Introduction

The field of early childhood education and care (ECEC) is characterised by great diversity in status and organisation in different countries. Care for children is commonly heavily dependent on unpaid and non-formal care work by mothers and relatives, or poorly paid nursing and childminding, for instance by migrant workers (Acker, 1990; Bäck-Wiklund, 2004). Consequently, a common strategy for the valorisation of care work pursued by feminist policy-makers and researchers, in the Nordic countries in particular, is that of professionalisation or ‘professional projects’ (Witz, 1990; Williams, 1996; Dahl, 2010). In Denmark, this political strategy has been advocated not only by the labour unions of the (social, educational and health) care workers and by their educational institutions. The possibilities and advantages of professionalisation have also been taken up and promoted as part of policy discourses and regulatory reforms around the ‘modernisation’ of public services as a means to enhance the quality of care, and the legitimacy of public service and reproduction on a broader scale (Wrede et al, 2008; Dahl, 2010). Seen from this point of view, professionalisation is not a controversial strategy.

Taking a closer look at the underlying interests and explicit reasons for professionalisation, there is however less consensus among the advocating agents. In fact, discussions of professionalisation expose controversies not only about the aims, but also the means of professionalisation. Following Witz (1990), this chapter argues that the potential of professionalisation as a strategy rests on the validation of the substance of the professional practice at its core: on the one side, the basic understandings and recognition of the services rendered; on the other side, the status of professional knowledge, qualifications and necessary judgements, values and ethics needed to act with professionalism to secure the quality of the tasks and services provided. This chapter explores the potentials of professionalisation strategies, motivated by the central question of whether professionalisation will actually help in providing recognition for essential ECEC care work – and whether this can counteract a ‘crisis of care’, as discussed in the contributions to this book.

The following discussion will raise concerns about the status of care work and the potential of professionalisation based on empirical research in the context of care work in Danish ECECs. The term ECECs is used to denote the common public institutions in the field of ECEC.