Early childhood education and care professionals’ accounts of challenging situations in Norwegian kindergartens

Abstract

Professionals in Norwegian early childhood education and care (ECEC; e.g. ECEC teachers, special pedagogues, managers, assistants) face challenges such as staff shortages, increased job demands, absenteeism, growing child diversity and a lack of knowledge on special needs. They are expected to ensure inclusion and well-being of all children, yet discrepancies often arise between institutional expectations and the experiences professionals encounter in such challenging situations. When challenges emerge, a gap forms between practice and expectations, leading professionals to blame other people or factors, or to defend or justify their actions. We were particularly interested in how the professionals position themselves in relation to their challenging situations, how they make themselves accountable and how they position other people or factors within their accounts. Using a survey, we asked 251 ECEC professionals across Norway to describe problematic situations they had experienced. Applying accounts as an analytical framework and a discourse analysis of position, we investigated how ECEC professionals position themselves through their accounts and in what ways their positions in these accounts explain how they navigate challenges. We discovered the following positions in the accounts: (a) victim externalising responsibility, (b) struggling victim, (c) anguished, self-blaming survivor and (d) unengaged. Notably, in the unengaged position, participants reported no issues in ECEC, indicating the effectiveness of our data production method and discursive approach. Examples of these positions, including their practical implications, are presented and discussed in detail, and the methodological development of using accounts as a discursive practice in ECEC contexts is presented.

Introduction

Nordic early childhood education and care (ECEC) is in turmoil (e.g. Jacobson et al., 2025). A limited but growing body of research has described the challenges faced by Norwegian ECEC professionals (e.g. ECEC teachers, special pedagogues, managers and assistants), such as staff shortages, increased job demands, absenteeism, growing student diversity, lack of knowledge on special needs and limited staff collaboration (e.g. Baustad et al., 2020; Bjørnestad et al., 2020; Boquist et al., 2025; Jacobson et al., 2025). These professionals are expected to ensure inclusion and well-being for all, but they often conduct their work in challenging situations (Havisalmi and Reunamo, 2023; Jacobson et al., 2025), leading to a sense of helplessness in providing appropriate pedagogy and support for every child (Pesonen et al., 2024).

While challenges in ECEC pedagogy may arise from practical considerations such as staff and resource shortages, these challenges have led to Norwegian societal and more broadly Nordic discourses that emphasise field-related chaos (Havisalmi and Reunamo, 2023; Jacobson et al., 2025). Specifically, when ECEC professionals express their concerns about challenging situations, they use language that both reveals and constructs these situations (e.g. lack of resources, relationships with families and colleagues, responses to policy). International research suggests how discourses surrounding increasing workload, staff shortages and low salaries frame ECEC as an undervalued profession, creating a broader crisis narrative of the discipline (Bull et al., 2024; Havisalmi and Reunamo, 2023; Valkonen and Abendstein, 2025). In Australia, educators have expressed emotional exhaustion, undervaluation and administrative overload as systemic structural failures rather than individual shortcomings, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of a workforce reform (Bull et al., 2024; Harper et al., 2025). Further, in Finland, ECEC managers have related the structural issues of public management directing to compliance with neoliberal demands, which seek to optimise the work of ECEC professionals through various efficiency measures (Valkonen and Abendstein, 2025).

Generally, such descriptions by ECEC professionals – and policymakers and media alike – frequently provide ‘accounts’ of challenging situations through discursive constructions emphasising professional identity and workforce concerns (e.g. Valkonen and Abendstein, 2025). Accounts can be defined as the explanations or justifications people provide to make sense of their and others’ actions, events or decisions, particularly those that may be socially questionable or require clarification (Välimaa, 2011). For example, ECEC professionals might provide accounts of their actions when there are discrepancies between institutional expectations related to ensuring quality ECEC and the ability to fulfil them (e.g. Pesonen et al., 2025).

In this study, we focused on ECEC professionals’ accounts and their positions within these accounts in the context of challenging situations, specifically those in which solutions to meet institutional expectations in ECEC seemed unattainable. We were particularly interested in how ECEC professionals position themselves in relation to the challenging situations they face, how they make themselves accountable and how they position other people or factors within these accounts. Applying accounts as an analytical framework and a discourse analysis of position, we investigated (a) how ECEC professionals position themselves through their accounts, and (b) in what ways ECEC professionals’ positions in these accounts explain how they navigate challenges. Although studies have reported the current challenges in ECEC and addressed challenging situations (see e.g. Äikäs et al., 2022), research on ECEC professionals’ accounts in these situations is scarce, both in Norwegian and international contexts. Previous research has mainly focused on examining unemployment accounts provided by people with long-term unemployment experiences (e.g. Välimaa, 2011). Our research can potentially lead to an increased understanding of how ECEC professionals use language to construct individual and institutional challenges about the current chaos they face, which, in turn, can contribute to developing sustainable and inclusive ECEC and to the methodological development of using accounts in ECEC research.

Discursive category research and accounts

Giving accounts of situations is a fundamental part of human interaction. In everyday life, people might face tense, new or questionable situations, and the violation of the social moral order compels us to explain or to give an account of the events (Juhila, 2012). As defined by Scott and Lyman (1968), accounts are statements made by a social actor to explain unanticipated behaviours or events. They can serve several social functions; not only can they play a role in maintaining or restoring the social order when norms are breached, consequently serving as a form of social norm management (Jokinen et al., 2012), they can also protect social identities or reputations by providing tools for face-saving in social interactions. Moreover, accounts facilitate mutual understanding and cooperation in conversations (e.g. Välimaa, 2011).

In discursive psychology and conversation analysis, following social constructionist epistemology, accounts are studied as practices – ways of doing things with words and creating social entities. Potter and Edwards (1992) showed how people use accounts to manage blame and construct credible versions of reality in everyday talk. From a discourse-analytic perspective, accounts are not static or universal but context-sensitive and shaped by the interactional setting, the relationship between participants and broader institutional or cultural norms (e.g. ECEC). In institutional settings, accounts often follow genre-specific patterns. For instance, in legal or medical contexts, justifications may be embedded in formal reports or consultations, shaped by the norms of evidence, authority and professional ethics (Bhatia, 2004; Kong, 2014). These institutional tendencies are often tied to organisational accountability, professional identity and institutional discourse norms. In particular, professional discourse is shaped by both the genre conventions of the field and the social practices of a particular workplace (Bhatia, 2004; Kong, 2014).

Research on professional discourse has demonstrated that accounts are central to how professionals manage responsibility, credibility and institutional expectations in difficult or high-stakes situations (Östman and Solin, 2016; Scott and Lyman, 1968). Such accounts do more than explain actions – they position the speaker within a professional community and respond to ideological, cognitive and social pressures (Kong, 2014). A multi-perspective approach that combines textual analysis with attention to organisational practices shows how professionals construct accounts to meet both genre conventions and institutional goals, as in, for example, corporate disclosures or arbitration settings (Bhatia, 2004). Accounts also routinely draw on membership-categorisation devices – invoking categories with phrases such ‘as a mother’ or ‘as a doctor’ – to make actions seem appropriate or understandable, thereby linking account-giving to identity work and the social positioning of self and others (Sacks et al., 1992). Furthermore, Östman and Solin (2016) discovered that professionals use accounts to manage complex moral and organisational demands: healthcare workers might justify decisions by citing protocols, patient autonomy or resource limits; social workers balance empathy with institutional mandates through careful phrasing; and media professionals reconcile ethical duties, audience expectations and organisational interests.

Methods

Norwegian ECEC

Norway has one of the highest participation rates in ECEC worldwide. In 2024, 94.3% of all children aged one to five years in the country were enrolled in ECEC (Statistics Norway (SSB), 2025). Universal access to ECEC from age one was established as a legal right in 2009, and the reform initiated a period of rapid expansion during which national efforts were primarily directed towards increasing capacity. This led to substantial growth through the construction of new and larger ECEC institutions and child groups. The expanded ECEC network employs several kinds of professionals, including ECEC teachers, childcare and youth workers, assistants, pedagogical leaders and special pedagogues (equivalent to special education teachers internationally and who might not always work full time in all kindergartens and support pedagogues who, in the Norwegian context, have similar roles as special teachers) (see Ministry of Education and Research, 2023). Across this wide range of talent, ECEC staff qualifications are diverse: ECEC teachers complete a three-year university or university college programme; childcare and youth workers combine two years of upper secondary study with two years of practice; and assistants need no formal child-related education. Additionally, pedagogical leaders are usually trained kindergarten teachers, sometimes possessing education in management-related fields; special teachers usually hold degrees in education with additional training in special education (BA or MA), but because there is no formal training requirement, this is not always the case; support pedagogues hold a bachelor's degree in child-related fields (some municipalities prefer a master's) and often overlap with special teachers but may lack formal special needs training (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2023); childcare and youth workers possess an upper secondary education consisting of two years of study and two years in practice; and assistants need no formal education.

Following the expansion of ECEC, Norwegian policy shifted to improving ECEC quality by introducing national staffing rules. Since 2018, required staffing ratios are 1:3 for children under three years of age, and 1:6 for those aged three years and older. However, when open, half of the ECEC institutions are fully staffed only 4 to 5 hr each day, and sick leave has been reported to be 9.5% (Utdanningsforbundet, 2025). Teacher ratios require one pedagogical leader per seven children under three years of age, and one per 14 children aged three years and up; leaders must hold a bachelor's in early childhood teacher education. Although most ECEC institutions formally meet these regulatory requirements, the sector continues to face a persistent shortage of qualified ECEC teachers. In addition, there has been a dramatic drop in applicants to ECEC teacher education, with numbers falling by more than 39% since 2020, and four out of 10 kindergarten teachers not working in ECEC (Utdanningsforbundet, 2025). Currently, 41.2% of the ECEC workforce holds an early childhood teacher qualification (SSB, 2025), indicating a substantial gap between policy ambitions and workforce realities. This shortage has implications for both structural and process quality, as well as for workforce sustainability in the ECEC domain.

Data collection and participants

We used Nettskjema survey software for collecting the nationwide data. We obtained ethical approval from the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research. All participants provided informed consent before completing the electronic survey, and no personal data were collected that could lead to the participant. Participation was voluntary. Participants were recruited via email invitation targeting all kindergartens within Norway. The email contained information about our Current Circumstances in ECEC research project (2023–2024) focusing on professionals’ approaches to supporting children in challenging situations in Norwegian ECEC; the message contained a link to the survey. The survey contained one open-ended question at the beginning followed by a quantitative section dedicated to work well-being. Given our research’s tenor, we focused on participant-produced descriptions (i.e. qualitative data).

The open-ended question in the survey instructed participants to ‘Describe a situation from kindergarten that you find challenging, where it seems as if you have no more solutions’. The creation of this type of prompt was inspired by the method of empathy-based stories (MEBS), which uses a short framing of a situation as a prompt (Wallin et al., 2019). Such frames can be constructed in multiple ways, for example, in question format. MEBS generates data that capture participants’ perceptions, expectations, sociocultural representations and mental images of a phenomenon (e.g. Pesonen et al., 2024). MEBS does not aim to examine actual lived experiences, and the resulting descriptions instead present possible insights, which can be based on the participants' own imagination (Wallin et al., 2019). As the used prompt allowed participants to write descriptions freely, we did not set any word limit for the response in the survey.

Participants (N = 251) were pedagogical leaders (n = 81), kindergarten managers (n = 74), child and youth workers (n = 42), ECEC teachers (n = 30), assistants (n = 18) and special education teachers (n = 6). Almost all participants were women (89%). The data comprised 251 descriptions; the average description length was 40 words, ranging from approximately four words (particularly, blaming accounts such as ‘Lack of substitute teachers’) to about 290 words (specifically, justifying accounts).

Analysis

Our research focused primarily on cultural ways of using language and accounting in relation to challenging situations in ECEC, where children are not able to access the support they need. From the perspective of discursive research, we conceptualise positioning as a dynamic and fluid process through which individuals locate themselves and others within available subject positions produced in and through language (Davies and Harré, 1990). In this view, positioning is not determined by fixed social categories or institutional roles but emerges situationally within particular discursive contexts. Consequently, our analysis does not seek to explain participants’ responses based on their professional roles or institutional positions. While such roles may be analytically relevant when explicitly invoked by informants, they are treated as discursive resources rather than underlying explanations of positioning (Davies and Harré, 1990). For this reason, we analysed the data as a whole, without separating the responses of different professional groups. The responses of professionals working in different positions together form a sample of the social reality in which the phenomena under study occur.

The analysis was led by the first and second authors. First, we ensured that the descriptions had no information or personal data that could potentially result in the identification of participants, we then translated the material into English ensuring the preservation of meaning (van Nes et al., 2010). The translations were checked for accuracy by the second author, who is fluent in Norwegian and English. The analysis consisted of three phases employing both content analysis and discourse analysis approaches (Alejandro and Zhao, 2023; Granheim et al., 2017).

In the first phase, all the authors familiarised themselves with the material through reading and rereading in order to grasp the content and begin identifying relationships across the material. All the authors participated in three analytical discussions where we paid particular attention to the context and relationships among children, ECEC professionals, parents and other stakeholders involved in the challenging situations described by the participants; we then drafted a tentative coding sheet in Excel for more detailed content analysis. Next, participants’ descriptions were systematically coded by the first and second authors using Excel to code each participant-produced writing based on the described challenges.

While we coded the data guided by the existing understanding of challenging situations, allowing also data-driven codes to emerge, we soon discovered that to probe deeper into the data, we needed to apply the concept of accounts in the analysis. Since the prompt we used in the survey’s open-ended question aimed at creating a violation of moral order that would lead the participant to have the need to explain the situation – that is, to give an account (Juhila, 2012; Scott and Lyman, 1968) – the second phase of the analysis was guided by this idea. In other words, when professionals encounter challenges in their work, gaps emerge between ECEC institutional expectations and their practices, and thus professionals have the need to account for their actions (Scott and Lyman, 1968). Analysis of accounts related to these challenges can reveal how ECEC professionals manage the tensions in their work and the systemic constraints in relation to public or organisational accountability. During the second analysis phase, we identified three accounts in line with the literature – defending, justifying or blaming (Juhila, 2012; Scott and Lyman, 1968) – and categorised the already coded data on challenges under the account categories. Defending accounts acknowledge the act but deny full responsibility (e.g. ‘I was under pressure’); justifications accept responsibility but deny the act was wrong (e.g. ‘It was necessary under the circumstances’); and blaming denies responsibility in the situation and places the fault on others (e.g. ‘children, families and leadership make my job difficult’). Thus, accounts are key in analysing how ECEC professionals navigate expectations, justify decisions and construct legitimacy.

However, we discovered that not all accounts had defending, justifying or blaming elements; consequently, some parts of the data were left uncategorised. These sections of the data were characterised by participants not recognising any problematic situations, thus illustrating opposition to our setting of challenges. In order to draft a suitable, data-driven category for these accounts, we probed further into the data and developed an account that complemented previous account literature (e.g. Juhila, 2012; Scott and Lyman, 1968). Since it seemed that the accounts denied or refused to see the existence of problems in ECEC, and perhaps also showed an unwillingness to even engage with the survey prompt, we named these as ‘unengaged’ accounts.

In the third phase, we identified how accounts construct children, professionals, parents and other parties, and we also applied the analytical concept of positions​ (Wetherell, 2003). We focused on analysing how individuals positioned both themselves and others in connection with the challenges described in the accounts. Position, as an analytical concept, was defined as a linguistically organised way of locating oneself in a stance that carries assumptions about responsibilities, obligations and the limits of one's work in relation to oneself and others (see Wetherell, 2003). In the analysis, it was particularly important to identify the positioning of ECEC professionals in relation to the presented challenge. As the coding progressed, these positionings were refined into clearer categories. Attention was paid to the degree to which professionals described themselves, other people and external factors as accountable for challenging situations. Expressions in the accounts that defended, justified or blamed demonstrated how the positioning of other people or other factors made them accountable in challenging situations at both the individual and system levels. For example, we examined what professionals did in response to challenges, how they acted to manage or resolve them (e.g. blaming, defending, justifying) and the roles these actions produced for themselves and others. The analysis concluded with the formulation of four distinct positions.

To ensure trustworthiness, we discussed the data and our interpretations throughout the analysis and the entire writing process within the author team. Any unclarities or disagreements were discussed until a consensus was reached. Furthermore, all authors approved the completed findings; and we used peer debriefing (Nguyen and Spall, 2008) and engaged in discussions about the research process with colleagues who were not part of the author team (e.g. international conferences and research seminars).

Findings

The analysis identified four positions within the accounts, which are outlined below. We use both full participant accounts and data extracts in our reporting, and these are identified using the participants’ codes (i.e. Participant 1, Participant 2 etc.).

Victim externalising responsibility

The analysis revealed how respondents positioned themselves as victims by externalising responsibility and attributing difficulties to others without acknowledging their own role or agency. This victim positioning entails an account where the professional is primarily a passive recipient of others’ actions, rather than an active participant responding to the situation. These positions include accounts of blaming other individuals and groups of people as ways to present the situation as more logical or less unjustifiable.

One prominent way of positioning themselves as victims was prevalent in responses that blamed children and their behaviour for creating challenging situations in ECEC. These included statements of how children are aggressive and challenging, for example: ‘Aggressive children who can harm themselves, other children and me/staff' (Participant 49), ‘Challenging groups of children' (Participant 1), ‘Children aged 1–3 years who, at times, bite, scratch and hit each other' (Participant 123), and ‘When children scream, shout and call staff nasty things because they experience discipline’ Participant 82). Some of the responses would also frame children with additional needs as problems; for example: ‘There are too many children with different needs in one department. Out of 18 children, there are 8 children with different measures who need extra follow-up in kindergarten day-to-day’ (81).

The phrase ‘too many children with different needs’ suggests the presence of these children as the source of the challenging situation. The response centres the challenge on the number of children with additional needs, implying that these children are a burden.

The professionals also provided accounts blaming other individuals, such as uncooperative colleagues and management (e.g. ‘Colleagues who are not very cooperative’ (Participant 9), ‘The preschool teacher does not take her role as a leader seriously’ (Participant 10)) and parents (e.g. ‘If you have parents who are never satisfied but just demand and demand’ (Participant 38)). Common characteristics of these accounts were the positioning of other individuals or groups of people as responsible for the challenging situation in ECEC, while the respondents’ own responsibility and possibility for action are not mentioned.

Struggling victim

The position of the struggling victim refers to responses that include some acknowledgment of the professional's own responsibilities or actions yet primarily attribute challenges in ECEC to other individuals or systemic conditions. As with the previous victim position, these are at times constructed through an account of blame. These types of accounts would blame parents for certain challenges while simultaneously portraying the respondent as having made unsuccessful efforts to address the situation (e.g. ‘Parents who take a very long time during drop-off. The parents then appear unsure, and it affects the child. I have given instructions several times but to no use’ (Participant 121)).

The accounts also revealed a tendency to defend, and the notion of ‘struggling’ highlights that the respondent is not entirely passive but rather is engaged in efforts that are framed as insufficient or that they are overwhelmed by external factors. This results in a positioning of the respondent as a struggling victim of systemic conditions. Moreover, reference is made to structural challenges such as increased demands and expectations (e.g. ‘Demands and expectations have increased, and a lot of documentation needs to be provided’ (Participant 164), ‘Time for all tasks we are assigned’ (Participant 103)) and insufficient staffing and difficulties in recruiting competent personnel (e.g. ‘To acquire sufficiently qualified staff for the kindergarten’ (Participant 154)). These types of accounts can be seen as defending why practices in ECEC fall short of expectations, resulting in challenging situations despite the respondents’ efforts. The account below illustrates how systemic issues of absenteeism and financial constraints result in challenging situations for both children and staff, with the respondent accounting for their ongoing struggle and commitment to higher standards:

One or more days in the daycare where there is absence among the staff and either we cannot find a substitute, are not allowed to hire a substitute due to financial reasons or we get a new substitute who is unknown to the children. … And we have a group of children where several have their challenges and really need safe, close caregivers. … The result is insecure children, more work for the regular staff who are on duty, and unrest/conflicts/challenging behaviour or other challenges for the children. We do our best within the frameworks that apply, but it's not good enough for the children or parents, and we feel the desire for better frameworks overall, for example, better staffing norms in general. (Participant 131)

The example above illustrates the position of ‘struggling victim’ and emphasises systemic conditions (substitutes, financial constraints) as cause for the challenges they experience (e.g. insecure children, more work for regular staff, challenges for groups of children). At the same time, the wording signals an ongoing effort and struggle (e.g. ‘we do our best’), thereby defending the gap (e.g. ‘it's not good enough’) as a way to navigate the tension between normative expectations and the challenges in ECEC.

Anguished, self-blaming survivor

The position of anguished, self-blaming survivor includes only justifying accounts that reflect professionals’ responsibilities for supporting all children, yet the answers show difficulties in acting in challenging situations. Certain systemic and collective elements are illustrated in the responses (e.g. ‘What we see as a solution is better staffing, but this is not economically possible. Because of this, we constantly have to adjust plans to accommodate [children]’ (Participant 90)). These sentiments illustrate professionals’ feelings about their inability to attend to all children and perform well in their job (e.g. ‘there are children who need close follow-up with caring adults. It feels like never being able to do enough’ (Participant 30), ‘When half of the group is constantly at odds with each other, and I can only comfort one at a time’ (Participant 101)). These types of accounts also illustrate feelings of inadequacy. Moreover, the responses demonstrate worried participants who, in relation to their efforts to prioritise their tasks, have a constant need to justify their actions (systemic issues related to their ability to support all children) and feelings. The account below particularly illustrates the anguished, self-blaming survivor who is carrying out many tasks while also recognising collectivity- and system-level issues. It also illustrates the justification of some of their actions and feelings by detaching themselves from the challenging situation, since the system is not providing them with enough resources:

You have to choose between the lesser of two evils several times a day, every single day. And you are constantly worried about whether you’re making the right choice. The staffing in the daycare is far too poor, it's just childcare, we don’t have time to start meeting their needs and no one listens to us. I am on my way out myself because I can’t bear to watch it any longer every day. I love the children and hate that in Norway we don’t prioritise children higher, they are our future! ‘The world's most important job’, it's a joke. (Participant 65)

The wording in the above account illustrates emotional intensity and moral distress concerning the challenges in ECEC through phrases like ‘choose between the lesser of two evils’ and ‘I can’t bear to watch it any longer’. At the same time, the account points to systemic issues such as the financial situation and the lack of political prioritisation. The last phrase, ‘it's a joke’, in reference to the societal framing of children and the ECEC profession can be interpreted as expressing disillusionment and indignation, underscoring the emotional toll of working under these conditions. All in all, the accounts in this category reflect a dual focus expressing personal anguish while simultaneously resisting it by highlighting the systemic constraints that hinder their ability to meet professional standards in ECEC.

Unengaged

The unengaged positioning is reflected in the responses as a denial or refusal to accept the existence or insurmountability of such situations. Perhaps this may also appear as an unwillingness to even engage with the survey prompt. For example, this type of accounts expressed that the problem ‘does not exist’ (Participant 31) or indicated ‘My situation in the kindergarten is good’ (Participant 70) or ‘I don’t believe there's any challenging situation without solutions’ (Participant 137). Such responses demonstrate that the professionals either cannot relate to the presented situation or refuse to see it, by stating that such problematic situations do not exist in their own work at least. It thus seems that the collective and societal-level consensus on the existence of a problematic situation in ECEC is not recognised. At the same time, some accounts questioned the prompt used in the data collection, which implies the existence of problems (see also Pesonen et al., 2024).

While the unengaged position denies the insurmountability of the situation, there are some indications that possible problems are recognised while also illustrating the solutions. As a core linguistic feature of such accounts, one's own actions are not defended or justified nor is anyone being blamed (e.g. individuals, the educational system or the professionals themselves), except perhaps for the way researchers had created the prompt for the study. While no problems are recognised, the accounts illustrate the importance of supportive teams. Interestingly, the responses show the problem from the perspective of the professionals’ own work, and not of the wider societal contexts related to ECEC; for example:

It is difficult to imagine such a situation. We are a team and support each other in everyday life. The most challenging experience I can recall is probably a child who was very difficult and clearly had challenges, with no improvement to be seen even after a long time, and difficult cooperation with the parents. (Participant 57)

This account particularly illustrates how picturing such challenges is denied (e.g. ‘It is difficult to imagine such situation’), with only an example of issues from the past (e.g. ‘…I can recall is probably a child…’). Even the problems from the past are described as a ‘challenging experience’ and not a problematic situation without solutions, as participants were instructed in the open-ended question in the survey prior to producing the data. Furthermore, there are no indications of wider systemic perspectives in the account.

Discussion

In this study, we examined ECEC professionals’ accounts and positions within those accounts in relation to challenging situations in which they feel they have no more solutions to meet the institutional expectations. We were particularly interested in how the professionals positioned themselves in relation to the described challenging situations, how they made themselves accountable and how they positioned other people or factors within these accounts. Our findings present the following four positions in professionals’ accounts: (a) victim externalising responsibility, (b) struggling victim, (c) anguished, self-blaming survivor and (d) unengaged. Victim externalising responsibility accounts positioned professionals as victims by externalising responsibility and attributing difficulties to others without acknowledging their own role in the challenging situation, blaming other individuals or groups. The struggling victim position primarily attributed problems to others or to systemic conditions but included some personal responsibility. These accounts combined blame with defensive language and framed professionals as engaged yet overwhelmed or with insufficient capacity to meet demands. The third position, anguished, self-blaming survivor, highlighted personal responsibility and justifications for not supporting all children while reporting strong feelings of inability and inadequacy. Accounts also emphasised systemic constraints (e.g. understaffing) that limited their capacity to ensure support for all children. Finally, the unengaged position denied or refused the existence or insurmountability of the challenges, or showed no willingness to even engage with the survey prompt. The unengaged position showed no blaming, justifying or defending, and the professionals failed to recognise collective or systemic issues.

Our investigation of accounts as a discursive practice has provided valuable insights into the socio-cultural organisation underlying challenging situations within ECEC by offering a novel contribution to the existing literature on this topic (e.g. Bjørnestad et al., 2020; Gjerustad et al., 2025; Havisalmi and Reunamo, 2023; Jacobson et al., 2025). The study widens the research perspective on the current chaos in ECEC in Norway by including the complex landscape in which ECEC professionals navigate, focusing on the interplay of professionals’ internal actions of blame, justification and defence, alongside external expectations placed upon them. This duality highlights the pressures faced by professionals in balancing their professional responsibilities with what is expected of them in a quality ECEC environment (see also Smith et al., 2025).

While this study certainly has international and Nordic value, Norway forms a particularly fascinating case to examine challenging situations. Many governmental initiatives have been launched over the last decade in Norway, the latest ones focusing on improving the competence level of professionals and the overall quality of ECEC (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2022). However, early evaluations show only modest improvements so far (Wendelborg et al., 2023), and previous studies have pointed out that realising such collective professional development initiatives may be challenging in a sector already facing significant external demands and capacity constraints (Sivertsen et al., 2021). At the same time, professionals report experiencing considerable pressure and stress, impacting the overall quality of ECEC and leading to difficulties in balancing work and personal lives (e.g. Gjerustad et al., 2025). Although the issue extends beyond Norway to other Nordic countries and wider international contexts, what makes this topic interesting is that professionals in Norway reportedly experience higher levels of stress than their counterparts in other Nordic countries (Gjerustad et al., 2025). The Norwegian system is known for its sovereign wealth fund and high societal welfare standards, but global geopolitical uncertainty, increased inflation and reduced job availability, among other factors, are challenging the entire public sector and leading to budget cuts (Heiret and Innset, 2025). Perhaps before, professionals could rely on the system investing in quantity (i.e. hiring more employees for ECEC) over quality (competent professionals in all ECEC positions), and now, the current global situation may challenge the entire sector in finding competent professionals, thus placing increasingly more work tasks on existing ECEC employees. It may be that professionals cannot rely on the government to ensure more workers in ECEC, which might also have an impact on feelings of stress.

Regarding the unengaged position, our findings revealed an intriguing paradox: none of the professionals reported the lack of own competence or education as a challenge, even though enhancing skills and knowledge on ECEC pedagogies is a central initiative at the national level in Norway (see e.g. Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2022). This raises questions about how such initiatives are perceived and whether they resonate with the realities ECEC professionals face in their work. Specifically, are broader professional development efforts aligned with the specific challenges encountered in ECEC settings? Or perhaps the wider societal discourse around the persistent lack of resources in ECEC tends to overshadow professionals’ experienced need for strengthened competencies, making discussions about quality improvement increasingly dominated by concerns about staffing and funding rather than individual development. Norwegian public sector services (e.g. ECEC) also have a high number of administrative personnel aimed at ensuring transparency, equity and quality in processes, yet they can appear bureaucratic. Moreover, ECEC professionals may not know if they should take responsibility for acquiring greater competencies on their own; if they should be guided and trained by the municipality and administration; if it is a collaborative process between ECEC professionals, administration and other stakeholders; or who eventually has the responsibility for arranging competence development. Understanding such potential disconnects in the processes is essential for developing initiatives that genuinely support ECEC professionals in their daily practices.

By using accounts as a discursive practice in ECEC contexts, our study also contributes to methodological development not only in Norway but also internationally. Previous international research has mainly focused on examining accounts related to unemployment and societal issues provided by people with long-term unemployment experiences (e.g. Välimaa, 2011). Interestingly, the account definitions of defending, justifying and blaming (e.g. Juhila, 2012; Scott and Lyman, 1968) did not fully cover the analysis of all our data; we discovered an account – conceptualised as ‘unengaged’ – that was reflected in the responses as a denial or refusal to recognise the existing challenges in ECEC, perhaps also showing an unwillingness to even engage with the survey prompt. Further studies are unquestionably needed to explore this newly emerged unengaged account.

This study has its limitations. The positioning and accounting do not reflect ECEC professionals in real life – the results are not about what actually takes place in ECEC but rather how potential issues are understood. MEBS as a data production method also supported this. Thus, we purposefully focused on analysing the data as a whole and did not divide the material based on the different professional groups. Our study focused on cultural ways of using language and accounting in relation to challenging situations in ECEC, where children are not able to access the support they need. Responses from multiple professional groups and roles together captured a sample of the social reality surrounding the phenomena under study. However, future studies could take different professional groups into consideration, using a different research approach and questions focusing more on the various professional groups during the analysis. Given the demanding, multifaceted and often tense nature of the situations identified in our study, there is a need to delve deeper into them and find possible solutions. Future research should focus on uncovering the underlying factors that contribute to the complexities of ECEC professionals’ work. Such exploration may lead to more effective solutions that address the real needs of professionals, enhancing their ability to work in challenging circumstances. Further, in the future, it would be interesting to study children's accounts in the current ECEC context, which would also involve developing methods for exploring those accounts and positions. In conclusion, this study highlights the nuanced dynamics of ECEC and calls for further research to unpack the experiences of professionals, especially regarding how systemic constraints shape daily practices and well-being for both children and adults in ECEC.