Children's resistance to teachers’ norms and rules in early childhood education and care: A scoping review

Abstract

The purpose of this scoping review is to gain insight into the empirical research conducted regarding young children's resistance and opposition to teacher norms and rules in the pedagogical context of early childhood education and care. A total of 52 publications in English, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian published between 1989 and 2023 was analysed. The studies used a variety of data collection methods and were conducted in 13 countries. They were published in 29 academic journals as well as in books and doctoral theses. A qualitative content analysis of the publications investigated the children's strategies/tactics of resistance, dividing them into the categories of open and hidden resistance. The results indicate that the publications, to a large degree, focus on open and visible forms of resistance, identifying a gap in the research regarding more discreet and silent types of resistance. The analysis also showed the potential for widening theoretical approaches and drawing inspiration from the field of resistance studies.

Keywords

early childhood education and care hidden resistance norms open resistance opposition rules

Introduction

In 2017, the term ‘resistance’ entered the Framework Plan that guides Norwegian early childhood education and care (ECEC) teachers’ work. Under the heading ‘Formative Development’, the framework plan now states: ‘Kindergartens shall use interaction, dialogue, play and exploration to help the children develop critical thinking, ethical judgment and an ability to put up resistance and take action in order to effect change’ (Ministry of Education, 2017: 21). Thus, the ability to resist is framed as something desirable and explicitly linked to the development of critical thinking and the ability to create change. This expression is unique and specific to the Norwegian context, but other countries’ ECEC steering documents also emphasize how children should learn negotiation and conflict management skills. Thus, we argue that the theme of children's resistance and opposition is of great importance in the study of childhoods and ECEC worldwide because of its potential to broaden knowledge of children's agency and democratic participation.

Around the time that the concept of resistance was included in the Norwegian Framework Plan, several Nordic researchers wrote about resistance in relation to democratic participation and children's agency (Dolk, 2013; Johansson and Emilson, 2016; Pettersvold, 2015; Seland, 2013). Øksnes and Samuelson (2017) also published an edited volume simply titled Resistance (Motstand in Norwegian) in a book series called Childhood in ECEC, where contributors from Sweden, Denmark and Norway discuss many aspects of democracy, agency and participation both based on empirical data and in a theoretical context. The theme of how ECEC children's subversive activities can contribute to democratic participation has also been studied in other parts of the world in both empirical studies (Lekkai, 2016; Salonen et al., 2022; Schultz, 1989; Tesar, 2017; White, 2017) and theoretically based discussions (Øksnes, 2017; Seland, 2017; Tobin, 2005). All these authors share the perspective that a child's ‘no’ and oppositional behaviour should not be seen as problematic signs of ‘disobedience’. Instead, they highlight the potential for democratic participation that arises when one frames children's resistance, opposition and negotiation tactics as an attempt to be heard and assert agency. However, despite the growing interest in children's resistance, many researchers in the field are unaware of each other's work and, with the exception of Dolk (2013), none incorporate perspectives from resistance studies.

Resistance studies is a growing transdisciplinary field within the social sciences and beyond, focusing on the intricate dynamics of power and resistance in various contexts. However, pedagogy and childhood studies are notably under-represented in this field, as evidenced by the articles published in the Journal of Resistance Studies. This peer-reviewed academic journal, in publication biannually since 2015, has yet to feature contributions focused on children's resistance (we reached this conclusion after reading all of the titles and abstracts in all of the issues of the journal published to date). Within resistance studies, there is an open invitation to incorporate new perspectives (Vinthagen, 2015, 2021) and a call for more research on resistance within welfare state contexts (Sørensen et al., 2019). Since ECEC is a component of welfare services, investigating children's resistance holds value not only for researchers specializing in children and childhood, but also for enriching other fields. For example, the unique asymmetric power relations (where teachers generally have the child's best interests at heart) provide a distinct perspective on the power–resistance nexus, as the context significantly differs from many others.

Until now, no one has attempted to conduct a review of children's resistance to teachers’ norms and rules. Thus, we conducted this scoping review with the purpose of gaining insight into what empirical research has been conducted regarding young children's resistance and opposition to teachers’ norms and rules in the pedagogical context of ECEC. We applied a qualitative content analysis and describe our method in more detail below. Subsequently we present our findings, before we discuss the findings and draw conclusions. By providing an overview of what research exists and where the gaps are, we make it possible to establish a more coherent vocabulary for talking about children's resistance, which again is necessary in order to articulate how children's resistance can be seen as a resource that can contribute to their agency and democratic participation.

Method

According to Tricco et al. (2018: 1): ‘Scoping reviews [are] a type of knowledge synthesis [that] follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps’. This made a scoping review the most appropriate method for the purpose of our study. We followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) and, shortly after the search was conducted, published our protocol on Open Science Framework. A scoping review can take a more qualitative approach when analysing the articles included than other types of reviews. Thus, we conducted a content analysis of the 52 included publications to understand how the authors conceptualized resistance, their theoretical perspectives, and what strategies and tactics of resistance the children engaged in.

Search strategy

The search for literature was conducted in different types of information sources: academic databases, online library catalogues and search engines. The original search string (Table 1) was in English and included three elements. In order to reflect the fact that different pedagogical traditions have different understandings of resistance and opposition, Element 1 includes terms that are positive and negative, as well as neutral.

Table 1.

Search string in English.

Element 1	Element 2	Element 3
resistance OR resist OR resisting OR opposition* OR oppose OR opposing OR disobedience OR disobey OR disobeying OR rules OR ‘rule breaking’ OR ‘rule-breaking’ OR ‘breaking of rule’ OR ‘breaking of the rule’ OR ‘breaking rule’ OR emancipation OR emancipate OR emancipating OR disagreement OR disagree OR disagreeing OR defiance OR defy OR defying OR recalcitrant OR obstinate OR spiteful* OR silence OR silent OR avoidance OR avoid OR avoiding	toddler* OR toddlerhood OR ‘toddler’s voice’ OR ‘voice of toddler’ OR ‘voice of the toddler’ OR ‘toddler’s view’ OR ‘view of the toddler’ OR ‘view of toddler’ OR child OR childhood OR ‘children’s voice’ OR ‘voice of children’ OR ‘voice* of the child’ OR ‘voice* of the children’ OR ‘children’s view’ OR ‘view of children’ OR ‘view* of the child’ OR ‘view* of the children’	kindergarten* OR ‘early childhood education’ OR ‘early childhood education and care’ OR ‘early childhood care’ OR ‘childhood care’ OR ‘child* care’ OR ‘toddler* care’ OR preschool* OR ‘day-care centre’ OR ‘pre-k’ OR ‘nursery school’

Afterwards, the search string was translated into Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. However, it had to be shortened due to the limitations of the library catalogues and search engines used for these Scandinavian languages, which could not accommodate as many words and elements as the academic databases used for English searches.

The search for peer-reviewed journal articles in English was conducted across five academic databases – Education Source, ERIC, Teacher Reference Center, APA PsycInfo and Academic Search Premier – on 15 March 2023. The search was limited to articles published between 1970 and 2023.

The searches for peer-reviewed journal articles and books written in Norwegian, Swedish and Danish were conducted across several library online catalogues, search engines and databases: Oria, National Library of Sweden, DiVA portal, Nora-Research Portal Denmark, Royal Danish Library, Google Scholar, SwePub, and Nordic Base of Early Childhood Education and Care (nb-ecec.org). The date for these searches was 30 March 2023. When relevant and possible, the result lists were limited to the publication years 1970–2023.

Additional searches for books in English were conducted in the online catalogues of the British Library (19 September 2023) and Library of Congress (20 September 2023). There was no limit on the year of publication in these two searches due to the small number of results. More details are available in the search documentation. Due to the cyberattack on the British Library in 2023, we were not able to access the results of the search, and the results are not included in this review.

The search strategy described above was designed in collaboration with a senior librarian and resulted in 1857 results for English-language articles; 56 results for English-language books; 183 books, book chapters and articles in Norwegian; 328 books, book chapters and articles in Swedish; and 367 books, book chapters and articles in Danish. These numbers exclude Google Scholar, the use of which resulted in several thousand results for each language. For Google Scholar, we screened the first 50 results.

For the English-language articles, we used the software Rayyan when screening their titles and abstracts. The first author screened all the results and the second author screened 20% of the results. When there were inconsistencies in our evaluation, the team easily resolved these through discussion. Since there was no simple way to import the results from the Scandinavian-language databases into Rayyan, we did this screening manually. Here, we used the same strategy as with the English-language articles: the first author screened all the results and the second author screened 20% of the results. Our review also includes four publications that we did not find with the search strategy described above. Two of these (Markström, 2005; Schultz, 1989) were repeatedly referred to by other authors and, when we read them, fulfilled all the criteria for our review. We also added Seland (2013) and Kibsgaard (2019), which we were already familiar with.

The screening of the abstracts resulted in the inclusion of 52 full-text publications in English, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The studies included in this scoping review are based on empirical data on child–adult interactions in ECEC. The children had to be six years of age or younger and without a reported diagnosis. Although we are aware that in some places eight is the upper age for what is considered ECEC, we decided on six because that is when children in Scandinavia transfer from ECEC to school, and most places have an even earlier transfer age. We included only publications that analyse naturally occurring instances of children's resistance and opposition to adult rules in a pedagogical context, or children's and adults’ accounts of such naturally occurring instances. Thus, for instance, all publications that were based on experiments or parents’ experiences were excluded. We also excluded publications that reported research on some type of diagnosis. Reviews, study protocols, Master’s theses, editorials and purely theoretical publications were also excluded. These criteria meant that many interesting publications were excluded – for instance, when they were primarily about child–child interactions (Arnott, 2018), did not meet the age criteria or were not from an ECEC setting (Shayan, 2022). We included studies that had a primary focus on something other than resistance and opposition – for instance, meals, gender or children's art – as long as they reported results and analysis concerning resistance and opposition to norms and rules, and fulfilled the other inclusion criteria.

We divided the reading of the full texts of the 52 publications equally between the three authors, working in an Excel spreadsheet to produce an overview of the content of the texts. To create a common understanding of how to analyse the publications, we organized a seminar where we discussed 15 random texts. This process resulted in our decision to note the following data for each of the included publications: (1) title; (2) journal; (3) language; (4) age of children; (5) country of study; (6) design and method; (7) main focus of study; (8) central concepts and definition of resistance/opposition; (9) number of resistance/opposition instances analysed; (10) strategies/tactics of resistance documented; and (11) theoretical perspective in the analysis. While categories 1–6 and 9 are factual and easily quantifiable, the rest required a qualitative content analysis. Since many of the publications did not mention the children's gender, race and socio-economic background, it was not possible to analyse this in a meaningful way. However, it is our impression that many studies include children from diverse backgrounds.

Findings

Countries of origin and where publications were published

Based on our selection criteria, we identified 52 relevant publications: 38 peer-reviewed articles from academic journals, three peer-reviewed articles from two anthologies, seven doctoral theses and four textbooks. Of the 41 articles, 32 were written in English, four in Norwegian, three in Danish and two in Swedish. Of the seven doctoral theses, five were in Swedish and two in Norwegian. All four textbooks were written in Norwegian. The publications are from different parts of the world (see Table 2). A total of 13 countries are represented, which we consider a relatively low number. The articles included in the review were published in a variety of academic journals (29 in total). As shown in Table 2, the International Journal of Early Childhood published four of the articles; all of the other journals published one or two articles.

Table 2.

Overview of included publications.

Authors	Year	Countries	Journal/publisher	Age of children included in study	Number of participants in study	Main focus of publication	Methods
Albon D and Hellman A	2019	Sweden and England	Ethnography and Education	6 months to 5 years	Unclear, but from two preschools in Sweden and four preschools in England	Food and drink practices	Ethnographic Participant observation
Alcock S	2007	Aotearoa New Zealand	Early Years	6 months to 5 years	23	Rules during mealtime	Ethnographic field-based methods Participant observation Video recording
Brennan M	2015	Aotearoa New Zealand	International Journal of Early Childhood	3 years	1	Rule-breaking	Observation of daily life in one early childhood centre 80 hours of data collection
Daries G and Ebrahim H	2021	South Africa	South African Journal of Education	3 to 4 years	30 from four different preschools	Funds of knowledge and agentic strategies	Case study Participant observation Video recording
Dolk K	2013	Sweden	Stockholm University	3 to 5 years	11	Gender pedagogics, children's participation, power and resistance	Ethnography and action research during one school year Author present on average one day a week Primarily video recording of children but also 20 hours of meetings with teachers, field notes and one interview with children
Dolk K	2017	Sweden	Cappelen Damm Akademisk	3 to 5 years	11	Children's resistance as an attempt to negotiate	Based on same data as Dolk’s PhD thesis Some examples picked out for analysis
Dotson H, Vaquera E and Cunningham SA	2015	USA	Childhood	3 years	38	Meals	Ethnographic observation in two preschools weekly during spring Focus on mealtimes, but visits lasted 3 to 4 hours
Ebrahim H	2011	South Africa	Education as Change	3 to 4 years	Unclear, but from two different preschools	Children as agents	Observation in children’s natural settings during scheduled activities
Emilson A	2007	Sweden	International Journal of Early Childhood	1 to 3 years	46	Children's possibility to influence circle time in relation to teacher control	24 hours of video recording in total; from this, 143 minutes of circle time were extracted (14 circle times, 10 minutes each on average)
Figenschou G	2017	Norway	Norwegian University of Science and Technology	1 to 6 years	51	What conceptions staff have of children through what staff say are their expectations of children	In-depth interviews Observation
Gabriel N	2016	Unclear, multiple countries, described as ‘around the world’	Research in Comparative and International Education	1 to 4 years	8	Humour as subversive in young children’s resistance to adult authority	Mainly theoretical article that draws on examples from others’ ethnographic research in ECE
Galman SC	2015	USA	Ethnography and Education	3 to 5 years	13	Mischief-making and resistance in free play	Participant observation using notebook
Gansen HM	2017	USA	Sociology of Education	3 to 4 years	116	Reproduction of heteronormativity	Observations in nine preschool classrooms More than 400 hours of observations with field notes
Grindheim LT	2013	Norway	Education and Democracy	3 to 6 years	Unclear, but from three different preschools	Democratic participation	Ethnographic field-based methods
Grindland B	2011	Norway	Nordic Early Childhood Education and Care, in Scandinavian languages and English	1 to 3 years	Unclear	Meals and democracy	Group discussion with staff at a toddler group
Hadley KG	2003	Taiwan	Sociology of Education	4 to 6 years	30	Confucian values in Taiwan	Participant observation Field notes
Henward AS	2015	USA	Anthropology and Education Quarterly	5 years	Unclear, but from three different preschools	Popular culture as resistance in US preschools	Participant observation Formal and informal interviews Focus groups with parents Semi-structured formal and informal interviews with children Document collection
Jansen KM	2019	Norway	Fagbokforlaget	1 to 6 years	Unclear	Children's participation	Observation and stories from practice
Johansson E and Emilson A	2016	Sweden	International Journal of Early Years Education	1 to 3 years	65	Conflicts and resistance and potential for democracy	Video recording of natural settings Total of 44 hours, which has been used for previous publications Re-examination of data with the intention of finding conflicts and resistance 58 conflicts identified, with four picked out as illustrative examples for further analysis to show democratic potential
Karlsson M	2018	Sweden	Gothenburg University	4 to 5 years	25	Morality – teachers teaching children the rules in ECE	Video-ethnographic (ethnographic fieldwork combined with video observation)
Keefer LR	2005	USA	Early Childhood Education Journal	2 to 3 years	48	Defiant behaviour	Observation Field notes
Kelly-Ware J	2016	Aotearoa New Zealand	Global Studies of Childhood	3 to 4 years	5 are mentioned in example, but 40 in the ECEC setting	Understanding how gender is done and constructed in relation to children's working theories	Participant observation over a 6-month period in one ECEC setting No details given
Kibsgaard S	2019	Norway	Universitetsforlaget	3 to 6 years	4	Nonsense taken seriously in ECEC	Conversations with preschool teachers and children
Koch AB	2013	Denmark	Nordic Early Childhood Education and Care, in Scandinavian languages and English	5 years	16	Children's well-being in ECEC and how children resist doing what staff expect	Ethnographic Photographs children have taken followed by interviews
Lekkai I	2016	Germany	International Journal of Early Childhood Education Research	4 to 7 years	25	Children's agency and tactics to navigate ECE	Ethnographic Participant observation using field notes and informal conversations
Madrid S	2013	USA	Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood	4 years	15	Social construction of the ‘sassy girl’ in a peer culture during play routine	Participant observation Video recording Audio recording Concluding formal and informal interviews with teacher
Makansi N and Carnevale F	2020	Canada	Journal of Childhood Studies	2.5 to 5 years	17	Moral experiences of young children	Participant observation One-on-one interviews
Markström A-M	2005	Sweden	Linköping University	1 to 6 years	65 to 67	How a complex institution such as ECEC can be understood and how it is actually ‘done’ in practice, as there is a tension between the actors and the environment's order	Field notes Recording of observations Interviews
Markström A-M	2010	Sweden	Journal of Early Childhood Research	Unclear, but ECEC	22	Children's resistance to the implicit or explicit institutional order, thus the construction of the ‘normal’ child; includes gender differences	Analysis of 22 teacher–parent conferences where individual children are discussed Part of a larger study on teacher–parent conferences Article focuses on utterances when teachers talk about children’s resistance to the implicit or explicit institutional order
Moore E	2020	Russia	Linguistics and Education	3 to 4 years	Unclear	Friendship, group membership, conflict management	Audio and video recording (40 hours) of interactions of one group of children during free play (outdoor and indoor), lessons and mealtimes Semi-structured interviews and participation in unstructured conversations with teachers, a psychologist and the principal, plus some time socializing with some of the parents outside of school
Park H	2019	USA	Visual Arts Research	Unclear, but ECEC	2	Negotiation of the rules imposed on children over the desire to work ‘out of the lines’	Observation
Park H	2021	USA	Studies in Art Education	Unclear, but ECEC	2	Children's art in relation to politics	Ethnographic Photographs Videos Field notes
Pettersvold M	2015	Norway	Education and Democracy	5 years	41	Children's experiences as participants in democratic processes	Interview with children
Rantala A	2016	Sweden	Umeå University	1 to 6 years	73	Communication, relations and guidance from staff towards children	Observations and video recording (four classes) Field notes
Ryberg L	2019	Sweden	Gothenburg University	1 to 6 years	24	Interaction between participants during mealtime	Video observations
Salonen E, Koitto E, Notko M, et al.	2022	Finland	Early Years	Birth to 3 years	26	Understanding young children's participation in ECEC and the possible barriers and facilitators to it by exploring children's possibilities for influence in situations of child–educator	Ethnographic
Samuelsson M and Sigsgaard E	2017	Sweden and Denmark	Cappelen Damm Akademisk	Unclear, but ECEC	4	How children resist and a discussion of children saying ‘no’	Stories from practice
Schultz S	1989	USA	Thought and Practice	3 to 4 years	16	Children's resistance	35 hours of video recording for a larger study conducted in 1986
Seland M	2013	Norway	Fagbokforlaget	3 to 6 years	Unclear	Children's resistance to the institution's activities, demands and expectations	Observations with field notes Conversations with children in groups Conversations recorded and transcribed
Sipe LR and McGuire CE	2006	USA	International Reading Association	5 to 7 years	74	Young children's resistance to stories	Analysis of 74 transcripts of kindergarten, first-grade and second-grade children's talk during interactive picture storybook read-alouds by their teachers Six conceptual categories constructed encompassing all of the responses
Skoglund RI and Åmot I	2021	Norway	Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research	1 to 6 years	240 from four different preschools; in one of the preschools, only 12 to 15	ECEC staff’s emotions when children show resistance	Micro-ethnography Field notes Written narratives Focus group interviews
Skreland LL	2016	Norway	University of Agder	1 to 6 years	Between 50 and 130 in each preschool (three preschools in total)	Rules in preschool	Participant observation Field notes Interviews with children and teachers
Skreland LL	2019	Norway	Fagbokforlaget	1 to 6 years	Unclear	Rules in preschool	Observation Interview
Strømme LML	2023	Norway	Universitetsforlaget	1 to 6 years	Unclear	Children's normality	Observation Stories from practice
Tam PC	2012	Hong Kong	Childhood	4 to 5 years	12	Children’s bricolage under the teacher’s gaze in role play	Observation Field notes Video recording Interviews with teacher
Tesar M	2017	Aotearoa New Zealand	Early Childhood Folio	Under 5 years	Unclear	Children’s agency and resistance to generational order	Ethnographic study in ‘multiple urban early childhood settings’ (Tesar, 2017: 23) but episode that is at centre of analysis appears to be from one ECEC centre Children given cameras and could photograph what they wanted and decide themselves if they wished to share the photographs with adults
Togsverd L and Ørskov K	2011	Denmark	Gjallerhorn	3 to 6 years	Unclear	How pedagogical work, conflicts, children and unity can be either promoting or inhibiting for an inclusive pedagogy	Cultural analysis Anthropological
Togsverd L, Rothuizen JJ, Jørgensen HH, et al.	2017	Denmark	Forskning i Pædagogers Profession og Uddannelse	3 to 6 years	Unclear	Dealing with the resistance children face throughout the day	Recording of conversations Notes
White EJ	2017	Aotearoa New Zealand	Knowledge Cultures	10 to 18 months	2	Meals as a ‘feast of fools’ in the Bakhtinian tradition and their democratic potential in ECEC	Video recording of one event analysed Part of author's broader data material
Wood EA	2014	UK	International Journal of Early Childhood	3 to 4 years	10	Free choice and free play in ECEC	Observation Informal discussion with the children and adults in the setting
Yau J	2007	Hong Kong	International Journal of Educational Reform	3 to 4 years	Total number unclear, six preschool classes with 10 to 30 children in each class	Transgressions and teachers’ responses to them	Video recording of ‘transgressions’ Subsequent semi-structured interviews with teachers about episodes that had been filmed on the same day Teachers reflecting on video and answering questions about their reactions to transgressions
Yoon HS	2021	USA	Teachers College Record	5 years	5	Intersection between play and horror, and how children create their own space and identity at one table in an ECEC class	Observations in one kindergarten classroom over 5 months Audio recording Children's writing samples Focus on one activity called ‘writing workshop’

Methods used

All of the studies we reviewed applied qualitative designs, but there were variations in their data collection methods. These methods included observation, note-taking, video recordings and interviews. Specifically, 19 publications relied solely on observation and three used only video recordings; 17 studies utilized multiple methods, combining approaches such as observation, interviews and video recordings. Notably, all of these multimethod studies included video recording as a technique. We find it noteworthy that approximately half of the studies relied on video recording either as the only method or as part of a design that included more than one method.

When interviews or conversations were used, they mostly involved ECEC teachers. In all, 11 studies used interviewing as their only method or combined it with other methods. Two studies that stand out as different in terms of data collection are Pettersvold (2015), who conducted semi-structured group interviews with 41 five-year-olds, and Markström (2010), who analysed teachers’ accounts in teacher–parent conferences of children's resistance.

The sample sizes in the reviewed studies ranged from one child to 73 children, reflecting a significant variation in the number of participants. However, calculating an average was challenging because not all publications precisely described the number of children involved. In all of the studies examined, the children were six years of age or younger. We noted that the Nordic studies tended to focus more on the youngest children, aged one to three. One possible reason for this trend is that Nordic countries have a higher proportion of one- to three-year-olds attending ECEC compared to other regions. Additionally, the Nordic perspective tends to view children and ECEC as part of an educational institution rather than merely childcare.

Main focus

The main focus of the publications included in this review varies greatly, and only a minority have children's resistance and opposition to norms and rules as their main focus. The large majority of the studies are about something else other than resistance and opposition, such as democratic participation (Dolk, 2013; Grindheim, 2013; Johansson and Emilson, 2016; Pettersvold, 2015; Salonen et al., 2022), children's agency (Daries and Ebrahim, 2021; Ebrahim, 2011; Lekkai, 2016; Tesar, 2017), Confucian values (Hadley, 2003), gender and heteronormativity (Gansen, 2017; Kelly-Ware, 2016), art (Park, 2019, 2021), friendship (Moore, 2020), morality (Karlsson, 2018; Makansi and Carnevale, 2020), meals (Albon and Hellman, 2019; Alcock, 2007; Dotson et al., 2015; Grindland, 2011; Ryberg, 2019; White, 2017) and parent–teacher conferences (Markström, 2010). A significant number of studies focus on play as their main topic, encompassing teacher-directed play, free play and role play. Additionally, some of these studies also examine rules, rule-breaking, defiant behaviour or mischief-making as forms of resistance.

Although children's resistance is not explicitly addressed as the main theme in most of the publications, it nonetheless emerges as a prevalent topic in the examples analysed by the authors. Several studies have examined children's opportunities to influence their everyday lives and how teachers can communicate with children in a way that prevents them from feeling the need to resist (Salonen et al., 2022; Strømme, 2023).

Central concepts and understandings of resistance

The publications rarely explicitly discuss definitions of resistance and opposition, and a likely explanation for this might be that most do not have resistance and opposition as their main theme. However, there are some exceptions in studies that have resistance or opposition as their primary focus. Johansson and Emilson (2016) define resistance as both individual and collective enterprises that can be expressed verbally, bodily and/or as silence. Dolk (2013) not only talks about individual and collective resistance, but also mentions resistance as being either open or hidden – a distinction she brings from the field of resistance studies. Below, when we present the different strategies and tactics children used to resist, we will use the same terminology.

When the authors discuss resistance and opposition, they point out how it can be forms of freedom from staff norms and rules. The studies show various possibilities for children to reverse the hierarchical relationship between teacher and students, including the use of negotiation (Dolk, 2017; Lekkai, 2016; Park, 2019, 2021), exercising the independence of decision-making (Keefer, 2005), how using nonsense is regarded as a productive force of resistance (Kibsgaard, 2019), ‘togetherness’ and ‘freeing up’ rules, and how acts of resistance are concrete experiences of freedom (Alcock, 2007). Other examples include children's resistance to behaving as ‘good’ students (Hadley, 2003), and how those with less power often find ways around rules that limit their behaviour (Henward, 2015). Some authors also draw attention to how children's possibility for influence is limited. Keefer (2005) describes how children have the inability to break free from prior decisions made by staff, and Alcock (2007) uses the term ‘powerlessness’ to describe the situation from the children's perspective. Several studies show how mealtimes are an arena where children have opportunities to resist staff authority (Albon and Hellman, 2019; Alcock, 2007; Dolk, 2013; Dotson et al., 2015; Grindland, 2011; Moore, 2020; Ryberg, 2019; White, 2017). Furthermore, we identified a number of terms being used when children break the rules. One author uses the term ‘transgressions’ as an explanation for when children break rules (Yau, 2007). Another explains resistance as a protest against something that is perceived as unfair (Jansen, 2019). Dolk (2013) uses the term bångstyriga, which is difficult to translate but means something along the lines of ‘mischief-making’.

Strategies and tactics of resistance

The number of documented episodes of resistance varied from 1 to 68, but most publications presented only one to three instances of children resisting teachers. As can be seen in Table 2, Yau (2007), with 68 episodes, really stands out in our data set. While the studies underlying the other publications might include more episodes than those mentioned, this is rarely quantified. This is hardly surprising, given that many publications did not focus primarily on resistance.

Regarding the strategies and tactics engaged in to undermine and challenge teachers’ norms and rules in ECEC, the children's creativity is wide-ranging. Following Dolk (2013), we divided them into open and hidden resistance when analysing the publications. This terminology originates in resistance studies, where it is widely used in the context of researching ‘everyday resistance’ (Johansson and Vinthagen, 2020).

Open resistance

When it comes to forms of open resistance, the authors use a variety of terms to describe what the children do to resist. The term ‘refusal’ is popular and includes examples of foot-dragging (Brennan, 2015); not following or breaking rules set by the teacher (Albon and Hellman, 2019; Brennan, 2015; Dolk, 2013; Emilson, 2007; Figenschou, 2017; Gansen, 2017; Jansen, 2019; Johansson and Emilson, 2016; Park, 2021; Ryberg, 2019; Skreland, 2016, 2019; Yau, 2007); explicit (Brennan, 2015) or verbal protest (Dotson et al., 2015; Johansson and Emilson, 2016; Lekkai, 2016; Markström, 2010); sitting down or refusing to clean up when it is clean-up time (Rantala, 2016); and denying having done anything wrong (Karlsson, 2018). Another term used by the authors is ‘ignoring’. Examples of this type of action include running away (Brennan, 2015; Kibsgaard, 2019) or hiding (Skreland, 2016); avoidance (Ebrahim, 2011); not answering the teacher and continuing to play without even looking at the teacher (Lekkai, 2016); and doing something other than what they are being told to do (Daries and Ebrahim, 2021). As we can see, there is considerable overlap between refusing and ignoring. Many authors also describe instances of ‘physical resistance’. Examples of these actions are throwing things (Alcock, 2007; Brennan, 2015; Keefer, 2005); rocking chairs and scraping tables (Alcock, 2007); children spitting, moaning and sticking their tongue out (Madrid, 2013; Skreland, 2016); shouting (Galman, 2015), hitting and pushing (Togsverd et al., 2017); and emotional expressions like being angry or sad (Togsverd and Ørskov, 2011) or starting to cry (Salonen et al., 2022; Skreland, 2016). One of the authors also describes ‘threats’ as a resistance strategy. Here, the example is that a child threatens to pour ‘compost water’ on the floor and over the teachers (Alcock, 2007). Other terms include the ‘use of humour’. Examples here are when children explore taboo topics like pee and poo (Gabriel, 2016; Kibsgaard, 2019; Skreland, 2016); make faces in circle time to get other children to laugh (Kibsgaard, 2019); joke with names or ages to distract the teacher (Hadley, 2003; Kibsgaard, 2019); or just use humour as resistance (Dolk, 2013, 2017; Johansson and Emilson, 2016; Strømme, 2023). We identify all these strategies as open resistance because teachers can both see and experience them.

Hidden resistance

Although more than a third of the publications mention various forms of hidden resistance, it is sometimes only mentioned in passing and rarely given as much space as open resistance. When the authors do write about hidden resistance, there is again great variation and creativity in what the children do. It is mostly performed when the teacher is not paying attention to the children or when the children know they are doing something that is ‘not allowed’. Examples of hidden resistance are children ‘sneaking in’ or bringing in toys that are not allowed (Henward, 2015; Madrid, 2013); how children ‘smuggle’ in their own genres in role play (Tam, 2012); talking about the teacher when the teacher is not present (Madrid, 2013); monitoring the location of the teacher (Henward, 2015); checking to see if the teacher knows what they have been doing (Tam, 2012); switching the topic when the teacher is not present (Yoon, 2021); waiting for the teacher to be out of sight (Henward, 2015); continuing to do what they were doing when the teacher is no longer paying attention (Daries and Ebrahim, 2021); sneaking back to a space when the teacher is not looking (Henward, 2015); and transforming a teacher-created play space into something else (Galman, 2015). Other examples include children pretending to do what they are told or expected to do (Dotson et al., 2015); remaining silent (Dotson et al. 2015; Keefer, 2005; Yau, 2007); or having secrets (Tesar, 2017). Pettersvold (2015) gives an example of children collectively making secret strategies to resist teachers. Children may also do something they believe is forbidden when no one is looking (Henward, 2015; Park, 2019, 2021) or withdraw from an activity (Dolk, 2013). We identify all these actions as strategies of hidden resistance, as they are not seen by teachers but reported by the researchers. In the examples presented above, most hidden resistance occurs during playtime (both teacher-instructed and free play). This is not surprising, as play is the children's own arena.

Our analysis also revealed that most of children's documented resistance – open as well as hidden – was performed individually. Only four publications present examples of collective resistance by more than one child (Dolk, 2013; Henward, 2015; Pettersvold, 2015; Schultz, 1989), while another publication (Johansson and Emilson, 2016) mentions the potential of resistance being both individual and collective.

Theoretical perspectives

The theoretical perspectives employed in the analysis and discussion sections of the publications vary widely, ranging from sociological and ethical theories to feminist post-structural theories. It is noteworthy that some authors primarily draw from philosophical perspectives, while others integrate these with more contemporary viewpoints. This is not uncommon in ECEC research, as many scholars exploring issues of power, resistance and governance in relation to children and childhood are open to incorporating insights from post-structural thinkers.

Corsaro's perspectives are incorporated to varying degrees in 23 of the 52 publications included in our review (Albon and Hellman, 2019; Alcock, 2007; Daries and Ebrahim, 2021; Dolk, 2013; Dotson et al., 2015; Ebrahim, 2011; Gabriel, 2016; Galman, 2015; Grindheim, 2013; Hadley, 2003; Henward, 2015; Jansen, 2019; Johansson and Emilson, 2016; Karlsson, 2018; Koch, 2013; Lekkai, 2016; Madrid, 2013; Markström, 2005, 2010; Ryberg, 2019; Seland, 2013; Skreland, 2016; Tam, 2012). Examples of perspectives from Corsaro include when the authors connected their studies to childhood, peer culture and children's agency – how children are viewed as actors in their own lives. Furthermore, perspectives from Foucault were used in 16 of the publications (Albon and Hellman, 2019; Dolk, 2013; Figenschou, 2017; Gansen, 2017; Johansson and Emilson, 2016; Markström, 2005, 2010; Park, 2019, 2021; Pettersvold, 2015; Rantala, 2016; Seland, 2013; Skreland, 2016, 2019; Strømme, 2023; Tesar, 2017). Examples of perspectives from Foucault include power, disciplining and the surveillance of children. That Foucault was referenced in six publications from Sweden and six from Norway (12 out of the 16) is not surprising as Foucault is presented as a highly influential thinker in the ECEC curricula of universities in Scandinavian countries (Hammer, 2017).

Another popular theoretical perspective relevant to early childhood and resistance is Bakhtin's concept of the ‘carnivalesque’, which was used by eight authors (Dolk, 2017; Gabriel, 2016; Henward, 2015; Kibsgaard, 2019; Ryberg, 2019; Tam, 2012; White, 2017; Yoon, 2021). An interesting finding regarding the use of Bakhtin's theories is that Kibsgaard (2019) is the only one to draw on Bakhtin's ‘frivolity’ and what is considered as exceeding when she discusses young children's use of humour and nonsense as a positive force of resistance. Gadamer is also a central theorist for early childhood education. His theories are mentioned in six of the publications (Kibsgaard, 2019; Skreland, 2016, 2019; Strømme, 2023; Togsverd and Ørskov, 2011; Togsverd et al., 2017). Gadamer is mostly referenced regarding play. Vygotsky, another central theorist for early childhood education, and his theories are drawn on in seven texts (Alcock, 2007; Brennan, 2015; Daries and Ebrahim, 2021; Gabriel, 2016; Keefer, 2005; Ryberg, 2019; Tam, 2012).

Two Swedish authors – Markström and Dolk – are each represented in our review with two publications (Dolk 2013, 2017; Markström, 2005, 2010) and at the same time are relatively popular as a reference among the other authors. A total of 18 publications refer to Markström, either to two articles she co-wrote with Halldén, her doctoral thesis or her newer articles (Daries and Ebrahim, 2021; Dolk, 2013, 2017; Dotson et al., 2015; Ebrahim, 2011; Galman, 2015; Grindheim, 2013; Johansson and Emilson, 2016; Karlsson, 2018; Koch, 2013; Lekkai, 2016; Pettersvold, 2015; Rantala, 2016; Ryberg, 2019; Salonen et al., 2022; Skreland, 2016, 2019; Strømme, 2023). Dolk's PhD thesis was mentioned in six publications (Dolk, 2017; Karlsson, 2018; Rantala, 2016; Skreland, 2016, 2019; Strømme, 2023). It is no surprise that the studies referencing Dolk are only those conducted in Sweden or Norway, as Dolk's texts are written in Swedish.

Omissions

In addition to the findings presented above, it is worth noting what is not reported, discussed or theorized in the publications. First, academic interest in the theme of children's resistance and opposition to teachers’ norms and rules in ECEC is restricted to a relatively limited geographical area. It is also notable that even if many authors mention that resistance and opposition can take many different forms and include discreet forms of resistance such as withdrawal and silence, almost all the empirical episodes that are analysed in depth are of cases of easily observable expressions of dissent. Dolk's (2013) PhD thesis was one of the most elaborate studies on children's resistance we came across, but even Dolk primarily focuses on open resistance. In Chapter 6, which most explicitly explores resistance, there are eight examples of open resistance, where children, for instance, bang on the table or play with their food, and only one example where a child silently withdraws from an activity (Dolk, 2013).

We also noticed that many of the publications only to a very limited degree seem aware of others’ work in the field. Although some mention other authors (e.g. Alcock and Markström), this might be an indication that there is still a way to go before one can talk about children's resistance as a coherent field of research.

Regarding theoretical perspectives, only two publications (Henward, 2015; Tam, 2012) mention De Certeau (1984) and his concept of ‘everyday resistance tactics’, and only Dolk (2013) draws on concepts from resistance studies. Although these concepts were not developed with ECEC in mind, we find it noteworthy that they were not used more frequently among authors writing about children's resistance.

Discussion and conclusion

This scoping review shows that 52 publications published in English, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian between 1989 and 2023 have analysed empirical data on children resisting teachers’ norms and rules in the pedagogical context of ECEC. The studies used a variety of data collection methods, such as observation, video recording and interviews with teachers. The studies were carried out in only 13 countries and were published in 29 academic journals, as well as books and doctoral theses. This indicates that numerous journals are potentially interested in the theme and that it is not ‘owned’ by a few journals. However, the studies are restricted to a relatively limited geographical area, where Norway, Sweden and the USA are the countries that stand out, with the most publications.

When it comes to the year of publication, there is a clear trend that the number of publications on the theme is increasing. Our search included publications dating back to 1970 in case the turbulent end of the 1960s had also resulted in academic interest in young children's resistance and opposition. However, the first article in our review was not published until 1989, and the second did not appear until 2003. Most of the articles were published after 2015.

Children's resistance in ECEC settings

The publications’ authors use a wide variety of terms to describe and analyse children's resistance and opposition. Following the terminology used in resistance studies, we have presented them in two categories – open resistance and hidden resistance – although only one author uses this terminology. The episodes we considered ‘open resistance’ (Albon and Hellman, 2019; Alcock, 2007; Brennan, 2015; Daries and Ebrahim, 2021; Dolk, 2013, 2017; Dotson et al., 2015; Ebrahim, 2011; Emilson, 2007; Figenschou, 2017; Gabriel, 2016; Galman, 2015; Gansen, 2017; Hadley, 2003; Jansen, 2019; Johansson and Emilson, 2016; Karlsson, 2018; Keefer, 2005; Kibsgaard, 2019; Lekkai, 2016; Madrid, 2013; Markström, 2010; Park, 2021; Ryberg, 2019; Salonen et al., 2022; Skreland, 2016, 2019; Strømme, 2023; Togsverd and Ørskov, 2011; Togsverd et al., 2017; Yau, 2007) were when the authors used terms like ‘refusal’, ‘ignoring’, ‘physical resistance’, ‘threats’ and ‘use of humour’ to describe what the children were doing. On the other hand, when authors used terms like ‘silence’, ‘pretending’ and ‘in secret’, we interpreted these as forms of hidden resistance (Daries and Ebrahim, 2021; Dolk, 2013; Dotson et al., 2015; Galman, 2015; Henward, 2015; Keefer, 2005; Madrid, 2013; Park, 2019, 2021; Pettersvold, 2015; Tam, 2012; Tesar, 2017; Yau, 2007; Yoon, 2021). There is no consistency in how the different authors use the different terms, and none of the studies were designed to include data other than what the authors themselves had gathered. To address this, future research should aim to analyse a substantial number of resistance episodes and propose a coherent terminology. This approach would also provide a valuable contrast to the current trend in the literature, where the majority of studies analyse fewer than five episodes of resistance.

The distinction we have drawn between open resistance and hidden resistance highlights a critical gap in the literature – that is, the predominant focus on open and visible forms of resistance. Even though more than one-third of the authors acknowledge various hidden forms, these seldom receive the same level of attention as their open counterparts. We also find that terms such as ‘open’ and ‘hidden’, which may be appropriate in other areas of resistance studies, might not always be the most meaningful in an ECEC context. Since teachers closely monitor young children, it is rare for any form of resistance to remain hidden for long. For future research exploring these types of resistance, we recommend using terms such as ‘discreet’ or ‘quiet’ resistance to emphasize the contrast with overt and easily detectable forms. Such a nuanced exploration has already begun in the field of resistance studies, with scholars advocating for more refined terminology (Lilja, 2022; Lilja et al., 2022). We argue that studies of children's resistance can provide insights that might be of value to the broader research community interested in everyday resistance. One reason why studies involving children can offer new perspectives is the unique power dynamics in ECEC environments, which differ considerably from the political contexts commonly examined in resistance studies. In the context of ECEC, as with many other welfare services, the power exercised by teachers is generally aimed at fostering positive outcomes: teachers establish norms and rules to create educational opportunities and support children's social development and relationships with peers and adults.

Need for future research

We find that there remains a significant need for more research on various aspects of children's resistance, as it offers a crucial avenue for children to express their agency and have their voices heard. Most of the studies we reviewed rely primarily on observation and video recording, indicating a significant potential to diversify the methodologies used for data collection. Alternative approaches could include gathering narratives from teachers about children's resistance through written accounts or interviews or employing quantitative methods. Additionally, collaborative projects that actively involve both children and teachers to gather data could provide fresh insights. Future research should also consider including children with special needs to assess whether their resistance strategies are equally recognized by teachers as valuable resources, compared to children without diagnoses.

Some of the publications investigate resistance within a context of democracy and children's participation – an avenue of research we find highly interesting. Especially when it comes to the more hidden, quiet and discreet forms of resistance, we see the potential for exploring how they could be considered a resource for including children in democratic processes. The publications’ authors include a number of theoretical perspectives from ECEC; nevertheless, we see the potential for widening the theoretical approaches – especially to be in dialogue with research on resistance in other fields. An important question here could be: What is the relationship between young children's resistance and their potential involvement in social movements when they grow up? This question was raised by Schultz in 1989 and remains worthy of research today.

Limitations

This review aimed to identify all of the research that exists on children's resistance to teacher norms and rules in ECEC settings from 1970 to 2023. Despite our rigorous efforts to include all relevant publications, the lack of coherent terminology around the theme makes it likely that there are pertinent publications we were unable to locate with this search strategy. In reviews like this, it is also notoriously difficult to locate relevant articles in anthologies. Additionally, many European countries might also have publications in languages that were not included in this review.

We did not include any purely theoretical publications but noted during the screening that we excluded some texts that were of an abstract or more theoretical nature (e.g. Øksnes, 2017; Seland, 2017; Tobin, 2005). Thus, there might be more theoretical concepts related to children's resistance and opposition in circulation in the literature than we have captured here. Another type of publication we excluded is Master’s theses. However, during the screening, we observed that (especially in Norwegian) there appeared to be a number of Master’s theses on the theme of resistance.

Our review only included publications reporting on naturally occurring instances of resistance. This means that we did not include any highly structured ‘set-ups’ or ‘experiments’, which are typical in psychological studies. For instance, we excluded two articles by Haswell et al. (1981; 1982), because the situation observed was artificially created. This criterion for exclusion might have led to the exclusion of studies that can shed further light on the topic of resistance and opposition in pedagogical contexts and might deserve their own review. Likewise, there is also the potential for studying children's resistance outside of a pedagogical context.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Kjell Erik Johnsen, senior librarian at Østfold University College, for valuable advice when designing the search strategy and for conducting the search across the different databases, library catalogues and search engines. Our colleagues Trude Skogsberg and Angela Rieck contributed to some of our early discussions on the theme of children's resistance. A special thank you to Associate Professor Nina Johannessen and Professor Anders Nordahl-Hansen, both at Østfold University College, for their valuable comments on drafts and advice along the way.

Data availability

The data sets generated and analysed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Majken Jul Sørensen

Kjartan Belseth

Ane Linn Dahl-Nielsen

Author biographies

Majken Jul Sørensen is a professor of social science. Her area of research is various forms of resistance, often focusing on people's agency and ability to create change from below.

Kjartan Belseth is an associate professor in pedagogy in Early Childhood. His area of research ranges from the kindergarten teacher profession, leadership, and professional judgment to diversity, inclusion, and decolonializing practices.

Ane Linn Dahl-Nielsen is an assistant professor in pedagogy in Early childhood. Her areas of research are leadership and development in kindergarten, and children's resistance.

References

Albon

Hellman

(2019) Of routine consideration: ‘Civilising’ children’s bodies via food events in Swedish and English early childhood settings. Ethnography and Education 14(2): 153–169.

Alcock

(2007) Playing with rules around routines: Children making mealtimes meaningful and enjoyable. Early Years 27(3): 281–293.

Arnott

(2018) Children’s negotiation tactics and socio-emotional self-regulation in child-led play experiences: The influence of the preschool pedagogic culture. Early Childhood Development and Care 188(7): 951–965.

Brennan

(2015) Rule breaking in the child care centre: Tensions for children and teachers. International Journal of Early Childhood 48(1): 1–15.

Daries

Ebrahim

(2021) Funds of knowledge and agentic strategies of three- and four-year-old children in South Africa. South African Journal of Education 41(3): 1–9.

De Certeau

(1984) The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. Rendall

. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Dolk

(2013) Bångstyriga barn: Makt, normer och delaktighet i förskolan . PhD Thesis, Stockholm University, Stockholm.

Dolk

(2017) ‘För barn er det roligt’: Normer, delaktighet och väger till förändring. In: Øksnes

Samuelsson

(eds) Motstand: Barndom i barnehagen. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp. 42–61.

Dotson

Vaquera

Cunningham

(2015) Sandwiches and subversion: Teacher’s mealtime strategies and preschoolers’ agency. Childhood 22(3): 362–376.

10.

Ebrahim

(2011) Children as agents in early childhood education. Education as Change 15(1): 121–131.

11.

Emilson

(2007) Young children’s influence in preschool. International Journal of Early Childhood 39(1): 11–38.

12.

Figenschou

(2017) ‘Full kontroll i barnehagen?’ En studie av styring og styringsmentalitet . PhD Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.

13.

Gabriel

(2016) Learning to mock – challenging the teaching establishment. Research in Comparative and International Education 11(4): 369–379.

14.

Galman

(2015) Mischief-making in one kind/and another: Unruliness and resistance in rural preschoolers’ free play. Ethnography and Education 10(3): 310–324.

15.

Gansen

(2017) Reproducing (and disrupting) heteronormativity: Gendered sexual socialization in preschool classrooms. Sociology of Education 90(3): 255–272.

16.

Grindheim

(2013) Barns motstand som demokratisk deltaking i basebarnehagen. Utbildning och Demokrati 22(2): 37–57.

17.

Grindland

(2011) Uenighet som demokratisk praksis i måltidsfellesskapet på småbarnsavdeling. Nordisk Barnehageforskning 4(2): 75–90.

18.

Hadley

(2003) Children’s word play: Resisting and accommodating Confucian values in a Taiwanese kindergarten classroom. Sociology of Education 76(3): 193–208.

19.

Hammer S (2017) Foucault og den norske barnehagen: Introduksjon til Michel Foucaults analytiske univers. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

20.

Haswell

Hock

Wenar

(1981) Oppositional behavior of preschool children: Theory and intervention. Family Relations 30(3): 440–446.

21.

Haswell

Hock

Wenar

(1982) Techniques for dealing with oppositional behaviour in preschool children. Young Children 37(3): 12–18.

22.

Henward

(2015) ‘She don’t know I got it. You ain’t gonna tell her, are you?’ Popular culture as resistance in American preschools. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 46(3): 208–223.

23.

Jansen

(2019) Medvirkning i praksis: Deltakelse og danning i barnehagens hverdagsliv (Vol. 1). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

24.

Johansson

Vinthagen

(2020) Conceptualizing ‘Everyday Resistance’: A Transdisciplinary Approach. New York: Routledge.

25.

Johansson

Emilson

(2016) Conflicts and resistance: Potentials for democracy learning in preschool. International Journal of Early Years Education 24(1): 19–35.

26.

Karlsson

(2018) Moraliskt arbete i förskolan: Regler och moralisk ordning i barn-barn och vuxen-barn interaktion . PhD Thesis, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg.

27.

Keefer

(2005) Defiant behaviour in two- and three-year-olds: A Vygotskian approach. Early Childhood Education Journal 33(2): 105–111.

28.

Kelly-Ware

(2016) ‘What’s he doing that for? He’s a boy!’: Exploring gender and sexualities in an early childhood setting. Global Studies of Childhood 6(1): 147–154.

29.

Kibsgaard

(2019) Tull og tøys på ramme alvor i barnehagen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

30.

Koch

(2013) Børns perspektiver på trivsel: Aktivitet og underaktivitet i børnehaven. Nordisk Barnehageforskning 6(10): 1–23.

31.

Lekkai

(2016) Asserting agency: Children’s tactics to navigate in early childhood education. International Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 5(11): 34–71.

32.

Lilja

(2022) The definition of resistance. Journal of Political Power 15(2): 202–220.

33.

Lilja

Vinthagen

Wiksell

(2022) Beyond ‘individual’ or ‘collective’ resistance: A critical assessment towards an agenda for future research on dissent. Journal of Resistance Studies 8(2): 31–49.

34.

Madrid

(2013) Playing aggression: The social construction of the ‘sassy girl’ in a peer culture play routine. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 14(3): 241–254.

35.

Makansi

Carnevale

(2020) Researching the moral experiences of young children: A pilot study. Journal of Childhood Studies 45(3): 44–57.

36.

Markström

A-M

(2005) Förskolan som normaliseringspraktik – en etnografisk studie . PhD Thesis, Linköping University, Linköping.

37.

Markström

A-M

(2010) Talking about children’s resistance to the institutional order and teachers in preschool. Journal of Early Childhood Research 8(3): 303–314.

38.

Ministry of Education (2017) Framework Plan for Kindergartens Content and Tasks. Oslo: Directorate for Education and Training.

39.

Moore

(2020) ‘Be friends with all the children’: Friendship, group membership, and conflict management in a Russian preschool. Linguistics and Education 59: Article 100744.

40.

Øksnes

(2017) Lekende motstand som frihetserfaring. In: Øksnes

Samuelsson

(eds) Motstand: Barndom i barnehagen. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp. 141–163.

41.

Øksnes

Samuelsson

(eds) (2017) Motstand: Barndom i barnehagen. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.

42.

Park

(2019) Painting ‘out of the lines’: The aesthetics of politics and politics of aesthetics in children’s art. Visual Arts Research 45(2): 66–79.

43.

Park

(2021) Big hands and big black dots: Dissensual politics in the kindergarten classroom. Studies in Art Education 62(1): 10–22.

44.

Pettersvold

(2015) Barns perspektiver på demokrati i barnehagen. Utbildning och Demokrati 24(2): 91–109.

45.

Rantala

(2016) Snälla du! Kan du sätta dig? Om vägledning i förskolan . PhD Thesis, Umeå University, Umeå.

46.

Ryberg

(2019) Måltiden i förskolan - barns utrymme i kommunikation och handling . PhD Thesis, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg.

47.

Salonen

Koitto

Notko

, et al. (2022) Child-educator disagreements in Finnish early childhood education and care: Young children’s possibilities for influence. Early Years 43(4–5): 1075–1088.

48.

Schultz

(1989) Finding meaning in the resistance of preschool children: Critical theory takes an interpretive look. Thought and Practice 2(1): 4–17.

49.

Seland

(2013) ‘Nei! Jeg vil ikke!’: Hvordan forstå barns motstand i barnehagen som en del av deres danning til demokrati? In: Greve

Mørreaunet

Winger

(eds) Ytringer om likeverd, demokrati og relasjonsbygging i barnehagen. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, pp. 163–175.

50.

Seland

(2017) Uenig eller ulydig: Barns motstand i en lærende organisasjon. In: Øksnes

Samuelsson

(eds) Motstand: Barndom i barnehagen. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp. 90–114.

51.

Shayan

(2022) The culture of childhood in (and) spaces of resistance. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 23(2): 122–138.

52.

Skreland

(2016) ‘På mandager er det ikke lov med papirfly’: En studie av regler og yrkesutøvelse . PhD Thesis, University of Agder, Kristiansand.

53.

Skreland

(2019) Regler i barnehagen. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

54.

Sørensen

Nilsen

ACE

Lund

(2019) Resisting the ruling relations: Discovering everyday resistance with institutional ethnography. In: Nilsen

ACE

Lund

RWB

(eds) Institutional Ethnography in the Nordic Region. London: Routledge, pp. 203–213.

55.

Strømme

LML

(2023) Normalitet i barnehagen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

56.

Tam

(2012) Children’s bricolage under the gaze of teachers in sociodramatic play. Childhood 20(2): 244–259.

57.

Tesar

(2017) Childhood undergrounds: Power, resistance, secrets, objects and subversion in early childhood education. Early Childhood Folio 21(1): 22–26.

58.

Tobin

(2005) Everyday tactics and the carnivalesque: New lenses for viewing resistance in preschool. Bank Street Occasional Paper Series 14: 32–38.

59.

Togsverd

Ørskov

(2011) Konflikter, social inklusion og eksklusion i børnehaven. Gjallerhorn 14: 26–36.

60.

Togsverd

Rothuizen

Jørgensen

, et al. (2017) Om modstand, frihed og myndigblivelse i daginstitutionen. Forskning i Pædagogers Profession og Uddannelse 1(2): 69–84.

61.

Tricco

, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. (2018) PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169(7): 467–473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850.

62.

Vinthagen

(2015) Editorial: An invitation to develop ‘resistance studies’. Journal of Resistance Studies 1(1): 5–11.

63.

Vinthagen

(2021) Editorial: What is the core of resistance studies? To challenge conventional perspectives on resistance. Journal of Resistance Studies 7(1): 5–8.

64.

White

(2017) A feast of fools: Mealtimes as democratic acts of resistance and collusion in early childhood education. Knowledge Cultures 5(3): 85–97.

65.

Yau

(2007) Domain theory perspectives and reforming instructional directions for promoting young children’s moral and social growth: A qualitative analysis of six Chinese teachers’ responses to preschool children’s transgressions. International Journal of Educational Reform 16(2): 139–155.

66.

Yoon

(2021) Stars, rainbows, and Michael Myers: The carnivalesque intersection of play and horror in kindergarteners’ (trade)marking and (copy)writing. Teachers College Record 123(3): 1–22.