Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMacfarlane, Kymen_US
dc.contributor.authorLewis, Patriciaen_US
dc.contributor.editorSusan Grieshaber and Nicola Yellanden_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T11:44:00Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T11:44:00Z
dc.date.issued2012en_US
dc.date.modified2014-02-03T04:37:24Z
dc.identifier.issn14639491en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.2304/ciec.2012.13.1.63en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/49530
dc.description.abstractEarly childhood education and care (ECEC) is a complex field comprised of practitioners who possess disparate qualifications and understandings. While this diversity provides richness in terms of practice possibilities, it can also be challenging in terms of the divisions produced by different disciplinary and philosophical approaches. This is particularly evident in relation to how different practitioners advocate for who holds the truth within their grasp, in relation to best practice within this field. Such advocacy can ultimately divide practitioners in ways that are particularly problematic when political activism is necessary. This article examines the implications of the workforce divisions within ECEC in Queensland, Australia and the impact of such divisions on how practitioners advocate in particular contexts. The authors argue that differences that exist in disciplinary approaches have tended to highlight concomitant differences in understanding about what are regarded as being exemplary practices and in the quest for 'best practice'. This means that in times when political activism or advocacy is required, ECEC practitioners are divided rather than united as to what high-quality/exemplary practices might actually look like. Such division has constrained rather than enabled practitioners in terms of how they support each other in the practice and political arenas in Queensland and in Australia as a whole. It is suggested that it might be better to gain advantage from a more united approach. The authors use the work of Pierre Bourdieu, who situates social and systemic practices as 'games' of practice; and that of Michel Foucault, who conceptualises such notions as 'games of truth and error'.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.format.extent97465 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherSymposium Journalsen_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom63en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto73en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue1en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalContemporary Issues in Early Childhooden_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume13en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchSocial Changeen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode160805en_US
dc.titleUnited We Stand: seeking cohesive action in early childhood education and careen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.facultyGriffith Health, School of Human Services and Social Worken_US
gro.rights.copyright© 2012 Symposium Journals. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.en_US
gro.date.issued2012
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorMacfarlane, Kym M.
gro.griffith.authorLewis, Patricia


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record