Preschoolers’ Parents Navigate Control and Responsibility

(1)

BARNDOM–UTBILDNING– SAMHÄLLE

Examensarbete i fördjupningsämnet barndom och

lärande

15 högskolepoäng, grundnivå

Förskolebarns föräldrars navigerar ansvar

och kontroll

Preschoolers’ Parents Navigate Control and Responsibility

Anita Benson

Förskollärarexamen 210hp 2020-08-27

Examinator: Lars Hansson Handledare: Dr. KatarzynaHerd

(2)

2

1. Abstract

In this paper, I address a situation faced by preschool parents in their interaction with preschool practitioners in Sweden. In interviews with parents of preschoolers, it became apparent that parents sensed a loss of control over how their children were being raised once they started preschool. The parents in the interviews acknowledge their sense of responsibility regarding how their children are brought up and so struggle to come to terms with this lack of control and try to find solutions. I have looked into previous research as well as the Swedish preschool curriculum to identify the level of responsibility and control had by preschool institutions and the state in a liberal democracy1. I have found that parents are in a position where they are made to have less control but still are held responsible, by themselves and by others. An analysis using narrative theory has made clearer the ways in which parents navigate the issue of loss of control versus responsibility. The purpose of the paper is to shed light on a situation faced by parents due to the responsibility attributed to them and the lack of control they have over upbringing, and can help practitioners at preschools be more aware of their role in this and of parents’ struggles.

I denna uppsats behandlar jag en situation som förskoleföräldrar står inför i deras interaktion med förskolepersonal. I intervjuer med föräldrar av förskolebarn blev det tydligt att föräldrar kände en förlust av kontroll över hur deras barn fostrades när barnenvar på förskolan. I intervjuerna bekräftar föräldrarna sina känslor av ansvar för hur deras barn fostras och kämpar så för att komma överens med brist på kontroll, och försöker hitta lösningar. Jag har tittat igenom tidigare forskning samt Sveriges läroplan för förskolan för att identifiera nivån på ansvar och kontroll som förskolor och staten har, i en liberal demokrati och i synnerhet Sverige, och har upptäckt att föräldrarna är i en position där de har mindre kontroll men ändå hålls ansvariga av sig själva och andra. En analys med hjälp av narratologi har förtydligat hur föräldrar navigerar förlust av kontroll kontra ansvar. Syftet med uppsatsen är att belysa en situation som föräldrar står inför på grund av ansvaret de tilldelas och den bristande kontrollen de har över fostrandet av sina barn. Arbetet kan hjälpa pedagoger och andra på förskolan att bli mer medvetna om deras roll i detta och om omständigheterna som föräldrarna står inför.

Keywords: parenting, responsibility, preschool, preschoolteachers, föräldraskap, ansvar,

förskola, förskollärare

1_{A liberal democracy is ”(The advocacy of) a democratic system of representative government in which}

individual rights and civil liberties are officially recognized and protected, and the exercise of political power is limited by the rule of law” (Oxford English Dictionary 2020). Sweden is an example of a liberal democracy.

(5)

5

2. Foreword

I began this paper during the height of the Covid-19 Pandemic in 2020 in Sweden; like many parents, I worked from home and decided to keep my child at home, too, just in case. Many of us were struggling with time management and awkward adjustments around children and work conditions and pets. So I would like to thank all involved in making this paper happen. In particular I would like to thank all the parents I interviewed for providing insight into very personal and rich stories. Thank you also to my tutor, Dr. Katarzyna Herd, for your support. The theories you helped me come to terms with have opened up a world to me. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the people at Malmö University who have made it possible for me as a student there to produce this piece of research. Over the years, you have provided the support networks, the resources, the feedback, the platforms. A big huggy thank you goes out to my daughter, little Alva, for putting up with a very busy Mami, and to my partner, Kris, for your incessant support in this project, helping me find time and space to work.

Anita Benson, Lund

(6)

6

3. Introduction

Marlin (to Mr. Ray, Nemo’s new teacher, at the drop off):

Look, [...] you have a large class and he can get lost from sight if you're not looking. I'm not saying you're not looking –

Other “fish kid” in Nemo’s class:

Oh my gosh! Nemo's swimming out to sea! (Finding Nemo 2003)

Who is responsible for children when they are at school or preschool? In this scene from the animation Finding Nemo, Marlin is uneasy about leaving his son, Nemo, at school. He is terrified about something happening and is unwilling to give up responsibility. But this scene presents a tricky problem: Marlin interferes, distracting the teacher. Is this sort of scenario familiar to you? Are you of the opinion that parents get in the way when teachers are trying to get work done? Or can you sympathize with Marlin, who is not confident in the scope of the teacher’s abilities to take responsibility for his child? In stories and discussions in the media, in schools and preschools, parents can be discussed and presented as positive or negative forces acting on the lives of their children. I began this paper with the intention of writing about upbringing, hoping to identify how parents can influence the rearing of their children while they themselves are not in direct contact with them. What I found instead was that there is an unavoidable issue that crops up in discussions around this topic, namely the question of who is responsible. Parents would try to influence situations at preschool - situations where they were not in direct contact with the children – but find that they do not have as much power to influence as they had hoped for. Parents would plan with great care which preschool to send their children to so as to provide them with upbringing that was in line with their own views, because of a notion that control would be sparse after the kids begin preschool. What this comes down to is that there is a constant dichotomy between responsibility and control: The parents see themselves as carrying the main responsibility for their children, but they realize that they are not in control of the upbringing that the children are exposed to once they are not in their direct care. In other words, either the parents are responsible, and so they should be in control of upbringing, or, if they are not in control, they must be less responsible; but if they are responsible, they need to take control. But they are not in control. But they are responsible! The parents I interviewed were struggling with this dichotomy and tried to find different solutions to it. Marlin, in Finding Nemo, feels responsible, but he need to leave Nemo with Mr. Ray. He has to give up control to the

(7)

7

teacher, but he will not give up responsibility... As the story goes, Marlin ruins everything and holds himself responsible for a disaster.

3.1. Outline

The interviews I conducted took place in Sweden with parents of children in Swedish preschools, but the issue addressed is relevant in a broader context, in terms of liberal democracies. In this paper, I will first present the background to my study. Here I will present the Swedish state’s requirement and recommendations to preschool practitioners on the matter of raising children at preschool. Who ultimately is responsible for how the children are raised while they are at preschool, according to the state, is also addressed. The background sheds light on the position the state is perhaps inadvertently placing preschoolers’ parents in. Following this I will present and discuss some previous research into the question of where responsibility lies, and who is in charge of upbringing in liberal democracies such as Sweden. I will then present the methods used to collect data: I used a qualitative method, using semistructured interviews with several parents of preschoolers. This will be followed by a presentation of the theory used for analysis of the data. I used narrative theory to analyze the interview because of the nature of the data: the semistructured interviews provided insight into the images people had of themselves and their roles in the building of the lives of their children. The way parents talked about their situations also shed light on the causal relations the parents attributed to their situations, which showed where they saw control and loss of control. One key function of narrative is that humans use it to come to term with their worlds, and how they perceive causal relations. Taking a closer look at the parents with the help of narrative theory can clarify what their descriptions of their situations mean for their perspective as parents. So narrative theory is the theory I will be using to help me answer the research question. I will present this theory, as well as other terminology relevant to the analysis, under the subheading Theory and terminology in the chapter on Method. In the next part of the paper I will present the analysis of the material: Three topics will be addressed. First, the parents’ sense of being in charge, that is to say being both responsible and in control, will be identified in the interviews. Secondly, their sense of loss of control (Parents not in charge) will be brought forward, and third, how parents navigate between perceived continued responsibility and perceived loss of control. Each topic will be followed by an analysis of data from both interviews using narrative theory. The analysis will be followed by a discussion of the results in relation to previous research and the current Swedish preschool

(8)

8

curriculum, followed by some concluding remarks. Finally I will suggest some further research in light of the study at hand.

3.2. Research question

The research question I have posed for this paper is

How do parents come to term with a perceived discrepancy between control of and responsibility for upbringing?

I found that responsibility and lack of control were incompatible for parents, and I would like to see more closely, by way of analysis of the data available, how they try to solve this perceived dilemma.

3.3. Purpose

Insight an analysis such as this provides can help practitioners make more informed choices about the way they engage with parents, which is a task set for preschool teachers in spite of there being no specified methods clarified in policy documents. So the purpose of the paper is to provide insight and awareness to preschool practitioners about a dilemma faced by parents.

(9)

9

4. Background

A look at the Swedish state’s requirements and recommendations to preschool staff on working with parents sheds light on the position the state places parents in with regards to upbringing. In this chapter, I will first take a closer look at the wording in the current Swedish preschool curriculum. This will show that the state, via the curriculum, recommends that preschool institutions take control over upbringing when children are at preschool. This will be followed by a brief look at history. The state, via childcare institutions, has placed responsibility in the hands of institutions, then parents, and now arguably with institutions again, although this is not entirely clear. I will discuss this issue in the final part of this chapter.

4.1. The current Swedish preschool curriculum and

control

The most recent Swedish preschool curriculum Lpfö18 (2019) urges teachers and rectors to take control of children’s upbringing (at least while at preschool), all the while representing the upbringing aims and strategies of the state as declared in the curriculum. It requires cooperation with parents, but in the instances where influence from parents is recommended, this is to be restricted and permitted only in line with the preschool’s aims and the parents’ understanding of them: the preschool is responsible for clarifying for “guardians what the goals of the education are. This is a precondition for their ability to influence and their understanding of the tasks of the preschool.” (Lpfö18, 2019, p.8, see also p.18 and p.21). Another mention of guardians reflects the ways in which the curriculum requires that upbringing happens on the preschool’s terms, not the parents’, even if it requires collaboration with parents: “[t]he work team should [...] collaborate with guardians, and discuss rules and approaches in the preschool with guardians, to promote the child’s development to become a responsible person and member of society.” (ibid., p.14). This clearly does not suggest collaborating with parents to work towards parents’ aims in addition to the preschool’s, or using parents’ strategies as well as the preschool’s, but just the institution’s. Nonetheless, an “ongoing dialogue with [...]guardians about the child’s wellbeing development and learning” as well as development talks are required, and that teachers keep informed about personal circumstances (ibid.). The parents also are meant to be granted opportunities to help assess the quality of the preschool’s work. But again, this is only to happen in areas and in the

(10)

10

direction that is in line with the preschool’s existing values (ibid.,p.18). At no point is there mention of parents being entitled to influence the upbringing of their children remotely in any other way. As a result, the parents are not in a position, according to the standards set by the state, to affect the aims and strategies that are used to raise their children while they are at preschool. The preschools are also in charge of informing the parents about ways that they can influence the upbringing of their children (ibid.); if the preschool happens to avoid providing opportunities for parents, this option may well pass them by. Ultimately, the control of what happens with regards to upbringing is, according to the curriculum, given to the institution, as it is only granted to the parents under condition of compliance, if granted at all.

4.2. Where is the responsibility?

Recent history and today

The curriculum encourages institutions to take charge of upbringing strategies and aims used at the preschool. But who is responsible for upbringing when the child is at preschool, who is accountable, is not made as clear. In the past, the Swedish state, by way of state institutions such as preschool, has accepted/taken and then rejected responsibility. In her anthology of historical texts surrounding the development of the Swedish preschool over the past century, BrigittaHammarström-Lewenhagen (2016) points out that in the 1960’s and ‘70’s, preschools were designed to provide the possibility for parents to combine parenting with paid labor, and also to provide care, learning as well as upbringing for the children enrolled (p.215). So at this point in history, the role of the professional as responsible for the upbringing of the children was clear. However, the preschool curriculum from 2010 places responsibility for upbringing back in the parents’ hands, stating that “[t]he preschool should help families by supporting them in their role of bringing up and helping their children to grow and develop” (Lpfö98 2010, p.4). The preschool should support the parents, but they are the ones who are responsible, having the role of upbringer.

This shift of accountability from institution to parents is no longer present in the most recent preschool curriculum. But instead of the curriculum stating clearly who is responsible, the term “fostran”, meaning upbringing, has been completely removed (Lpfö18 2018)2_{, In an}

2_{Lpfö18 (2018) refers to the original document in Swedish, while Lpfö18 (2019) refers to its official, English}

(11)

11

analysis of this curriculum, Anna Rantala (2020) found that despite this, the curriculum does indeed require upbringing. She explains that even though upbringing and even socialization are not articulated, the curriculum requires that practitioners pass on norms and values to the children which, as Rantala (2020, with reference to GertBiesta, 2010) points out, is to bring up a child.

But because the previous versions of the current curriculum places responsibility for children’s upbringing mainly with parents, and the new curriculum does not draw attention to the removal of this claim, there is reason to still place responsibility with the parents. The new curriculum has not explicitly acknowledged practitioners’, institutions’, or the state’s responsibility in the matter in this important document,which is available to parents and preschool staff. So there is reason to believe that parents as well as teachers are still set on the idea that parents are responsible.

The fact that Rantala’s(2020) essay has been published on the website of Sweden’s national agency for education, Skolverket, suggests that the agency is acknowledging the state’s responsibility in upbringing. However, this essay is not readily available to parents who do not happen to be looking for answers, nor is it available to teachers in the same way the curriculum is, which is not as explicit on the matter. Also, that the state publishes a perspective does not entail that it endorses this perspective. So although the Swedish state places control of and arguably even responsibility – if Rantala is right in her analysis – for the raising of the nation’s young children with the preschool, not the parents, the state’s acknowledgement of this responsibility is sparse and obscure. Publishing Rantala’s essay on Skolverket’swebsite may be an attempt at transparency, but transparency would have been better achieved if the matter had been clearly specified in the curriculum. This obscure transparency means it is not unreasonable to suspect that ambiguity on this point is intentional, perhaps so as to avoid confrontation with parents who do not approve of relinquishing responsibility to the institutions.

(12)

12

5. Previous research

My research question was:How do parents come to terms with a perceived discrepancy between control of and responsibility for upbringing? The purpose of understanding how parents talk about the dilemma caused by lack of control but continued responsibility is to provide an insight for practitioners who have to make decisions on how to engage with parents. Some research has been published, which looks into the ways in which parents navigate control and responsibility, but also how states and institutions navigate control and responsibility. During my preliminary analysis of the interviews with parents presented below, I found that control and responsibility come into conflict once parents begin to talk about preschool. The institutions are effectively an extension of the state, which provides mandatory curricula as well as education for most of the trained staff. So seeing how states navigate control and responsibility for upbringing, and how this is brought forward by way of preschool curricula is also relevant. The previous research I am presenting here addresses each of these perspectives, that of parents navigating control and responsibility, how institutions are meant to navigate control and responsibility according to curricula, and the role of the state more generally. The first study I present here looks into parents’ willingness to share childcare and responsibility with other adults. The second addresses the ways in which curricula encourage or discourage working with parents in questions concerning children’s development and upbringing. A third work discusses the extent to which parents really are responsible for upbringing, concluding that any sense of autonomy from the state in matters of raising children is illusory.

5.1. Do parents think it takes a village?

Parent’s views of themselves as responsible for

upbringing

In a quantitative study in another liberal democracy, namely the Netherlands, researchers found that parents are willing to share childcare tasks, but are not as keen on the idea of sharing responsibility for upbringing. The wording of the study as investigating parents’ “willingness to share parenting responsibility and interest to participate in parenting activities” (Kesselring,Marije; de Winter,Micha;Horjus, Bob; van de Schoot, Rens; van Yperen, Tom 2012, p.921) presents parenting responsibility as something the parents have to

(13)

13

begin with – something that the parents can delegate. The aim of the study was to determine whether parents “subscribe to the African proverb that it takes a village to raise a child” (ibid.). First, Kesselring and her colleagues discuss some previous research into the question of parental responsibility. They find that research brings to light an individualistic norm in contemporary western society. This norm, they explain, restricts non-parental involvement in childrearing and holds parents responsible. The authors refer to research that brings to light a tendency to blame parents for “failure” in the upbringing of their children (ibid., p.922), indicating that parents are indeed seen as responsible, (at least when things go “wrong”). Kesselring and her colleagues found that most parents were willing to share supervision of their children with other adults, even to allow other adults to “support, warn, or admonish” their children, but they were against other adults taking parenting responsibility. The authors discuss the question of where to draw the line between parenting responsibility and acceptable supervision, and conclude that additional research is needed to specify where parents draw the line and what their perspective on the role of non-parental adults is (ibid., p.932).

5.2. Comparative study on parental involvement in

several curricula

Preschool institutions in control

This next study addresses the scope of control and responsibility proposed as appropriate by institutional policies. Jeroen Janssen and Michel Vandenbroeck (2018) have analyzed a number of preschool curricula, focusing on the way these curricula recommend practitioners should work with parents. The authors find varying approaches in the different curricula, some more democratic than others. Parental involvement is generally encouraged, but the reasons why they ought to be involved vary. Some curricula encourage parent-practitioner collaboration in order to give practitioners opportunities to influence parents in the institution’s interests. Collaboration is also encouraged in places in order to identify where children may be lacking support for development according to the norms set by the institution in question. On the other hand, curricula that support a holistic approach encourage practitioners to coordinate with parents so as to develop insight into children’s backgrounds: to gain insight from the experts on the child, namely the parents, on a child’s particular needs for learning, its special interests, and so on. These curricula place value on the input of parents for developing strategies for child-rearing and teaching. The authors rate these curricula as

(14)

14

more democratic, although they are also concerned more with how to raise the children than what aims the upbringing should have. Instead of considering and striving to take on parents’ values and norms when raising children at preschool, several of the curricula investigated encourage practitioners to change the views of the parents or even to influence how parents raise their children at home. Janssen and Vandenbroeck conclude that their analysis has provided insight into varying attitudes and actions towards parents that are open to practitioners. Practitioners can have these varying options for action in mind when making choices about interactions with parents. The authors also recommend a more explicitly addressed, but also more democratic approach to parental inclusion in preschools, where the responsibility is clearly shared and acknowledged by practitioners, as well as parents, particularly in light of the UN convention on the rights of the child (p.827f.).

5.3. Governing autonomy

How the state keeps control but presents parents with an

illusion of autonomy

In Nikolas Rose’s (1999) analysis and discussion of the history of what he calls psy-expertise, Rose comes to the conclusion that parents in modern liberal democracies are presented with an illusion of autonomy regarding upbringing. Rose argues that parents are provided with the freedom to raise their children according to their own terms, on condition of complying with certain norms. Therefore, there is no actual freedom in upbringing. By studying the history of “present certainties”, or what counts as facts in our societies, we can “challenge their validity” (p.x). Rose aims to challenge the notion that we are free in how we bring up our children, by analyzing the history of what he calls the psy-disciplines and psy-expertise. He is referring to psychological health professionals and related experts. He argues that “[p]rofessional groups - doctors, psychologists, and social workers” manipulate panics within society in order to claim the need for their own influence over parents. As intervention on an intrusive level is not compatible with notions of integrity within western society, the intervention has to happen in a subtle way, rather than by explicit force or threats. Instead, parents are manipulated via expert advice and educational programs for parents, and monitored by way of conditional welfare and developmental tracking of the child according to approved norms (p.123ff.). Governing forces in the form of laws, courts and police do not have direct power over citizens as they might have in other forms of government. Rather,

(15)

15

governing powers are veiled by expertise, “shaping [...] the activities of citizens” (ibid., p.10) In other words, a state calling itself a liberal democracy cannot allow direct intervention into the personal lives of families, including their methods for and aims through the upbringing of their children. Therefore, those who govern society use these less obvious, but nonetheless invasive methods to influence people according to state approved norms. Rose concludes that the power to control upbringing is thus essentially in the hands of the experts, or rather the state, which uses these experts towards its own ends, but not with parents, who depend on institutions for support.

(16)

16

6. Method

In this part of the paper, I will present the methods used to collect and then to analyze the data. I will first explain why I used semi-structured interviews with two pairs of parents in order to answer my research question. I will also go into some practical issues faced by this method, and how the interviews were conducted. I will then proceed to presenting narrative theory and explain why I am using it for analyzing the material generated by the interviews, with a focusing on some particular terms. I will also address some other relevant terms.

6.1. Collecting data

An ethnographic study is a qualitative investigation into the perspectives of certain groups, and can help researchers understand the perspectives of the people inside the group using research techniques such as interviews (Alvehus 2013, p.99). My research question is How do parents come to term with a perceived discrepancy between control of and responsibility for upbringing?, and the purpose of answering that question is to provide insight for practitioners to enable them to make more informed choices about the way they engage with parents. SoI have conducted an ethnographic study using semi-structured interviews. Charlotte Davies (2002) points out that such interviews can give scope for conversation and elaboration, which is useful in qualitative research. This in turn can help develop insights for the applied social sciences (p.95). So for this study, which aims to give awareness to preschool staff of the struggles faced by parents, this method is apt.

During the early process of this research project, I conducted several interviews with parents of preschool children, seven in all. One issue that came up in every interview was the matter of parents wanting to provide good conditions for their children’s development coupled with an awareness of lack of control over the conditions the children are in when left at preschool. Parents frequently expressed trust in the institutions, but an awareness of their own sense of responsibility for their children meant that parents had reservations about leaving their children with others after all. The issue presented itself in all the interviews, so I selected two interviews to visualize it, so to speak. There is a near infinity of perspectives possible on this issue, so more interviews will not improve representation greatly. The interviews I have chosen to present bring the problem to light and can help practitioners

(17)

17

acknowledge a complex problem. These interviews are with two pairs of parents of preschool children: Nina and Magnus, and Brian and Sasha. The names have been changed to provide anonymity. The interviews took place online and were recorded either both visually and audibly or only audibly. Participants were given a summary of the nature of the paper and sent a consent form for perusal in advance by email. They each consented during the interviews, so their consent has been recorded. Both families had several children, with one child in one family, and two in the other currently attending preschool. Each couple answered the questions together, mostly, providing feedback to each other and reflecting together. I asked participants five starting questions and related follow-up questions, and asked interviewees to elaborate and describe when possible. The questions I asked were (more or less)

1. How do you raise your children? Do you have specific rules and aims? 2. What strategies do you use?

3. What do you know about the ways in which your child is being raised at preschool? 4. Have you tried to influence? What response did you get?

5. Are there any other people who influence the upbringing of your children?

The language of these interviews was mostly English, apart from occasional words in Swedish which I have explained in footnotes. I transcribed the interviews by hand, which is to say without the use of a program. I included all conversational cues in the first transcripts, as they gave light to the ways in which parents encouraged each other in conversation. For the study to be regarded as an ethnographic study, a semi-structured interview needs to pay attention relations between participants as well (Davis 2002, p.95).

I began the analysis process by reading through all interviews leisurely, looking for similarities. I was struck by the lack of control parents felt they had over upbringing at preschool, the lack of opportunities to influence this, in spite of parents’ desire to control upbringing and their sense of obligation to do so, and also in spite of the preschool institution’s being ‘built on democracy’3_{. I proceeded to analyze the texts in more detail,} highlighting specific issues in each interview, such as: time, extra work, take-it-or-leave-it, change, responsibility and related terms, it’s-not-simple, class sizes, the rector, trust, strategies, instilling feelings in the children, control, convincing-each-other, and several more.

(18)

18

The initial aim of the study was to discover more about parents’ opportunities for influencing the preschool. This was something we discussed during interviews, but what I ultimately found was this struggle between feelings of loss of control and responsibility. So I instead focused on parents’ attempts at reconciling these issues. This means that the focus is not on upbringing itself; instead, upbringing functions as an object for describing the issue of this paper. Thus, the study can be described as inductive, as the data from the interviews gave the reason for the study (see Alvehus 2013, p.109). That is to say, the conversations about opportunities gave me an insight into the struggles of parents which I wanted to analyze further. I used terminology from narrative theory and other relevant terminology to analyze the interviews and better understand how parents navigated the issue at hand. The two interviews presented several possible ways in which to come to terms with the problem of responsibility without control and so can provide insight into other parents-practitioner situations practitioners may encounter in their work.

6.2. Theory and terminology

The interviews provide insight into the roles the parents perceive themselves as having, and the conflicts they encounter because of these roles. They also provide insight into the causal relations the parents attribute to the conflicts they encounter. Both of these insights can be better understood with the help of narrative theory. In this next subsection, I will briefly present this theory and explain how, according to the theory, narrative can function for the parents. I will proceed to presenting some particular, relevant terms from the theory. These arestoryworldand grand narrative, storyworld disruption and structuralist, event sequencing, as well aspositioning and character. Finally I will address some other relevant terms for the analysis, namely responsible and rational conduct.

6.2.1. Narrative

A means of coming to terms with the world and your place in it

Parents try in different ways to bring order back into the inconsistency caused by their conviction of their own responsibility in the matter of upbringing, in spite of their lack of control over it. The interviews show how parents try to reposition themselves in relation to responsibility and control. An analysis of the interviews using narrative theory can bring to light the steps parents take to determine their identity, or roles, as parents. I will be referring

(19)

19

to works by two different authors that succinctly present and discuss narrative theory. These are David Herman (2009) and Bronwen Thomas (2016).

There is no real consensus on what constitutes a narrative (Thomas 2016, p.2). Fantasy stories are narratives, as are novels and fictional films. But so are brief descriptive stories embedded in for example interviews, or anecdotes and recounts. Herman identifies some basic elements of narrative, but even reduces narrative to needing at least one human-like agent and at least one event (Herman 2009). Narrative can thus include “nearly every aspect of how we conceptualise our life experiences and everyday reality” (Thomas 2016, p.3). So narrative can include any way in which people put their experience of their lives into perspective. This means that any little thing that expresses perspective can be part of a narrative. According to this view of narrative, we all live in a world made up of stories that we are a part of and that we help shape and are manipulated by. I will now briefly go through some key terms in order to better explain the theory; some of the terms are used in the analysis below.

Storyworld, overarching storyline and grand narrative

Storyworld“[refers] to the real or imaginary environments in which the action of the narrative takes place” (Herman 2009, p.10). A storyworld is the setting in which a narrative takes place. Thomas (2016) explains that a storyworld can be the setting for any number of narratives. An overarching storyline is “a narrative of self and other(s) being jointly elaborated (or disputed) by participants”. This storyline can be manipulated by what people say about themselves and others (Herman 2009, p.50). Grand narrative is another useful term to describe overarching storylines. According to Lyotard, in Thomas (2016), grand narratives include religious, scientific or historical systems of knowledge, for instance (p.69). This idea describes how narratives and the storyworld they belong to can be overarching over people's lives, communities and cultures. Lyotard also refers to “little narratives'' in relation to these grand narratives, which are used in contemporary society to challenge grand narratives (ibid). This shows how people can use and influence grand narratives, and be a part of them, and develop smaller narratives that are nonetheless relevant to society. Where reality and truth end, and narratives and storyworlds begin is not clarified in these perspectives of narrative: grand narratives are questioned by more narratives.

(20)

20

Storyworld disruption and structuralists

Structuralists are concerned with “how narrative actively structures and shapes our view of the world around us” (Thomas 2016, p.28), acknowledging and investigating the connection between world and storyworld. Of particular interest to structuralists is how stories are built up. In the mid-20th century, Tzvetan Todorov developed a model of narratives which looks closely at order and disruption happening within many narratives. Todorov found that typically, a narrative begins with a “state of equilibrium”, or order; this is disrupted by an action; the disruption is acknowledged; there is an attempt to restore order; and finally, order is restored The second state in Todorov’s model is one of storyworld disruption, and refers to the state of a storyworld in which the initial order has been shaken (ibid., p.30). In his discussion of Todorov, Herman (2009) points out that “not every narrative will trace the entirety of this path” (p.20). That is to say, a narrative may not get to the point where order is reinstated.

Event sequencing

Another important part of narrative theory for this paper is the issue of event sequencing as a means of attributing causal relations to events. According to Herman (2009), “[n]arrative […] is a basic human strategy for coming to terms with time, process, and change” (p.2); narrative has the function of helping humans learn to understand and accept developments. A narrative always presents events in sequence, or otherwise provides clues as to the sequence of events even if they are not recounted in order of occurrence (see ibid.,p.xvi and Thomas 2016, p.35). Barthes suggests that narrative can lead the reader/listener to make judgements about cause and effect: “what comes after being read in narrative as what is caused by”(in Herman 2009, p.8), meaning that the order of events put forward in a narrative (whether told in order or the order is clarified by cues) can provide the listener with clues about what the teller of a narrative considers to be causally related and how.

Positioning and character

The term positioning describes how identity development can happen by way of narrative. Herman (2009) explains that “stories both [allow] people to assign positions to themselves

(21)

21

and one another” (p.50). So stories can put people in certain roles in the narrative. A character is “a participant in the world depicted by the narrative” (Thomas 2016, p.9), a figure involved in the picture of a world that a narrative paints. With regards to the way narrative and life influence each other, a person in the ‘real world’ can be influenced by the character position they are given in a certain storyworld, or overarching storyline or grand narrative.

Storyworld disruption, event sequencing, and positioning are what the parents in the interviews are using to make sense of the world around them and their perceived places in it; and also affects the overarching storyline about parent responsibility.

6.2.2. Other relevant terminology

Responsibility, Rational Conduct

Also important for the analysis is the term responsible, which is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as

Adjective A. 1. a. Capable of fulfilling an obligation or duty; reliable, trustworthy, sensible. [...] 3. a.

With for. Being in charge of something; appointed to look after something. b. Answerable or liable to be called to account to another person for something. Also without construction. c. Morally accountable for one’s actions; capable of rational conduct. d. Being the cause or originator of something; deserving of credit or blame for something. [...] B. 1. A person who is responsible [...] (Oxford English Dictionary, 2020).

(The definitions I included here are those relevant to the paper.) Responsible can be understood as meaning that someone is made responsible by others through norms and laws, and blame. But responsible can also mean that one is able to conduct themselves in a rational, trustworthy way, as a responsible person. Undefined is what this responsibility should contain, or who can delegate or claim it and how. The adjective rational in the sense of rational conduct according to the Oxford English Dictionary means “of or relating to reason or reasoning”(ibid.), or even, in an earlier version of the dictionary, “based on reason, using reason or logic” (Oxford English Dictionary 1994). Rational conduct, then, means that behavior and action is based on reason, taking into account causes and using reasoning to decide on what actions to take.

(22)

22

7. Analysis:

Who’s in charge? Investigating how parents talk

about their roles as parents

In this paper, I will use narrative theory to analyze the interviews, using excerpts from the interviews to present my findings. The research question that drives this paper is How do parents come to term with a perceived discrepancy between control of and responsibility for upbringing?. The purpose of this investigation is to provide insight into parents’ situations around the question of upbringing of the children they leave in the hands of other adults, in order for practitioners to make more informed choices when confronting parents. The interviews show parents confronted by an inconsistency they perceive regarding upbringing: they feel responsible, and in charge, but then realize they are less in control than initially thought. The parents try different methods to come back to the point of departure in which they were in charge, but the interviews show that this is not a simple task, perhaps impossible. I conclude that the parents do not reestablish the sense of control and responsibility – being in charge– as they have at the beginning of the interviews. I will first present parents’ sense of responsibility for upbringing, as well as their impression of themselves as being in control. This will be followed by the parents becoming aware of having less control than they initially present themselves as having. Finally, I will show how parents struggle to reestablish order in their perspectives of the situation. I will use narrative theory to guide the analysis.

7.1. Parents in charge

Responsible and in control

Above I brought up the definition of responsible as both or either having to do with people being responsible individuals, or as people being accountable for their actions and held accountable in one way or another. Kesselring and her colleagues (2012) found that parents are unwilling to share responsibility, even if they are willing to share childcare with other adults in their communities. In the interviews, I found that parents saw themselves as in charge of upbringing, meaning that they felt both responsible and in control. They felt in

(23)

23

charge of what their responsibilities were, and they felt in charge of the upbringing aims and strategies the children were exposed to. Both interviews show examples of this.

7.1.1. Nina and Magnus are in charge

That Nina and Magnus consider themselves to be responsible for the upbringing of their children is expressed by the words they use, and the actions they describe, as in the following two examples:

Nina: We read a bit of books about how to raise kids - Juulfor example [...]. So they were really helpful [...]. To learn that kids don't have to be shaped to be ok. [...] You don't have to bring them up, you just have to

Magnus: They want to collaborate and they want Nina: Yeah

Magnus: They don’t always collaborate the way you want, but most of what they do makes sense from their own perspective. I think it makes sense to treat kids like people, I mean to not treat them like objects that you have to shape into something, the way they should be but yeah.

Nina and Magnus explain that they are keeping informed about upbringing strategies by taking time to read books about it. Nina explains that the books are helpful. This suggests that Nina considered herself in need of help, which implies that she considers upbringing to be her task. In addition, Nina is clear that she considers herself obliged: She does say “you don’t have to bring them up”, but continues immediately: “you have to…” and looks for words to explain what her obligations are. Also the excerpt shows that the parents have not only read, but reflected and discussed their findings with each other: Magnus finishes Nina’s sentence, and Nina accepts this and agrees. Also, after Magnus has finished describing what Juulsays about shaping children, he offers his own interpretation, bringing his own values into the matter. In this next example, Nina talks to her son about her father passing away. She says that she speaks frankly to him about her coping strategies as well as being honest.

We’re scientists [chuckles], so everything is very like ...eh... I explained to him how… Maybe he’s in

heaven, maybe not, no one knows. I wanna believe it because it makes me feel better. But I mean we

try to sort of not come up with lies.

This example shows how carefully Nina thinks about what she says to her son. Her explanation is time consuming and emotionally difficult: she gives her son several alternatives and explanations surrounding the death of her father; she chooses to believe that her father is in heaven, even though she is a scientist, which she implies here might cause a conflict. But she decides not to lie to her son in spite of this. Nina is hesitant though. Perhaps this shows a

(24)

24

struggle to reconcile her view of herself as a grieving daughter allowing herself to believe in heaven, with her role as a scientist. However, and this is the crux, she is able to reconcile her role as a parent with that of a scientist/grieving daughter, by being honest to her son about her thoughts and feelings. Her responsibility as an honest parent, responsible for explaining complex phenomena, death and grief, is not made impossible by her other roles. So this example also shows Nina embracing the responsibility she feels she has for her child’s development.

Nina and Magnus present themselves not only as responsible, but also as in control of upbringing: they determine the aims and strategies based on their own values. This becomes apparent when they describe situations in which they have been challenged by others, for example when Nina describes a challenge as an opportunity to teach her son Peter a lesson.

Nina: Sometimes Peter really wants something from us, but then I tell him that I cannot do it now, because this is my limit. And he doesn't always accept it, but teaching him that other people have their boundaries, he knows that he can also have his boundaries.

Magnus: Mhm. Ok. Maybe that’s it.

Here, Nina describes a (general) situation where she is at her limit; she cannot do what Peter asks of her. But she is still in charge, using the situation to her advantage so as to teach her son one of the values she feels he needs to learn, namely that he, too, can have boundaries. She is still in control of the upbringing in this story. And Magnus agrees, however tentatively.

7.1.2. Brian and Sasha are in charge

Brian and Sasha also present themselves as being in charge of upbringing. Brian expresses his sense of responsibility by acknowledging that all of his actions will affect how his children will develop:

Actually at [breakfast?] today, Sasha asked me How do you want to raise our children? And I said Do

you worry about raising, the upbringing of our children? And I said no. And she said, you're never nervous. You’re always so calm about it. And I explained that as far as I think the only thing you can be, and try to be, is a good role model in your daily behavior and work: Be the person you want the children to be and see and get the influence by. It's not like we have two hours of upbringing this day...

I mean whatever you do, everything you do, is part of the upbringing. So, I'm trying to be honest to myself, honest to everyone else, and hope that my behavior will influence my children's behavior, for now and in the future.

(25)

25

Brian’s recounting of that morning's discussion, with Sasha beside him, shows that the parents influence each other. They reflect together and try to convince each other about their perspective, with Sasha carrying with her a sense of nervousness which could be caused by her strong sense of responsibility. Brian expresses that he feels responsible even though he does not feel nervous about upbringing. His sense of responsibility becomes apparent in his expressed awareness that his actions will affect the children and his hopes that his good actions will affect the children’s character development well. Sasha decides to find inspiration in literature and experiencing nervousness, while Brian focuses on being a certain role model. Also that they discuss upbringing with each other implies a sense of responsibility.

In the following example, Brian is challenged by his children, but he is still in control. When the children do something “wrong”, Brian uses it as an opportunity to explain right and wrong to the children:

Brian: it is a method I use, too, but it is by example. But of course if Michael or Daisy is doing something wrong, we inform them about what is wrong and what we expect and how to behave and so on, and encourage good behavior. [...][It is important to] be sure to be informative about what [Michael] is doing wrong so he can connect the outcome to his behavior that this is not… what you call it

S: Not acceptable! B: not acceptable.

When his children act in a way that is not in line with his values, and if living by example is not enough to bring up the children well, Brian does not see that as a reason to feel not in control. Instead, he applies another strategy, speaking to his children about their behavior and verbally encouraging other behavior, using conflict situations as a means for teaching good behavior.

Sasha, too, expresses a strong sense of responsibility, and also control, at the start of the interview: she uses literature for her task as a parent. But she is not simply taking advice at face value. She takes from the literature what she considers to be right and ignores what does not comply with her own values. Ultimately, she decides what values to use to raise her children, as in the following example:

Sasha:… and I read books. About that. I love literature. [...] Anna Wahlgren, she wrote this

Barnaboken. [...] But she is not popular anymore. But some of the things that she wrote I found quite

good. I noticed that children like to be part of the family life. For example little children love to help with the housework. You should encourage, you should give children jobs. Little jobs. Like Oh could

you help me put the washing in the washing machine [...] I mean: little children love helping! So we try

(26)

26

Brian: participating

Sasha: ...participating!... in what we’re doing, even if they get it wrong, (chuckles). [...] Well it makes them feel like their part of our community, that we’re part of a family, that we work together.

Me: So the feeling that you’re promoting is really important.

Sasha: Yes. That we would help each other out! That we are not just all individuals. Of course we are also individuals but we’re a unit. We help each other out, we're a family. Human beings are a flock animal. We need these connections and relations with each other. And I think that's quite important and I think that's important in preschool as well. This little community.

In this passage, several ways in which Sasha sees herself as a parent who takes responsibility for her child come to light. First, she takes the time to read and reflect about advice literature on upbringing. Also, even though Sasha is open to expert advice, she is critical and ultimately makes her own decisions based on her own reasoning: she is in charge. Second, the passage presents a parent who allows for time consuming, complicated events so that her child can develop certain qualities. In other words, to achieve a certain perspective in her child, she is willing to spend ample time and energy. Voluntarily taking on extra work suggests that she sees the task of instilling a certain sense in the child as her responsibility. It is important to her to make her children feel part of the community, while getting things wrong is not a problem. She is responsible, and she is in charge of the aims and strategies applied to her children here.

7.1.3. Both interviews shed light on the parenting position in the parenting

storyworld

These excerpts provide a glimpse into the roles the parents in both examples see themselves as having in the “parenting” storyworld. I am referring to a sort of overarching storyline, like that described by Herman (2009), in which different narrators can influence a grand narrative with what they say in conversation. They show how the parents perceive themselves, or in any case present themselves as responsible and in charge. They position themselves, and perhaps they have been positioned here by others. Positioning refers to the act committed by a narrator when attributing a role to themselves or others in a narrative, as discussed by Herman (2009). As we are discussing issues around parenting, what they say here is also inadvertently positioning other parents. If these interviewees see themselves as responsible for the upbringing of their children because they are their parents, then they are also positioning other parents as responsible for the upbringing of their own children. There is order in the “parenting” storyworld presented by the parents here. It is a stable storyworld in which the

(27)

27

role of the parent is to be in charge, and the parents are in charge. Any challenges to their positions are countered quickly: occasions where children challenge parents are used as teaching opportunities. Roles that may conflict, such as parent plus scientist plus grieving daughter, are fixed. These challenges do not succeed in repositioning the parents and so do not disrupt the parenting storyworld in which parents are in charge. Todorov, as discussed in Herman (2009) and Thomas (2016), found this to be a standard opening to narrative: narratives begin with order. This is the point that the parents are at in the grand parenting narrative at the beginnings of the interviews.

These positions that the parents grant themselves here are in line with parenting roles in other narratives within the parenting storyworld. The study conducted by Kesselring and her colleagues (2012) presents narratives of responsible parents both in their discussions on previous research as well as in the statements made by the parents in their own research about their roles. The position as parents as responsible is also brought forward by Rose (1999). His analysis brings to light the illusion parents in societies like Sweden have, in which parents are made to feel autonomous, or in charge, even if they ultimately are not.

7.2. Parents not in charge

Parents acknowledge that they have less control when

children are at preschool

But there are inconsistencies that the parents are presented with and are forced to deal with. When the conversations turn to preschool, and how teachers raise children there, about policies, aims and strategies there, a closer look at the interviews shows that parents actually feel less in control than they did before.

7.2.1. Nina and Magnus are not in charge

After talking about the aims they have for their children and the strategies they use to foster these traits, Nina and Magnus go on to discuss what they know about upbringing at preschool. What comes to light is that they often feel left in the dark or even powerless to influence a situation they do know about and disapprove of. Throughout the interview, lack of knowledge, or lack of a means to attain knowledge about upbringing aims and strategies are brought up by the parents, as in this example:

(28)

28

Magnus: These things their activities relate to, that's sometimes written. And of course they often relate to getting a democratic view or being nice or how you interact with other people. In that, yes. But not on a very personal level.

Nina: It's also about the way that people have been changing. I don't think there's time for our asking these type of things. Also, I don't know if we agree so much with those people there anyway. So I don't know if I even, I mean I have different policies when it comes to screen time, for example. So I don't know if a discussion about the core values would be…

Magnus explains that they do not get particulars about what happens to their children. Nina’s addition makes it clear that she also feels that she does not have the means for attaining any such knowledge. Nina’s remarks show that she is aware that the preschools policies are not in line with her values, but she also questions whether a discussion would have any point. She does not explain why she is doubtful, but perhaps it is because staff change too often for any battle to be worth fighting, or because battles are time consuming and there is not even time for asking questions. Not only their lack of knowledge, but also their sense of powerlessness to become more informed is pronounced. This adds weight to the notion that the parents feel not in control because of what they perceive to be poor communication. In order to take responsibility for what is happening to her child at preschool, Nina needs to take into account what she knows about what happens there, and what she knows about how her child will be affected. Taking into account the definition of rational conduct and responsibility, Nina would need to have knowledge about the situation in order to make decisions. By not knowing she cannot decide whether to interfere, change preschools, accept the situation and step back, or whatever other options are open to her. She does not have the control necessary to take the responsibility that she feels she has, and knows it.

7.2.2. Are Brian and Sasha in charge?

Sasha is particularly concerned about consistency of relationships, so she wants to avoid exposing her children to too many changes in relationships, and too large groups. In this next example, Sasha describes how she was put in a position to move her son out of the preschool he was in so as to avoid too many relationship changes. First, Sasha explains that her son is currently enrolled in a preschool where her values are in line with those in the institution, saying that Michael has

got one preschool teacher who is pretty straight forward [...] and she just makes sure that everyone does what they’re supposed to do. And she’s not the most warm and fuzzy person but she really cares about the children and she just wants everyone to work as a community and she stays positive. I think that's good for the children. She's got the routines. And I think routines are very important for children to feel secure.

(29)

29

Michael is in a place that suits her. She goes on the explain the reasons for this state of affairs: why she and Brian chose this preschool, and why Michael had to move:

Sasha: They didn't have such large groups. I mean before he went to Nightingale and they wanted to move him up to a group with 21 kids. I wasn't happy about that. [...] They said that the reason that they were moving him up was not because of his development or because they thought that he would be good with a larger group or anything like that. They said it was because they needed the space. [...] So we moved him and now he’s in a preschool with the same amount of staff, with two and a half teachers and 8 children. And because he is quite a sensitive child we think that it's better with a smaller group. And when he’s three he’ll move up in a group with 12 children. So that's why we chose it. [...] [And] that he doesn't like changes. He's very sensitive to change, and it's difficult to create relationships with too many people. And we thought that he's too young to create that many relationships. – It's tricky. It’s not easy for him. So we thought a small group would serve his personality better. [The staff] did express to me, first discreetly and one not so discreetly, that they thought it was a very bad idea. Me: How did you feel about that then?

Sasha: Very uncomfortable of course! Because if they are so clear in saying that that is a bad idea, because I do know [...] it takes a lot to tell a parent that something is wrong with the environment. I mean really it takes a lot. Personally, you know, this tystnadskultur4_{that sometimes is spoken about in}

the media and stuff, you feel that very very strongly when you work in a school – So for this teacher to say to me directly that this is a bad idea and that I should find some other place, made me feel like I really need to move him. – Because this teacher had been with him since he started. [...] She thought it was a bad idea to move him into a larger group. She said it wasn't in his best interest.

Me: OK. – But she couldn't keep him in the younger group?

Sasha: She wasn't allowed to, it was the rector [...] Because she said they needed the space. Hmpf. I mean that's why I moved him! Because the rector! I mean the staff, the staff I had no prob-, the staff have been good. The rector went above their heads. [...] So we went to visit the [new] preschool, Brian and me, and we were happy, we got a good impression with it.

In this example, Sasha describes a situation in which she became aware of how much control was in the hands of the rector, not hers. Sasha does not tell the story in order, but tracks back to what she perceives to be the ultimate cause of the problem. She begins with a sense of control; her son is currently enrolled in a preschool where the values reflect her own, and the group sizes are ideal. But the farther Sasha traces back to what led to the current state of affairs, the more she acknowledges how much control was in the hands of the rector at Nightingale. There are cues such as because and I mean that describe the sequence of the events within the story as they happened according to Sasha. She finishes the story at the beginning of the causal chain, with the rector making decisions above the heads of others, namely those who took her, Sasha's, concerns to heart.

7.2.3. Both interviews present a storyworld disruption

The parenting storyworld has been disrupted. The roles of the parents are no longer consistent. In the beginning of the interviews, the parents saw themselves as in charge, in line

Preschoolers’ Parents Navigate Control and Responsibility

Examensarbete i fördjupningsämnet barndom och

lärande

Förskolebarns föräldrars navigerar ansvar

och kontroll

Preschoolers’ Parents Navigate Control and Responsibility

Anita Benson

Table of contents

1. Abstract

2. Foreword

3. Introduction

3.1. Outline

3.2. Research question

3.3. Purpose

4. Background

4.1. The current Swedish preschool curriculum and

control

4.2. Where is the responsibility?

Recent history and today

5. Previous research

5.1. Do parents think it takes a village?

Parent’s views of themselves as responsible for

upbringing

5.2. Comparative study on parental involvement in

several curricula

Preschool institutions in control

5.3. Governing autonomy

How the state keeps control but presents parents with an

illusion of autonomy

6. Method

6.1. Collecting data

6.2. Theory and terminology

6.2.1. Narrative

A means of coming to terms with the world and your place in it

6.2.2. Other relevant terminology

Responsibility, Rational Conduct

7. Analysis:

Who’s in charge? Investigating how parents talk

about their roles as parents

7.1. Parents in charge

Responsible and in control

7.1.1. Nina and Magnus are in charge

7.1.2. Brian and Sasha are in charge

7.1.3. Both interviews shed light on the parenting position in the parenting

storyworld

7.2. Parents not in charge

Parents acknowledge that they have less control when

children are at preschool

7.2.1. Nina and Magnus are not in charge

7.2.2. Are Brian and Sasha in charge?

7.2.3. Both interviews present a storyworld disruption