Introduction

It is morning and children are arriving at kindergarten. Carriages are lined up in the corner of a “play kitchen”. Two-year-old Matti arrives at kindergarten. He wanders around, observes the children arriving, and starts playing in the play kitchen. Nearby, other children are reading books with the teacher. After a moment, Matti grabs a wooden carriage and starts moving around the kindergarten (Fig. 1).

(Story 1)

Fig. 1
figure 1

The carriages

Full size image

This small story of everyday life in early childhood education (ECE) above invites the reader to follow what happens to a child with a doll carriage from the viewpoint of child participation. The research material comprises video recordings obtained over two days at a Finnish kindergarten. Our research is inspired by Löw’s (2008) and Massey’s (2005) theories of space and new materialist aspects (e.g., Hultman & Lenz Taguchi, 2010; Sumsion et al., 2018). Drawing from these theoretical ideas, we approach child participation as a relational, rather than individual, phenomenon. We understand child participation in ECE as a space that emerges continuously in various combinations of social, material and cultural relations. Our interest is not only in people’s actions, but also ‘in the diverse weave mass between people, material and structures’ (Viljamaa et al., 2017, p. 4).

Based on recent narrative childhood studies (e.g., Juutinen, 2018; Karjalainen, 2021), we employ a holistic view that emphasizes the active and embodied nature of young children’s narration. We consider children as already complete and being, and also becoming with their environment (see Corsaro, 2015; Prout, 2011). Along similar lines, Sumsion and colleagues (2018) have described how children are doing space in their everyday activities by being, doing, and interacting with their human and non-human environments (see also Nordtømme, 2012). Further, the material environment and artefacts play a vital role in children’s lives (Sumsion et al., 2018). Based on this notion, in our study, the doll carriage represents the lens through which we view how children do space of participation in the ECE setting.

Our aim is to deepen understanding of child participation in ECE by exploring child participation as a space in a child’s everyday life. The role of the teacher is significant for child participation as a space, and therefore, further exploration of child participation from the viewpoint of children’s other relationships in ECE is important (Ylikörkkö, 2022). Here, we focus on children’s relations with their environment by exploring the small stories of children under three years of age, guided by the research question ‘How do children do space of participation with material items of everyday life in ECE?’.

Child Participation as a Space in ECE

Child participation has been a topical theme in societal and educational discussions internationally for decades (e.g., Correia et al., 2021; Ree & Emilson, 2019). Similar to some other countries, child participation is a core principle of the ECE curriculum in Finland (see National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood and Care in Finland, 2022). However, despite its topicality, child participation often remains at the level of rhetoric in ECE practices (e.g., Bae, 2009; Theobald, 2019; Venninen et al., 2014), and research on participation from the child’s perspective has been scarce (e.g., Ree et al., 2019).

Based on Löw’s (2008) and Massey’s (2005) theories, we approach child participation as a space that emerges in various relationships within ECE. The space is open-ended and always in process, and there exist, simultaneously, multiple spaces (Löw, 2008; Massey, 2005). Human action is vital for the creation of a space, but relationships are not limited to humans; rather, spaces emerge in the web of social, material and cultural relationships (Löw, 2008; Massey, 2005). Further, the space is shaped through everyday practices (Massey, 2005). When people are doing space, they (re)organize different elements, such as social relations, material items, places, cultural rules and routines, values, and curriculum, both consciously and unconsciously (see Löw, 2008). Similarly, children have an influence in and are influenced by their environment (Kyrönlampi et al., 2021). Children do space of participation through ‘entangled flows between people and things’ in everyday activities, such as playing and communicating with peers (Pink, 2012, p. 12, see also Haus, 2020; Nordtømme, 2012; Sumsion et al., 2018), and they try actively to control their lives and share this control among peers (Corsaro, 2015).

The space can be seen as particular moments of relations (Massey, 2005). The space of child participation can take many forms, and children experience the opportunities and constrains for participation from their own positions (see Ylikörkkö, 2022). Therefore, a child’s own sense of participation is crucial (see Kyrönlampi & Uitto, 2022). The everyday life of ECE can provide favourable spaces for child participation, for example, by responding to children’s initiatives, enabling opportunities for agency and influencing in their environment, and enhancing their engagement in joint action (see Bae, 2012; Correia et al., 2021; Kultti, 2015; Theobald, 2019; Venninen et al., 2014), which are regarded as crucial cues for child participation in this study. However, although children have the potential for active agency, they are vulnerable, dependent on adults and need protection (Prout, 2011). Therefore, ECE is also embedded with values and ideologies that frame the children’s doing space of participation (see Ylikörkkö, 2022). Moreover, teachers affect the space, even if they are not present physically, for example, through material organizing and pedagogical planning (Viljamaa et al., 2017; Vuorisalo et al., 2015). Similar to adults, children accumulate understanding of the rules and resources available in ECE (Karjalainen, 2021; Nordtømme, 2012). In addition, materiality plays a significant role in children’s lives (e.g., Hultman & Lenz Taguchi, 2010; Juutinen, 2018), as children seek to establish relationships not only with the people around them, but also with material and cultural objects (Kyrönlampi et al., 2021).

Methodology

In recent narrative studies with young children (e.g., Juutinen, 2018; Karjalainen, 2021), children’s narratives have been approached from a holistic viewpoint, where embodiment and multimodality in children’s narration are emphasized. Accordingly, our study is based on the understanding of children making sense of the world in a continuous process through narratives (Ahn & Filipenko, 2007; Bruner, 1990). Juutinen (2018) describes ‘children’s narration as something that, in a sense, is already “ready”, not something that is going to develop under adult guidance’ (p. 35). This is an alternative approach to considering children’s narratives from the predominant perspectives of developmental psychology or children`s language development (Puroila, 2019). Accordingly, we do not search for children’s narratives that are produced for research purposes and have a linear and logical form; rather, we assume that children narrate spontaneously through their everyday activities, play, bodies, and gestures (see Viljamaa, 2012).

We apply the concept of ‘small story’, which represents an interactive everyday moment where children’s experiences, emotions and motivations entangle in multiple ways (see Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008; Juutinen, 2018). Short, even minimal, moments can include rich narration (e.g., Ahn & Filipenko, 2007). Thus, listening to children’s multimodal narration requires researchers to go beyond children’s verbal communication and settle into relationships with participants (Clandinin et al., 2016). We rely on Viljamaa’s (2012) notion of dialogical re-telling, which goes beyond the idea of outsider researchers analysing narratives as research material. Rather, the idea of narrative penetrates the entire research process, which is based on a dialogue between researchers, participants’ narratives, and previous research literature. Thus, researchers not only listen to children’s narratives, but also engage in narration themselves.

Research Context, Participants, and Research Material

This study was conducted at a Finnish open ECE centre. Open ECE, which is regulated by national policies, differs from full-day ECE with regard to day length, as children do not have lunch or nap time. The study group included eight children (aged 2 to 3 years) and two teachers with a group assistant. Enni-Mari participated in the study, first, as a teacher and, later, as a researcher. The children gathered 2 times a week for 3 h each. Data collection occurred in early autumn, and some guardians were present with their children to familiarize themselves with the kindergarten. A two-year-old child named Matti is featured in this article: It was his first time in the ECE setting and he was not familiar with its people, material environment or practices. In the reporting of this research, we have used pseudonyms to protect the identity of the children.

The research material includes video recordings of the group (6 h of recordings obtained with four cameras, altogether 24 h) gathered over 2 days from 1 week that were part of a larger set of recordings previously used by other researchers, including Enni-Mari and Satu. We have not influenced which situations have been recorded, because the material was gathered by our colleague as part of a previous research project. Thus, some important situations may not have been captured because they were recorded at our colleague’s discretion (see Pálmadóttir et al., 2018).

The research process posed several ethical questions (see Juutinen, 2018), and we considered questions about narrative childhood studies, our positions, power relations, and our views of the child. Our guiding ethical principle has been to respect the rights of children and other participants (see Einarsdóttir, 2007). Consent for the research was provided by the concerned municipality, ECE staff, children, and their guardians. The children’s guardians were informed on many occasions about the research, for instance, during parent’s evenings. The researchers were also available for discussions when guardians arrived with their children. The teachers and researchers co-operatively opened the research process up to children, for instance, by introducing the video cameras and discussing the study. Throughout our process, we aimed to be sensitive, and continuously assessed whether children wanted to share their life.

‘In–Between–Out’: Different Angles of Entry to the Analysis

Our analysis involved multi-layered dialogical interpretation by the three authors, who have different relations to the research material: Enni-Mari had an inside position as a teacher of the children’s group; Anna-Maija looked at the material from an outsider’s position; Satu had a position somewhere between the two, as she knew the children and had utilized video recordings from this setting in her earlier studies. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, we mainly used Microsoft Teams for our analysis, with which we could record our analytical discussions and produce text. Discussion recordings emerged as an important in-between space where we were able to (re-)reflect on our analytical discussions.

The multifaceted and dynamic nature of child participation challenged us throughout the research process and required us to come to a consensus about what we are trying to capture. Relying on our theoretical understanding of child participation, we zoomed our focus on children’s multiple relationships with peers, adults and their ECE environment. In these relationships, children influence their everyday environment: they choose how and where to act, and with whom and what material. In addition, children make, receive and respond to initiatives with peers in multiple ways. We interpreted these moments as potential spaces of child participation (see Massey, 2005).

Our process started with Enni-Mari, as the first author, watching all the video recordings to get an overview (see Lieblich, 2014) and making notes on interesting moments from the viewpoint of child participation. From this first viewing, Enni-Mari noted that children often ‘acted with’ the carriages. Based on her notes, we held the first analytical discussion and decided to focus on the children with the carriages. With this lens, Enni-Mari watched the videos and took notes again. We continued our discussion with Enni-Mari’s notes, most of which concerned moments involving Matti. We decided to continue by further analysing moments in which Matti was acting with the carriage. However, other children were involved in many situations with Matti and displayed similar patterns of behaviour in our material. Thus, our findings are not only about Matti but reflect the group of children more broadly (see also Viljamaa, 2012). At this point, Enni-Mari wrote small stories of the chosen moments.

In our discussions, Enni-Mari shared her memories as a teacher, and Satu shared her memories as a researcher. Anna-Maija, in turn, asked questions that were meaningful for the interpretation of the small stories. For instance, her question below reminded other researchers about how Matti had a younger sibling and usually came to kindergarten accompanied by the sibling in the carriage.

Enni-Mari: ‘I remember the carriages were more of a disturbance. As teachers, we controlled the children’s play with those. Actually, the carriages were at some point in a “repair shop” (hidden in storage).’

Satu: ‘There were not many rules, but I remember one; it was not allowed to go to the stage with carriages.’

Anna-Maija: ‘Is the carriage somehow familiar to Matti? Maybe from home?’

Our analysis proceeded as a continuous movement between the research material and theory (see Viljamaa, 2012). We watched the video recordings together and captured moments of the small stories as screenshots. We had a special ethical consideration about the use of images as part of the research reporting and aimed to strengthen the anonymity of the children by drawing the images into sketches (see Pink, 2007). Enni-Mari took a final look at the videos to ensure that the moments were described in detail in the small stories. This was important, because some new observations emerged, for example, the sound of the carriage catching Matti’s attention in one story.

Findings

We identified three distinct, though intertwining, perspectives about children doing space of participation with the doll carriage: exploring the conditions for participation, doing space of participation in peer relationships, and shaping the borders of participation as a space. Below, the small stories about children`s acting with the carriage reveal how tightly material items are involved in their doing space of participation.

Exploring the Conditions for Participation with a Doll Carriage

Matti moves with the carriage from the play kitchen to the other side of the kindergarten. He heads to the stall bars, in front of which are placed gymnastic mats. He lifts the carriage from the front bow to get on top of the mats, turns, and leans on the stall bars. Constantly holding onto the carriage, he looks around at the kindergarten, other children and adults. At times, Matti takes a spin and returns to the same place (Fig. 2).

(Story 2)

Fig. 2
figure 2

On the gymnastic mats

Full size image

The doing with the doll carriage provided opportunities for Matti to create a space of participation in a new environment. Matti starts formulating his space of participation with the carriage by familiarizing himself with the social, cultural and material environment (see Rutanen, 2012). The gymnastic mats seemed to be a significant place for Matti’s doing: in several stories, Matti is or finds his way there. Almost the entire kindergarten can be viewed from this place. Thus, by utilizing a favourable and safe spot for observation, Matti aims to understand what happens in the kindergarten. By observing from a distance, Matti can sense his position in relation to others, their activities and the environment as a whole (see Karjalainen, 2021).

The small story 2 illustrates how Matti repeats his doing with the carriage. The repetition might deepen Matti’s sense of familiarity, trust and security and enable him to find his own means to operate in the space (see Löw, 2008; Ree et al., 2019). That is, Matti familiarizes himself with the kindergarten’s practices, norms, and prevailing rules related to the use of the carriage and, simultaneously, shapes his own space of participation (see Massey, 2005). The repetition is not a mechanical playback of the prior doing, but rather, is tuned by the contextual cues in the everyday life of ECE (Pedrosa & Carvalho, 2006). These actions are also crucial for the child’s sense of belonging, which emerges from familiarity, ownership and continuity (see Kyrönlampi et al., 2021; Legget & Ford, 2016; Puroila et al., 2021). Through repetition, the doing becomes more predictable and supports child participation, and ownership of the space is possible to emerge.

Matti is walking around with the carriage. He crosses the dinosaurs on the floor, turns, and crosses them again. He wanders in different places with the carriage (Fig. 3).

(Story 3)

Fig. 3
figure 3

Exploring with the carriage

Full size image

The carriage, as a moving matter, provides Matti with expanded opportunities to explore the different physical places of the kindergarten. Matti’s active, autonomous doing fits the expectations of a ‘proper kindergarten child’ (Vuorisalo et al., 2018). The story also illustrates the embodiment in a child’s doing with the material (see Sumsion et al., 2018). Matti pauses in his journey to touch various material objects; for instance, he presses the keys on the teacher’s laptop and moves the mouse so that the screen light turns on. Matti chose the road where he had to work hard, zigzag around the furniture and, sometimes, even lift the carriage (see Pairman, 2020). Matti probes how the strollers of the carriage and the toys on the floor react to each other. The carriage seems like an extension of the child in his doing and significant for his participation.

Matti heads to the table, parks the carriage nearby and starts playing with play dough. When he plays, he glances a few times at the carriage. After a while, he grabs the carriage and starts moving again with it.

(Story 4)

The previous story demonstrates the child’s strong relationship with the material: The relationship with the doll carriage extends beyond the ‘actual doing’ with it, and this is interpretable in Matti’s glances at the carriage even when he is occupied with other things. In addition, the significance of the carriage is perceptible when Matti continues his doing with it after finishing other activities.

Occasionally, Matti seems to be on the borderline between familiarity or unawareness—belonging to a group or being an outsider or being together with others or alone with the carriage. Through moving, observing, and repetitive doing, Matti creates the rhythm and borders for his space. Matti takes control of the ownership of his space of participation from nearby, but also from a distance, in relation to others.

Doing Space of Participation with a Doll Carriage in Peer Relationships

Matti plays in the play kitchen and raises his head; he seems to hear something. The sound gets louder and closer. It comes from the doll carriage pushed by Niilo. Matti stands up, walks to Niilo and grabs another doll carriage.

(Story 5)

In the small story above, Matti’s attention is suddenly drawn from his ongoing play to the approaching sound of the carriage. He seems to recognize the sound, probably from his earlier activities with the carriage (see Pink, 2012). This situation is, however, different from the ones discussed earlier as now there is another child, Niilo, pushing the carriage. Niilo’s doing with the carriage serves as an invitation for Matti to join: Matti grabs a similar doll carriage, and the children begin to act together with the carriages. It is meaningful that there are at least two similar carriages available for the children, as the material environment and items in educational settings are influential: they both invite and inspire children (Nordtømme, 2012). Here, the carriages provide a space of participation by enabling the children to construct peer relationships and create joint action.

Niilo and Matti start walking with the carriages in the same direction. At times, they walk side by side, and occasionally, they walk in line. At times, they stop and look at each other. They circle the tables and walk over the tiny cars on the floor. First, Niilo leads, and Matti follows. Then, Matti leads, and Niilo follows; they imitate each other’s doing. Matti walks ahead to the mats and looks back at Niilo. Niilo looks at Matti but walks past him. Matti stays on the mats for a while and walks in a different direction. Niilo stops in his way, turns around and walks in the same direction with Matti. Again, Matti heads to the mats and looks over his shoulder to where Niilo is. Matti turns around and leans on the stall bars. Niilo spurts to the mats but is soon on his way somewhere else. Matti looks at Niilo, shakes his head, raises his hand and says, ‘Bye!’ Niilo comes back to Matti. Matti moves a little closer to Niilo; it looks like he makes room for Niilo. Niilo glances at Matti and walks away again. Matti waves to Niilo saying ‘Bye!’ Matti does not move away from the mats. Niilo turns to Matti; they look at each other. Matti uses his hand to gesture to the spot next to him. Niilo walks to Matti. For a while, they stand next to each other with the carriages on the mats (Fig. 4).

(Story 6)

Fig. 4
figure 4

Children doing shared space of participation

Full size image

This small story demonstrates how Matti’s and Niilo’s joint play emerges with the carriages and highlights the significance of repetitive actions, reciprocity and embodiment in children’s doing of participation. The children communicate through their bodies: ‘Let’s do this with the carriages!’ They begin to create common rules and routines for their joint doing by staying close to each other, observing and acting in a similar way (see Ree et al., 2019). The children’s shared space of participation appears, also, in how they walk side by side or in line. Matti also invites Niilo back to the mats by gesturing with his hand. The exchanged gazes and gestures exemplify the embodied communication between children (see Kultti, 2015; Monaco & Pontecorvo, 2010; Pairman, 2020). Despite not having a common spoken language, they have embodied negotiations on how to continue the joint activities (see Rutanen, 2012). By negotiating, they seem to find together a common rhythm for doing their space of participation. Neither Matti nor Niilo takes power over the other to determine the joint play; rather, both children make and respond to the other’s initiatives. Sharing power is regarded as a meaningful aspect of participation (e.g., Correia et al., 2021). Moreover, the familiar and individually meaningful place for Matti’s participation becomes a shared space for Matti and Niilo. While Matti stays on the mats, Niilo repeatedly goes back and forth between the mats and other places. Moreover, Matti’s staying on the mats seems to be a call for Niilo to return.

When Niilo walks away again, Matti takes a few steps forward but stops at the edge of the mats. Matti observes what Niilo is doing: Niilo puts the carriage aside and runs to start a play with dinosaurs. Matti lifts his hand to Niilo with a ‘Bye!’ and smiles. Soon, Niilo grabs the carriage and turns to Matti, who goes down on his knees. After taking some steps with the carriage, Niilo’s attention is drawn to an assistant who brings the ‘firefighter’ play material for the children. Again, Niilo puts the carriage aside and starts exploring the firefighter material. Matti stays on his knees on the mats and ‘knocks’ the carriage against the floor. Niilo does not pay any attention to this. Matti stands up and moves back and forth with the carriage. Every time, Matti stops at the edge.

After a moment, Tommi, who is also playing with the firefighter material, walks to Matti. Matti goes down on his knees, still holding the carriage. Tommi points a ‘water tube’ at Matti. The firefighters head to the play kitchen, and Matti cannot see Tommi. Matti walks to the water tube left on the floor. He touches the tube with his foot. Then, he crosses over the tube with the carriage, turns, and crosses over the tube again. Matti tries to take the tube but notices that Tommi is back and pointing at him with the tube again. Matti runs back to the mats and keeps checking if Tommi is still after him. Tommi follows him while pointing with the tube and then goes in a different direction. Matti stays on the mats with the carriage (Fig. 5).

(Story 7)

Fig. 5
figure 5

Balancing on the border

Full size image

The former short story portrays children’s doing space of participation as a continuous process. While the children’s joint activities with the carriages maintain their shared space of participation, Niilo’s shifting interest in other material items changes the situation. In line with Nordtømme’s (2012) study, the children seem to move between different positions regarding the joint play, either changing their focus or trying to protect the ongoing play. It is obvious that Matti would like to continue playing with Niilo, and his appearance expresses disappointment at Niilo’s leaving. This is demonstrated when Matti calls for Niilo by knocking the carriages on to the floor. Matti seems to be more committed in doing with the carriages than Niilo, and Niilo’s own space of participation has already emerged elsewhere. At this point, Matti appears to be balancing on the border of participation in joint play. In addition, Matti becomes an outsider in relation with the firefighter play. While the other children engage in the shared play, Matti shows both hesitation and interest in joining the play. It is apparent that Matti wants to explore the water tube and even touches it. However, Tommi’s actions make him return to the mats with the carriage. It is perceptible that Matti does not take Tommi’s physical closeness and his actions as an invitation to a joint play, when Matti moves as if he wants to hide between the carriage and the wall (see Ree et al., 2019). Even though Matti does not participate in play with peers, the carriages and the familiar place of the mats play a significant role in Matti’s sense of ownership, familiarity and security and are regarded as significant indicators of the space (Löw, 2008; Massey, 2005).

Shaping the Borders of Participation as a Space with a Doll Carriage

Matti heads with the carriage to the stage. Before getting up, he stops for the blink of an eye and turns his head as if to make sure that no one can see. Matti goes on top of the stage and then back down, turns and heads back up. On top of the stage, he makes a couple of circles with the carriage before coming back down, but slower than the last time. When Matti heads to the stage again, an assistant says ‘Matti!’ Matti turns the other way. Later, a teacher is playing with other children nearby and notices Matti directing the carriage to the stage. ‘Matti come down, thank you!’ says the teacher. Matti continues his way in another direction (Fig. 6).

(Story 8)

Fig. 6
figure 6

Testing the borders

Full size image

The doll carriage appeared to be meaningful for shaping the borders of Matti’s space of participation. As mentioned before, going on to the stage with the carriages was not permitted. The story above demonstrates not only children’s and adults’ shared cultural knowledge about the rules (see Vuorisalo et al., 2018), but also how Matti starts testing the borders of his space. Matti’s gazing around before walking to the stage illustrates that Matti already knows the rules about playing with the carriage. This is also demonstrated when he changes direction on hearing his name called out by the assistant. The repetitive action in Matti’s doing occurs again. Matti seems to find a way to take over his own agency as a border maker (see Nordtømme, 2012).

Tommi heads to the stage with the carriage, where Matti is playing. Matti stands up and spreads his hands in front of Tommi while shaking his head. Tommi stops. Matti walks down from the stage and starts running, with Tommi by his side, to get one of the carriages for himself. Together, they start walking with the carriages and head to the stage. ‘Matti and Tommi, please. There is plenty of room on the floor’, the teacher says. The two children go elsewhere with the carriages (Fig. 7).

(Story 9)

Fig. 7
figure 7

Testing the rules with a peer

Full size image

The story illustrates that children test the ECE rules also in peer relationships. First, Matti shows Tommi with an embodied expression what is not acceptable doing with the carriage. Later, the children together head with the carriages to the stage. The small story illustrates the embodied doing and the ease in coordinating the joint actions with the carriages (see Rutanen, 2012). Additionally, the story uncovers the prevailing contradictions between educator’s and children’s perspectives: the spaces favourable for children’s participation can be interpreted differently from educator’s and children’s viewpoints. This raises the question of who has the expertise when it comes to child participation.

Matti stands with the carriage on the mats. Suddenly, Janne grabs Matti’s carriage and pulls it towards himself. Matti tries to push Janne’s hand away and moves forward with the carriage. Janne holds on tightly. Matti starts knocking the carriage on to the floor and looks at the adults. Matti moves backwards on the mats with Janne still holding on to the carriage. Janne’s mother guides Janne elsewhere. Matti stays and watches Janne leaving (Fig. 8).

(Story 10)

Fig. 8
figure 8

Defending the borders

Full size image

The previous story portrays how Matti defends the borders of his participation as a space. Even young children set boundaries for peers and defended their own space, possessed materials, and their bodies (Rutanen, 2012). Here, Matti protested and sought the adults’ attention in the conflict situation. Thus, Matti appears to gain more agency with the doll carriage, and losing the carriage reduces his space of participation. That is, Matti and the doll carriage are together more than separate (see Haus, 2020; Hultman & Lenz Taguchi, 2010).

Concluding Discussion

The present research provides remarkable insights into children doing participation as a space with the material items in ECE by analysing the small stories of everyday life in ECE. We found that children do their participation with the doll carriage by exploring the conditions for participation, doing space in peer relationships, and shaping the borders of the space. Thus, children’s doing space of participation is a dynamic process between children, educators, material items, and cultural rules and routines in ECE (see Löw, 2008; Massey, 2005). Neither the spatial nor the narrative approach is common in ECE studies on child participation, so our study makes an important theoretical and methodological contribution to the topic.

Our research strategy was fruitful, as systematically following children’s actions with the doll carriages opened insights into the entangled relations meaningful for children’s space of participation. While previous research (e.g., Legget & Ford, 2016; Ree & Emilson, 2019) considers child participation primarily as a social phenomenon, our study shows how tightly the material environment and culture of the ECE setting are involved with the social space in a child’s doing of participation. The study, thus, contributes to the theoretical understanding of child participation by uncovering the three-fold nature of the space, that is, the social, material and cultural dimensions. The findings illustrate how material items, such as doll carriages, can provide children with a means for familiarizing themselves with the ECE environment, creating peer relationships, joint play and shared spaces of participation. The material item also played a significant role for children when exploring, testing, expanding, and defending the borders of their participation.

The present findings provide empirical evidence about how Matti and other children do space of participation. Children’s doing of participation emerges as a tension-filled phenomenon from the viewpoint of children’s active agency. On the one hand, children play an active role in doing participation by actively exploring the material and cultural environment of the ECE setting and keenly attempting to make connections with their peers. Embodiment, continuity, similarity and repetitive actions appear to be crucial for young children’s doing space of participation. Hence, children’s doing participation as a space exceeds the language boundaries (see Bae, 2009; Kultti, 2015). On the other hand, children cannot freely do their participation, as their doing is partly dependent on other people’s actions and the cultural rules of the setting, which have also been highlighted in previous research (e.g., Ree et al., 2019; Ylikörkkö, 2022). Thus, doing space of participation requires children to balance between the active doing of participation and adapting to the expectations of other people and the environment. For example, the ECE rules and curricula can enable, but they also restrict children’s active doing of participation.

Prior ECE research has largely focused on adults’ perspective of child participation and included children who can linguistically express themselves. Our study contributes to the field of ECE by bringing in perspectives not only on children’s multiple ways of narration but also on their ways of doing participation. Similar to the findings of narrative childhood studies, children’s embodied ways of expressing themselves emerged central, while their verbal narration remained secondary. Our findings might help educators recognize the important aspects of child participation in ECE. Enhancing every child’s sense of participation requires that the educator has awareness not only about the relational nature of child participation but also about what is meaningful for each child individually. Enni-Mari’s memory of not recognizing the meaningfulness of a carriage for child participation is an excellent example of everyday moments that could be overlooked by an educator. In line with previous studies (e.g., Kjørholt, 2013; Kyrönlampi & Uitto, 2022; Venninen et al., 2014), we suggest that the first step in developing child participation in ECE is to acknowledge and listen to children’s embodied narration. Secondly, it is necessary to pay increased attention to the matters and relationships meaningful for children. Recognizing these emerging child-looking spaces could open new doors for enhancing child participation and developing practices in educators’ work.

We humbly would like to acknowledge the limitations of our interpretations. For one, we are unable to label analysed moments as ‘here is where the space of participation truly stands’; rather, we understand them as fruitful potentials for participation to flourish (see Massey, 2005; Sumsion et al., 2018). Nonetheless, the dialogue between us researchers enriched the research process and strengthened our study’s credibility. We found the different perspectives on the interpretation of child participation as fruitful; together, we constructed new knowledge that we might not have been able to do individually. We are aware that our personal histories as ECE teachers and researchers affect in many ways how we read the material (see Clandinin et al., 2016). Nonetheless, we can conclude that the everyday action in ECE already has potential for young children to do spaces of participation, and the spatial approach can provide tools for identifying these everyday meanings for children. However, further research is needed for deepening understanding of child participation. In particular, there is a need to study child participation in ECE practices from a wider relational point of view, for instance, by focusing on the societal, cultural, or discursive dimensions in doing of child participation as a space.