Parents’ Experiences of Communication with Preschool Teachers in Sweden: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

This study investigates parents’ experiences of partnerships with their children’s preschool teachers in Sweden, focusing on two questions: (1) How do parents describe communication with preschool teachers, and what information about their child is valued? (2) How do parents position preschool in their child’s life? Framed through Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, the analysis examines how parents’ dispositions, values, and prior experiences shape engagement with early childhood education. Data were collected via interviews with 25 parents across three counties in western Sweden and analysed using narrative methods. Findings show that parents prioritise communication about children’s well-being and social development as central to partnership, while instructional information is largely viewed as the teacher’s domain. Preschool is primarily seen as a context for socialisation, developing norms, values, and behaviours, rather than formal academic preparation. By exploring consistencies and contradictions in parental accounts, the study offers a nuanced understanding of how habitus informs parental expectations and communication practices, highlighting the complex interplay between family dispositions and preschool engagement.

1. Introduction

In Sweden, 87% of children aged one to five attend preschool (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2024), creating a dual socialisation context in which child development is shaped by both home and preschool. Children internalise values, norms, and practices through interactions with the social agents in these environments (Barger et al., 2019; Vuorinen, 2021). Effective home–preschool partnerships are critical for supporting children’s cognitive, socio-emotional, and academic development, while also enabling parents to exercise their democratic rights in education (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2014). Conversely, limited parental engagement or weak collaboration can impede developmental outcomes (Epstein, 1990; Goodall & Montgomery, 2022). Active involvement fosters not only children’s learning but also inclusion and a sense of belonging for both children and families (Broström et al., 2018; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995; Vuorinen, 2021).

From a Bourdieusian perspective, these interactions reflect the interplay of parents’ habitus, their dispositions, values, and prior experiences, with institutional practices, shaping how families engage with preschool and co-construct children’s early learning experiences. Parental involvement, however, is unevenly distributed across social groups. Children from transnational diaspora backgrounds, working-class families, economically disadvantaged households, or single-parent families often face marginalisation, reduced engagement with educational institutions, and fewer opportunities for agency and upward mobility (Bryceson & Vuorela, 2020; Demie & Lewis, 2011; Epstein, 1990). In these contexts, children’s development and access to social and cultural resources are shaped by the intersecting habitus of parents and educators. Dodillet and Christensen (2020) note that the enactment of democratic principles in Swedish education frequently prioritises national governance over parental influence, revealing a gap between policy intentions and everyday practice. Despite policy goals emphasising preschool’s role in fostering sustained family partnerships (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018), collaboration between home and preschool remains inconsistent across social and cultural groups, reflecting the influence of diverse family dispositions and institutional structures on engagement.

Policy, Purpose of Education, and the Framing of Home–Preschool Partnershis

Contemporary early childhood education is increasingly positioned at the intersection of educational, social, and economic policy, with growing expectations placed on preschools to support children’s learning, well-being, and future life chances. Internationally, policy discourses emphasise early childhood education as a critical foundation for lifelong learning, social inclusion, and economic competitiveness (OECD, 2019). Within these frameworks, partnerships between families and educational institutions are frequently presented as essential mechanisms for achieving equitable and high-quality educational outcomes. However, the aims and purposes of education, and by extension early childhood education, are neither neutral nor universally agreed upon. Educational theorists have long highlighted tensions between education as a means of social reproduction and education as a space for democratic participation, care, and individual flourishing (Biesta, 2010; Apple, 2013). In early childhood contexts, these tensions are particularly visible, as preschools are tasked simultaneously with nurturing children’s development, preparing them for formal schooling, and compensating for social inequalities (OECD, 2019).

In Sweden, early childhood education is formally grounded in a democratic and child-centred tradition. The Swedish preschool curriculum (Läroplan för förskolan, Lpfö 18) frames preschool as both an educational and social institution, emphasising care, learning, and democratic values, as well as cooperation with families (Skolverket, 2018). Parents are positioned as key partners, and preschools are expected to support children’s development in close collaboration with the home (de Oliveira Lima & Kuusisto, 2019). This policy framing reflects a broader Nordic welfare model that conceptualises education as a shared societal responsibility rather than solely an individual or familial one (Einarsdóttir & Wagner, 2006).

At the same time, global policy influences—particularly those promoted by organisations such as the OECD—have increasingly shaped national early childhood agendas. The OECD’s Starting Strong reports highlight parental engagement and partnerships as indicators of quality and effectiveness in early childhood education systems (OECD, 2019). While such policy discourses promote collaboration, they often rely on implicit assumptions about parents’ capacities, resources, and familiarity with institutional norms. This can result in a normative model of partnership that aligns more closely with middle-class values and practices, potentially marginalising families whose habitus does not readily align with these expectations (Dahlberg et al., 2013).

The concept of “partnership” itself is therefore contested and interpreted differently across policy, practice, and research. From a policy perspective, partnerships are often framed as cooperative, reciprocal relationships characterised by shared responsibility and mutual trust (Skolverket, 2018; OECD, 2019). In the research literature, however, scholars have problematised this idealised framing, arguing that power relations between educators and parents are rarely equal and are shaped by institutional authority, professional knowledge, and broader social inequalities (Crozier, 2001; Vincent, 2017).

From a sociological perspective informed by Bourdieu, home–preschool partnerships can be understood as sites where different forms of habitus, capital, and power intersect. Parents’ ability to engage in partnerships on the terms envisioned by policy is shaped by their social and cultural resources, prior experiences with education, and confidence in navigating institutional settings (Bourdieu, 1986; Dumais, 2006). What counts as “good” parental involvement—such as particular communication styles, expectations of learning, or forms of participation—is often aligned with dominant cultural norms embedded within educational institutions (Harker, 1984; Vincent & Ball, 2007).

Contemporary early childhood research increasingly calls for broader, more inclusive understandings of partnership that recognise diversity in family practices, values, and aspirations (Alasuutari, 2010; Einarsdóttir & Wagner, 2006; Hansen, 2020; Hansen et al., 2020; Miller et al., 2012). Rather than viewing partnerships as a one-size-fits-all model, this body of literature emphasises the importance of relational, context-sensitive approaches that value parents’ knowledge of their children and acknowledge structural constraints on participation. Such perspectives align with critical and post-structural approaches that question technocratic and outcomes-driven policy discourses in early childhood education (Dahlberg et al., 2013).

Bourdieu’s theoretical framework, and particularly the concept of habitus, provides a coherent lens for understanding how social inequalities are produced, mediated, and potentially transformed within early childhood education. Within this broader policy and theoretical context, the present study responds to calls for research that centres parents’ own perspectives on partnership. By exploring how parents experience communication with preschool teachers and how they position preschool within the wider context of their child’s life, the study sheds light on how policy ideals of partnership are enacted, negotiated, or challenged in everyday practice. Grounded in Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, this approach enables an analysis of how parents’ experiences reflect broader social structures, while also recognising their agency in interpreting and engaging with preschool as an educational institution.

Habitus refers to a system of durable yet evolving dispositions that individuals acquire through early socialisation, most notably within the family (Bourdieu, 1986). These dispositions shape how individuals perceive the world, interpret possibilities, and act within social contexts, including educational settings. Rather than functioning as a fixed set of traits, habitus is dynamic and generative, continuously shaped by past experiences while orienting present practices and future aspirations (Bourdieu et al., 1977; Bourdieu, 1986, 1990). From early childhood, the development of habitus is closely intertwined with the accumulation of social and cultural capital. Together, these resources form the basis of social reproduction, as children come to embody ways of thinking, behaving, and valuing that align to varying degrees with the expectations of educational institutions (Dumais, 2006). For example, children raised in families that place a high value on education, language use, and cultural participation are more likely to develop dispositions that resonate with institutional norms, thereby facilitating engagement and academic success.

Educational institutions, including preschools, play a central role in this process. As Harker (1984) argues, schools act as key sites where dominant cultural norms are legitimised and reproduced, often privileging the habitus of middle-class families while marginalising others. However, Bourdieu’s framework also recognises the possibility of agency. Habitus does not determine outcomes in a linear or deterministic way; rather, it operates in interaction with institutional structures and everyday practices, producing outcomes that are contingent and context dependent (Bourdieu et al., 1977; Bourdieu, 1986, 1990). At the same time, habitus can contribute to the reproduction of disadvantage. Children from marginalised backgrounds may internalise constrained expectations regarding their educational trajectories and future opportunities, which can limit participation and reinforce existing social hierarchies (Dodillet & Christensen, 2020). These embodied dispositions also shape how families engage with early childhood institutions and how educators interpret parental involvement, influencing the quality and nature of home–preschool partnerships.

Viewed through this lens, preschool emerges as a critical site where habitus, social capital, and institutional practices intersect. This theoretical framework provides a conceptual bridge between the literature, the research questions, the findings, and the discussion by illuminating how everyday interactions between families and preschools reflect broader social structures. It also supports an analysis of how home–preschool partnerships may either reproduce inequalities or function as sites of recognition and support that contribute to more equitable outcomes in early childhood education.

2. Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to explore parents’ experiences of their partnerships with their children’s preschool teachers. The study is guided by two research questions:

• How do parents describe communication with preschool teachers, and what information about their child do they consider important in these interactions?
• How do parents position preschool within the broader context of their child’s life?

3. Connecting Bourdieu’s Framework to the Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study, to explore parents’ experiences of partnerships with their children’s preschool teachers, is directly informed by Bourdieu’s concept of habitus. As habitus shapes how individuals perceive institutions, interpret interactions, and value particular forms of knowledge (Bourdieu et al., 1977; Bourdieu, 1990), parents’ accounts of communication and partnership with preschool teachers can be understood as expressions of their socially situated dispositions. Parents do not enter home–preschool partnerships as neutral actors; rather, their expectations of preschool, their confidence in communicating with educators, and the types of information they prioritise about their child are shaped by their own social histories and accumulated forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Dumais, 2006).

The first research question, how parents describe communication with preschool teachers, and what information they consider important in these interactions, is analytically linked to habitus through its focus on everyday practices of interaction. Communication between parents and teachers can be understood as a site where different forms of habitus meet and are negotiated. Parents’ comfort with educational language, their willingness to ask questions, and the kinds of knowledge they view as legitimate (for example, academic learning, social development, or emotional well-being) reflect dispositions formed through prior experiences with education and institutions. In this way, variations in parents’ descriptions of communication illuminate how habitus and social capital shape access to, and participation in, home–preschool partnerships (Harker, 1984; Dumais, 2006).

The second research question, how parents position preschool within the broader context of their child’s life, connects to Bourdieu’s framework by foregrounding how families integrate preschool into their wider social worlds. Parents’ positioning of preschool in relation to home, family values, and future aspirations reflects the alignment, or misalignment, between familial habitus and institutional expectations. For some parents, preschool may be seen as a central pathway for educational success, while for others it may be understood primarily as a space for care, socialisation, or preparation for later schooling. These interpretations are shaped by parents’ habitus and their perceptions of the role of education in social mobility and social reproduction (Bourdieu, 1986, 1990; Dodillet & Christensen, 2020).

Together, these research questions operationalise Bourdieu’s theoretical framework by examining how habitus is expressed in parents’ narratives of partnership, communication, and meaning making around preschool. This theoretical grounding provides a coherent link between the literature, the research design, and the subsequent analysis of findings, enabling the study to explore how home–preschool partnerships may either reproduce existing inequalities or offer possibilities for more inclusive and equitable forms of engagement in early childhood education.

4. Literature Review

This literature review is organised into two main sections. The first provides an overview of how the concept of partnerships between home and preschool is addressed in the international research discourse, while the second focuses specifically on key debates and prominent perspectives emerging from Nordic studies.

4.1. Partnerships in the Global Context

International research broadly recognises that differing goals and values between parents and early childhood professionals can shape children’s developmental and learning outcomes. Collaborative engagement between families and preschools is widely considered foundational to children’s success across cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioural domains (Epstein, 1990; Goodall & Montgomery, 2022; Smith et al., 2020). While some research conceptualises parental involvement primarily in terms of its contributions to academic readiness and achievement (Knapp et al., 2017; Mcwayne et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2020), an expanding body of work emphasises the equal importance of socio-emotional support and well-being (Fantuzzo et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2020; Weiss et al., 2016). Contemporary studies also highlight how family-specific social contexts, including parental habitus and demographic factors like socioeconomic status and division of care, shape engagement with early childhood settings. Parents’ values, expectations, and daily practices influence the frequency and quality of interaction with educators (Hill, 2022; Lareau & Weininger, 2003; Morrissey et al., 2022). Relatedly, research underscores the role of children’s agency in family–educator partnerships, showing that children co-construct these relationships through behaviour, communication, and participation (Gurdal & Sorbring, 2019; Scott et al., 2020). From a policy perspective, systematic and sustainable partnerships that adopt a view of the whole child, are increasingly emphasised as necessary for equitable early learning (Alverson et al., 2019).

4.2. Partnerships in the Nordic Context

4.2.1. Teaching, Learning, and School Readiness

Studies from Nordic contexts increasingly highlight the role of parents in children’s learning beyond narrow academic skills, emphasizing transversal competencies such as collaboration, communication, and self-regulation (Broström et al., 2018; Uusimäki et al., 2019). The integration of teaching into the Swedish preschool curriculum has stimulated discussion around professional roles, pedagogical leadership, and the balance between play-based and structured learning (Melker et al., 2018; Pramling & Wallerstedt, 2019; Vallberg Roth, 2020). Within this framework, school readiness is understood not only in terms of academic skills but also as broader developmental capacities that support a smooth transition into compulsory schooling.

Nordic research further underscores the importance of parental engagement during children’s introduction to preschool. Early involvement fosters trust between families and teachers and shapes classroom norms and expectations (Cappelen et al., 2020; Ruutiainen et al., 2023). Parents who participate in orientation activities, share information about their child’s routines, and collaborate with educators influence teachers’ perceptions of families as competent partners, which in turn reinforces shared expectations around responsibility, reciprocity, and cooperation (Markström & Simonsson, 2017; Öhman et al., 2024). Structured engagement practices, including parent-teacher meetings and documentation of children’s learning, support children’s social-emotional adjustment, align home and preschool values, and contribute to smoother transitions into early childhood education (Sandberg & Vuorinen, 2008; Dardanou & Brito, 2024; Yngvesson & Garvis, 2021a, 2021b). Collectively, these findings demonstrate that parental engagement operates as both a relational and pedagogical resource, enriching children’s learning experiences and reinforcing collaborative practices within Nordic preschool environments.

4.2.2. Teacher Self-Efficacy and Professional-Parent Relations

Within Sweden, studies have explored how preschool teachers perceive their professional responsibilities and navigate partnerships with parents. Reforms in national curriculum and accountability expectations have expanded professional roles, often emphasising pedagogical leadership while teachers simultaneously manage relational dynamics with families (Eriksson et al., 2019; Hedlin, 2019; Vuorinen, 2021; Vuorinen & Gu, 2023). Teachers employ a range of strategies to balance shared decision-making with educational authority, and the quality of these interactions affects partnership outcomes (Ärlemalm-Hagsér et al., 2023; A. S. Jensen et al., 2010; J. J. Jensen, 2017; Karlsudd, 2022; Yngvesson et al., 2023). Research also suggests that parents, though recognised as experts on their own children, may focus on individual child outcomes rather than collective preschool life, which can complicate partnership dynamics (Hedlin, 2019; P. Jensen & Rasmussen, 2019; Vuorinen, 2021).

4.2.3. Parents as Co-Educators

Nordic research highlights both shared values and contextual differences in parent–teacher partnerships across countries. For example, Danish studies report high attitudinal alignment between parents and early childhood professionals, with limited fundamental value conflicts (Ejrnæs & Monrad, 2013; Esping-Andersen, 2013). In Sweden, however, parental marginalisation persists at times due to professional authority structures and societal expectations that privilege educators’ expertise (Lunneblad, 2013). Finnish research indicates that many parents view themselves as co-educators with an active role in fostering their children’s long-term academic success (Hakyemez-Paul et al., 2018; Karhula et al., 2017; Ule et al., 2015), underscoring the importance of collaborative partnerships that bridge family knowledge and professional practice. Recent work further emphasises the need to reduce power imbalances between educators and parents, promoting shared responsibility for children’s learning and well-being (Halttunen & Waniganayake, 2021; Schmidt & Alasuutari, 2023).

5. Method

In this study, applying the Bordieuan lens of habitus allows for the launching of an exploration into parents’ stories of how they experience communication with preschool, in terms of how they describe the partnership. Habitus in this regard, refers to the collective establishment by which and/or whom and into which, the dominating cultural- and social environment are established and reproduced. Further, the use of a narrative approach is justified on practical and theoretical grounds within qualitative research traditions. Narrative conversations with parents create relational and dialogic spaces through which meanings are co-constructed, allowing for deeper insight into the complexities of parent–preschool partnerships. Such an approach aligns with interpretivist and constructivist paradigms that view knowledge as situated, socially produced, and shaped by participants’ lived experiences rather than as an objective or fixed reality. From a sociological perspective, a narrative approach foregrounds parents’ often marginalised voices and constrained positioning within educational contexts (Pushor, 2023), drawing attention to how family–institution relationships are mediated by historically and culturally embedded dispositions. Bourdieu’s concept of habitus provides a useful lens for understanding how parents’ and educators’ internalised ways of thinking, acting, and valuing. formed through prior social and educational experiences, shape expectations, interactions, and perceived possibilities for engagement within early childhood settings (Bourdieu et al., 1977).

As Clandinin and Connelly (2000) emphasise, a narrative approach involves an ongoing process of interpretation and re-interpretation rather than the pursuit of linear problem–solution outcomes. In this sense, this study becomes a form of “re-search” that attends to the temporal, social, and contextual dimensions of experience. By privileging participants’ stories and meanings, a narrative approach offers a rich and contextually grounded understanding of human experience that stands in contrast to positivist methodologies, which prioritise objectivity, measurement, and generalisability. To do this, qualitative interviews were used to collect parents’ stories of their experiences with partnerships with preschool (Bryman, 2016). The interviews were conducted with the help of a semi-structured interview guide that allowed open ended responses and narrative conversations from- and with the participants, providing more in-depth information (Bryman, 2016; Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

The qualitative interview study was supported by a descriptive demographic dataset comprising 25 parents from three counties and six municipalities in western Sweden. Participants were recruited through multiple channels to reach a diverse parent population: gatekeepers in preschools (principals connected through professional networks), a public call for participants shared via Facebook, and a brief interview on Swedish Radio (P4). In the radio segment, which followed a reporter’s interest in the project via the university website, listeners were invited to volunteer for the study. Across all recruitment methods, contact details were provided and interested parents initiated contact to request further information. Participants were purposively selected to capture variation in family constellations and socioeconomic backgrounds. Inclusion criteria were parents of children attending communal (non-private) preschools who were Swedish-speaking. The latter criterion was a pragmatic decision due to the absence of funding for translation services and is acknowledged as a limitation, as the perspectives of non-Swedish-speaking parents are not represented.

Of the 34 parents who expressed interest, 25 were selected to optimise gender balance and linguistic accessibility. All participants received written information about the study and provided informed consent. Demographic data were analysed descriptively to contextualise the qualitative findings rather than to support statistical inference. Participants had a mean age of 38.8 years and an average of 1.88 children per family. Approximately one-third of the sample were fathers and two-thirds mothers, with representation from low- to high-income households, single- and two-parent families, Swedish-speaking immigrant parents, and families of mixed cultural heritage. Around 80% of participants reported a Swedish background, broadly aligning with national demographic patterns for families with children in Sweden (National data estimates, Statistics Sweden [SCB], 2024), as did family size and family structure. In contrast, parents with higher education were over-represented: approximately 60% reported university or higher education, compared with around 30% of the national population.

This educational skew reflects a selection bias associated with a small, self-selecting sample and should be considered when interpreting the findings. Accordingly, the sample is not intended to be statistically representative but to provide in-depth, contextually situated insights into parents’ experiences of home–preschool partnerships.

The study adheres to the ethical requirements set by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority as well as Humanities and Social Sciences (Swedish Ethical Review Board, 2017, on 11 December 2023). The participants were informed of the purpose of the study and given written and verbal consent to participate (see Appendix A). They were informed that the study was voluntary and that they could leave the study without further explanation. Three participants decided to leave the study due to time constraints. The participants were also informed that personal data would be collected and stored according to the Data Protection Act (SFS, 2018, p. 218) and that the data would be applied in a PhD thesis and other scientific publications and forums such as research articles and other forums for scientific debate. The participants’ rights to integrity means that their identities are kept confidential. The study has been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Board (Dnr 2023-06416-01).

The interviews were done during January–March 2024 and lasted between 40 and 90 min. The interviews were executed in person and took place in a location at the participants’ choosing, such as in their homes, at a cafe or conference room at the university. The questions were divided into three sections, (1) family constellation, daily routines and logistics (travels, meals, sleep, play and so on) of the child’s day, (2) how information flows between home parents and teachers-, when and how the parent receive information and what information they receive, (3) parent’s knowledge about the teacher’s qualifications-, curriculum and pedagogical activities in the preschool. Each interview was recorded audially and transcribed verbatim. This was done manually. The parents represent three counties in Sweden and in the Result chapter they appear in the text as P1–P25.

Analysis

The interviews were analysed using Clandinin and Connelly’s (2000) principles of narrative research, which focus on understanding the meaning and social significance of participants’ experiences rather than simply extracting factual information. Narrative analysis shifts attention from what happened to how experiences are interpreted, emphasising temporality, relationality, and social context. This approach aligns closely with Bourdieu’s (1986, 1990) framework, where individuals’ dispositions (habitus) and the resources they mobilise (social and cultural capital) interact within structured social spaces (fields).

The analytic process began with constructing condensed summaries of each interview transcript to identify “what is contained within different sets of field texts” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 131). Key experiences and constructs were organised into narrative threads, capturing recurring patterns across participants. These threads trace how parents’ dispositions and expectations intersect with the institutional habitus of preschool staff, and how relational practices—communication, involvement, and partnership—reflect and reproduce broader social structures.

Analysis was iterative and consultative: plotlines were “continually revised as consultation takes place over written materials, and as further field texts are composed to develop points of importance in the revised story” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 132). This process recognises the temporal and evolving nature of lived experience and the relational co-construction of narratives between researcher and participant.

Following Lieblich et al. (1998), the study employed a categorical approach to narrative analysis, focusing on specific experiences while situating them within broader social, temporal, and institutional contexts. This method allowed for comparisons within and across interviews, highlighting shared phenomena, parents’ perceptions of home–preschool partnerships, while making visible differences in habitus, social capital, and expectations.

Through this approach, four central narrative threads emerged, reflecting patterns of communication, partnership, and socialisation. Interpreted through the Bourdieusian lens of habitus, these threads (below, under Section 6) illustrate how parental and institutional habitus intersect, how capital is mobilised, and how preschool functions as a field where social norms, values, and practices are both reproduced and renegotiated. Narrative analysis thus provides a nuanced understanding of parents’ experiences as embedded in relational, temporal, and social structures, revealing the interplay between individual agency and institutional context.

6. Results

This study explored parents’ experiences of partnerships with their children’s preschools. The first research question, how parents describe their partnership in terms of information about the child, is addressed through Threads 1 and 2. The second research question, how parents position preschool in their child’s life, is addressed through Threads 3 and 4.

Threads of Analysis:

• Information about general child well-being and development as partnership;
• Information about teaching and learning as documentation;
• Preschool as an arena for developing norms and values;
• Preschool as an arena for lifelong learning and school readiness.

6.1. Information About General Child Well-Being and Development as Partnership

Preschool represents a social space where parents, children, and teachers interact, bringing distinct dispositions, values, and expectations. Parents emphasised receiving information about daily routines, well-being, and care as foundational to partnership:

“For me, it is satisfying to know that she’s been well during the time that she’s in preschool. That it was meaningful for her to be there”.

(P21)

Some parents desired deeper engagement, reflecting recognition that preschool constitutes a significant social environment shaping children’s emerging habitus:

“I would have liked to know more about him because he is there for so many hours of his life”.

(P3)

Communication was viewed as essential for relational security and trust:

“Partnership is both our responsibility. I need to express where my needs are […] but then preschool must be there for me”.

(P7)

Inconsistent communication, unclear expectations, and mismatched perceptions of important information sometimes disrupted trust:

“It was a huge transition now when they stopped sending photos […] suddenly I don’t know what her day is like”.

(P15)

Parents’ accounts indicate that partnership is a negotiated, relational process, with trust reinforced when communication is transparent and responsive to parental needs. Differences between parental and institutional habitus, parents’ relational orientation versus teachers’ procedural orientation, emerged as central to partnership experiences.

6.2. Information About Teaching and Learning as Documentation

Parents consistently described pedagogical documentation, via digital platforms, information evenings, and conferences, as serving institutional accountability more than partnership. Documentation was often perceived as one-directional:

“I don’t experience it as a two-way communication… They just tell us about what they do”.

(P4)

While formal documentation fulfilled curriculum requirements, many parents viewed it as peripheral to meaningful engagement:

“We absolutely receive information, but not so much through Unikum—more in the daily conversations”.

(P15)

Parents’ habitus, prioritising relational knowledge and child-centred care, sometimes clashed with teachers’ professional habitus, oriented toward standardised assessment. Informal, interpersonal communication was consistently valued above formal reporting. Several parents highlighted the importance of visible leadership and coherent pedagogical practice:

“I would really like to see a red thread in terms of leadership that saturates the preschool. That someone is present to welcome you, someone to receive you”.

(P3)

These findings reveal that while documentation is central to governance and quality assurance, it rarely functions as a bridge for genuine partnership, underscoring a misalignment between institutional and parental perspectives.

6.3. Preschool as an Arena for Developing Norms and Values

Parents frequently described preschool as central to children’s socio-emotional development and moral learning. Children transfer lessons across contexts, demonstrating emerging capacity to navigate social situations and articulate emotional awareness:

“He is influenced by what they do there … He was very in it, very aware of feelings and so on. So, it was noticeable that he’d brought that with him”.

(P1)

Preschool was largely seen as a co-educator, complementing parental socialisation and fostering social competence, empathy, and cooperation:

“I think that is a way to prepare yourself for life in society… you’ll need to relate to other people… I think that is a very important task that the preschool has”.

(P4)

Parents recognised that boundaries between home and preschool are negotiated, with shared responsibility for teaching social norms. Play-based learning and language development were emphasised as key mechanisms through which children acquire cultural and linguistic capital, shaping habitus and social agency:

“Language. You don’t necessarily develop that at home with your parents”.

(P19)

Some parents noted tensions arising from linguistic and cultural differences between staff and families, highlighting uncertainty about how values and norms are transmitted across diverse preschool environments (P18). Nonetheless, the dominant narrative positioned preschool as a vital space for socialisation, enabling children to accumulate social capital and develop dispositions necessary for navigating broader society.

6.4. Preschool as an Arena for Lifelong Learning and School Readiness

Parents described preschool as both a supportive care environment and a site for early learning, enabling participation in work and societal life:

“It is us that are the foundation of raising our children, but we can’t raise them in preschool or in school because we are not there, but we can establish the foundation here”.

(P6)

Exposure to structured routines, diverse social contexts, and peer interaction was valued for fostering autonomy, resilience, and readiness for compulsory schooling. Parents also framed preschool as a collective responsibility shared between families, teachers, and society:

“I think that it is both our responsibility, parents and preschool. We can’t take responsibility for the hours when she is in preschool”.

(P15)

Through the lens of habitus, both parental and institutional practices interact to reproduce cultural and social norms while shaping individual development. Preschool functions not only as a public care institution but also as a mediator of social and educational norms, supporting child development and scaffolding school readiness.

6.5. Summary

Across the four threads, parents consistently valued relational communication, care for well-being, and socialisation processes over formal academic documentation. Differences in habitus between parents and teachers shaped perceptions of partnership, with trust and engagement strongest where communication was consistent, empathetic, and responsive to child-specific needs. Preschool emerged as a critical intermediary space that complements family upbringing, facilitates social and emotional development, and enables children to acquire cultural, linguistic, and social capital necessary for broader societal participation.

7. Discussion: Parents’ Narratives on Communication and the Role of Preschool

Parents in this study described preschool not only as a site of care but also as a space that shapes children’s social, emotional, and cognitive development. For some, preschool mediates tensions between personal desires and structural constraints. One parent reflected:

“I have to work to make it all go around, but if I could stay at home I would”,

(P15)

Another emphasised its role as a public support:

“Then I wouldn’t have had kids. If that had meant that I had to stay at home all the time, for the rest of my life, then I wouldn’t have done it. That feels like a prison, I think. Preschool is a public service”.

(P9)

These narratives illustrate how parents negotiate personal, societal, and structural expectations, positioning preschool as a mediator of family life and social participation.

Through the lens of Bourdieu’s habitus, such decisions are more than pragmatic, they reflect internalised dispositions formed through early socialisation and everyday experiences (Dumais, 2006; Harker, 1984). Habitus allows children and parents to internalise norms, values, and practices through participation, while retaining agency to navigate diverse social contexts. Parents demonstrated an awareness of preschool’s social and developmental functions, recognising the benefits of children’s exposure to multiple environments:

“My daughter wouldn’t have coped with it. She is extremely active. She has a lot of will and a lot of energy. […] No, I wouldn’t have her at home full-time”.

(P6)

This account highlights alignment between parental habitus, perceptions of the child’s needs, and the structuring influence of preschool.

Communication with teachers emerged as central to parents’ experience of partnership. Updates about children’s well-being, play, rest, and appetite were consistently prioritised over detailed pedagogical reporting. One parent explained that partnership relies on emotional security and relational trust:

“It’s about collaboration. It’s important that I feel safe when I leave my children”.

(P1)

From a Bourdieusian perspective, these preferences reveal how parental habitus both shapes and is reinforced by the social meanings attached to preschool. Interactions between parents’ and teachers’ habitus determine what information is communicated, how it is interpreted, and how children’s development is scaffolded.

Parents’ engagement was embedded in temporal and contextual realities, including work obligations and aspirations for children’s lifelong learning (Broström, 2006; Eckeskog, 2019; Markström & Simonsson, 2017). Habitus operates dynamically, guiding dispositions and shaping trajectories across childhood:

“It is us that are the foundation of raising our children, but we can’t raise them in preschool or in school because we are not there, but we can establish the foundation here”.

(P6)

Social and cultural capital mediated how parents engaged with preschool. Some parents felt constrained by institutional expectations, framing preschool primarily as a safe space rather than an educational setting (Lunneblad, 2013). Trust and emotional security often took precedence over pedagogical content, reflecting tensions identified by Eriksson et al. (2019) between parental expectations for meaningful daily experiences and limited influence over teaching. Despite uncertainties about their role, parents still expected preschool to share responsibility for upbringing, revealing asymmetries in power and influence (Gars, 2002).

Viewed through the lens of habitus, these dynamics demonstrate how parental dispositions and social capital shape orientations toward education, contributing to the reproduction, or negotiation, of social inequalities. Early interactions in preschool cultivate children’s emergent social and cultural capital, influencing comfort, aspirations, and sense of belonging in future educational settings (Harker, 1984). Equitable communication and shared understanding between parents and teachers can mediate these inequalities, supporting child-centred development. Parents consistently highlighted preschool as a space where social norms, values, and behaviours are learned, preparing children to navigate broader social, educational, and professional environments (Hedlin, 2019; Löfdahl, 2014; Dumais, 2006).

Thus, parents’ narratives position preschool as both a practical support for family life and a social arena where habitus, communication, and capital intersect. Through ongoing interaction with teachers, children gain exposure to social norms and practices that shape their development, while parents negotiate their roles in alignment with personal values, societal expectations, and institutional structures. Preschool thus emerges as a critical site for the co-construction of care, learning, and socialisation. Below follows detailed answers to the study’s research questions. See also

Table 1. Summary table.

RQ	Key Findings	Habitus Implications
1. Communication & valued information	Parents prioritise updates on well-being, routines, and care over formal pedagogy; documentation perceived as institutional	Parental habitus emphasises relational knowledge; teacher habitus emphasises formal accountability; interaction shapes mutual understanding
2. Positioning of preschool	Preschool as socialisation arena, support for family life, and school readiness; shared responsibility between parents, teachers, and society	Preschool shapes children’s habitus; alignment of parental and institutional habitus influences participation, trust, and child development

, summary table.

Research Question 1: How do parents describe communication with preschool teachers, and what information about their child is valued?

Parents describe communication primarily in relational and practical terms, emphasising child well-being, routines, and emotional security over detailed pedagogical content. Key findings include:

• Well-being and development as partnership: Parents value updates on nutrition, rest, play, and emotional states, which provide reassurance and foster trust (e.g., P21, P1, P7). This shows that communication functions as the foundation of partnership, reflecting alignment between parental habitus and the preschool environment.
• Pedagogical documentation as formal but limited: Parents perceive digital platforms and formal records (e.g., Unikum) primarily as institutional tools for accountability rather than as interactive or dialogic forms of communication (e.g., P4, P15). This illustrates how differences in parental and teacher habitus shape interpretations of what constitutes meaningful information.
• Negotiation of roles and expectations: Mismatches between what parents value and what is communicated can create uncertainty, highlighting the relational and negotiated nature of communication within the preschool field (e.g., P15, P3).

Communication in preschool is thus seen as relational and negotiated, fostering trust and alignment when focused on daily care and development, yet formal tools are often seen as accountability mechanisms, reflecting differences in parental and teacher habitus. In this regard, parents value timely, meaningful, and relationally mediated information about their child’s daily life, with communication serving both emotional and participatory functions in the home–preschool partnership.

Research Question 2: How do parents position preschool in their child’s life?

Parents position preschool as both a practical support for family life and a social and developmental arena for their children. Key findings include:

• Socialisation and norms: Preschool is primarily seen as a site where children develop social competence, empathy, autonomy, and moral understanding (e.g., P1, P4, P19). These experiences contribute to the child’s emerging habitus, shaping dispositions, values, and social skills.
• School readiness and lifelong learning: While parents acknowledge preschool’s role in preparing children for future schooling, its most salient function is as a social arena and structured environment that complements home upbringing (e.g., P6, P15, P9).
• Shared responsibility and public support: Parents recognise preschool as a collective institution that balances family, societal, and institutional expectations. It supports parents’ ability to work while providing children exposure to diverse social contexts (e.g., P6, P9, P15).
• Conclusion: Preschool is positioned as a critical intermediary field, shaping children’s social, emotional, and cognitive development while mediating family life. Parental and institutional habitus intersect in this space, influencing both expectations and experiences.

8. Conclusions

By applying Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, this study reconceptualises preschool policy and practice as a dynamic social field where the dispositions of parents, teachers, and children intersect with institutional structures and societal norms. Habitus helps explain how internalised dispositions, values, and expectations shape communication, partnership, and engagement in ways that extend beyond formal policy, reflecting the complex interplay between individual agency and social structures (Bourdieu et al., 1977; Bourdieu, 1986, 1990; Dumais, 2006; Harker, 1984).

Parents’ narratives indicate a shift from routine participation to active engagement in children’s development. They value consistent, relational communication about well-being, socialisation, and daily experiences over formal pedagogical documentation, highlighting the alignment—or misalignment—between parental and institutional habitus (Broström, 2006; Eriksson et al., 2019; Löfdahl, 2014; Vuorinen, 2021). This underscores previous research emphasising the importance of reciprocal family–teacher partnerships in supporting children’s socio-emotional and cognitive development (Barger et al., 2019; Goodall & Montgomery, 2022).

From a policy and practice perspective, preschools function as arenas where social and cultural capital are accumulated and transmitted. Parents and teachers bring different resources, expectations, and dispositions that shape children’s developing habitus, influencing social norms, values, and readiness for school (Hakyemez-Paul et al., 2018; Karhula et al., 2017; Ule et al., 2015). As research in the Nordic context demonstrates, parental engagement is essential for fostering school readiness and transversal competencies, yet engagement is unevenly distributed across social groups (Ruutiainen et al., 2023), reflecting structural and cultural inequalities (Broström, 2006; Böök & Perälä-Littunen, 2015; Lunneblad, 2013; Persson, 2012).

Parents’ narratives further highlight the practical role of preschool as a public institution: supporting family life, facilitating work participation, and enabling children to engage with multiple social contexts (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2024; Broström et al., 2018). Through the lens of habitus, these practices mediate the interplay between parental dispositions and institutional expectations, shaping children’s socialisation and access to cultural capital. Communication, trust, and relational continuity emerge as essential components of effective partnership, echoing findings that emotional security often precedes formal learning in parents’ priorities (A. S. Jensen et al., 2010; Markström & Simonsson, 2017; Hedlin, 2019).

Implications for practice may include:

• Expanding communication strategies beyond formal documentation to incorporate ongoing, relational dialogue that acknowledges diverse parental habitus and cultural capital (Alasuutari, 2014; Böök & Perälä-Littunen, 2015; Karhula et al., 2017).
• Facilitating equitable participation by providing accessible opportunities for all parents, including those from diverse cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic backgrounds (Dodillet & Christensen, 2020; Bryceson & Vuorela, 2020; Demie & Lewis, 2011).
• Supporting professional development for teachers to recognise and respond to differences in parental habitus, enhancing partnership and shared responsibility in children’s development (Eriksson et al., 2019; Löfdahl, 2014; Vuorinen, 2021).

While the study does not prescribe universal solutions, it points toward praxis-oriented strategies that could transform dominant cultural norms within the preschool field. By intentionally fostering inclusive engagement, preschools can function as both sites of learning and arenas for social transformation, mediating inequalities and supporting child-centred development (Alverson et al., 2019; Goodall & Montgomery, 2022; Broström et al., 2018).

In conclusion, integrating Bourdieu’s framework into the analysis of parent–preschool partnerships illuminate how habitus, social capital, and institutional fields converge to shape both opportunities and constraints. This approach not only deepens understanding of parent–teacher interactions but also informs actionable strategies for creating more inclusive, responsive, and equitable early childhood education systems in Sweden and beyond.