurse X X von Ahlefeld Nisser (2009) X Edu leaders X
Warming (2011) X Teachers
Westman Andersson (2013) X Teachers X
qualitative data can be viewed as complementary in that they permit a focus on different types of questions and generate various types of analyses and findings. Both qualitative and quantitative data and results together form the prerequisites for creating a good knowledge base that has some bearing on practice and provides a desirable variety in aims, methods, and findings.
The studies in this research review are considered to have relevance for the professional practice. When doing research useful to the field, it could be fruitful for researchers to listen to the field’s own identified problems and challenges, as well as to construct pro-blems on the basis of the skills that the researchers possess so that these propro-blems do not have too local a focus. There could also be a need for generalisable knowledge, although special educational research problems often include marginalised groups, which makes it challenging to make larger, quantitative studies.
The included studies of special education in preschool is characterised by a diversity of theories. This diversity can be perceived as sprawling and indistinct, but it can also be a strength. Various complex processes may require different theoretical models of expla-nation and understanding. Tackling the wide special education field with a range of the-ories and focuses can help to create diverse and rich images of what and how special education in a preschool, sought to be inclusive, may be understood. At the same time, the risk is that too large a spread can counteract the research to form a base of knowledge. The research focus on teachers’ input can add to greater recognition and usability and thus be more professionally relevant, but it can be a one-sided picture if children’s and parents’ voices and perspectives remain in the background, as well as other professional groups, like special educators. It could be important to do research not only on and for individuals in professional practice, but also with individuals who are the subject of research on special education in preschool. Even if this would mean taking in consider-ation the special ethical circumstances that could appear when involving young children with for example disabilities. Although the vision of an inclusive preschool for all children, with special education as a resource to meet the challenges associated with this vision, is particularly relevant for special educators, the vision concerns all professionals in pre-school. However, it is relevant for researchers seeking to create a special space for research into the special educator profession. The results show the need for more research on special educators voices in preschool.
Methodological and ethical reflections
The wide focus of‘special education in preschool’ in the research review has presented a challenge, but it has been necessary for this review to identify the research field. Applying systematic reviews to studies based on a wide spread of aims, methods and theoretical approaches can also be challenging. The review has been systematic, but makes no claim to be fully comprehensive.
The detailed and transparent description of the approach forms the basis for the study’s credibility. The present review has been validated as being of relevance, not only to researchers, but also to professional practice, with the idea being that the information resulting from the review would be useful for professionals in preschool.
In response to the time and resources that were available for the present study, a Nordic, educational perspective, with a special focus on Swedish conditions, was
considered to be feasible. The findings are limited by the restriction of the search to five, mainly educational, search databases. If a more comprehensive research review had been possible, it would have been interesting to have expanded the study to include other search databases and other kinds of literature.
Based on the review, the contribute of this study has been to highlight directions for future research that can be of interest and relevance to professionals in the field. Prac-titioners need to have access to a variety of research and reviews.
In research on special education in preschool, opportunities should perhaps be made for those who are often included in research, as the children, to have their voices heard and their experiences made visible. Research on special education in preschool that takes into account children’s and parents’ voices and listens to them more broadly and deeply are clearly lacking.
Affirming the children’s perspectives is associated with some challenges when it comes to special education, particularly in the case of very young children and children with severe disabilities. However, one could argue that it is possible to approach and listen to children’s perceptions and experiences, even when it comes to children who in different ways are facing difficulties and needing special support and challenges. Listening to chil-dren’s voices could increase the research base of knowledge, when enlightening other per-spectives than the ones already investigated in the research field. This approach could also create opportunities for and contribute to an increase in equality and democracy issues in an inclusive preschool for all and everyone.
Final words
Since preschool has been found crucial in promoting child development, learning, and well-being in general, as well as in creating good conditions for children in difficulties in particular, it seems necessary to create opportunities for further research on special edu-cation issues in relation to preschool as the first step in the eduedu-cation system.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interests was reported by the author.
Funding
This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council through its Committee for Educational Sciences.
Notes on contributors
Linda Pallais a senior lecturer at Malmö university. Her main research interests are preschool, inclusive and special education, and questions concerning childrens differences, identities, docu-mentation and assessment.
References
Ahlberg, A.2013. Specialpedagogik i ideologi, teori och praktik- att bygga broar [Special education in ideology, theory and practice; In Swedish].
Åkerstrøm Andersen, N.1999. Diskursive analysestrategier: Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann [Discursive Analysis Strategies: Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann; In Danish]. Frederiksberg: Nyt fra Samfundsvidenskaberne.
Åmot, I.2012.“Etikk i praksis. Barn med samspillsvansker og medvirkning i barnehagen” [Ethics in Practice: Children Who Have Difficulties Interacting and their Participation in Day-care Centres; In Norwegian]. Nordisk Barnehageforskning 5 (18): 1–11.http://doi.org/10.7577/nbf. 437.
Arnesen, T.2014.“Are They Ready for This?: Experiences on Implementing Educational Behavior-analytic Interventions in Norwegian Kindergartens.” Doctoral diss., Karlstads universitet: Fakulteten för humaniora och samhällsvetenskap, Pedagogiskt arbete.
Björklund, C.2012.“One Step Back, Two Steps Forward – An Educator’s Experiences From a Learning Study of Basic Mathematics in Preschool Special Education.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 56 (5): 497–517.doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.599425.
Bygdeson-Larsson, K.2010.““Vi började se barnen och deras samspel på ett nytt sätt”: Utveckling av samspelsdimensionen i förskolan med hjälp av pedagogisk processreflektion” [“We began to see the children and their interactions in a new way”: Development of the interaction dimension in preschool through Educational Process Reflection; In Swedish]. Doctoral diss., Umeå univer-sitet, Institutionen för tillämpad utbildningsvetenskap.
Cameron, D. L., and A. D. Tveit.2011.“The Policy for Implementation Challenges of Individual Plans for Preschool Children with Disabilities.” International Journal of Parents in Education 5 (1): 12–23.http://www.journals4free.com/link.jsp?l=24289745.
Drugli, M. B., G. Clifford, and B. Larsson.2008.“Teachers’ Experience and Management of Young Children Treated Because of Home Conduct Problems: A Qualitative Study.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 52 (3): 279–291.doi:10.1080/00313830802025082.
Egelund, N., P. Haug, and B. Persson.2006. Inkluderande pedagogik i skandinaviskt perspektiv [Inclusive Education in Scandinavian Perspective; In Swedish].
Emanuelsson, I., B. Persson, and J. Rosenqvist. 2001. Forskning inom det specialpedagogiska området- en kunskapsöversikt [Research within the Special Education Area- a Knowledge Review; In Swedish]. Stockholm: Liber.
Fisker, T. B. 2010. “Småbørn i interaktion: En undersøgelse af socialt udviklingspotentiale og muligheder for interaktion for småbørn med autisme i forskellige pædagogiske og organisator-iske miljøer [Interaction between Young Children: A Study of Potential Social Development and Opportunities for Interaction for Young Children with Autism in Various Pedagogical and Organisational Settings; In Danish].” Doctoral diss., Aarhus Universitet, Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsskole.
Gjermestad, A.2009.“Skjøre samspill. En deskriptiv og fortolkende studie av barn med dyp utvik-lingshemming og deres nærpersoner i barnehage og skole [Fragile Dyads; In Norwegian].” Doctoral diss., Universitetet i Stavanger, Det humanistiske fakultet.
Graneheim, U. H., and B. Lundman.2004.“Qualitative Content Analysis in Nursing Research: Concepts, Procedures and Measures to Achieve Trustworthiness.” Nurse Education Today 24 (2): 105–112.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001.
Hagström, B.2010.“Kompletterande anknytningsperson på förskola [Complementary Attachment Person in Preschool; In Swedish].” Doctoral diss., Malmö högskola, Lärarutbildningen. Helldin, R.2002. Specialpedagogisk forskning- en kritisk granskning i ett omvärldsperspektiv [Special
Education Research- a Critical Review in an Environment Perspective; In Swedish]. Stockholm: Skolverket och Liber.
Hillesøy, S., E. Johansson, and S. Ohna. 2014. “Interaksjoner mellom de yngste barna med cochleaimplantat og andre barn i barnehagen [Interactions between the Youngest Children with Cochlear Implant and Peers in the Kindergarten; In Norwegian].” Tidsskrift for Nordisk Barnehageforskning 7 (4): 1–21.http://doi.org/10.7577/nbf.575.
Holst, J.2008.“Danish Teacher’s Conception of Challenging Behaviour and DAMP/ADHD.” Early Child Development and Care 178 (4): 363–374.doi:10.1080/03004430701321621.
Holst, T. K., and P. M. Pihlaja.2011. “Teachers’ Perceptions of their Personal Early Childhood Special Education Competence in Day Care.” Teacher Development 15 (3): 349–362. doi:10. 1080/13664530.2011.608517.
Jensen, B.2009.“A Nordic Approach to Early Childhood Education (ECE) and Socially Endangered Children.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 17 (1): 7–21.
Kristoffersen, A., and E. Simonsen.2013.“Et løfte om inkludering: Barnehagens rammer for sam-handling mellom hørselshemmede og hørende barn i barnehagen [Pledge for Inclusion: Possibilities for Interaction between Deaf and Hearing Children in Nursery Schools; In Norwegian].” Tidsskrift for Nordisk Barnehageforskning 6 (20): 1–18. http://doi.org/10.7577/ nbf.341.
Kristoffersen, A. E., and E. Simonsen. 2014. “Teacher-assigned Literacy Events in a Bimodal, Bilingual Preschool with Deaf and Hearing Children.” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 14 (1): 80–104.http://ecl.sagepub.com/content/14/1/80.full.pdf+html.
Lansheim, B.2010.“Förståelser av uppdraget specialpedagog – blivande och nyblivna specialpeda-gogers yrkeslivsberättelser [Understandings of the Special Educator Mission; In Swedish].” Licentiate diss., Malmö högskola, Lärarutbildningen.
Levinsson, M. 2015. Kartläggning och sammanställning av forskning i Norden. Delrapport från SKOLFORSK-projektet [Review and Compilation of Research in the Nordic Countries; In Swedish]. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.
Lillvist, A.2010.“The Applicability of a Functional Approach to Social Competence in Preschool Children in Need of Special Support.” Doctoral diss., Örebro universitet.
Lindqvist, G.2013.“Who Should Do What to Whom?: Occupational Groups’ Views on Special Needs.” Doctoral diss., School of Education and Communication.
Luttropp, A.2011.“Närhet: Samspel och delaktighet i förskolan för barn med utvecklingsstörning [Closeness: Interaction and Participation in the Preschool for Children with Intellectual Disability; In Swedish].” Licentiate diss., Stockholms universitet, Specialpedagogiska institutionen.
Lutz, K.2006.“Konstruktionen av det avvikande förskolebarnet – En kritisk fallstudie angående utvecklingsbedömningar av yngre barn [The Construction of the Deviant Preschool Child; In Swedish].” Licentiate diss., Malmö Högskola, Lärarutbildningen.
Lutz, K.2009. “Kategoriseringar av barn i förskoleåldern – Styrning & administrativaprocesser [Categorisations of Children of Preschool Age; In Swedish].” Doctoral diss., Malmö Högskola, Lärarutbildningen.
Melin, E.2013.“Social delaktighet i teori och praktik: om barns sociala delaktighet i förskolans verksamhet [Social Participation in Theory and Practice: About Children’s Social Participation in Pre-schools’ Activities; In Swedish].” Doctoral diss., Stockholms universitet: Institutionen för pedagogik och didaktik.
Myrberg, M. 2007. Dyslexi- en kunskapsöversikt [Dyslexia: A Knowledge Review; In Swedish]. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.https://publikationer.vr.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/VR2.2007_ 02pdf.
Nilholm, C. 2006. Möten?: Forskning om specialpedagogik i ett internationellt perspektiv [Encounters?: Research on Special Education in an International Perspective; In Swedish]. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. https://publikationer.vr.se/produkt/moten-forskning-om-special pedagogik-i-ett-internationellt-perspektiv/.
Nilholm, C., and E. Björck-Åkesson.2007.“Inledning.” In Reflektioner kring specialpedagogik – sex professorer om forskningsområdet och forskningsfronterna [Reflections on Special Education- Six Professors on the Research and the Research Fronts; In Swedish], edited by C. Nilholm and E. Björck-Åkesson, 7–16. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.
Palla, L.2011. Med blicken på barnet: Om olikheter inom förskolan som diskursiv praktik [With the Gaze on the Child: About Differences in Preschool as a Discursive Practice]. Malmö: Malmö Högskola, Lärarutbildningen. In Swedish (Doctoral dissertation).
Sajaniemi, N., E. Suhonen, and E. Kontu. 2010. “Verbal and Non-verbal Development in SLI Children After Early Intervention.” Early Child Development and Care 180 (4): 519–534.
Sandberg, A., and L. Ottosson. 2010. “Pre-school Teachers’, Other Professionals’, and Parental Concerns on Cooperation in Pre-school – all Around Children in Need of Special Support: The Swedish Perspective.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 14 (8): 741–754. doi:10.1080/13603110802504606.
Siljehag, E.2007.“Igenkännande och motkraft: Förskole- och fritidspedagogikens betydelse för spe-cialpedagogiken– En deltagarorienterad studie [Recognition and Counterforce; In Swedish].” Doctoral diss., Institutionen för individ, omvärld och lärande, LHS, Stockholm.
Svensson, B.2013.“Barn som riskerar att fara illa i sin hemmiljö: Utmaningar i ett förebyggande perspektiv [Children in Risk of Maltreatment in their Home Environment: Challenges in a Preventive Perspective; In Swedish].” Doctoral diss., Karlstads universitet, Fakulteten för hälsa, natur- och teknikvetenskap.
Tallberg-Broman, I., ed.2015. Förskola: Tidig intervention. Delrapport från SKOLFORSK-projektet [Preschool: Early Intervention; In Swedish]. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.
Thomas, J., and A. Harden.2008.“Methods for the Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research in Systematic Reviews.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 8: 1–10.doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45. Tveit, A. D., and D. L. Cameron.2012.“Utfordringer når foresatte skal medvirke på tjenestetilbudet til eget barn [The Challenges Presented When Parents Become Involved in Official Plans for their Children; In Norwegian].” Nordic Studies in Education 32: 321–332. https://www.idunn. no/np/2012/0304/utfordringer_nr_foresatte_skal_medvirke_p_tjenestetilbude.
UNCRC. 1989. The Convention on the Rights of the Child.http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf.
UNESCO.1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. www.unesco.org/edcation/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF.
von Ahlefeld Nisser, D.2009.“Vad kommunikation vill säga: En iscensättande studie om special-pedagogers yrkesroll och kunskapande samtal [What Communication Says: An Engineering Study on the Role of Special Educators and Knowledging Dialogues; In Swedish].” Doctoral diss., Stockholms universitet: Specialpedagogiska institutionen.
Warming, H.2011.“Inclusive Discourses in Early Childhood Education?” International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 (2): 233–247.doi:10.1080/13603110902783365.
Westman Andersson, G. 2013. “Autism in Preschoolers: Assessment, Diagnostic and Gender Aspects.” Doctoral diss., University of Gothenburg, Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology.
Wetso, G.-M.2006.“Lekprocessen – specialpedagogisk intervention i (för)skola: När aktivt han-dlande stimulerar lärande, social integration och reducerar utslagning [The Play Process: Special Education Intervention in (pre)school; In Swedish].” Doctoral diss., HLS Förlag, Stockholm.
