'When changes are so rapid and so radical we should be prepared for a degree of contention before common understandings begin to emerge.... professional views can become polarised.'

(Editorial Early Years Journal, Autumn 1999:5)

The focus of this research is concerned with eliciting the thinking of early years educators regarding their professional and practical knowledge. The phrase 'early years educators' is increasingly used to encompass a range of people who educate young children - for example, teachers in foundation stage units, reception classes and nursery schools, playgroup leaders, private day-care managers and nursery nurses. Educators of young children have roles which require them to develop expertise in a wide range of capabilities, which include management issues, forming appropriate working relationships with their client group of adults and children, negotiating with a range of different agencies. Early years professionalism has come to involve specific expertise, including practical knowledge of child development, early years principles, pedagogy and the processes of learning. Practitioners' job descriptions cannot be limited to just the delivery of subject based knowledge.

There is evidence that the educators of young children are concerned with providing a developmentally appropriate curriculum, which ensures quality of provision and equality of access for all children to preschool education. Contemporary research regarding early years educators' expertise includes studies by Blenkin and Yue (1994); Pascal and Bertram (1997); Bennett et al. (1997); Anning and Edwards (1999); Sylva et al (1997-2004); Munn (1994); Lucas (2000); Wood (2001); and Moyles (2001). The scope and understanding of educators of early years issues and their beliefs and knowledge, were demonstrated in the testimonies given to the House of Commons Select Committee (2000/2001). However, until recently, many of those most directly responsible for the education of young children have felt disenfranchised. Campbell and Neill (1994) held the view that early years teachers were too conscientious for their own good and were a malleable predominantly female workforce exploited by predominantly male policy makers. Keyes (1999) and Meade (1999) examined the early childhood teacher's voice in early childhood education asserting that 'what's missing from the knowledge base for teaching ... are the voices of teachers themselves' (Cochran-Smyth and Lytle 1990:2 in Keyes 1999:1). Practitioners need 'to apply this knowledge to their practice and ensure their work is at the forefront of professional knowledge' (Pascal and Bertram House of Commons Evidence 2000/2001, EY 82:3).

During the last decade many early years practitioners have raised concerns about early years provision (indications signalled by early years educators on in-service courses at Bradford College). The main worries of early years practitioners have been the projected effects of the implementation of a National Curriculum and the shift towards subject teaching for young children (Anning 1991, 1996, 1999). As the stresses to meet the demands impacted from primary education filtered down from schools into nurseries and early years provision, many early years educators believed that they were losing opportunities to be creative, autonomous professionals. Early years is now at the forefront of educational change in the United Kingdom since the introduction of the Foundation Stage (QCA/DfES 2000). The emphasis on a play-based curriculum is now strongly promoted. However, are early practitioners still receiving diverse messages and are there common critical issues and policy decisions that affect their practice?

Changes in primary education have created pressure and affected the confidence, self-esteem and status of early years educators (David (1993); Pascal (1996); Engel (1990); Bennett (1992). Blenkin and Kelly (1994:40) attributed these professional tensions to be a direct consequence of difficulties faced by teachers trying to meet 'the requirements of the law, whilst also trying to protect young children from the effects of summative assessment.' Recent studies on how teachers manage change during implementation of multiple innovations include Woods (1988; 1995); MacGilchrist et al.1995); Fullan and Hargreaves (1992). Blenkin and Hutchin's (1998) survey included many statements from head-teachers that 'early years staff felt threatened, frightened for the future and under-valued' (1998:74). Change is a complex process which is unsettling (Page 2000) and which impacts on different individuals in different ways (McClelland and Varma 1996). Teachers have to deal with the issues that are forced upon them from policy driven agendas (Desforges 2001). Coping with change and adapting professional practice has been a key concern since the introduction of SCAA's desirable learning outcomes (Edwards 2000).

Munn (1994), Bennett et al.(1996) and David (2000) indicate that teachers and other early childhood educators need continuing professional development, to improve professional practice through which practitioners gain confidence in their own professionalism and decision-making (Blenkin and Yue 1994). Teachers have a contractual obligation to update their skills and knowledge on a regular basis, but they need support and the opportunities to extend and develop their expertise. Only recently has early years been targeted as a key area and the Teacher Training Agency is now exploring 'ways of supporting the professional development of teachers working in the early years' (TTA 21.3.00 website). The GTC has made the continuing professional development of all teachers a key priority, to enhance professional knowledge and pedagogic practice, manage change and pursue personal and professional development' (DfEE website December 2000). The most effective provision that will impact on the profession is when individuals use their own relevant knowledge and ideas, which will enhance self-confidence and encourage reflection on their own teaching (Lee:2000 NFER website).

At the BERA Conference (2002) a key theme emerging from several of the presentations [early years, pedagogical perspectives and professionalism]was the contention between the 'rhetoric and reality' in early years education. There was a contrast between the researchers' opinions regarding the reliability of their interviewees' articulated beliefs being actually implemented in practice. Anning's research (2002:2) reflected on what practitioners espouse contrasted to their 'beliefs in action', indicating a disparity between rhetoric and practice, aspiration and action. She observed that practitioners theorise through generalising with their beliefs and value systems based on personal histories, culture and experience and that these form rhetoric from practitioners, with values often related to centre policy. Siraj-Blatchford et al.(2002:3) found that the most effective settings encouraged 'sustained shared thinking' but that it did not happen very frequently and 'that early years staff may need support in developing their pedagogical content knowledge.' The SPEEL Project (Moyles et al. 2002:2) collated a 'plethora of data about practitioners' perceptions of the constituents of effective early years pedagogy and the characteristics of the effective pedagogue,' probing into practitioners' 'underpinning perceptions, principles and philosophies to establish the effects of these upon the types of practice'. Harnett and Newman (2002:11) ascertained that the teachers in their sample 'were able to articulate the pedagogy, which underpinned their aims quite clearly,' as did Kostopoulou and Wray (2002). Moyles (2001:81) has demonstrated that when working in partnership with researchers, 'different groups of early years practitioners have shown themselves able to engage in high level, critical (and passionate!) reflection on their own practices, to link associated theory and to challenge political prescription'.

Historically there were difficulties in the field of early education in producing reliable and persuasive evidence for the activities of its practitioners [Katz 1985]. There is therefore a need for a strong emphasis on the potential for reflection on practice and professional learning and development [Hughes and Menmuir 2002]. This aim of the ensuing research has been to explore the most effective way of eliciting early years educators' thinking about their professional role and practice.

This research has been concerned with eliciting the professional and practical knowledge of a group of early years' educators across three Local Education Authorities in West Yorkshire. Profiles have been compiled and analysed to biography their 'personal' dispositions and 'professional' avenues into early years education.

Their 'voices' have been acquired through a range of methodologies. These included constructing time lines, continuing professional development questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, reflective interviews on practice captured on video, focus group meetings. The findings revealed insights into perceptions and practice in the early years regarding the educators' knowledge domains, beliefs and practice.

The Early Years Educators are:- nursery nurses, reception / foundation stage teachers, nursery head-teacher, independent school headteacher, private day-care managers in work place and community based nurseries, lecturers in Further and Higher Education. They will be referred to as NN1; NN2; RT1; RT2; FSTs[I and 2]; HT1; HIS; MPDC; MSS; LFE; LHE.

The use of computers for basis content analysis of text became popular as far back as the 1960's and specialised packages for qualitative data analysis were introduced from the early 1980's [Silverman 2000:154]. In his opinion the advantages of Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software [CAQDAS] include speed at handling large volumes of data, improvement of rigour, facilitation of team research and the development of consistent coding schemes [Silverman 2000:155]. The CAQDAS Networking Project, funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council, aims to disseminate information about choosing and using a range of software programmes. The project also provides a variety of media, where the debate surrounding associated methodological and epistemological issues can take place. It is possible to download presentations and demonstration versions of software such as Nudist, NVIVO, ATLAS, WINMAX and STATVIEW. Loxley [1999] stated that the use of computer software packages depends not only on the kind of data collected, but also on personal preference. Traditional ways of working with scissors, glue and highlighter pens may not just suit the technophobes, but may also be more efficient depending on the data gathered and the type of analysis undertaken. Loxley [1999] used the 'tool box' metaphor coined by Robson [1994] that it is necessary for the researcher to select the most appropriate tool for the task. Fielding [1991] examined the software available for CAQDAS, giving the researcher good advice on what may be suitable. He stated that it may not be the answer to every qualitative research problem and that it is a tool that should be examined for suitability for the researcher's purpose [Lee and Fielding 1991]. 'Many qualitative researchers regard that the use of software poses a threat to the craft skills of a long-established research tradition' and that superficial analysis may occur if mechanical procedures are followed slavishly [Fielding 1991]. The software available for CAQDAS is largely related to a grounded theory approach. Durkin [1997 in Miller and Dingwall [1997: 98] also examine the using of computers in strategic qualitative research, stating that qualitative data analysis [QDA] can keep better track of data, help develop and test interview questions and schedules, test theories, preserve and analyse rhetoric and actions. CAQDAS is able to make research easier and better, through the constant presentation of data content and contexts, the ability to retrieve coded data quickly and accurately, and in enabling researchers to redefine their work, map and chart data. Durkin in Miller and Dingwall [1997: 98] determined that the best approach is to first identify the software that can do what you want and then buy the hardware that runs the software

WINMAX is a powerful tool for the analysis of text-based qualitative data. It has applications in many academic and non-academic disciplines including: sociology, political science, psychology, public health, anthropology, education and urban planning. It is designed to enable researchers to make sense of complex qualitative data, such as narrative interviews, focus groups, unstructured interviews, case histories, field notes, observation protocols, document letters and other written material. The interviews needed to be preformatted into Rich Text Format and imported into the WINMAX programme. WINMAX's screen is comprised of four main windows showing the texts already imported, the list of codes, the list of coded segments and the text itself. The researcher then creates a hierarchical code (category) system [which can be up to ten levels]. Text segments are then selected and codes or subcodes assigned from the code system. A segment may be categorised with more then one code. Discourse [eliciting thinking] is very complicated and more than one code may be used in the initial processing. Later decisions had to be made as to the 'best fit' of code. This occurred when sorting the segments into tables of interests in order that there was no duplication in the analysis and discussion of the main findings. There is a system to facilitate a search for word and strings or combinations of words or strings in the texts or subgroups of texts, which enables a double check on the coding system. At times this was extremely useful to see if particular features such as 'courses', 'development' 'play' and 'families' had been coded appropriately and was a very useful tool for checking the researcher's interviewing process. It also demonstrated that simplistic word searches cannot match the need for qualitative interpretation. Memos may be attached to every code to keep track of the code's definition or for the researcher to make ongoing notes about the process.

Every time a segment is highlighted with a code it is termed a 'hit' and this is recorded in the 'list of codes' in the window of WINMAX, demonstrating the number of hits [the number of times a text is highlighted with a code] followed by the number of words highlighted overall. Hits are not word counts - they are chunks of meaning, topic which may or may not include the word selected. Just because an interviewee does not talk about a specific code [subject] it does not mean that it is not of interest or relevance. It may not be included due to the issues arising in the discourse; time; focus at that moment; the researcher's questioning skills. A word search - the number of times a word is mentioned - is too simplistic. For example the word 'qualification' was mentioned 18 times in all the texts, yet there was a total of 42 coded hits. Conversely the word 'Course' occurred 113 times in 1 text, but it has several different lexical functions including 'of course.' It is also not possible to differentiate regarding the number of words the interviewees use - the length of 'chunk' or 'segment' and simplistic quantification of wordage cannot account for the seriousness of the focus or the nature of an interviewees' style of discourse. Therefore a 'hit' does not limit a particular chunk of discourse to one specific 'hit' but allows a spread of thinking / theme. If the participants had been informed that they had not mentioned a specific aspect - such as 'enjoyment,' 'staff' or 'role' they would perhaps find it surprising and state it would certainly be an interest or concern if they had thought about it at the time of the interview. The discourse was coded for the strongest element of content to the 'best fit' possible.

There is a difference between organising the data and analysing the data. Both are very important, but many researchers often mistake the former for the later - thinking that the organising is equivalent to the analysis. After several months of organising the interview data in a variety of ways the researcher needs to determine how much of this has been engaged in the process of analysis. It is crucial to acknowledge and ascertain the distinction. Without engaging fully in a process of deep analysis, the researcher will not fulfil the aims of achieving original empirical work. Analysis can occur during the organisation as the researcher becomes very familiar with the data and engages in a thinking process, keeping notes not only on methodological aspects but also in what the data is evidencing. WINMAX was extremely useful in organising the data, in coding and correlating. It was excellent in enabling the application of the codes - singular and multiple to the interviews, in producing lists of codes for each interviewee and all extracts under a single code. However it became necessary to revisit the data and undertake a process of decision making as to specific codes to correlate these into tables under the apposite headings. This perhaps could have been effected through WINMAX but it became much more appropriate to do this through a process of selection and cutting and pasting each quotation. This facilitated more subtlety in the organisation, became the process of analytical thinking and enabled the researcher to gain strong familiarity with all of the quotations. It also ensured that there was no overlap and determined the best fit for each coded segment. The coding through WINMAX had required the researcher's interpretation this further stage of the process facilitated and required the researcher to make more subtle links between the data sets.

Since completing all the coding and organising and analysing the data sets in WINMAX, a week was spent copying and pasting content into the tables. Much time was exhausted at the computer attempting to print the tables in a concise format. Whilst these procedures enabled a very thorough familiarity with the data and knowledge and understanding of the codes and application, in terms of efficiency of time for correlating the data it could have been much quicker. It is highly important for the researcher to focus on the research questions at regular periods to ensure that the organisation, thinking and analysis do not stray from the prime purpose of the research focus. This is always worrying and it is very easy for it to occur. As one gets entrenched in undertaking the organisation of the data at each level, it becomes addictive and assumes an importance that each level must be completed. Whilst this is motivating and fulfils a sense of accomplishment at each level of the process, it can detract from the prime purpose. Researchers always amass far more data than is useful and on average, the analytical process takes three times longer than expected. Therefore, whilst analysing the data the researcher needs to examine and reflect on the interviewees' responses to determine the commonalities and differences regarding the three key areas of Professional Issues; Curriculum and Pedagogy; Working Relationships. The research questions are focused around critical issues; coping with change and how educators evidence their professional / practical knowledge. Are they saying the same things, where are the typologies, how and about what does their thinking converge?

The interviews were coded, retrieved from WINMAX as extracts, which were then allocated into interest tables according to the 'best fit', ensuring only one segment / quote went into a table. The extracts were selected from the 10+ hits with the 'verbatim' quotes sorted, destroyed and regrouped. All the stages of categorising were then revisited - from the interview transcripts, the initial concept maps; key words; key themes; WINMAX codes; extract lists for codes and interviewees; count of hits table, continually revisiting WINMAX to check specific themes and hits. The necessity of attaching several different codes to the interviews began to pay dividends as although the quotes occurred in different tables, it ensured researcher familiarity and enabled a justification and accountability within the research process as a selection of 'best fit' is made - selecting key aspects, cutting, reorganising and pasting for specific purposes. The beauty of WINMAX is being able to revisit and to make alterations, to interrogate the data, to question, evaluate and reflect on the data sets coding. In this way there is a continual process of cross checking. The philosophy of grounded theory states that revisiting will occur, the researcher cannot appreciate that this will really be the case in practice. As the data is analysed questions arise - of quantity, validity, and accuracy - and there is a reluctant need to again go back to the CAQDAS to check the coding. Reluctance because of a worry that data / coding may become invalid / inaccurate, worry that the researcher may have changed an opinion in the space of passing time, that the quantification may need altering and that conclusions are being drawn from 'hits' regarding critical issues.

The topics raised by the participants resulted in the application of 96 codes. These demonstrated the areas of interest arising through the interviews. The coded aspects were then collated into the three themes of Professionalism [Prof]; Working relationships [WR] and Curriculum and Pedagogy [C & P]. These three themes comprised of discourse relating to:

The allocation and quantification of the codes to the discourse demonstrated where the participants' interests were located and what key issues were raised in the interviews.

This resulted in theme of professionalism gained a majority of 40 codes, which were grouped as follows:

Thirty three codes were organised within the theme of Working relationships:

Curriculum and pedagogy contained the following 23 codes:

A 'quantification of the hits demonstrated the interests and concerns of the participants.

The initial and immediate reactions on undertaking the interviews, listening to the tapes and reading the transcripts were that the responses were highly interesting and valuable. All the early years educators involved in the research were articulate and communicated information regarding their roles and practice. They appeared to be confident in what they were doing, demonstrated that they enjoyed their jobs; were very aware about professional and practical aspects, could discuss both curriculum and pedagogy; were concerned with training - in particular appropriate training - and undertook continual professional development in a variety of forms. The key responses from the research questions occurred naturally in the main in the educators' narratives. The participants proffered their thinking and personal views and seemed to need little prompting. Analysis of the key interests was undertaken, reflecting on the thoughts of the interviewees. For the purpose of this presentation there will be a focus on 'professionalism' and 'professional / practical knowledge'.

The participants perceived themselves as professional, however there were differences in opinion as to how they were perceived by the public and other teachers as professionals as early years. An initial concept map around 'professional' achieved the following ideas:

Professionalism was the theme that raised the most hits and was of interest to all the participants. In fact out of all the codes and themes it occurred that mainly aspects of 'Professionalism' were discussed by all of the participants. To some extent this will be because the researcher promoted discussion around status and perception as professionals. However this does not really account for the amount of attention that was given to the subject -there was a total of 45 hits from all the participants, who addressed the topic from 2 - 7 hits. However in none of the interviews did the researcher actually introduce the topics of Qualifications [42 hits], Training [67 hits] or Appropriate Training [37 hits]. The word search in WINMAX applied to the interviews evidenced the word stem profession [could be profession; professional; professionalism] occurred 76 times. The codes allotted that were categorised as professionalism were sorted under the following sub heading codes: of Change, CPD, Personal, Public Perception, Professional knowledge, Confidence, Professional Support, Skills. The following codes received 10+ hits - Acclaim; Appropriate training; Change; Collegiate; Commitment; Courses; Development; Enjoyment; Expertise; Interest; Pay; Practical knowledge; Pressure; Professionalism; Qualifications; Role; Significant mentor; Staff development; Status; Training; Value. When the sub codes with a significant number of hits were organised into tables, it transpired that all of the 'professionalism' key headings were included.

At the beginning of the focus group interview, after an informal introductory chat, the participants began to share opinions as a group - these were professionals again discussing what interested them - what was common ground; cause and effect of change and influence; their connected issues. They had been informed that they had similar interests and concerns and that they had talked a lot about professional issues in the individual interviews. Most of them considered that their LEAs [there were four represented within this group] and their schools took early years seriously. There was a view that most people do not realise how complicated the roles are, including inspectors and advisors, when new officers became employed, and the disseminating process needed to be continual. They agreed that information about the professionalism and the complicated nature of the job needed to be disseminated to parents. There was acknowledgement of the benefits of the job when parents recognise what the children have achieved, when they themselves say they now understand about the learning processes, which makes the job fulfilling and empowering. During the focus group meeting the LHE asserted that early years educators now had confidence in themselves as professionals, confident in the delivery, the pedagogy, being observed and working as part of a team and with other professionals. She compared this to teachers in schools, who have had their professionalism and confidence eroded during the last few years, having been have been told how to teach through the provisions of schemes of work in the NNS and NLS and they were now downloading lessons from the web. She believes that it could be very tantalising for teachers to accept this control, when they have busy routines and no longer have the professional freedom to decide what curriculum best suits their children. LFE on the other hand had a feeling that teachers in schools were now regarding themselves as professional educators, with high standards aiming to have a high level of pupil achievement through quality learning, through delivering a fantastic curriculum. RT1 offered a different perspective during her first interview, stating that, in general, she did not feel that teaching is perceived as such a highly viewed profession as it used to be, mainly because of the criticism given by the government and by the British media. However she felt that she dealt with things professionally and she regarded teaching as a profession. NN1stated that she tried to be professional in everything she does, but stated that 'obviously a nursery nurse's role is not seen as a profession'. NN2 felt he was treated as a professional by the nursery coordinator and that the staff had a good morale and were actively encouraged to participate in the planning and running of the nursery.

What is professional knowledge - does it mean that which has credibility through qualifications, promotive posts, status, or academic theory. Does it mean the educators are articulate, that they 'sound' knowledgeable or professional? Where does professional knowledge stop and practical knowledge begin? It is problematic to separate the two. Reflection and evaluation are obviously important components to demonstrate professional views on practical experience. However once practitioners have organised resources, children, and curriculum and can state why, when and how, then is this not professional knowledge?

On revisiting the sub headings, why had the 'practical knowledge' been organised under 'confidence'? 'Articulate' had been hard to code on specific quotes in the discourse, but in actuality 'articulate' became the overall impression of these early years educators. They were confident and could demonstrate their expertise and competence verbally. Did the heading of confidence, therefore, need embedding in expertise? Practical knowledge needed revisiting for these sections to become more amalgamated and integrated. Why was appropriate training connected to practical knowledge under the sub code of confidence and not categorised under professional knowledge? It became necessary to undertake a comparison to appropriate training, practical knowledge and expertise - do they overlap? The analysis of the codes had caused this debate about the codings, which was bound to have arisen due to the complicated nature of this particular aspect.

NN1 stated that everything related to child development - she had begun to realise that what she had learnt at college could be seen in practice; she linked professional knowledge to expertise in practice. It became surprising that a code of child development had not been applied during the coding process, as NN1 had stated, this was at the heart of all early years practice and the majority of all early years educators would not dispute this. However, again this was a topic that permeated many of the other codes, it had been 'dispersed' throughout aspects of curriculum and pedagogy, professionalism and working relationships. It was the underpinning theme that affected the practice in the settings. The next step was to return to all the interviews and search for child development knowledge - had it been included? Child development is a crucial element of professional and practical knowledge- how to determine between which is which - how to recognise the crux of the distinctions? In reflection it can be seen that there has been no discrimination between the two 'knowledges', they are so intertwined, which is why there is this difficulty to define and make a decision to categorise them separately. Professional and practical knowledge permeate the themes of professionalism, curriculum and pedagogy, working relationships. There are probably few people working with young children today, who have not previously gained professional knowledge - nearly everyone in the early years sector will have pursued and acquired, or be in the process of pursuing some sort of qualification.

These early years educators offer their thinking through aspects of their knowledge which is based on experience, theory and intuition. NN1 recognised the particular needs that the children had in her early years unit. The majority were South Asian, speaking English as an additional language. Many of the children had not attended a nursery, as the feeder nursery was some distance way from the school and many parents did not seem willing to send them because it was too far. She acknowledged that the preschool years is an important stage of development and that the children desperately needed the early experiences of playing and socialising, as not many of the parents get out in the community. NN1 thinks it is very important for practitioners to know everything about child development [acknowledgement of practical knowledge as well as professional knowledge]. When she was at college she had studied the nature of child development and studied the theories behind certain practices. At that time she had not realised that you needed it work with children, but experience had shown her that observations of children enabled her to analyse the learning processes 'when you see a child doing something and it clicks and you think, oh, that's what they're talking about'. MPDC agreed 'if you've got eyes to see then you see them, you see' and she felt pleased that there is now much acknowledgement of practical knowledge. RT1 had a worry that observers, including Ofsted, may not have enough early years knowledge to understand the practice as someone who does not could totally misinterpret it. NN2 also discussed the importance of practical knowledge of early years practice, and that early years educators need to continually having to think of new ways of doing things and that the essence of the early learning goals are about being practical but also creative in what you're doing with the children and trying to stimulate them in as many sensory ways as you can as well as the traditional ways. The FSTs were confident that they knew what and why and how - that they had the answers to the questions to justify their practice. LFE used to teach an to an integrated day which suited his style of teaching, but he felt he struggled with supporting individual children tackle learning so offered a curriculum that was almost exclusively learning through drama or curriculum areas, and considered he did a partially successful job. He had always been interested more in ideas and in people, but was now looking at theories of learning and it was illuminating what he already knew. He felt that his knowledge was based on his practical experiences of teaching and parenting, but now looking for the underpinning knowledge about what he was doing retrospectively. He believed his brain, like everybody's, was a bit like a computer that stores and files information which he organises in and accesses from different folders and files.

Trawling through all the quotes the realisation of the wealth of detail and aspects covered in the interviews is very apparent. They are all aspects they wanted to talk about articulately and knowledgeably; they are remarkably honest and open; they are keen and interested to talk about these issues that are important to their everyday work - to their profession; they are very involved in what they do; they have a wide range of knowledge These educators have donated their words; their thoughts; their ideas and their expertise - a valuable gift. It is one thing to talk out loud but another to have the words written down for perpetuity - they are no longer ephemeral - they are there for all to see. They become different when they are written down. The educators needed to affirm their professionalism; their value; knowledge, expertise and status. The participants were articulate and represented a reflective generation. All in all, there was quite a diverse set of routes into early years education exhibited by this group of early years educators, who were now very committed to working in the Foundation Stage. They were interesting people and dedicated practitioners, who demonstrated a need to enjoy their profession. Most have not drifted into the field of early years - they have a breadth of experience before they opted to become early years educators. As one head-teacher stated - 'It's quite interesting how you chose what you're going to do'.