Kindergarten space and autonomy in construction – Explorations during team ethnography in a Finnish kindergarten

Mari Vuorisalo Ph.D. 1 , Raija Raittila Ph.D. 2 , and Niina Rutanen 3
  • 1 University of Tampere, Faculty of Education, FI-33014, Tampere, Finland
  • 2 University of Jyväskylä, Faculty of Education and Psychology, FI-40014, Jyväskylä, Finland
  • 3 University of Jyväskylä, Faculty of Education and Psychology, FI-40014, Jyväskylä


Children’s autonomy is a cultural ideal in Finnish early childhood education and care (ECEC). In this article we examine autonomy in spatial terms. The theoretical background is developed by applying spatial sociology. Our starting point is that space is relationally produced, thus, we understand space as continuously negotiated, reconstructed and reorganized phenomena. In this article, we investigate the production of space by different actors in ECEC and seek to show how autonomy is also continuously produced and re-produced in the negotiation of space. For this investigation we use data collected as part of a team ethnographic project in a Finnish kindergarten. The project included conducting observations and interviews with parents and educators. Our research shows that autonomy is developed in multiple ways in kindergarten spaces. Educators as well as children and parents continuously produce and reproduce the kindergarten space within which children’s autonomy variously unfolds as linked to independence, freedom and responsibility in the cultural and ideological setting of a Finnish kindergarten.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Bennet, J. (2010). Pedagogy in early childhood services with special reference to nordic approach. Psychological Science and Education, 3, 16–21.

  • Broström, S., Skriver Jensen, A., & Hansen, O. H. (2017). Values in Danish early childhood education and care. In C. Ringsmose, & G. Kragh-Müller (Eds.), Nordic social pedagogical approach to early years (pp. 25–42). Cham: Springer.

  • Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

  • Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. (B. Massumi, Trans.) London: Continuum.

  • Eerola-Pennanen, P. (2013). Yksilönä vaan ei yksin. Lapset minuuden muodostajina päiväkodissa. [Individual but not alone. Children’s self-formation in day care.] Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 464. University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved April 26, 2018 from

  • Fuller, M. G., & Löw, M. (2017). Introduction: An invitation to spatial sociology. Current sociology monograph, 65 (4), 469–491.

  • Gallacher, L. A. (2016). Theorizing young children’s spaces. In A. Farrell, L. Sharon, & E. Kay M. Tisdall (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of early childhood research (pp. 118–132).

  • Gulløv, E. (2008). Institutional upbringing: A discussion of the politics of childhood in contemporary Denmark. In A. James, & A. L. James (Eds.), European childhoods. Cultures, politics and childhoods in Europe (pp. 129–148). New York: PalgraveMacmillan.

  • Gulløv, E. (2011). Welfare and self care: Institutionalized visions for a good life in Danish day-care centres. Anthropology in Action, 18 (3), 21–32.

  • Karila, K. (2012). A Nordic perspective on early childhood education and care policy. European Journal of Education, 47 (4), 584–595.

  • Lahelma, E., Lappalainen, S., Mietola, R., & Palmu, T. (2014). Discussions that ‘tickle our brains’: Constructing interpretations through multiple ethnographic data-sets. Ethnography & Education, 9 (1), 51–65.

  • Löw, M. (2008). The constitution of space. The structuration of spaces through the simultaneity of effect and perception. European Journal of Social Theory, 11 (1), 25–49.

  • Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage.

  • Millei, Z., & Imre, R. (2016). “Down the toilet”: Spatial politics and young children’s participation. Politics, citizenship and rights. In K. Kallio, S. Mills, & T. Skelton (Eds.), Politics, citizenship and rights. Geographies of children and young people, vol 7. (pp. 171–188) Singapore: Springer.

  • Millei, Z. (2011). Thinking differently about guidance: Power, children’s autonomy and democratic environments. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 10 (1), 88–99.

  • National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care. (2017). Regulations and Guidelines 2017: 10. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.

  • Olwig, K. F., & Gulløv, E. (2003). Towards an anthropology of children and place. In K. F. Olwig, & E. Gulløv (Eds.), Children’s places. Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 1–19). London, New York: Routledge.

  • Paavilainen, A. (2017). Social exclusion from peer interaction and relationships in a daycare center – a micro-ethnography. Master’s thesis, University of Jyväskylä. Retreived April 26, 2018 from

  • Pierce, J., Martin, D. G., & Murphy, J. T. (2011). Relational place-making: The networked politics of place. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 36, 54–70.

  • Raittila, R. (2008). Retkellä. Lasten ja kaupunkiympäristön kohtaaminen. [Making a visit. Encounter between children and an urban environment]. Jyväskylä studies in education, psychology and social research 333. University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved April 26, 2018 from

  • Raittila, R. (2012). Whit children in their lived place: Children’s action as research data. Journal of Early Years Education, 20 (3), 270–279.

  • Raittila, R. (2013). Pienryhmätoiminta ja leikkialueet: Varhaiskasvatuksen pedagoginen toimintaympäristö rakentuu arkisissa käytännöissä. [Small group action and play areas. The pedagogical action space is constructed in action]. In K. Karila, & L. Lipponen (Eds.), Varhaiskasvatuksen pedagogiikka. [The Pedagogy of Early Childhood Education.] (pp. 69–94). Tampere: Vastapaino.

  • Rasmussen, K. (2003). Places for children, children’s places. Childhood, 11, 155-173.

  • Readings, B. (1996). The university in ruins. London: Harvard University Press.

  • Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom. Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Rutanen, N. (2004). Is there “free play”? Example of a researcher as constructing limits and possibilities for children’s actions. The culture created by children and children’s participation –Seminar proceedings 17 June 2004. Stakes, Helsinki. Retrieved April 26, 2018 from

  • Rutanen, N., Raittila, R., & Vuorisalo, M. (forthcoming). Clothes and clothing practices in Finnish early childhood education and care. In P. Rautio, & E. Stenvall (Eds.), Social, material and political constructs of arctic childhoods: An everyday life perspective. London: Springer.

  • Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journey to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

  • Strandell, H. (2012). Policies of early childhood education and care — Partnership, and individualisation. In A. T. Kjørholt, & J. Qvortrup (Eds.), The modern child and the flexible labour market: Child care policies and practices at a crossroad? (pp. 222–240). Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.

  • Sumsion, J., Stratigos, T., & Bradley, B. (2014). Babies in space. In L. J. Harrison, & J. Sumsion (Eds.), Lived spaces of infant-toddler education and care. Exploring diverse perspectives on theory, research and practice. Educational perspectives on early childhood education and development, 11 (pp. 43–58). New York and London: Springer.

  • Tamboukou, M. (2008). Machinic assemblages: Women, art education and space. Discourse, 29(3), 359–375.

  • Vallberg Roth, A-C. (2014). Nordic comparative analysis of guidelines for quality and content in early childhood education. Nordic Early Childhood Research Journal, 8(1), 1–35.

  • Vuorisalo, M., Rutanen, N., & Raittila, R. (2015). Constructing relational space in early childhood education. Early Years, 35(1), 67–79.

  • Williams, P. (2001). Preschool routines, peer learning and participation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(4), 317–339.


Journal + Issues