Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The provision of early childhood development services is expanding in developing countries. The rationale behind this expansion is rooted in developmental psychology, socio-economic and human rights narratives. However, there are some limitations to this rationale, which are in particular related to the implicit universalism it assumes. This article outlines how early childhood development interventions imply a policing of families and childhood, which calls for a stronger consideration of context. As a consequence, the scope of what counts as evidence in early childhood development research needs to be questioned. The article is a theoretical contribution to the discourse of what early childhood development ‘does’. A critical approach, addressing the ideals and values that are communicated in early childhood development programmes and how they relate to dominant parenting ideals and practices in the society in question, should be an integral part of the expansion of early childhood development in the global South in the future.

Keywords

Childhood developing countries early childhood development ECD families policing

Introduction

The importance of early childhood development (ECD) services for individual and societal development has increasingly gained attention in both developed and developing countries.¹ There is little scientific doubt that ECD is beneficial at the individual, community and societal levels (e.g. see Britto, Engle and Super, 2013; Engle et al., 2007, 2011; Heckman, 2006; Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000). Accordingly, the importance of ECD has been acknowledged in most developed countries over the last decades, and the interest in ECD in low- and middle-income countries has expanded considerably in recent years. Nevertheless, ECD programme coverage is low in most developing countries, and the national expenditure on ECD is generally small. Indeed, globally, public investment in ECD ranges from 10% to less than 1% of the total education spending, with the lowest percentages found in developing countries (World Bank Group, 2015; UNESCO, 2006). Within this context, building a solid rationale for investing in ECD is imperative to ensure increasing expansion.

Whereas the societal and individual benefits of ECD are documented and accounted for in policy and service implementation, it is seldom explicitly taken into consideration how ECD services also imply a certain policing of families and childhood. This article is a theoretical contribution to the discourse of ECD, aimed at generating knowledge about the importance of taking context, which is implicit in the policing of families and childhood, into account when developing ECD policy and programmes. In order to meet this end, an expansion in the understanding of what counts as evidence in ECD research is needed. First, I outline the rationale behind ECD investment in developing countries. Second, I turn to the critique of this rationale. With reference to Donzelot’s (1979) concept of the policing of families, I then outline how ECD involves an alignment of behaviours in the public and private spheres, which requires a focus on context and calls for a broader understanding of quality. Finally, I argue for the need to expand the scope of research on ECD, challenging the predominant ‘trust in numbers’ which seems to permeate the sector.

My intention is not to question the importance of ECD; nor do I object to the recognition of ECD as a tool for development and change. What I wish to contribute is a discourse challenging and broadening the current dominant narratives of what ECD ‘does’. Addressing the ideals and values that are communicated in ECD policy and programmes, and how they relate to context and diversity, should be an integral part of the development of ECD in the global South in the future.

Why should developing countries invest in ECD?

The reasons for investing in ECD in developing countries are numerous and interrelated. The first United Nations Millennium Development Goal is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, and the second is to ensure that all children complete primary schooling. Improving ECD is considered an important step in order to reach these goals. Improving ECD is also on the agenda of the successive United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, where one of the targets of Goal 4 is to ensure that, by 2030, all girls and boys have access to quality ECD, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education. International commitment to expanding ECD is reflected in diverse initiatives, such as the above-mentioned Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the Education for All and Health for All declarations. Furthermore, the obligation to invest in early childhood is put forward in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and, in particular, General Comment 7 (Britto, Ulkuer, Hodges, et al., 2013).

Some of the most influential scientific articles speaking in favour of ECD investment in developing countries were published in a special issue of the Lancet in 2007 (Engle et al., 2007; Grantham-McGregor et al., 2007; Walker et al., 2007), with a follow-up four years later (Engle et al., 2011; Walker et al., 2011). One of the articles in the former issue revealed that more than 200 million children under the age of five in developing countries fail to reach their developmental potential (Grantham-McGregor et al., 2007). The primary causes were found to be stunting, iodine deficiency, iron deficiency anaemia and inadequate cognitive stimulation (Walker et al., 2007), as well as intrauterine growth restriction, malaria, lead exposure, HIV infection, maternal depression, institutionalization and exposure to societal violence (Walker et al., 2011). ECD is promoted as an important strategy and a crucial component in the effort to combat this loss of developmental potential (Engle et al., 2007, 2011). However, as governmental expenditure on ECD remains low in the developing world, many such services are initiated and funded by international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and development agencies (UNESCO, 2006).²

The rationale for investment in early childhood relies primarily on three different narratives, which are justified from a developmental psychology, socio-economic and human rights perspective, respectively (see also Marope and Kaga, 2015; Penn, 2011a). The developmental psychology argument for ECD can be found in a wide selection of authoritative texts produced by INGOs and development agencies. One example can be taken from the UNICEF publication ‘The formative years: UNICEF’s work on measuring early childhood development’:

Early childhood, which spans the period up to 8 years of age, is critical for cognitive, social, emotional and physical development. During these years, a child’s newly developing brain is highly plastic and responsive to change as billions of integrated neural circuits are established through the interaction of genetics, environment and experience. Optimal brain development requires a stimulating environment, adequate nutrients and social interaction with attentive caregivers. (UNICEF, 2014)

The expansion of research on child development in previous decades has provided valuable insights into the importance of the first years of life for later development, leaving little doubt that ECD, seen from a developmental psychology perspective, is beneficial on an individual level. Research shows that from the prenatal stage and continuing into the first years of life, the child’s brain structure develops. Crucial to this development are the interactive influences of genes and experience, which derive from the interaction between the child and his or her caregivers, primarily the parents (Fox et al., 2010; Shonkoff, 2015; Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000). How the brain develops shapes later approaches to learning. The attachment between the infant and primary caregiver (first and foremost the mother) is considered to be an important prerequisite for the child’s ability to develop basic trust, which is considered crucial for emotional development. The emotional and physical health, social skills and cognitive-linguistic capacities that emerge in the early years have consequently proved to be important conditions for success in school and, subsequently, the workplace and community. Looking at developing countries in particular, there is evidence supporting the positive effects of ECD programmes on children’s cognitive development (Rao et al., 2016).

Intertwined with and consequential to the individual benefits of ECD, there has been an increasing awareness of the societal benefits of ECD. An important proponent of this perspective is the World Bank:

The potential benefits from supporting early childhood development (ECD) range from healthy development to greater capacity to learn while in school and increased productivity in adulthood. In fact, investing in young children through ECD programs – ensuring they have the right stimulation, nurturing and nutrition – is one of the smartest investments a country can make to address inequality, break the cycle of poverty, and improve outcomes later in life. Evidence from both developed and developing countries suggests that an additional dollar invested in high quality preschool programs will yield a return of anywhere between $6 and $17. (World Bank Group, 2015)

Investing in children through ECD programmes can be seen as part of an international neo-liberal trend in which the interrelation between human investment and socio-economic outcomes has been put forward. For example, in the UK, a longitudinal study has gained international recognition for revealing the relationship between ECD and children’s later achievements in life, thus indirectly pointing out how early investment has socio-economic benefits in the long run (Sylva et al., 2010). In the USA, the Head Start programme was designed to combat poverty by providing comprehensive early childhood education, health, nutrition and parent-involvement services to low-income children and their families (e.g. see Penn, 2011b: 23). What these examples have in common is that they are aimed at documenting and enhancing the development of children in deprived or non-privileged situations through early intervention. The idea is that if children whose family situation is challenging receive support that compensates for poor stimulation, they will more easily get on track with their peers in more privileged circumstances. This is not only in the interest of the child, but also in the interest of society as a whole.

Heckman’s (2006) theory of multiplier effects has given the socio-economic argument for ECD a strong standing. In short, his theory indicates that learning is a self-reinforcing process whereby early learning fosters more learning. Learning interventions targeted at children under school age are consequently effective, since they contribute to increased learning capacity when the child reaches first grade, which will in turn increase their learning capacity in second grade, and so on. From a long-term perspective, ECD therefore reduces the risk of later marginalization, as children’s learning capacity is enhanced across social categories, implicitly assuming higher human productivity. In other words, from a socio-economic perspective, early investment is less expensive than later repair.

Less articulated in the neo-liberal rhetoric, yet clearly present in the international policy documentation on which many INGOs and development agencies rely, is the argument that ECD is important from a human rights perspective (Britto, Ulkuer, Hodges, et al., 2013). Children’s right to development and survival, regardless of, for example, gender, race, language, religion or disability, as stated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, requires governments to provide services that can supplement and support families in order to enhance children’s development. The idea of ECD as a tool to combat societal challenges that can hinder the fulfilment of children’s rights in developing countries, such as poverty, poor health and nutrition, and illiteracy, has increasingly been put forward (e.g. Lee et al., 2015).

Whereas the first two perspectives (developmental psychology and socio-economic) focus on the instrumental value of children, involving a perception of children as ‘human becomings’, the human rights perspective focuses on the intrinsic value of children, where the perception of children as ‘human beings’ is dominant.³ Qvortrup (2009) argues that the alliance between the developmental psychology and socio-economic narratives assumes a logic whereby a certain input is expected to result in a specific outcome. He claims that the instrumentalization of children that this logic implies draws attention away from the lifeworld of children, and childhood as a life phase in its own right. It is the perception of children as human becomings, not as human beings, that is predominant. Interestingly, however, Britto, Ulkuer, Hodges, et al. (2013) note that although scientific evidence of the instrumental value of ECD is strong and burgeoning, this perspective is missing from the most important declarations and conventions. In other words, there seems to be a certain shift of rhetoric taking place where scientific evidence is translated to moral and political justification for action.

Nevertheless, this threefold rationale for investing in ECD in developing countries has become well established. Indeed, the commonality of views and rhetoric across INGOs and development agencies indicates that there exists an ‘international policy cartel on [ECD], relying on a common currency of ideas and language, which pays relatively little attention to local realities’ (Penn, 2011a: 110). Consequently, in order for international donors and stakeholders to generate funding and to advocate for and justify ECD initiatives, they have to argue along the lines of the developmental psychology, socio-economic and human rights narratives. Their accountability as ECD proponents lies in their ability to prove that the services they initiate have positive effects on children’s development and, implicitly, can be assumed to enhance children’s rights as well as contributing to economic development. This is one of the primary reasons why INGOs and development agencies have to develop comprehensive monitoring and evaluation systems. The demand for evidence is striking (e.g. Pence and Hix-Small, 2009), raising concerns over the concept of quality in ECD, which I return to later. There are, however, reasons to question the hegemony of the dominant narratives that constitute the ECD rationale, especially when it comes to developing countries.

The limitations of the ECD rationale in developing countries

The series of articles on investment in ECD that was published in the Lancet in 2007 comprised a set of universal recommendations regarding ECD. According to Penn (2011b), these recommendations do not sufficiently acknowledge that cultural context might be relevant. In what follows, I outline some of the critiques of the three narratives of the ECD rationale.

First, the developmental psychology narrative assumes a universality that can be disputed. Several researchers have pointed out that the theory of child development represents a ‘truth’ which has been developed in the minority world of the northern hemisphere (in particular, the USA) and is unfit to capture the realities of children in the majority world of the global South (e.g. see Boyden, 1997; Burman 1994; Okwany and Ebrahim, 2016; Penn, 2011b; Woodhead, 1999). For instance, many children in the global South take on responsibilities that they are unable to perform according to a developmental theory where age is understood as something definite and notions of age-appropriateness prevail – for example, children who are heads of households, living on the streets or working. By perceiving these life forms solely as detrimental we risk ignoring the resources and competencies that children at different ages have. Moreover, the relevance of attachment theory might be negotiable in a society that does not rely on a cultural pattern where the nuclear family is the main structural element (Penn, 2011b). Burman (1994: 185) offers a critique of the hegemonic understanding of childhood, which is informed by developmental psychology, claiming that it is attached to the culture which produced it and ‘functions as a tool of cultural imperialism through the reproduction of Western values and models within post-colonial societies’. Last but not least, Anderson and Reid (2016) warn against the neuro-myths that are flourishing and impacting international policy, which they refer to as ‘the brain-centric misinterpretation of early childhood development’ (149). According to Anderson and Reid, ‘there is no clear evidence to suggest that periods of synaptic growth are especially implicated in better learning … nor that early formalized education is particularly beneficial for learning unless children are experiencing particularly impoverished environments at home’ (149).

Second, Penn (2011b) argues that the socio-economic narrative does not sufficiently take into consideration the social inequalities that exist in the world today, both within and between societies. The ideology behind the socio-economic narrative, which is particularly present in the early investment calculation model presented by the World Bank,⁴ relies heavily on research developed in the USA, where, according to Penn, a tolerance for inequality is assumed in the pursuit of economic development. She advocates that it is crucial to address the issue of social inequality when designing ECD policies and programmes, asking who the services are for, what their goals are and who supports them, and not taking for granted that an investment in ECD will be beneficial for all members of society. Nsamenang (2009) issues a reminder that the children who are in the greatest need, and stand to gain the most from ECD services, are also those least likely to have access to them.

Third, the protective ideologies of child welfare which are embodied in international rights legislation such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child have their roots in the global North, and are claimed to represent a discontinuity with the cultural realities of countless children in the global South (Boyden, 1997; Cannella, 2005). There are some absolutes when it comes to children’s rights, which those nation states that have ratified the Convention have a judicial responsibility to abide by; however, it may still be worth questioning how well these rights fit into the reality many children face every day. Put differently, can it be assumed that ECD will contribute to promoting children’s rights in societies where children’s everyday realities are counterproductive to this goal?

These critiques of the ECD rationale make it relevant to question whether international proponents of ECD, including INGOs and development agencies, are exporting western ideals of childhood, care, education and parenting in their efforts to implement ECD in the developing world (Boyden, 1997; Cannella, 2005; Dahlberg et al., 2013; Nsamenang, 2009; Penn, 2011a). In the next section, I address this question, though through a slightly different lens. I argue that ECD implies policing measures that are linked to certain sociopolitical agendas. It may be the case that the dominant agendas represent western value systems. My point is not, however, to prove that this is right or wrong, but rather to outline how ECD implies a policing of families and childhood, and to point out the importance of taking this role into account when promoting ECD in the global South. The policing dimension of ECD is not part of the currency of ideas and language used to promote ECD in developing countries, yet it has perhaps the most significant impact.

ECD and the implicit policing of families and childhood

ECD programmes tend to be regarded as supplementary to the family and as a tool to compensate for family shortages. A different perspective is to see ECD as policy measures aimed at aligning behaviours in the domestic and public spheres. When children spend time in institutions outside of the home, they are subject to a double socialization (Dencik et al., 1988). The child may encounter different expectations at home and in the institution, and has to learn how to behave in both arenas separately, while at the same time learning how to connect them. The greater the similarity between the expectations the child encounters in the different arenas, the better are his or her opportunities to succeed. Holistic ECD which incorporates parental skill-building, health and nutrition, and which has proved to be particularly effective in developing countries (Engle et al., 2007; Nordtveit, 2008), is explicitly aimed at providing a better integration of practices within and outside the home. In both cases, whether the child attends a preschool or receives home-based ECD support, a standardization of child-rearing takes place.

In order to depict how this takes place, I turn to Donzelot’s (1979) description of the rise of the social sphere in France. Donzelot describes how the rise of the social sphere, which is the complex of institutions, professional knowledge and practice that is aimed at maintaining the social order, entailed an altered view of social problems. Implicitly, specific understandings of what is normal, healthy and beneficial emerged, preparing the ground for a standardized notion of what constitutes good child-rearing. The health and welfare of children was put on the agenda, fuelled by the social elite’s notion of good child-rearing. A regulation of images took place (of motherhood, family life, parental behaviour, etc.), which was aimed at shaping and influencing people’s perceptions of their own lives. Thus, the family became both a target and a tool for change. Important in this development was the education and rearing of mothers. When mothers strived to raise healthy and well-behaved children, they behaved in line with the project of the state. In other words, what happened in the family was an important prerequisite for societal development. Donzelot refers to this as ‘the policing of families’. Rose (1999) refers to Donzelot when he discusses how an understanding of children, both as idea and as recipient, is intertwined with values connected to normalcy and deviance. Within this understanding, the behaviour of the individual can be regarded as an expression of a certain ‘governmentality’,⁵ in which the question of interest is how political and social goals are reached through the government of people’s attitudes, actions and valuation patterns. Fendler’s (2001) concept of ‘developmentality’, which is attached to notions of age-appropriateness, expands the knowledge of how specific power relations are inscribed in understandings of normalcy in relation to child development. Both concepts describe a cultural pattern in which the self disciplines the self.

In order to exemplify this, I turn to the emergence of the modern day-care institution in Norway, which is currently considered to have one of the most advanced and extensive day-care services in the world. Since the Day Care Institution Act of 1975, the day-care sector in Norway has developed extensively to the extent that almost 97% of Norwegian children aged three to five attend a day-care centre. The seeds of the modern day-care institution go back to the 1830s (Greve, 2013). Fuelled by increasing urbanization and the mass entry of females into the labour market, the first child asylums were developed, primarily targeted at children from the working class and principally funded through charity. The child asylums were social institutions where children received proper care and nutrition while their mothers were at work. Moreover, the child asylums were designed to improve maternal skills, providing assistance to working-class mothers. Alongside the child asylums, a different day-care institution emerged, initiated and run by mothers from the middle and upper classes. In contrast to the child asylums, these institutions were pedagogically oriented, building on the child-rearing ideals of the German educationalist Friedrich Fröbel. Contrary to the disciplinary child-rearing principles of the child asylums, the new day-care institutions were focused on fostering play and natural development and growth – ideals that still hold strong in the modern day-care sector in Norway (Seland, 2009). Gradually, these day-care institutions were professionalized, building on new scientific insight with regard to how children develop and learn (Korsvold, 2008). The modern day-care institution incorporates elements from both the child asylums (e.g. providing care and compensating for family deficiencies) and the pedagogically oriented day-care institutions (e.g. fostering play and development/learning). Enrolment in day care is strongly encouraged in Norway, especially for children of immigrant or marginalized groups. Indeed, day-care enrolment is a common intervention in non-privileged or ‘troubled’ families who receive support from child welfare services. Some researchers have pointed out that the ideals and socialization practices children encounter in day-care institutions are in alignment with the ideals and practices of the Norwegian middle class (e.g. see Stefansen, 2011). When children from less privileged groups attend day-care centres, they implicitly have to conform to other ideals and other behaviours. Welfare services, such as day care, thus have a disciplinary function for both children and their caregivers (Hennum, 2010; Rose, 1999). The increased focus on early intervention in the Norwegian day-care sector, which renders day-care staff responsible for identifying children at risk and initiating intervention, exemplifies the policing of children and families that is implicit in the institutionalization of children. Rooted in the neo-liberal policies of our times, the rationale for early intervention is primarily justified in the field of economics, and, like the international ECD rationale, assumes a developmental universalism.

The example from Norway illustrates how formalized day care, both historically and today, has been a tool for the standardization of child-rearing, implicitly fostering developmentality and giving priority to ideals and practices that can be traced to the social middle class and are intrinsically linked to a sociopolitical agenda aimed at delimiting deviance and increasing human productivity. The interesting question that arises from this example is how the norms, ideals and practices related to parenthood and the socialization of children in the private sphere, relate to the norms and ideals that are communicated in the public sphere. In developing countries, this question is particularly interesting since most ECD programmes are initiated by INGOs or international development agencies and modelled on ideals that emerged in the western world. While ECD in Norway, like in most western countries, developed from ‘within’, in response to a changing labour market, urbanization, and the gradual introduction and processing of new pedagogical ideas, ECD in developing countries is introduced from ‘afar’, building on understandings and ideals that by some people are claimed to be imported. Penn (2011a, 2011b) refers to this as a ‘knowledge transfer’.

Is this a problem? As we have seen, a large body of scientific research says that ECD works. Children who attend ECD programmes have, in general, better outcomes than children who do not attend such programmes. Admittedly, not all children enjoy the benefits of ECD (e.g. see UNICEF, 2012), but this can hardly be used as an argument not to invest in it. Equipped with the statistical evidence, it is not difficult to advocate for increased investments in ECD. However, when the scientific evidence used to justify ECD is reduced to the measurement of outcomes based on a limited repertoire of predefined criteria, there is the possibility of interpreting – or misinterpreting – good effects as quality. The question of quality is imperative, and has received increased attention in the scientific debate on ECD (Dahlberg et al., 2013; Woodhead, 1999). Quality is indeed commonly related to a ‘trust in numbers’, where quality is claimed with reference to measurable results (e.g. literacy, numeracy, motor skills), seeking legitimization within the fields of policy and economics. This notion of quality assumes a universalism, which is incorporated in the common currency of ECD ideals and language (Penn, 2011a). But are good outcomes necessarily related to local perceptions of quality? Or, put differently, do the ECD initiatives make sense in the local setting? According to Harkness et al. (2013), this is far from always being the case. The core challenge of ECD programmes and policies, they concede, ‘is to integrate the goals of an intervention … with the development agendas of young children and the cultural agendas that shape their daily lives’ (143). They call for assessment of children that incorporates the competencies which are valued in the cultures of which the children are a part.

Dahlberg et al. (2013) introduce the term ‘meaning-making’ as an alternative understanding of quality, where diversity, complexity, subjectivity and multiple perspectives play a role. The notion of meaning-making invites contextualization, critical and reflexive thinking, encounter and dialogue. In the spirit of meaning-making, a question worth asking is how children’s lifeworlds, local socialization ideals and structural conditions interplay with the ideals communicated by the proponents of ECD. Acknowledging that ECD interventions imply a certain policing of families and childhood, it is important to address how to bridge the gap between international policy ideals and local cultural values and realities.

Being attentive to context, diversity and meaning is imperative in order to generate knowledge of what may count as quality in different settings. Furthermore, it directs attention to the intrinsic value of childhood and of children as ‘human beings’. Britto, Ulkuer, Hodges, et al. (2013) suggest that the instrumental value of childhood should be more strongly emphasized in declarations and conventions promoting ECD, since it is implicit in the scientific evidence of ECD yet less widely articulated in policy than the intrinsic value of childhood. An alternative approach is to support research that focuses on the intrinsic value of childhood in ECD, and to expand the understanding of what counts as evidence. By changing the research lens, a space may be cleared to bridge the gap between international policy and local realities.

Towards a reconceptualization of evidence in ECD?

A large body of research leaves little doubt that ECD is beneficial in developing countries. Like the title of an article about ECD services in Cambodia suggests, it cannot be contested that ‘something is better than nothing’ (Rao et al., 2012). Given the current situation, it is arguable whether the time is ripe to be critical. ECD is an emerging field in developing countries with generally low budget coverage, and therefore research that documents the benefits of ECD and can be used for policy advocacy should be encouraged. However, acknowledging the benefits of ECD should not discount a critical perspective. On the contrary, there can hardly be a better time to question what kind of ECD we want to develop. Intertwined with this is the question of evidence. How can we prove that ECD works without resorting to narrow outcome assessments?

The quest for more critical perspectives in ECD has increased during recent decades. For instance, Dahlberg et al. (2013) call for more critical perspectives to provide new understandings in a field that is dominated by a language which tends to raise questions of a technical and managerial nature, rather than of value. Cannella (2005: 32) claims that there is a need to reconceptualize ECD in the global South in order to avoid the risk of ‘imposing very narrow, patriarchal, and even colonialist views of child, family, education, and public policy’. Likewise, Penn (2011b: 182) advocates for approaches that are more sensitive to the cultural context, claiming that ‘as well as economic and social stereotyping, we do damage if we are not sensitive to diversity and context’. Questioning the dominance of the developmental psychology narrative in ECD, Nsamenang (2009: 53) has commented that even though many aspects of human development may be universal, ‘such universality cannot be postulated based on research in a single cultural group’. Similarly, Pence (2013) calls for more indigenous perspectives in ECD research, and a ‘chorus of voices’ (Pence and Ashton, 2016). Pearson (2011) warns against a recolonialization in early childhood. And finally, arguing in favour of a sociocultural approach, Woodhead calls for a paradigm shift in the discourse of quality within ECD:

To progress the quality debate in a global context, a paradigm is needed that still recognizes where young children may be at risk of harm, injury or abuse, but at the same time is more inclusive of diversity of contexts, beliefs and practices. (Woodhead, 1999: 13)

It goes without saying that there is a need for more research about ECD in the global South, but the kind of research that is devoted to opening up new perspectives and understandings, and multiple voices (preferably favouring those ‘from within’), building on alternative theoretical assumptions, and challenging and supplementing those assumptions that constitute the current ECD rationale.

Several paths may be fruitful. For instance, Pence and Hix-Small (2009) propose that sociocultural approaches or social constructionism, which as yet have not gained substantial influence in the field, might be useful approaches to challenging the developmental psychology hegemony in the ECD discourse.⁶ Such approaches are suitable for questioning dominant notions and understandings, and opening up alternative perceptions. Cannella (2005) calls for a more democratic, contextual and critical discourse, and proposes critical pedagogy, in the legacy of Paolo Freire, as a possible tool for a reconceptualization of ECD in the global South. Critical pedagogy can be a fruitful path to uncover oppressive power dynamics, which might be disguised as good intentions, and to promote a decolonizing movement committed to the embrace of a global diversity of discourses. Harkness et al. (2013) argue in favour of combining insights from developmental psychology and cultural anthropology in the assessment of children. The concept of the ‘development niche’ (Harkness and Super, 1994), which incorporates the physical and social settings of children’s daily lives, the customs and practices of care, and parental ethnotheories, may be a useful conceptual framework for understanding which competencies are valued in the children’s own culture and, hence, what kind of ECD curricula ‘make sense’ (Harkness et al., 2013: 157). Finally, questioning the ‘northern’ bias of theory development, which the current hegemony of developmental psychology might illustrate, Southern Theory, associated with Raewyn Connell (2007), offers an alternative approach to knowledge production devoted to exploring global dynamics and embracing theoretical contributions developed in the global South.

Advocating a critical perspective does not imply disapproval of the implementation of ECD in developing countries. However, in the current neo-liberal regime of accountability, where investments in development have to be evaluated, monitored, measured and held accountable in order to be justified, the risk of reducing quality to a question of outcome and impact that can be quantified, while ignoring the implicit policing of families and childhood that ECD entails, is imminent.

Footnotes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author biography

Ann Christin E Nilsen is an associate professor at the University of Agder and a researcher at Agder Research, Norway. Her research interests include childhood and families, gender, early intervention, early childhood services and interdisciplinary collaboration. Her research has been published in international journals such as Childhood, Gender Issues, Nordic Social Work Research, Comparative Social Work, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research and Journal of Research in Childhood Education, as well as diverse journals and books in Norwegian.

References

Anderson

Reid

(2016) Theoretical insights from neuroscience in early childhood research. In: Farrell

Kagan

Tisdall

EKM

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Early Childhood Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 148–162.

Boyden

(1997) Childhood and the policy makers: A comparative perspective on the globalization of childhood. In: James

Prout

(eds) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. 2nd ed. London: Falmer Press, pp. 190–216.

Britto

Engle

Super

(eds) (2013) Handbook of Early Childhood Development Research and Its Impact on Global Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Britto

Ulkuer

Hodges

et al . (2013) Global policy landscape and early childhood development. In: Britto

Engle

Super

(eds) Handbook of Early Childhood Development Research and Its Impact on Global Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 65–81.

Burman

(1994) Deconstructing Developmental Psychology. London: Routledge.

Cannella

(2005) Reconceptualizing the field (of early care and education): If ‘western’ child development is a problem, then what do we do? In: Yelland

(ed.) Critical Issues in Early Childhood Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 17–39.

Connell

(2007) Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. Cambridge: Polity.

Dahlberg

Moss

Pence

(2013) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: Languages of Evaluation. London: Routledge.

Dencik

Bäckstrøm

Larsson

(1988) Barnens två världar. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.

10.

Donzelot

(1979) The Policing of Families. New York: Pantheon Books.

11.

Engle

Black

Behrman

et al . (2007) Strategies to avoid the loss of developmental in more than 200 million children in the developing world. Lancet 369(9557): 229–242.

12.

Engle

Fernald

ICH

Alderman

et al . (2011) Strategies for reducing inequalities and improving developmental outcomes for young children in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet 378(9799): 1339–1353.

13.

Fendler

(2001) Educating flexible souls: The construction of subjectivity through developmentality and interaction. In: Hultqvist

Dahlberg

(eds) Governing the Child in the New Millennium. New York: Routledge, pp. 119–142.

14.

Fox

Levitt

Nelson

(2010) How the timing and quality of early experiences influence the development of brain architecture. Child Development 81(1): 28–40.

15.

Grantham-McGregor

Cheung

Cueto

et al . (2007) Developmental potential in the first 5 years for children in developing countries. Lancet 369(9555): 60–70.

16.

Greve

(2013) Utviklingstrekk ved den norske barnehagen. In: Kvello

(ed.) Barnas barnehage 1: Målsettinger, føringer og rammer for barnehagen. 2nd ed. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk, pp. 63–79.

17.

Harkness

Super

(1994) The developmental niche: A theoretical framework for analyzing the household production of health. Social Science and Medicine 38(2): 217–226.

18.

Harkness

Super

Mavridis

et al . (2013) Culture and early childhood development: Implications for policy and programs. In: Britto

Engle

Super

(eds) Handbook of Early Childhood Development Research and Its Impact on Global Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 142–160.

19.

Heckman

(2006) Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 312(5782): 1900–1902.

20.

Hennum

(2010) Mot en standardisering av voksenhet? Barn som redskap i statens disiplinering av voksne. Sosiologi i Dag 40(1–2): 57–75.

21.

Korsvold

(2008) Barn og barndom i velferdsstatens småbarnspolitikk: En sammenlignende studie av Norge, Sverige og Tyskland. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

22.

Lee

Krappmann

Aidoo

(2015) Early childhood care and education is a right. In: Marope

PTM

Kaga

(eds) Investing against Evidence: The Global State of Early Childhood Care and Education. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 37–54.

23.

Marope

PTM

Kaga

(eds) (2015) Investing against Evidence: The Global State of Early Childhood Care and Education. Paris: UNESCO.

24.

Nordtveit

(2008) Poverty alleviation and integrated service delivery: Literacy, early childhood development and health. International Journal of Educational Development 28(4): 405–418.

25.

Nsamenang

(2009) A critical peek at early childhood care and education in Africa. Child Health and Education 1(1): 44–55.

26.

Okwany

Ebrahim

(2016) Rethinking epistemology and methodology in early childhood research in Africa. In: Farrell

Kagan

Tisdall

EKM

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Early Childhood Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 432–448.

27.

Pearson

(2011) Avoiding recolonialisation in early childhood: Promoting local values as mediators in the spread of globalization. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 12(3): 212–223.

28.

Pence

(2013) Voices less heard: The importance of critical and ‘indigenous’ perspectives. In: Britto

Engle

Super

(eds) Handbook of Early Childhood Development Research and Its Impact on Global Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 161–180.

29.

Pence

Ashton

(2016) Early childhood research in Africa: The need for a chorus of voices. In: Farrell

Kagan

Tisdall

EKM

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Early Childhood Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 380–397.

30.

Pence

Hix-Small

(2009) Global children in the shadow of the global child. International Critical Childhood Policy Studies 2(1): 75–91.

31.

Penn

(2011a) Travelling policies and global buzzwords: How international non-governmental organizations and charities spread the word about early childhood in the global South. Childhood 18(1): 94–113.

32.

Penn

(2011b) Quality in Early Childhood Services: An International Perspective. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

33.

Qvortrup

(1994) Childhood matters: An introduction. In: Qvortrup

Bardy

Sgritta

al.

(eds) Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics. Aldershot: Avebury Press, pp. 1–24.

34.

Qvortrup

(2009) Are children human beings or human becomings? A critical assessment of outcome thinking. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali 117(3–4): 631–653.

35.

Rao

Sun

Pearson

et al . (2012) Is something better than nothing? An evaluation of early childhood programs in Cambodia. Child Development 83(3): 864–876.

36.

Rao

Sun

Wang

(2016) Cognitive research in developing countries. In: Farrell

Kagan

Tisdall

EKM

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Early Childhood Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 449–466.

37.

Rose

(1999) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. 2nd ed. London: Free Association Books.

38.

Seland

(2009) Det moderne barn og den fleksible barnehagen: En etnografisk studie av barnehagens hverdagsliv i lys av nyere diskurser og kommunal virkelighet. Trondheim: NTNU/NOSEB.

39.

Shonkoff

(2015) The neurobiology of early childhood development and the foundation of a sustainable society. In: Marope

PTM

Kaga

(eds) Investing against Evidence: The Global State of Early Childhood Care and Education. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 55–72.

40.

Shonkoff

Phillips

(eds) (2000) From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

41.

Stefansen

(2011) Foreldreskap i småbarnsfamilien: Klassekultur og sosial reproduksjon. Oslo: NOVA.

42.

Sylva

Melhuish

Sammons

et al . (2010) Early Childhood Matters: Evidence from the Effective Pre-school and Primary Education Project. Abingdon: Routledge.

43.

UNESCO (2006) Strong foundations: Early childhood care and education. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007. Paris: UNESCO. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/education/GMR/2007/Full_report.pdf (accessed 3 November 2015).

44.

UNICEF (2012) Inequities in early childhood development: What the data say. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/index_61802.html (accessed 3 May 2016).

45.

UNICEF (2014) The formative years: UNICEF’s work on measuring early childhood development. Available at: https://data.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Measuring-ECD-Brochure-HR-10_8_116.pdf (accessed 1 september 2017).

46.

Uprichard

(2008) Children as ‘being and becomings’: Children, childhood and temporality. Children and Society 22(4): 303–313.

47.

Walker

Wachs

Gardner

et al . (2007) Child development: Risk factors for adverse outcomes in developing countries. Lancet 369(9556): 145–157.

48.

Walker

Wachs

Grantham-McGregor

et al . (2011) Inequalities in early childhood: Risk and protective factors for early child development. Lancet 378(9799): 1325–1330.

49.

Woodhead

(1999) Towards a global paradigm for research into early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 7(1): 5–22.

50.

World Bank Group (2015) Improving learning outcomes through early childhood development. Available at: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2015/09/30/090224b083111ac3/3_0/Rendered/PDF/Improving0lear0hildhood0development.pdf (accessed 29 April 2016).

The expansion of early childhood development services and the need to reconceptualize evidence

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Why should developing countries invest in ECD?

The limitations of the ECD rationale in developing countries

ECD and the implicit policing of families and childhood

Towards a reconceptualization of evidence in ECD?

Footnotes

Funding

Notes

Author biography

References