The first theme which recurred in several articles (Douglas & Gittell, 2012; Lofgren, 2016; McShane, 2016) was that of the changing role of ELC. Of the papers which discussed the changing role of ELC, there was a spread of articles representing countries across the Western World, including but not limited to: the USA, Norway, UK and Australia, as well as a paper by the Economist Intelligence Unit (2012) which held relevance with 45 countries. The latter described how the primary focus of ELC historically had been that of care, however this was now changing globally to a more education focused provision leading to potential tensions. This was attributed to an increased understanding of the importance of supporting child development, particularly in the early years. Several studies referenced changing policies; both national and international which influenced the changes (Brooker, 2010; McShane, 2016) resulting in a more education focused provision (Jovanovic et al., 2016) and often associated with this, a greater level of bureaucracy (Douglas & Gittell, 2012; Lofgren, 2016).

In line with the above discussion, several studies which were conducted in Norway commented on the notable removal of the term ‘care’ from ELC policy following this shift to a more education focussed provision (Aslanian, 2018, 2020). Similar comments were noted in other countries. For example, in Danish policy, the term ‘education’ was cited 89 times compared with the single time ‘care’ was included (Winther-Lindqvist, 2020). While care remained in the title of other countries’ documentation to varying degrees, several studies did comment on the tensions between care and education because of this shift (Brooker, 2010; Lofgren, 2016) and also on the standardisation of provision (Douglas & Gittell, 2012). When discussing the standardisation of provision, some reported on this neutrally (Jovanovic et al., 2016; McShane, 2016), while others were notably disdainful (Lofgren, 2016). Press et al. (2015) provided balance in their discussion, suggesting that while quantitative data associated with standardisation could be deemed necessary to ensure policy changes are informed by more than political ideals, qualitative data, particularly in a complex field such as ELC cannot be overlooked, as it is often this quantitative data which illustrates the complexities and nuances which cannot be captured in quantifiable data.

In relation to the ever-changing policy context, one study associates the constantly changing ELC environment with the alignment to neoliberal ideals around continuous improvement and standardisation (Rogers, 2020). Rogers (2020) suggests this is problematic in that ELC practitioners may lose sight of what quality ELC provision looks like within their specific context, out with the parameters of prescribed notions of quality. He emphasises the need to actively reject neoliberal ideals which are influencing the ELC sphere, as passivity will only allow neoliberalism to continue influencing the role of ELC in ways which have been described above.

Related to Neoliberal ideals is the role of ELC as an enabler of market engagement. Two studies linked this with the opportunity for greater social mobility (Campbell-Barr et al., 2010; Economist Intelligence Unit, 2012). The remaining studies which did not mention this function of ELC, highlighted in their silence, the many aspects of ELC’s evolving role which may be taken for granted then.

It is clear from the literature examined in this systematic search that the role of ELC is multifaceted and changing, with overwhelming evidence suggesting the changes have resulted in a greater focus on education which in turn is impacting the value placed on care. Therefore, it may not be surprising to learn that the role of ELC, while evolving is also contested. Several studies highlighted this, with the perception of both practitioners and parents captured within the studies, however notably none exploring the role from the child’s perspective. Of the papers that explored the parent or carers perspective, Brooker (2010) highlighted the view that as parents and carers pay for the service (although this is often subsidised) there was at times an expectation on the part of the parents that the role of ELC was to fulfil a service, which should be led by the consumer (parent). This may again link with Roger’s (2020) warning of the impact of neoliberal ideologies on the ELC setting. Brooker’s (2010) study then highlighted the lack of empathy between each stakeholder in appreciating the others’ position; though admittedly only included a small sample size therefore findings may not be generalisable. Despite this, similar findings were reported in both De Gioia’s (2013) study and Douglas & Gittell’s (2012) paper whereby it was stated that misunderstandings between each stake holder’s position leads to tensions. De Gioia’s (2013) study also highlighted contention even within those in similar positions; in one setting practitioners considered it their role to fulfil the mothering role in her absence, whereas others clearly rejected this notion stating their role was that of a friend (De Gioia, 2013). This exact tension was constructed in other literature; Van Laere et al. (2018) noted that a parent expressed, ‘A teacher to me is a bit like a mother to the children in the class’, a notion which was rejected by the practitioner in this situation who viewed the role as primarily to educate. One study also recognised that the role of ELC is poorly understood but associated this with the multifaceted role ELC is expected to play (Press et al., 2015).

In addition to expectations of role held by stakeholders causing tensions, at times the roles which ELC are expected to fulfil do not align. For example, Douglas & Gittell (2012) discuss being required to ‘care’ for children and families by embracing ‘person centred’, responsive care, while simultaneously being bound by professional parameters which require a uniform, procedural approach to responses.

The literature examined has identified contentions in expectation around the evolving role of ELC both between different stakeholders, and also within the same groups of stakeholders with added complexities including the need to work within sometimes conflicting policies.

This category was wide reaching and included subcategories such as care mentioned explicitly (Douglas & Gittell, 2012; Rogers, 2020), as well as intertwining with other subcategories in which care was implied. For example, building of relationships to provide continuity of care (De Gioia, 2013). Within this subcategory some studies (De Gioia, 2013) identified the need for personalisation of care and continuity of caring practices from the child’s home setting to ELC. For example, sleep times and feeding times which may not necessarily coincide with the setting’s ideal schedule. Notably, Winther-Lindqvist (2020) highlights that practices like routines involving care-giving activities, such as scheduled nappy changes are borne from ensuring a baseline of care, from which responsive, individualised care would be given in addition.

Other studies considered wellbeing from a deficit perspective, viewing it as the practitioner’s role to protect children from harm (Douglas & Gittell, 2012) rather than to support flourishing. Others made links to promotion of healthy development (Jovanovic et al., 2016) or discussed wellbeing in terms of enhanced provision for those with additional support needs (Jovanovic et al., 2016).

The National Quality Standard in Australia considered wellbeing from a holistic perspective, an approach supported by Van Laere et al. (2012), incorporating several elements outlined above including healthy development and care (ACECQA, 2018). Interestingly, this framework separated ‘children’s health and safety’ and ‘relationships with children’ with the former composing mainly of care giving tasks such as effective hygiene practices, and the latter including the likes of ‘warm, responsive and trusting relationships’ which are associated with wellbeing. Rogers (2020) study was the only study to use the term ‘allocare’ to describe the coexisting attachments which develop between primary carers and children and ELC practitioners and children simultaneously, stating that the effects of these attachments were not fully understood, however the importance of these for children was unquestionable.

Some studies provided specific examples of practice which supported wellbeing of children including Jovanovic et al., (2016) who noted observations, teamwork, programming and family liaison as contributing factors and Lofgren (2016) who critically discussed the place of documentation. Winther-Lindqvist (2020) shone light on the complexities associated with providing care and ensuring wellbeing for young children who are not yet verbal. The theme of ensuring wellbeing of children also extended to supporting transitions (European Commission, 2011; Little et al., 2016). When exploring the literature, the wider subcategory of wellbeing was used due to the wide reaching and multifaceted ideas discussed in the literature which in fact signifies the complex and dynamic view of care in ELC.

Building relationships with children was commonly cited in literature. Of the studies which discussed relationships with children, many did so in relation to attachments (Jovanovic et al., 2016). Some studies discussed a particular role, known as ‘key worker’ in relation to developing strong and secure attachments (Brooker, 2010). However, others represented this role as void, suggesting practitioners often did not know who their ‘key children’ were and viewed this more as a ‘paper exercise’. Similarly, Press et al. (2015) highlighted the limitations associated with a high rate of staff turnover often experienced in ELC settings when considering the importance of maintaining stable and consistent relationships. Interestingly, this turnover rate was linked to low status and associated conditions and pay in this study; which is one of the motivations behind the changing role and increased standardisation and professionalisation that is contributing to the confusion and ambiguity around the role in what appears to be a symbiotic, perpetual cycle. Similar findings were also reported by Rogers (2020), who included burnout to the contributing factors of high staff turnover.

Relationships with children were again entangled within other key themes, such as in effectively supporting child development and promotion of equity, inclusion and diversity and children’s rights (ACECQA, 2018). Jovanovic et al. (2016) discussed how effective relationships can promote communication with children, both verbal and non-verbal and Press et al. (2015) iterated that relationships and interactions are at the core of all ELC does.

The literature which was examined unanimously defended the importance of relationships in ELC, while highlighting some areas for consideration. Other studies (De Gioia, 2013) discussed the importance of the relationships with parents and carers in enabling a foundation of care and knowledge of the child, from which relationships with children could be built.

The role of developing effective, open and honest relationships with parents was also specifically discussed in the studies. The benefits of this were often linked to other aspects of the ELC role, such as wellbeing of the child (ACECQA, 2018) or indeed in clarifying contention around the role being fulfilled (De Gioia, 2013). Brooker (2010) suggested close communication with parents was most necessary for the youngest children attending the setting whereby key information such as nap time needed to be handed over. This finding was also supported by De Gioia (2013).

Some studies (De Gioia, 2013) distinguished between oral and written communication, citing both parents and practitioners recognised the benefit of oral communication, for example during drop off and pick up times; again feeding into the theme of wellbeing for the child. However, other studies suggested practitioners did not always recognise the value parental relationships could bring in terms of bridging information in terms of caring for the children (Van Laere et al., 2018) and others highlighted the unequal power distributions which occur when defining the means in which families can engage and the purposes for this, with the decisions largely being made without input from the families, coined a ‘democratic deficit’ (Van Laere et al., 2018). The literature has demonstrated once again the importance of relationships in ELC, however also highlighted a need to be aware of potential limitations such as unequal power relations which may influence the relations.

Jovanovic et al. (2016) discussed the role of developing effective interagency relationships and this related with the key theme of promoting wellbeing. This notion was also included in the European Commission (2011). While this was one of very few studies to mention interagency relationships explicitly, other studies noted the key role ELC plays in ‘bridging’ the transition to schooling, implying a professional relationship between ELC settings and school settings. This highlights the many elements of the ELC role which can be overlooked. Similarly, the importance of building relationships with the wider community is also highlighted. For example, in the Australian Quality framework (ACECQA, 2018).

The role of educating the child was also discussed in several studies (McShane, 2016; Van Laere et al., 2018). More formal, standardised learning was explored in Douglas et al., (2012) and Puccioni et al.’s (2020) studies, which both discuss the perceived role of ELC in preparing children for formal schooling. Education was also explored more broadly in other studies. For example, developing through play (Lofgren, 2016), or in the case of De Gioia’s (2013) study, in supporting the learning of English as an additional language to those children who were not native speakers. The European Commission (2011) tasked it ELC’s role to provide the foundations which would allow a child to flourish in future education, society and in the labour market; citing the importance of a provision which meets cognitive, social, emotional and physical needs of children attending. The importance placed on education is buttressed when examining quality frameworks for ELC, such as ACECQA (2018) which dedicates a section to education, covering curriculum, development and documentation. Several studies also highlighted the tensions which exist in a setting which simultaneously hopes to offer education and care (Douglas & Gittell, 2012; Lofgren, 2016) with all studies reporting on this suggesting education has a tendency to overshadow care due to the links with increased professionalisation occurring within the sector. Rogers (2020) notes that the standards against which ELC is judged aligns with a neoliberal discourse, which in fact may alienate those non-prescriptive practices which parents and children associate with positive care. This can be seen in the study by Van Laere et al. (2018) in which practitioners talk of the inconvenience of care giving. For example, changing nappies when attempting to meet educational outcomes. The authors of this study discuss this in terms of mind-body dualism, whereby the there is a separation in the conceptualisation of learning and caring in a way which is synonymous with Cartesian relativism. The literature examined identifies education as part of the role of ELC, while highlighting differences in opinion on what education should entail even within this role.

From the literature included in this study, it has been identified that the role of ELC is changing and contested but includes; building relationships to ensure the wellbeing of the child. According to the literature the role of ELC also involves education, though ideas of what this entails range from supporting development through child-led play, to more formal notions of education which can be tracked and monitored against standards. There are also aspects of the role of ELC which from the literature examined appear to be implicit, such as in enabling parents to return to work.

The first way in which care was presented in the literature, was care as a natural phenomenon. For example, Van Laere et al. (2018) discuss the term ‘embodied care’ describing this as a fundamental part of being human. Also appearing to assimilate into this definition is ‘care as a phenomenon’, including qualities such as attentiveness, physical acts of care and the feeling of belonging (Van Laere et al., 2018). Many studies that recognised this enactment of care in the understanding of their participants spoke of this limiting the sector in terms of professional status (Cook et al., 2016; Taggart, 2011). This definition of care was often linked to the female gender role (Taggart, 2014) and often limited to actions associated with meeting physical needs. The undervalued role was sometimes compounded by the differentiation between teachers and teaching aides in some countries (Press et al., 2015). For example, in the aforementioned study, the context of Australia is considered, whereby the highly valued educational element was associated with the role of the teacher, and the ‘care’ elements associated with the lesser-paid teaching aides. Similar findings were apparent in Van Laere et al.’s (2018) study in Belgium, whereby there was separation of caring and education responsibilities also, with teachers responsible for education, in exchange for higher remuneration than the teaching assistants who were largely responsible for the caring roles. Interestingly within this study, there was a tendency for teachers to reject the role of care as part of their professional identity. This is a finding which has not been replicated in ELC settings that do not have the differentiation between teachers and teaching aides or assistants. At times the notion of care best suited to this theme was also overlapping with other related concepts such as love (Aslanian, 2015) and maternalism (Nolan, 2020). While there were slight variations in some of the definitions given above, the underlying theme was that care was a natural quality.

Conversely, care was specifically connected to the context of a profession in some theoretical studies (Aslanian, 2015; Duffy et al., 2015; Goouch et al., 2017; Harwood et al., 2013) and was linked to the work of Noddings (1992). While it was stated that professional care drew upon natural care ideals, there was a separation. Care in this definition was described as relational and featured components such as ‘motivational displacement’ and ‘engrossment’. Interestingly, Douglas & Gittell (2012) discussed professional care in terms of relationships with the wider family as well as for the child attending the setting, however noted the ever-increasing bureaucracy associated with the role of ELC as a barrier to effective practitioner-parent/carer caring relations for these individuals, but also for the children, noting the shift in power relations associated with professionalisation. In addition to this, Douglas & Gittell (2012) noted the explicit or implicit boundaries which were identified by practitioners when discussing care within the profession. For example, not being able to drive a family home. When considering care as relational, Van Laere et al. (2018) discussed the symbiotic relationship which exists between the relationship and care giving, stating that the act of caring can produce a closer relationship, which in turn can allow for a greater tuning into the needs of the parties in the relationship, thus producing better caring interactions. Taggart (2011) also discussed care as professional in his study and likened the professional care present in ELC to that of other caring professions such as nursing, arguing care is a legitimate, important and professional dimension of the role. Common features of the definitions included in the ‘professional care’ then include parameters separating care within the professional context from care out with the job role.

On some occasions, care was not explicitly defined (Taggart, 2011). This links with the discussion above, again implying it is a natural phenomenon with no need to define parameters. In other studies which explored the role of ELC, care – an essential component – was notably missing from the participants’ responses. Lofgren (2016) described this as a ‘noisy silence’ and Löfdahl et al., (2015) described care as ‘invisible’; both suggesting this demonstrated the overlooked and undervalued place of care in ELC.

An empirical study conducted by Aslanian (2017) presented care as situational as well as relational and encouraged the recognition of all acts which contribute to a life of flourishing as care. Despite being a small-scale study, this author is established in this specific field and with this in mind the findings hold weight. In a further study, Aslanian (2020) also argues, this definition of care moves away from the connotations of the female gender role, identified in other definitions of care. For example, care as natural, which can be seen as limiting. Though using a different term, Van Laere et al. (2018) describe care in similar terms, including all acts which contribute to wellbeing as care, naming this ‘embodied care’. This definition may be seen to have crossovers with natural care also, as the authors describe embodied care as ‘part of being human’. Certainly, the notion of care embracing wider elements is supported in quality frameworks such as ACECQA (2018) who emphasise the importance of the environment in enabling the child to flourish.

In several studies it was recognised that the understanding of care had changed and was continuing to change (Cook et al., 2016); a theme which is also apparent when considering the various definitions of care outlined above. This was generally positioned positively and in alignment with greater recognition of care (Aslanian, 2015). However, Cook et al.’s (2016) study on policy analysis suggested that care which is aligned to quality assurance standards may only be valued more highly as a result of the alignment with traditionally more ‘masculine’ constructs, thus not addressing the crux of the matter. Nolan (2020) also warned that the ever-changing understanding of care internationally poses problems in terms of enacting care in practice, as married to changing conceptualisations is confusion and ambiguity. This notion may be seen to be supported when considering parents and carers expressed a desire to be more greatly involved with ELC with motivations mainly around wishing to learn more about care practices in ELC (Van Laere et al., 2018). Equally, confusions around how care should be enacted reiterate the contention around this changing concept. For example, in more than one study care was deemed to be ‘like a mother’ (De Gioia, 2013; Van Laere et al., 2018), with variations on this definition ranging to the almost complete rejection of care as part of the educative role (Van Laere et al., 2018).

Several variations of care were constructed from the literature, and within these broad categories, were further variations still. The concept of care as changing was a common theme in the literature and one which has made its presence felt within this section of the literature review. Which acts are or are not deemed care in ELC then will depend on which definition of care is held.

Continuity is a thread which runs throughout the subsequent subcategories as well as being worthy of a subcategory individually. Generally, continuity has been associated with greater stability during transition (Turunen, 2012). However, one study in particular expressed the parents’ desire for continuity of care during transitions (Van Laere et al., 2018). This was also considered to include liaising with other professional services with which the child or family may already be familiar, thus allowing for another dimension of familiarity during a period of transition (Warren et al., 2016).

Continuity of routine was also considered important (ACECQA, 2018), this then links with developing professional relationships with parents and carers who can share home practices which can be adopted in ELC. The issue of continuity can also be seen to relate back to previous discussions on the role of ELC and the definition of care however, as in aiming to provide greater continuity during transitions; practices and pedagogies more commonly associated with school may begin to be adopted in ELC settings in attempts to prepare children for the transition to school (Turunen, 2012). Indeed, this appears to be the focus in some quality guidance documentation, for example: ACECQA (2018). This is justified when considering the conception of transition as ongoing, rather than a one-off event, a notion captured in the works of Puccioni et al., (2020). However, the need to consider transitions out with the dominant ELC-school transition has become apparent, as transitions occur all across and throughout ELC, and not simply from ELC to school. Continuity was a common theme emerging in the literature and was wide reaching in its application.

Rogers (2020) study noted that transitions can be eased when ‘protective factors’ are present, which can help mitigate against potential negative effects of transition. One such protective factor is a secure and familiar relationship with a key figure. This allows for stability for both the child and parent, as well as a foundation of knowledge on the part of the practitioner about the child. Building on this, Warren et al. (2016) highlighted the value placed by practitioners on person centred planning, particularly for those who may need enhanced provision. The importance of an individualised approach to transition was also captured in Turunen’s (2012) study, however complications around the views of parents and practitioners were also highlighted, stating benefits are not always appreciated by all parties and that greater communication will be needed to ensure a collegiate approach to make this most effective.

Orientation events, as discussed in Little et al. (2016) can be seen to support transitions in terms of providing greater familiarity of the space, key adults and routines. The benefits of the child and family establishing familiarity with the setting was further supported as positive practice by practitioners in terms of supporting transitions in other studies (Warren et al., 2016) where the familiarity this provided was linked with a greater sense of trust and feelings of belonging (Turunen, 2012). The importance of this, according to Little et al. (2016) is that it acknowledges transition is an ongoing process, involving the child’s wider ecosystems also.

Jovanovic (2011) noted that some parents and children engaged in a similar routine during the drop off to ELC, involving hanging up bags, or in a goodbye ritual such as waving the parent goodbye. This too can be seen to provide some form of familiarity (Ferretti et al., 2017) and is also encouraged in quality guidance (ACECQA, 2018). The benefits of a predictable routine have also been highlighted in relation to situations with stress (Ferretti et al., 2017) and in this way any stress associated with transitions may be buffered by familiarity of a routine also.

Jovanovic (2011) noted some of the ways in which parent-practitioner relationships were developed involved the informal exchange of information about the child at transition times. Information was usually ‘passed over’ to the person who was going to have the child in their care, from the person who had been with the child. On a similar vein, information sharing before a child started a setting between the parent or carer and the practitioners was seen as beneficial from the perspective of the practitioners (Warren et al., 2016) with Little et al. (2016) specifying examples of this such as sending information home to parents. This is interesting as this describes the giving of information in a unilateral direction, rather than the sharing of information and may also hint at a power dynamic which is in favour of the practitioners, worth noting. The benefits of a collaborative approach to transitions were also captured by Turunen (2012), who highlighted the benefits in terms of supporting the parents own transitions associated with ELC. The same study highlighted the need to be aware of the power relations which can exist in these interactions, with the status largely considered to be held by the educator. Studies also included the importance of practitioner-parent/carer relationships when supporting the transitions to formal education from ELC, suggesting ELC practitioners can act as a ‘bridge’ (Puccioni et al., 2020). This itself implies a relationship between ELC practitioners and teachers in schools. Collaboration was a common theme and one that included collaboration with the child, family and wider professionals.