Generational differences between the professionalism in two generations of daycare pedagogues

Authors

  • Jo Krøjer
  • Steen Baagøe Nielsen
  • Kevin Mogensen

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7146/tfa.v19i4.109053

Abstract

The significance of daycare institutions for society and for peoples life oppor - tunities is a recurring subject in Danish, public debate. Daycare institutions are at the core of the organization of the Danish welfare state and the way it functions. In addition, daycare institutions are an example of how citizens, employees and welfare societies meet in institutionalized settings. In this sense, we find daycare institutions to be emblematic for the specific, societal development in the relationship between citizens, work and society that has evolved since the beginning of the welfare state. Here, researchers have long identified New Public Management as a major turning point in the welfare society and its in - stitutions. Many studies have focused on the effects of NPM in different trades and organizations regarding the perception of the employees of their work tasks. In this article, we raise the question of whether it is possible to identify a before and a after when looking at NPM and its effects of employee understanding of their own professionalism. Our study has a critical perspective on the work in daycare institutions, while viewing them as an example of a welfare institution that employs a very large group of people. Our analysis indicate that NPM has had clear effects on pedagogues’ ability to establish their professionalism. We find apparent differences between daycare educators’ understanding of their own professionalism, depending on whether they have work experiences from the time before NPM or if they exclusively have experiences from the post-NPM period in the daycare area.

Downloads

Published

2017-12-01

How to Cite

Krøjer, J., Nielsen, S. . B., & Mogensen, K. (2017). Generational differences between the professionalism in two generations of daycare pedagogues. Tidsskrift for Arbejdsliv, 19(4), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.7146/tfa.v19i4.109053