‘ It has also happened to me ’: Children’s peer exclusion experiences in Finnish pre-primary school through children’s narrations

Abstract

Being part of a peer group and feeling a sense of belonging increases the well-being of children in early childhood education and care (ECEC). Still, children face exclusion and rejection by peers. This study examined children’s peer exclusion experiences in pre-primary school settings, investigating children’s voices and perspectives through researching children’s narratives. Ten children participated in the interviews in Finnish pre-primary school during spring 2018. Children’s narrations about exclusion took place during free play time in children’s peer groups. Results showed common features but also a variety of children’s experiences and strategies when facing exclusion, and suggests that children with positive experiences with peers can cope with occasional exclusion. Children had a clear understanding of exclusion and they were capable of expressing their experiences verbally. Furthermore, by researching children’s narratives, we can increase our understanding of peer exclusion in early childhood educational settings.

Keywords

children’s perspectives exclusion narrative approach need-to-belong pre-primary school

Introduction

All human beings have an innate need to belong (Baumeister and Leary, 1995). Meaningful relationships have powerful effects on our well-being, and experiences of belonging affect how we think, feel and act in many ways (Gere and MacDonald, 2010; Over, 2016). Among children, early experiences of belonging to and being part of the peer group in early childhood education and care (ECEC) are even more significant while they are still constructing an understanding of themselves and others (Stratigos et al., 2014). Furthermore, bullying experiences can cause persistent negative consequences for children’s well-being into adulthood (Lereya et al., 2015; Reijntjes et al., 2010).

Positive experiences with peers and having someone to play and spend time with has been seen in previous studies as belonging to a peer group and further belonging to an ECEC community (Einarsdóttir and Ólafsdóttir, 2019; Lundqvist et al., 2019). But where belonging exists, so does exclusion. Juutinen (2018) sees belonging and exclusion as two sides of the same phenomenon with both occurring in children’s peer interaction. Corsaro (2018) points out that belonging to the one group implies the exclusion to others. Thus exclusion reflects a certain group’s aspiration to maintain its unity, while joining the current activity becomes difficult for others (Chesworth, 2016; Corsaro, 2018; Donner et al., 2022; Juutinen, 2018).

The importance of peer relationships and friends also emerges from children’s own views and narratives in early childhood settings. Martin and Buckley (2020) reported how peers appearing in all pictures taken by children in early education settings, and pictures about friends were the children’s favourite. Elsewhere, Roos (2015) found that friends and play were the most common themes in children’s spontaneous narrations. Furthermore, studies show how children value positive relationships with their peers and opportunities to play together (Corsaro, 2018; Kragh-Müller and Isbell, 2011; Lundqvist et al., 2019). Contrarily, loneliness and conflicts with peers are mentioned as the negative sides of ECEC (Kragh-Müller and Isbell, 2011; Lundqvist et al., 2019).

Children’s own views and experiences concerning interaction with peers have recently received increasing research attention. In previous studies, children’s interactions and peer cultures in ECEC were investigated from the viewpoint of well-being (Karlsson, 2020; Koch, 2018), belonging and sense of community (Einarsdóttir and Ólafsdóttir, 2019; Juutinen, 2018; Koivula and Hännikäinen, 2017), touch (Keränen et al., 2021), friendship (Carter and Nutbrown, 2016) and humour (Stenius et al., 2022), among other. Even though research of children’s experiences in ECEC has increased, there is still a lack of understanding of young children’s peer exclusion experiences in early education (Nergaard, 2020; Tay-Lim and Gan, 2012). The aim of this present paper is to explore children’s experiences of peer exclusion in the pre-primary school context. In this paper, the focus is on children’s narrations and the following research questions are addressed:

What experiences of peer exclusion do children have in pre-primary school settings?

What strategies do children use when facing exclusion?

Exclusion and children’s peer culture in early years

Play and play routines characterise children’s peer cultures (Corsaro, 2018, 2020). Children’s play and peer culture practices are complex phenomena shaped by the children themselves but also by educators and the wider norms of society (Keränen et al., 2021; Wood, 2014). Corsaro (2020) observes two main elements concerning children’s peer culture. First, he uses the term ‘communal sharing’ to refer to children’s aspiration to be and act together. During this mutual interaction, children create their own peer culture. Second, adults’ rules affect children’s interaction and define their opportunities and options to act. Communal sharing, together with rules and the control of adults, modify children’s peer culture (Corsaro, 2020). Negotiations are part of peer interaction, where also exclusion occurs (Donner et al., 2022).

Especially in the Finnish context, early childhood education plays a significant role in most children’s early years, usually being their first peer group. In 2020, 77% of all children aged 1–6 years participated in ECEC in Finland, and almost 91% of 5 year olds (Finnish Institute of for Health and Welfare, 2021). Still, compared to Finland, participation to ECEC is higher in other Nordic countries with similar education systems (Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2022). Finnish early education includes volitional early childhood education and care up to the age of five as well as compulsory pre-primary education, 1 year before basic education at age six. Thus, pre-primary school is a part of ECEC. Finnish pre-primary school programme emphasises play, positive learning experiences and children’s interests (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016; Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2022).

Peer exclusion is a common element of children’s interaction and has been seen as part of children’s free play and peer culture (Corsaro, 2018, 2020; Ellis et al., 2021; Fanger et al., 2012; Lundström et al., 2022). Fanger et al. (2012) see peer exclusion as ‘naturalistic situations in which one peer intentionally tries to prevent another from engaging in a social interaction’ (p. 226). Most children use strategies to prevent others from entering their play (Fanger et al., 2012). In their studies, Donner et al. (2022) show how children use different strategies in free play: manoeuvring, favouritism and ignoring to exclude others. While some children are welcomed to enter a play, others’ attempts are ignored (Donner et al., 2022; Lundström et al., 2022). Furthermore, Corsaro (2018) argues how a group’s attempt to maintain the unity of ongoing play means exclusion of others. In children’s peer culture, the exclusion of some children may also reinforce others’ relations (Juutinen, 2018; Wainryb and Brehl, 2014).

Earlier studies also report how experiences of exclusion appeared to be harmful for children and even cause negative physical feelings. Nergaard (2020) reported how children described stomach pain, increasing heart rate and stress reactions in connection with peer exclusion. Still, exclusion experiences are feature not only of children’s peer culture, but related to all human interaction. Baumeister and Leary (1995) argue that being excluded from others has many negative effects on our wellbeing, as belonging and exclusion cause many of the deepest feelings that people encounter in their lives. The failure to fulfil this need to belong has even been found to activate the same brain areas as physical pain (Gere and MacDonald, 2010). Therefore, the experiences children that face during their early years is deeply meaningful.

Children’s perspectives

Over the past few decades, there has been increasing interest in exploring children’s experiences in their daily lives (Harcourt and Einarsdottir, 2011). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) and development of childhood studies have both positively influenced how researchers see children in research, and a growing body of research has emerged on the children’s point of view (Harcourt and Einarsdottir, 2011; Sommer et al., 2010). Children’s perspectives are here used to emphasise the activity of children producing knowledge of their lives, and to interpret this information from children’s perspectives (Karlsson, 2020). Where child perspective can be understood as adults’ aspiration to understand children’s perceptions and actions, children’s perspectives refer to children’s experiences and perceptions of the matters at hand (Sommer et al., 2010). This study seeks to understand phenomena from children’s perspectives.

Children’s interests and views are also emphasised in ECEC curricula and practices (Chesworth, 2019; Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2022; Hedges and Cooper, 2016) and recently more research has been published focusing on children’s interests and knowledge as part of child-centred education (e.g. Chesworth, 2019; Hedges and Cooper, 2016). Funds of knowledge refer widely to children’s experiences, skills, and knowledge that they have, through acting and participating in their everyday lives (Chesworth, 2019; Hedges and Cooper, 2016). As Chesworth (2016) has shown, funds of knowledge influence children’s mutual play and peer cultures. This knowledge relates to dynamic and power relations of children’s peer cultures, as some children share the same experiences and can use it in mutual play, while others may not have this access to this knowledge (Chesworth, 2016).

Punch (2002) points out that, like adults, children are not a homogeneous group but rather individuals with different views and experiences. A reflective researcher is aware that the researcher’s own views, the language used, the research environment and even time of the year might all affect the results of research in general, but particularly on children’s voices (Punch, 2002; Spyrou, 2011). In this study, children are understood as in Einarsdóttir (2007), as competent social actors shaping their peer cultures. The intent is not to explore children’s views as one voice but various voices affected by diverse experiences (Harcourt and Einarsdottir, 2011; Hohti and Karlsson, 2014; Karlsson, 2020).

Methods

Narrative approach

In this qualitative study, a narrative approach was utilised to explore children’s experiences. Narrative research is not a single method but an approach that emphasises the idea that reality is shaped through stories of how people understand themselves and the world (Bennett, 2008; Riessman, 2008). A historical dimension is always included in humans’ narrations, as experiences in the present moment are influences by events of the past (Freeman, 2015). The narrative approach has also been used to explore children’s views and experiences (Bennett, 2008; Puroila et al., 2012; Roos, 2015). By using a narrative approach, we can examine children’s experiences and understandings (Bennett, 2008; Engel, 2005; Puroila et al., 2012). As Nutbrown (2011) argues, often those special childhood stories stand out, but it is equally important to explore the more ordinary stories from childhood.

Not all narratives include the typical structure of a narrative. Bamberg and Georgakopoulou (2008) have advanced small stories research to explore narratives without a typical narrative arc or structure of narration. Concept of small stories arose from the need to research and analyse data with stories, thoughts or writings that were usually short and without the beginning, middle and end of ‘big’ stories, emphasising the interactive nature of the situations in which these stories arose (Bamberg, 2006; Georgakopoulou, 2006). Children’s narration can be seen from this point of view as non-typical narratives. Although small stories were fist used to explore identities (Georgakopoulou, 2006), in recent years the small stories methodology has also used in the early childhood education context (Keränen et al., 2021) and in studying childhood stories (Nutbrown, 2011). Juutinen (2018) used the concept of small stories to examine belonging in Finnish ECEC settings. In the current study, small stories are based on interviews with children and are formed in the interaction between researcher and child.

Interviews

The data of this research were collected in Finnish pre-primary school class in spring 2018 by the first author. The data was part of her master’s thesis project of children’s experiences of belonging and exclusion in Finnish pre-primary school (Peltola, 2018). Ten children (five girls and five boys) aged six to seven participated in the current study from a total of 21 students. The selection of participants was based on willingness of children and permission of guardians. The duration of the interviews varied from 15 minutes to a half an hour and were conducted one-to-one. Although group interviews may encourage children to join the conversation and help to remember events (Einarsdóttir, 2007), concerning this study, children’s stories about their peers were considered to include sensitive matters and therefore each child was interviewed individually. In addition, the one-to-one interviews also gave quieter children an opportunity to speak and enabled the children to tell of their experiences more freely (Roos, 2015).

Lastikka and Kangas (2017) see as important features for interviewing children a sensitive researcher who is interested in what children want to say as well as a safe atmosphere where children feel comfortable talking about their experiences. That was the starting point of this study. At the beginning of the interviews, the children were told about the study. We ensured that the children would still like to participate and that they felt comfortable that the interviews were being recorded. The interviews were semi-structured based on current phenomena and previous research on peer exclusion. All interviews included questions about the children’s pre-primary school, about their class and friends and situations in which they had felt loneliness or that it was hard to join play. Open-ended questions were used (Ólafsdóttir et al., 2017; Roos, 2015; Weckström et al., 2017). Questions such as, ‘Could you tell me about your class/pre-primary school/friends?’ as well as ‘Could you tell me more about that. . .’ and ‘What happened then?’ were used during the interviews to encourage children to tell their views without the interviewer leading. Similarly to Roos (2015), the assumption was that if the researcher gives space to children’s narration, the children will recount the features of the phenomenon that are important to them.

Ethics

The study followed the guidelines of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK, 2019). Ethical matters of research include power relationships and interaction with children, consent and confidentiality (Einarsdóttir, 2007). In this study, consent for research was received from the city and the day care manager, the employees of the pre-primary school and from the guardians and children who participated in the research. The consent of children was obtained by explaining the research, answering their questions and by asking at each stage whether the child still wanted to participate (Phelan and Kinsella, 2013). During the research process, the children seemed excited to talk about their friendships, peers and daily life in pre-primary school, which reaffirmed the researcher’s recognition of the children’s willingness to participate in the study. Attention was paid to respectful and sensitive interaction with the children so that they had a positive experience. The interviews took place during the pre-primary school day in surroundings unfamiliar to the researcher but familiar to the children, which may have encouraged to participate and feel more comfortable in stating their views as experts of their pre-primary-school life (Einarsdóttir, 2007). During the transcription of the interviews, children’s names and other identifiable names in narrations were replaced with pseudonyms.

Data analysis

In previous studies, small stories methodology was applied to viewpoint and inspection of the data (Beetham et al., 2019; Juutinen, 2018). In this research, small stories of exclusion are based on transcribed interviews of children. These stories were short captures of children’s narrations, past or current events and situations that the children were part of. The recorded interviews were transcribed and a total of 55 pages was included in the analysis. Narrations were analysed thematically and captured as shorter stories using Atlas.ti software. Particular attention was paid to narrations including exclusion experiences and situations in which the children could not join in play, were rejected by others, or felt loneliness or difficulty in finding company. Secondly, attention was paid to narrations in which children described their actions or those of others facing peer exclusion. Georgakopoulou (2006) emphasises the interactive nature of small stories. In analysis, the pauses, quiet moments and hesitation were also noted. Here, small stories arose as interactions between children and the researcher during the interviews. The term ‘stories’ is used here to refer to these small stories and excerpts of children’s narrations. The interviews were recorded and because the children’s body language remained invisible, the focus of analysis was the content of the small stories. Furthermore, we focused on situations of exclusion and how exclusion was understood by children.

Findings

The findings showed both the diversity and common features of children’s peer exclusion experiences. All the children interviewed had personal experiences of being excluded. In this study, stories of exclusion usually took place in ‘free time’ of the pre-primary school day (Tay-Lim and Gan, 2012). During free play time, children could choose which schoolmates to play with. Moreover, the results highlighted outdoor activities as where exclusion occurred. Stories of exclusion between children and teachers were mostly not part of the spontaneous narrations. Teachers appeared in children’s narrations only in talking about the children’s reactions to exclusion.

Stories of peer exclusion

All the children interviewed appeared to understand the phenomenon of peer exclusion. Generally, children understood peer exclusion as difficulty in finding someone to play with, often called ‘joining in’. The phenomenon seemed to be familiar to all the children as they had no difficulty in telling of their experiences. Furthermore, some children had very specific memories of situations when peer exclusion had taken place in pre-primary school.

Vilja:

Well yeah like. . . well Amanda, I tried to get in on the play and Amanda was like Viljaaa.

Researcher:

Oh, did she mean that she didn’t want you to join?

Vilja:

Yeah.

As mentioned, stories of exclusion often showed up as difficulty in joining in play or interaction with others. In these situations, children encountered difficulty joining a play group as well as facing rejection by others. Even though they mentioned negative feelings that these events caused, the children also seemed to accept that sometimes entering an ongoing play was impossible. From this standpoint, exclusion appeared to be natural phenomenon and part of pre-primary school life in children’s narrations. Vilja’s previous story of peer exclusion was resolved thus:

Researcher:

Okay. How did the situation work out, then?

Vilja:

Well, it didn’t.

Researcher:

It didn’t. So you were alone?

Vilja:

Yeah. . .

Researcher:

Sorry to hear that.

Vilja:

Or it did in one way, like, we were, umm, at the museum, so there, Amanda said no offence, she didn’t mean to offend but there were just so many, like, kids playing, so there was no room.

Researcher:

Well did you manage to work it out?

Vilja:

We made up, so like, Amanda said, like, no offence.

Researcher:

What did you think about that?

Vilja:

Well that she meant no offence!

All children interviewed said that they have friends in pre-primary class and named their best friends or the children they usually spent time with in pre-primary school. Children of these different groups shared interests they preferred to engage in during free play time (see Chesworth, 2016). One child explained that they shared the same ‘mind’, so making decisions was easier for them. Children described their usual activities during free play time as playing Pokemon or drawing, or that they preferred to build something with friends. Furthermore, findings showed that some children of the pre-primary class shared long histories. One child even mentioned that she was met one of her pre-primary school friends for the first time in the labour ward. These smaller groups and best friends were the ones that the children spent time with, and the absence of these friends caused loneliness and disrupted children’s normal play routines.

Ella:

Back when I had no one to play with, when Aada. . . When I was going to ask Aada and Milla what they were doing and Aada whispered to Milla, like, let’s go play on the swings and then. . . I didn’t get to join them so then. . . I felt lonely. And then my other friends were still on the swings. And I was left alone. [. . .]

Researcher:

Your good friends were on the swings.

Ella:

Yeah.

Researcher:

What did you do then?

Ella:

And some were away then.

Researcher:

Oh, some of them were away from pre-primary school.

Ella:

Yeah.

Mostly children experienced loneliness during outdoor plays. In Finland, pre-primary school lasts 4 hours in the morning, after which most children spent rest of the day in ECEC. Daily outdoor activities are part of Finnish ECEC and afternoons in particular are time for free plays. Children spend varying periods in ECEC, and in the late afternoons the children’s friends may already have left for home. Still, this was not always the case and outdoors seemed to be the environment in which many cases of peer exclusion took place.

Researcher:

Can you choose yourself who you play with?

Niina:

Yes. Whenever we’re outdoors.

Researcher:

Outdoors you get to choose.

Niina:

Mmm.

Researcher:

What about indoors?

Niina:

Well. . . Then we also get to choose but. . . Ummm. Usually indoors you get included more than outdoors.

Researcher:

Why is that?

Niina:

I dunno.

Researcher:

Okay. . . Is it harder to get included in the play outdoors?

Niina:

Well usually there you get included too but not so. . . not so much. That many cannot play with the Dragon and the Babies because otherwise. . . there is no room. . . on the slide.

Researcher:

Okay. . . right.

Niina:

But there is quite a lot of space there.

In this passage cite Niina could not explain why getting included is harder outside and how ‘the Dragon and the Babies’ can include only a certain number of participants. Still, Niina noticed that there should be room for other children (see also Ólafsdóttir et al., 2017; Stratigos, 2015). In addition, tag, hide and seek and playing home in the slide were mentioned as games that one could not always join in. Here Otso also sees that it is more difficult to join a game outdoors.

Otso:

Outdoors. It’s more difficult to find someone to play with out there when so many kids are doing different things.

Researcher:

Okay. . . What happens then?

Otso:

Well. . . then you try to find someone to play with. It has also happened to me. That you don’t know which game to join.

In children`s narrations, exclusion appeared to be part of daily life in ECEC. Peer exclusion was not always an active or ongoing act by others, rather the pre-primary school day included times when children felt loneliness and difficulty in joining in the play. The findings of this study showed the momentary side of exclusion but also how common the phenomenon is. All the children interviewed seemed to have friends in pre-primary school, and no one seemed to experience constant peer exclusion or bullying by others.

Children’s strategies towards exclusion

Children have different ways of reacting to exclusion. In their narrations, the children told of how they preferred to respond to peer exclusion, but also how they had seen others reacting to exclusion. The most common way was to find another game or do something else after getting rejected at the first attempt. The children used both active and more passive strategies. In active strategies, children narrate finding other games to join or finding someone else who was alone at that moment. More passive strategies were waiting till the situations changed and it was possible to join in. The children described acts such as walking around or sitting on the bench.

Elsa:

Once. . . like. . . umm. . . well I, I wanted to play with Amanda and Niina but it didn’t suit them. It didn’t – they didn’t want to. Everyone needs to let everybody- to let everything in.

Researcher:

What did you do then?

Elsa:

I went to a bench to sit for the whole time we were outdoors.

Additionally, one active strategy was to invoke a teacher’s help. However, the children differed in sharing their experiences with teachers. Some children preferred to tell teachers, others never did so. In this study, the boys preferred telling their teacher, while no girls mentioned seeking a teacher’s help as their first option rather trying to solve the problems themselves or simply accepting the situation. In one story, turning to a teacher for help was even seen negatively.

Vilja:

Well then she will go tell the teacher and everyone is like dontdont, then they’ll let her join in or something because most of all we are scared of the teacher! Of someone telling the teacher.

Researcher:

Oh, what happens if you tell the teacher?

Vilja:

Well then the teacher will just like explain to you inside or then she gives. . . like, umm, punishment, like going to some bench to sit and then she’ll talk and everybody hates it [talking].

Instead, the boys seemed to have more straightforward reactions to exclusion and received their teachers’ support, as Rasmus points out below. Overall, in many cases children accepted that sometimes the game was full and joining was impossible. The broad range of situations challenged peer interaction, but at the same time changing positions also made joining in possible again.

Rasmus:

Well, like, I just went to tell an adult.

Researcher:

Okay, what do adults do then?

Rasmus:

They said that I have to be let in on the play and they did let me join in.

Discussion

The aim of this paper is to explore children’s peer exclusion experiences in Finnish pre-primary school through children’s narrations. Previously, Repo (2015) has discovered in her studies of bullying that children understood the phenomenon similarly to adults. Even though the focus of this study was on children’s exclusion experiences and actual bullying did not emerge in interviews, findings showed that children understood the concept of peer exclusion and were capable of describing their experiences (Tay-Lim and Gan, 2012). However, the data of this research included occasions when the children were not able to describe the reasons for exclusion or what defined who could join the play. The children may not have understood the questions or the reasons behind the exclusion, or they may simply have had no explanations for the phenomenon. As previous studies, in some cases space was given as the as reason for exclusion (Ólafsdóttir et al., 2017; Stratigos, 2015), while it was noted that there should be room for other children. Children make rules together shaping existing rules in play to include and exclude others (Ólafsdóttir et al., 2017). According to Corsaro (2018), children are aware of changing situations in peer culture and maintaining friendships helps joining in peer interaction. Even though the results showed the outdoors to be a common element of exclusion stories, it gave no clear answers why this was the case. Previous studies have shown how teachers and other workers in ECEC are not present in children’s mutual play (Puroila et al., 2012). In addition, Juutinen (2018) has reported how exclusion takes place in children’s peer relations when teachers are not present. Outdoor time often being time for free activities in Finnish ECEC, it is an important field for children’s mutual play and interaction, and therefore also exclusion (Donner et al., 2022; Fanger et al., 2012; Tay-Lim and Gan, 2012). Furthermore, during outdoor activities, teachers may be situated further from children’s interaction due to the larger space in use. Thus exclusion in children’s interaction may become invisible to them.

In previous studies, children used various strategies to face exclusion and cope with these situations (Lundqvist et al., 2019; Tay-Lim and Gan, 2012). Tay-Lim and Gan (2012) reported how children primarily seek help from teachers after being rejected by others. In the current study, invoking teachers’ help appeared contradictory. Some children always used the teachers’ authority to solve problems and join the ongoing play. On the other hand, some children said that they never told teachers about their experiences. Because of the small sample of data, we cannot draw broad conclusions between boys and girls based on this research. Still, the boys’ and girls’ narratives differed in how they preferred to react to exclusion. While the boys preferred turning to teachers, the girls did not share their experiences. The culture valued by children is shaped through interaction (Corsaro, 2020), and it may be that in the culture of the girls in this specific class, telling to teachers was not considered as a good way of acting. Why the girls wanted solve their problems themselves remained unclear. Regardless of the reasons for the strategies preferred, it was noteworthy how the children reacted to exclusion more generally. It may affect the outcomes of children’s exclusion experiences if problems with peers remain unsolved. Moreover, if children do not share their experiences, teachers’ understanding and awareness of children’s peer culture and interaction become essential (Donner et al., 2022).

The findings of this research suggests that children who have positive experiences with peers, cope with occasional exclusion. Although all the children had experiences of exclusion, they all claimed to have at least one friend in pre-primary school class and no-one seemed to experience ongoing exclusion by others. Previous studies have reported the painful side of children’s exclusion experiences (Nergaard, 2020), but in this study children did not report strong psychical exclusion feelings. Positive experiences in peer group and children’s established relationships with peers fostered children’s prosocial behaviour and decreased conflicts (Koivula and Hännikäinen, 2017; Wood, 2014). It is possible that previous positive experiences with peers may affect both the volume of exclusion experiences and the meanings that children give these episodes. If children have found place in ECEC community and peer group, they are able to confront exclusion acts and solve problems with peers (Koivula and Hännikäinen, 2017). The children’s narrations about their history together support this. Sharing the same interests and knowledge may affect inclusion and coherence in children’s peer cultures (Chesworth, 2016). It may also be that the children interviewed were used to being in situations that required negotiation and had learned ways to join in ongoing games. Overall, the results were in line with previous studies in showing exclusion to be part of pre-primary school life and children’s interaction (Chesworth, 2016; Ellis et al., 2021; Fanger et al., 2012; Juutinen, 2018; Tay-Lim and Gan, 2012; Wainryb and Brehl, 2014). Attempting to be part of a group effects all human’s actions (Baumeister and Leary, 1995) and children are no exception. This paper argues that feeling loneliness and peer exclusion from time to time is not harmful in itself but rather a natural phenomenon of children’s, as all human’s, interaction. More important is what follows and how children manage these situations and what resources child have to deal with exclusion by peers.

Limitations

The current research was only a brief view into the children’s lives and experiences in pre-primary school in a specific cultural context. It approaches a phenomenon from children’s individual experiences and does not provide generalised information on children’s peer exclusion. Children are individuals whose various experiences affect the surrounding culture and their social environment, as Einarsdóttir (2007) notes. Still, this study provides important insights on children’s experiences of exclusion in pre-primary school. The research is based on children’s verbal narration while others’ ways of telling of their experiences remain outside. Although various methods could support interviews of younger children in particular (Koch, 2018), this study showed how children were able to narrate their experiences richly, and their abilities should not be underrated. In future, we need more research on children’s exclusion experiences as well as a better understanding of how these experiences and the strategies used affect children’s lives in the long term.

Conclusion

In this study, children’s narrations of peer exclusion took place in free play time at pre-primary school day. It showed how daily phenomenon peer exclusion exists in ECEC and all interviewed children had experiences of being excluded by peers. Nevertheless, all children interviewed named at least one best friend in pre-primary school and no one seemed to face constant exclusion or bullying by others. Both active and passive strategies were used to deal with peer exclusion. Active strategies included enlisting the help of the teacher and looking for other games to join in, while being alone and waiting till the situation changed were more passive strategies. This study showed how researching children’s narrations allows us to construct a better understanding of exclusion in ECEC settings from the children’s point of view. While it is important to reduce children’s exclusion experiences, exclusion is part of the interaction process, where ways and limits of working together are discussed. Therefore, it cannot be avoided, and the ability to negotiate and find different solutions is essential. Furthermore, this research increases teachers’ understanding of the children’s exclusion experiences. By increasing teacher’s awareness of the phenomenon it is also possible to affect early childhood education practices in general.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the OLVI -foundation: grant no. 20200882.

ORCID iD

Antonina Peltola

References

Bamberg

(2006) Stories: Big or small: Why do we care? Narrative Inquiry 16(1): 139–147.

Bamberg

Georgakopoulou

(2008) Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text and Talk 28(3): 377–396.

Baumeister

Leary

(1995) The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117(3): 497–529.

Beetham

Gabriel

James

(2019) Young children’s narrations of relational recovery: A school-based group for children who have experienced domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence 34(6): 565–575.

Bennett

(2008) Narrative methods and children: Theoretical explanations and practice issues. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing 21(1): 13–23.

Carter

Nutbrown

(2016) A pedagogy of friendship: Young children’s friendships and how schools can support them. International Journal of Early Years Education 24(4): 395–413.

Chesworth

(2016) A funds of knowledge approach to examining play interests: Listening to children’s and parents’ perspectives. International Journal of Early Years Education 24(3): 294–308.

Chesworth

(2019) Theorising young children’s interests: Making connections and in-the-moment happenings. Learning Culture and Social Interaction 23: 100263.

Corsaro

(2018) The Sociology of Childhood, 5th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

10.

Corsaro

(2020) Big ideas from little people: What research with children contributes to social psychology. Social Psychology Quarterly 83(1): 5–25.

11.

Donner

Lundström

Heikkilä

(2022) Exclusion and limitation through favouritism as a strategy in children’s play negotiations: A qualitative analysis of children’s multimodal play. Journal of Early Childhood Research 20: 449–462.

12.

Einarsdóttir

(2007) Research with children: Methodological and ethical challenges. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 15(2): 197–211.

13.

Einarsdóttir

Ólafsdóttir

SM B

(2019) Children’s perspectives on belonging in Icelandic preschools. In: Murray

Swadener

Smith

(eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Young Children’s Rights. London: Routledge, pp.434–446.

14.

Ellis

Beauchamp

Sarwar

, et al. (2021) ‘Oh no, the stick keeps falling!’: An analytical framework for conceptualising young children’s interactions during free play in a woodland setting. Journal of Early Childhood Research 19(3): 337–354.

15.

Engel

(2005) Narrative Analysis of Children's Experience. In: Greene

Hogan

(eds) Researching children’s experience. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.199–216.

16.

Fanger

Frankel

Hazen

(2012) Peer exclusion in preschool children's play: Naturalistic observations in a playground setting. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 58(2): 224–254.

17.

Finnish Institute of for Health and Welfare (2021) THL publications: Varhaiskasvatus 2020 [Early childhood education and care 2020]. Available at: https://thl.fi/fi/tilastot-ja-data/tilastot-aiheittain/lapset-nuoret-ja-perheet/varhaiskasvatus (accessed 17 December 2021).

18.

Finnish National Agency for Education (2016) National core curriculum for pre-primary education 2014. Available at: https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/esiopetuksen_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2014.pdf (accessed 17 December 2021).

19.

Freeman

(2015) Narrative as a mode of understanding: Method, theory, Praxis. In: De Fina

Georgakopoulou

(eds) The Handbook of Narrative Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley, pp.19–37.

20.

Georgakopoulou

(2006) Thinking big with small stories in narrative and identity analysis. Narrative Inquiry 16(1): 122–130.

21.

Gere

MacDonald

(2010) An update of the empirical case for the need to belong. Journal of Individual Psychology 66(1): 93–115.

22.

Harcourt

Einarsdottir

(2011) Introducing children's perspectives and participation in research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 19(3): 301–307.

23.

Harju-Luukkainen

Kangas

Garvis

(2022) Introduction to Early Childhood Education System’s policies and practices in Finland. In: Harju-Luukkainen

Kangas

Garvis

(eds) Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care: A Multi-Theoretical Perspective on Research and Practice. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG, pp.1–10.

24.

Hedges

Cooper

(2016) Inquiring minds: Theorizing children’s interests. Journal of Curriculum Studies 48(3): 303–322.

25.

Hohti

Karlsson

(2014) Lollipop stories: Listening to children’s voices in the classroom and narrative ethnographical research. Childhood 21(4): 548–562.

26.

Juutinen

(2018) Inside or Outside? Small Stories About the Politics of Belonging in Preschools. Oulu: University of Oulu.

27.

Karlsson

LEJ

(2020) Studies of Child Perspectives in Methodology and Practice With ‘Osallisuus’ as a Finnish Approach to Children’s Reciprocal Cultural Participation. In: Ødegaard

Borgen

(eds) Childhood cultures in transformation: 30 years of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in action towards Sustainability. Leiden: Brill, pp.246–273.

28.

Keränen

Viljamaa

Uitto

(2021) Touch in children’s everyday peer relations in preschools. Childhood 28(1): 86–102.

29.

Koch

(2018) Children's perspectives on happiness and subjective well-being in preschool. Children & Society 32(1): 73–83.

30.

Koivula

Hännikäinen

(2017) Building children's sense of community in a day care centre through small groups in play. Early Years 37(2): 126–142.

31.

Kragh-Müller

Isbell

(2011) Children’s perspectives on their everyday lives in child care in two cultures: Denmark and the United States. Early Childhood Education Journal 39(1): 17–27.

32.

Lastikka

Kangas

(2017) Ethical reflections of interviewing young children: Opportunities and challenges for promoting children's inclusion and participation. Asia-Pacific Journal Of Research In Early Childhood Education 11(1): 85–110.

33.

Lereya

Copeland

Costello

, et al. (2015) Adult mental health consequences of peer bullying and maltreatment in childhood: Two cohorts in two countries. The Lancet Psychiatry 2(6): 524–531.

34.

Lundqvist

Westling Allodi

Siljehag

(2019) Values and needs of children with and without special educational needs in early school years: A study of young children's views on what matters to them. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 63(6): 951–967.

35.

Lundström

Donner

Heikkilä

(2022) Children excluding other children from play through passive resistance. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 11(2): 223–242.

36.

Martin

Buckley

(2020) Including children's voices in a multiple stakeholder study on a community-wide approach to improving quality in early years setting. Early Child Development and Care 190(9): 1411–1424.

37.

Nergaard

(2020) "the heartbreak of social rejection": Young children's expressions about how they experience rejection from peers in ECEC. Child Care in Practice: Northern Ireland Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Child Care Practice 26(3): 226–242.

38.

Nutbrown

(2011) A box of childhood: Small stories at the roots of a career. International Journal of Early Years Education 19(3-4): 233–248.

39.

Ólafsdóttir

Danby

Einarsdóttir

, et al. (2017) 'You need to own cats to be a part of the play': Icelandic preschool children challenge adult-initiated rules in play. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 25(6): 824–837.

40.

Over

(2016) The origins of belonging: Social motivation in infants and young children. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 371(1686): 20150072–20150072.

41.

Peltola

(2018) Lasten Yhteenkuuluvuuden Ja Poissuljetuksi Tulemisen Kokemukset Esiopetuksessa [Children's Experiences of Belonging and Exclusion in Preschool]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

42.

Phelan

Kinsella

(2013) Picture this . . . safety, dignity, and voice—ethical research with children: Practical considerations for the reflexive researcher. Qualitative Inquiry 19(2): 81–90.

43.

Punch

(2002) Research with children: The same or different from research with adults? Childhood 9(3): 321–341.

44.

Puroila

A-M

Estola

Syrjälä

(2012) Does Santa exist? Children's everyday narratives as dynamic meeting places in a day care centre context. Early Child Development and Care 182(2): 191–206.

45.

Reijntjes

Kamphuis

Prinzie

, et al. (2010) Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect 34(4): 244–252.

46.

Repo

(2015) Bullying and Its Prevention in Early Childhood Education. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto.

47.

Riessman

(2008) Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

48.

Roos

(2015) Lasten Kerrontaa Päiväkotiarjesta. Tampere: Tampere University Press.

49.

Sommer

Samuelsson

Hundeide

(2010) Child Perspectives and Children's Perspectives in Theory and Practice. Dordrecht: Springer.

50.

Spyrou

(2011) The limits of children’s voices: From authenticity to critical, reflexive representation. Childhood 18(2): 151–165.

51.

Stenius

Karlsson

Sivenius

(2022) Young children’s humour in play and moments of everyday life in ECEC centres. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 66: 396–410.

52.

Stratigos

(2015) Assemblages of desire: Infants, bear caves and belonging in early childhood education and care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 16(1): 42–54.

53.

Stratigos

Bradley

Sumsion

(2014) Infants, family day care and the politics of belonging. International Journal of Early Childhood 46(2): 171–186.

54.

Tay-Lim

Gan

(2012) Peer rejection in preschool: Foregrounding children’s voices. Journal of Early Childhood Research 11(1): 45–62.

55.

TENK (2019) The ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences in Finland: Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK guidelines 2019. Available at: https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/Ihmistieteiden_eettisen_ennakkoarvioinnin_ohje_2019.pdf (accessed 17 December 2021).

56.

United Nations (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text (accessed 17 December 2021).

57.

Wainryb

Brehl

(2014) Children’s narrative accounts and judgments of their own peer-exclusion experiences. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 60(4): 461–490.

58.

Weckström

Jääskeläinen

Ruokonen

, et al. (2017) Steps together: Children’s experiences of participation in club activities with the elderly. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 15(3): 273–289.

59.

Wood

(2014) Free choice and free play in early childhood education: Troubling the discourse. International Journal of Early Years Education 22(1): 4–18.