Katey De Gioia
Macquarie University

The use of childcare services for very young children (birth to three years) has increased dramatically in the past two decades (Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 2004). This article investigates the expectations for cultural continuity of caregiving practices (with particular emphasis on sleep and feeding) between home and the early childhood setting. Findings showed that 1. Parents hold expectations for the execution of caregiving practices; 2. Ongoing oral communication is seen as a support for understanding practices, and staff with the same cultural background as families are pivotal in this process; and 3. Concealed practices by staff may be the result of a lack of communication, or of staff responding to their own macro-cultural beliefs. Continuity of micro- and macro-cultural practices is dependent upon staff attitudes and the process of communication.

Introduction

Development in young children is influenced not only by biological factors but also by experiences related to the child's ecological environment, such as the relationship with the primary caregiver as well as social, cultural and socioeconomic influences (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Owen, Ware & Barfoot, 2000). Culture and society are strong determinants in the development of the individual, particularly because they affect child-rearing practices (Harkness, 1980; Vygotsky, 1978). This article focuses on two routine caregiving practices for young children from birth to three years: sleep and feeding. It has been argued that the routine practices of putting young children to sleep and of feeding children contribute to the cultural 'blueprint' that forms a child's identity and sense of self (Elkin & Handel, 1989; Harkness, 1980; Mead, 1975; Vygotsky, 1978).

Theoretical framework

This study draws on the work of Bronfenbrennner (1979, 1986), who identified the importance of an ecology of interconnected systems which show how influences around the individual affect their development. His model addresses the following:

• The microsystem, which consists of the young child within the family and includes relationships and everyday happenings.
• The mesosystem, which includes the interconnections between microsystems; for example, between the childcare centre and the family, or the church and the family.
• The exosystem, which includes practices, institutions and activities which occur beyond the microsystem but which influence the other systems, and vice versa.
• The outer layer or macrosystem, which encompasses values, customs and beliefs of the community and society.

For the purpose of this study, Bronfenbrenner's (1979) framework has been adapted to examine what influences very young children within the early childhood setting, and to deconstruct the potential impact of micro- and macro-cultural development within their environment (De Gioia, 2003). The adapted framework explores the intricate relationships within and outside of the early childhood setting. The adapted model is explained below:

• The microsystem, or parent expectations, identifies the parents' role as the main influencing agents in the life of the young child. Micro and macro culture are passed on at this level via parents and close family members, either deliberately or unconsciously through caregiving interactions such as sleep preparations and feeding (Hopkins, 1989). Choice of childcare setting for their child represents a value choice. Parents influence this setting through their interactions (McKim, 2000).
• The mesosystem, or early childhood setting. Staff knowledge and attitudes towards the child's family practices are considered here. The consistency between micro and macro system reflect the staff's level of effectiveness when caring for children with similar backgrounds (Chang, Muckelroy & Pulido- Tobiassen, 1996; Gonzalez-Mena, 2007).
• The exosystem, or policies and/or regulations, can work to support or hinder the development of micro and macro culture in the early childhood setting. For example, regulations may support needs by enabling funding for additional childcare staff with skills in languages other than English, to support home languages within the childcare setting (Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services, 1998).
• The macrosystem takes into account that the early childhood setting is situated within the local community, and addresses the impact of societal values, beliefs and attitudes. The community may reflect high levels of migrant population, and so may show greater tolerance for diversity in relation to child-rearing practices. Alternatively, the community may be mono-cultural—placing value on conformity to the dominant Australian macro culture.

Cultural influences on very young children

Culture is defined as the traditions, norms, values and practices which influence the manner in which a person interacts with others and their environment (Thomas, 1998). Culture is seen in this context to occur on two levels (De Gioia, 2003). First, the individual operates on an unconscious level, guided by cultural beliefs, norms and values. Daily behaviour occurs automatically without thought or reflection (Lotman, 1985). At this level, daily caregiving practices for very young children are done within the family. These practices are referred to under the label of 'micro culture'—for example, the way a young child is fed represents a facet of micro culture. Different ways of feeding might include by spoon, by the child using its fingers, or by a parent breaking off small pieces of food and putting them into the child's mouth.

There is a second level of culture for the individual, which incorporates a wider concept of culture. This is the ritualistic, symbolic behaviour that ties belonging to a cultural group to ethnic labelling (Thomas, 1986)—for example, cultural celebrations such as Chinese New Year and Ramadan. In this study it is referred to as the 'macro culture' of a family or group. Identification with a particular group produces feelings of belonging, which contributes to assimilation of the attitudes and practices of that group (Farver, Narang & Bhadha, 2002).

Research has shown that there are major cultural differences in infant caregiving practices amongst different ethnic groups, which relates to micro and macro cultural influences (Abbott, 1992; Bhavnagri & Gonzalez-Mena, 1997). In this paper, the two micro-cultural practices of sleep and feeding are explored further. Both practices are universal and necessary for basic survival. It is the way they are done that varies across micro cultures and has implications for children in early childhood settings.

Sleep and very young children

Sleep accounts for a large part of the young child's life. It is necessary for effective functioning, growth and development. With the increase in use of childcare services for children from birth to three years (FaCSIA, 2004), a significant amount of the time young children spend in child care is likely to involve sleeping or preparing for sleep. While patterns of sleep and the processes for putting children to sleep vary between individual families, and more broadly across cultures, the importance of timing when children are put to sleep and the vulnerability felt by the child during the transition in and out of sleep is a consistent quality evident in all children (Caudill & Plath, 1966; Trevathan & McKenna, 1994).

Sleep time in child care can be a period when young children may have difficulty with adjustment. Tiredness or over-tiredness, or an environment where sleep patterns are different from those of the home setting, can lead to uncertainty for young children (Provence, Naylor & Paterson, 1977). Further, this uncertainty may be exacerbated for migrant children, because sleep patterns are one of the last practices to change when a family moves to a new country (Farooqui, Perry & Beevers, 1991).

Feeding and very young children

Studies show that the development of secure attachments and cognitive and linguistic competence is linked to quality interactions between the parent (or caregiver) and the child. High-quality interactions during feeding can support these aspects of development (Barnard et al., 1989; Bowlby, 1988). Feeding young children is a routinely occurring event–however, parental expectations for when and how children should be fed and what they should eat vary significantly. For example, some cultural groups may favour using fingers over the use of utensils, whereas others encourage interdependence with the caregiver during feeding. These practices may occur at home; however, childcare professionals, who represent other macrocultural groups, may feel it necessary to develop skills with utensils, or independence through self-feeding (Whitington, 2004).

Working in partnership with parents

Table 1: Participants* in semi-structured interviews

Centre	Demographics	Staff participants*	Parent participants
Centre A	Western Sydney 60% English Second Language	**Andrea (Director, BEd) **Judy (Assoc. Diploma) **Lila and Lena (untrained assistants)	6 mothers 2 fathers (Countries of origin: Pakistan, 3; India, 2; Iraq, 2; Philippines, 1) Translations not requested.
Centre B	South West Sydney 52.6% overseas-born, with a high proportion from Asian countries	**Bess (Director, BEd) Fran and Kath (untrained assistants&ndash countries of origin Vietnam and China)	3 mothers 2 fathers 1 older brother (19 years) (Countries of origin: China, 5; Samoa,1 ) Information translated into Vietnamese and Mandarin for circulation to families.
Centre C	Inner West Sydney Predominately 1st and 2nd generation Australian (European heritage)	Margaret (Associate Diploma) Jane (untrained assistant) (Both 2nd generation Australian of Greek heritage)	4 mothers (1st and 2nd generation Australian, of Greek and Spanish heritage) Translations not requested.

* Pseudonyms have been used to ensure confidentiality. **Country of origin–Australia

Working in partnership with parents is one of the indicators of quality in early childhood programs (Hughes & MacNaughton, 1999, 2000; Hughes & MacNaughton, 2001; Koch & McDonough, 1999; New South Wales Department of Community Services, 1998). Successful partnerships have been shown to have a positive impact on the care and education of young children (Owen et al., 2000; Pelo & Davidson, 2003).

For the purpose of this paper, working in partnership with parents is defined as the opportunity for both parties to feel empowered to contribute meaningfully to children's caregiving practices (Hayden, De Gioia & Hadley, 2003). Young children develop a secure sense of identity through consistent care practices, and an effective partnership between parents and early childhood teachers is imperative for achieving consistency (McBride, 1999). Parents should be the primary source of knowledge for caregiving in their own micro culture. They know the childrearing practices that are familiar to their young children and are valued by their family. When a child attends a centre from a very young age, early childhood staff play a significant role in their lives–however, early childhood staff may hold very different child-rearing beliefs and macro-cultural expectations from those of the parents. As a result, a child may be spending regular amounts of time with two or more macro cultures, depending on the number of early childhood teachers responsible for each individual child in the setting.

Purpose of this study

The purpose of this study was to determine the expectations of parents in relation to the continuity of micro-culturally specific practices associated with sleep and feeding. This study investigated the following two questions:1. How do staff in childcare settings deal with microcultural differences in children's sleep and feeding practices? 2. How do parents address the issue that childcare centres may implement different practices around sleep and feeding with their young child?

Methodology

The research design
This study used a social constructivism approach, which enabled the researcher to create meaning and identify action from parent and staff perceptions of continuity of practice between the home and early education setting. This allows for the circumstances of the study to be described and interpreted. The aim of this inquiry is to lead to an understanding of the specific experiences of continuity of practice shared by staff and parents (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Schwandt, 1994).

Participants
Three centres were involved in the data-gathering process. All staff working with children under three and the parents of these children were invited to participate. Owing to the nature of the study and the diversity of participants' backgrounds, the initial information was translated into the appropriate languages after consultation with the directors–to invite participation when the director deemed it appropriate. Demographics for centre location and participant details are identified in Table 1.

Data-gathering tools
This study used semi-structured interviews to gather data. Interviews provide knowledge of perceptions which cannot be gained through observation (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Semi-structured interviews involve a pre-determined set of questions which are uniformly presented to all participants. This type of questioning allows for further probing and clarification of responses (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002).

In this study, parents and centre staff were interviewed in the same manner, using identical semi-structured interview schedules. The content areas of the semistructured interview questions included: processes for discussing home practices; potential for implementing practices, and the implications when this is not possible; and the identification of ongoing communication processes between staff and parents.

Interview duration was approximately 20 to 40 minutes per person. Because of the participants' diverse backgrounds, an option to use an interpreter was available. Participants in Centre A were all involved in English language courses and commented that the interview being held in English would be a good opportunity to practise. An interpreter who spoke Cantonese and Mandarin was employed for three participants in Centre B (one parent chose to send their 19-year-old son, because they felt he would be more capable of answering the questions). Centre C did not require interpreters, as participants were first and second generation Australian.

Data analysis

1. is purposeful and ordered in its handling of data (St John & Johnson, 2000). N6 replaces manual tasks associated with qualitative research. It allows for text boundaries to be established and provides a swift alternative for coding and retrieving data, in a systematic manner
2. supports rigour and validity through a strong audit trail detailing the coding task and the decision-making processes for analysis (Kelle & Laurie, 1995)
3. is flexible; coding categories can be easily manipulated, with scope for changes in concepts and in the sequence of data analyses (St John & Johnson, 2000).

Interviews were transcribed and entered into QSR N6. Participants' transcripts were analysed to determine their experiences in relation to the questions posed. Findings in relation to question one were coded to communication processes and further coded into the following categories:
i. Written and oral communication

The second main code to emerge in relation to this question was the impact on practice when staff felt they were unable to meet micro- or macro-cultural sleep and eating home practices. This code was broken down to the following categories:
i.  Negotiation ii. Concealed actions

Findings to question two were coded into the following categories:
i.  Supports to practice – tangible practices ii. Constraints to practice – limitations of staff

These are described below.

Findings

The findings showed the importance of parent-staff partnerships in addressing continuity of care. Findings are described according to the research questions identified below.

1. How do staff in childcare settings deal with individual differences in sleep and feeding patterns?

Written and oral communication

All staff identified the enrolment form as the key means of obtaining information relating to the sleep and feeding practices of families. However, staff also felt that this information was limited, and that individual differences were more likely to be explored further when talking with parents.

Seven staff noted difficulties in obtaining information from parents in relation to sleep and eating habits beyond the enrolment form information. Perhaps parents' lack of information about their macro- and micro-cultural practices may have been a message to staff that they were not willing to have these discussed in the centre. One example from Lila highlighted this plight:

... It has been really difficult to get our parents to tell us what they are doing at home. We did have a meeting a couple of weeks ago where we had eight parents come but none of these parents put forward anything that they were doing at home that they wanted us to continue doing here at the centre, so we are really at a bind with that at the moment because if parents aren't willing to share, then it is hard for us to do it (Lila, trained staff).

When parents were asked why they had not shared their home practices, four identified that they did not see this as the role of the centre. Parents saw the childcare centre as an entry point for the child to integrate with the wider community. For example:

This is her first exposure to some social world ... before we were just at home and she just went with me to market, look around, come back. But here she's practically dealing with those people, with the kids and their culture, but I don't think it's affecting her in any way, in any negative way. Well actually this is very much a multicultural society. Australia does have its own culture which should have a priority over others. It is the way people here want things to be (Farley, mother).

I don't really expect everyone to follow the Chinese culture that we want them to follow because [we are] here in Australia. I still prefer they learn ... the Australian culture and Australian things too. It is like important for them when they go school or they go out in society, they have to know Aussie ... I'm just saying that for me it's more important to learn Australian culture too (Maggie, mother).

Probably in this day and age, especially in Australia, it's good to try not to focus too much on the child from the Asian culture or the other culture and try to adapt to the new way of life in Australia which is very different. I think that is what the parents want, because at home children usually get taught to do things the way their parents did it in that different country and it wouldn't work in Australia and it wouldn't work here in Sydney (John, 19-year-old brother of a child in the centre).

Bess (a director) described how settling children into the centre can be aided by additional information from parents about their sleep practices.

[In relation to] sleeping, you can really put a child into a state of distress, and yourself, making it so hard, when a child might actually go to sleep being rocked in the arms, as opposed to patted on the back, might be rubbed or they might have a special toy or something, and if you don't get that feedback it can take a couple of months for a settle-in process, rather than a couple of weeks. And alleviating that stress between the staff and that child as well (Bess, director).

All staff agreed that, when they were provided with information pertaining to sleep and feeding patterns, they attempted to meet parents' requests. Fran described an incident involving daily communication with a parent about a sleeping issue, and how the staff member resolved it by meeting the parent's and child's needs.

... [S]ometimes ... mum wanted her to sleep ... but she doesn't want to sleep every day, and then I talked to her mum and she said it's better if you give her sleep but if she doesn't want then maybe mummy says it's alright for her to play or have a quiet time ...(Fran, untrained staff member)

Jane also described the importance of ongoing oral communication in ascertaining how to address issues which arise due to different home and centre eating practices.

[Parents] talk to us, and they tell us 'You know if our child's not eating it's because they're used to eating [different] sort of food' ... so we do whatever they ask us to (Jane, untrained staff member).

The importance of oral communication was also noted at a macro-cultural level by staff. Bess (centre director) noted how she received information about specific macro cultures through daily interactions with staff from the same macro culture as the families accessing the centre. One of the staff members from the same macro culture as the majority of children in the centre explained that children were not used to sitting down at the table for a meal, but rather that parents or caregivers would follow them around and give them small pieces of food to eat.

... now that I work with (names staff in the room), I found they're telling me about what South-East Asian cultures do – [the children eat whilst] running around [and the parent follows and puts small pieces of] food into their mouths ... they've been really conditioned to their home environment of walking around ... Sitting down is a really big change for them ... (Bess, director).

Negotiation

Findings showed that all staff recognised negotiation as a critical factor when faced with sleep and eating practices that did not fit into centre routines. Fran described a conversation in which she negotiated with a parent in relation to his child's poor eating practices in the childcare centre:

... at home he gets Asian food every day and so I just tell his Daddy maybe try to bring his own lunch [as the centre provides hot lunches daily for all children] and then we warm it up for him at lunch time ... (Fran, untrained staff member).

Concealed actions

There were instances when staff described how they had adapted practices without parent consultation. Findings showed there were two main reasons this occurred:
1.  Staff felt a distinct lack of communication with particular parents, and also felt that these parents were not forthcoming with information about home practices. The staff were striving to replicate practices in a variety of ways, and tried to find out about home practices. Five staff members acknowledged their frustration at a lack of information. Sample comments included:

They don't tend to tell us or give us any suggestions about how they do it at home, even if we do ask them (Andrea, director).

... [w]e are trying to encourage the parents to come and share [micro- or macro-cultural practices] – so far we haven't had a lot of luck. Recently I have given some [parents] books, children's story books to read–to tape first and to write out the words in their home languages, for us to type out and put into the books ... (Lila, trained staff member).

With some of the children, we encourage them to bring some of their things from home so they still have their cultural things here, although we are still waiting for this to happen (Judy, trained staff member).

2.  Staff macro culture may have influenced decisions to advance or change a particular practice. Interestingly, the three staff who spoke of concealed practices had different macro cultures to the families. They also represented the dominant Australian macro culture. One staff member cited two examples of concealed changes to practice:

... John used to be wrapped up, and you know how big he is, like seven months, eight months, and she'd still want us to wrap him and we said 'Oh look, we're not doing that anymore because he's big enough and he can sleep fine without being wrapped up (Margaret, trained staff member).

She didn't really say it's part of her culture, but I don't know, I just assumed maybe, because she still was breastfeeding him and everything. We did [blend his food] at the beginning, and then [would get him to] have a little bit of banana without blending it and then ... a little bit of lunch, and he was fine with food without [it] being blended, and we told her and she was fine about it (Margaret, trained staff member).

Andrea highlighted her discomfort at having to explain differences between eating styles.

... [T]hey don't use cutlery at home which is a little bit difficult in terms of teaching them, explaining to the other kids why they don't use cutlery and [why] they are allowed to use their hands (Andrea, director).

The existence of micro-cultural practices associated with sleep and feeding patterns were recognised by all staff in the study. Staff described processes for dealing with micro-cultural differences and acknowledged the difficulties associated with information received, and/or with information not forthcoming from parents. Staff described their desire to meet parent requests wherever possible and offered negotiation as an effective strategy when the centre could not reflect the home environment.

In terms of respect for micro-cultural practices from the home setting, levels of respect were dependent upon varying factors. Staff showed respect for practices they could achieve, for example, whether a child is to be wrapped when being put to sleep. Respect for practices seemed to falter when staff felt they were not receiving information from parents, particularly when they believed they had provided opportunities for parents to communicate with them about these practices. This resulted in concealed practices. Similarly, respect for practices seemed to diminish when the macro culture of staff impacted on the decision to change a practice without parental consultation. Phrases such as 'I assumed, maybe ...' and 'We're not doing that ... because he's big enough ...' served to reinforce the choices, which were laden with the values of the dominant macro culture.

2. How do parents address the issue that childcare centres may implement different practices around sleep and feeding with their young child?

Supports to practices: Tangible practices

All parents were able to describe practices they believed could be implemented by staff in the centre. Such statements included:

His son doesn't like to swallow things, that's why he like[s] consommé or very watery rice, like this type of food. He doesn't like rocky food. His wife told the staff this and they try to make his food softer so he can eat it (Dan, father, through an interpreter).

Other responses from parents, which acknowledged practices that staff could easily attend to, included:

Okay, the sleep – she goes to sleep with her red dog and she's got a blanket that she gets wrapped in, and I told the staff to wrap her, give her [the] red dog and say, 'Sleep well, see you soon' and leave her. So try ... not to pat her if they can avoid it and not to keep going in because we were trying to do controlled crying with her (Hetti, mother).

The way she likes to go to bed, [at home] she's got this blanket with the edge that is like a silky ribbon, so she likes to touch that. [The teacher] said bring hers in ... (Muriel, mother).

We have to restrict them in some certain foods [for religious purposes], but that's all (Keith, father).

Constraints to practices: Staff limitations

Parent responses indicated that some sleep and feeding practices in the childcare setting that differed from the home environment were acceptable. While this was acknowledged as a constraint on the impact of the practice, parents noted that they understood that circumstances in the setting would not allow for individual practices in all instances.

Eight parents acknowledged that staff did not have the ability to replicate home practices in the centre. A typical comment was:

The teachers don't know what's going on at home. They could be told something completely different to what is actually happening, and I suppose they can't really follow through with anything, where it concerns home (Samantha, mother).

Six parents showed an awareness that the number and diversity of the children made it difficult for home practices to be replicated in the centre. Comments included:

I did notice before when they had two extra staff ... you could see that they would be able to give a bit more individual attention to kids (Hetti, mother).

You can't follow individuals, and I'd say one childcare worker would have to look after quite a few kids, I mean [they] can't give particular attention to one kid only (Maggie, mother).

I think it is hard, but I mean each individual has got their own ways [of carrying out practices in the home environment] and by [staff] being able to bring it all together for the child, to understand what [parents] want [from the home environment] that you're trying to provide ... Yeah, I think that's difficult (Muriel, mother).

I think the food is really difficult because there are so many children. They can't just do individual meals ... (Samantha, mother).

Parent respondents had no difficulty describing individual micro-cultural practices associated with sleep and feeding. They described their expectations of staff, which were concrete and attainable in terms of sleep and eating practices &ndash for example, providing a security toy at rest time or serving food that is ground finely. However, parents did not believe that all practices from the home environment could or should be replicated by staff. They believed staff could not replicate home practices for all children. They cited staff–child ratios as the reason for this, stating that it would not be possible for the number of staff per child to meet all the needs of individual children.

Discussion

This study aimed to explore staff and parent expectations in relation to micro- and macro-cultural caregiving routines. The analyses of findings have identified the following:

1. Parents may value early childhood services as an entry point to integration into Australian society.
2. Parents hold expectations for the execution of specific caregiving practices associated with sleep and feeding.
3. Ongoing oral communication enables staff to gain a greater understanding of micro-cultural practices. Staff who have the same macro culture and language as families are pivotal in this process.
4. Concealed practices may be a result of lack of communication between parent and staff, or of staff responding to their own macro-cultural beliefs.

The microsystem: Parent expectations

The factors influencing choice of early childhood service have been addressed in numerous research studies. They include cost, location, operating hours and quality indicators (incorporating a focus on relationships between staff and children, and parents and staff) (Wise, 2002; Zinzeleta & King Litte, 1997). The use of early childhood services as an entry point to Australian society is a relatively recent phenomenon which has significant implications (Ebbeck, 2001). It may also explain parents' lack of response to sharing information about micro- and macro-cultural practices. These parents saw the centre's role as providing experiences and exposure to language that they did not feel they could implement at home. This integrative approach (Berry, Kim, Power, Young & Bujaki, 1989) places the childcare setting in a facilitative role between Australian society and families from different macro cultures. It also further serves to support and reproduce the dominant macro culture within society, thereby maintaining equalities rather than challenging them (Bourdieu, 1993).

Parents did identify the importance of specific caregiving practices, such as how a child was wrapped prior to sleep or processes for feeding. Some parents were quite explicit in their expectations of staff, whilst others were able to negotiate practices they were concerned about. The collaborative nature of the relationship between parents and staff does impact on the child—therefore the ability to share home practices is pivotal (Hand & Wise, 2006).

The mesosystem: Early childhood setting

The staff attitudes within an early childhood setting impact on processes that establish continuity of practice between home and the childcare setting. Furthermore, staff with the same macro culture as the families accessing the setting, play an important role in communicating with families in their home language, and sharing with other staff the practices associated with their macro culture. This can assist staff with understanding what may be parent practices, or explain children's behaviour as a result of home practices–for example, children not sitting at the table to eat. Robinson and Jones Diaz (2007) have emphasised the need for centres to employ bi-cultural staff, to represent the language community within the centre. This strategy can move communication beyond a functional level, towards a more positive identification of the home language for children and families (Robinson & Jones Diaz, 2007). This practice also challenges the notion of subscribing to the dominant macro culture within society.

This study exposed practices being adapted by staff that were concealed from the parents. The staff, who discussed these practices, were from the dominant macro culture. This approach to caregiving and respect for different macro-cultural practices reinforces a laissez-faire school of thought where respect and equity are based on sameness and equality (MacNaughton, 2006). This attitude means that a 'status quo' approach exists–an approach which does not allow for the acknowledgment of diversity, but rather deference to the dominant macro culture. Partnerships between parents and staff from differing macro cultures will not subsist in this environment.

Conclusion

Rethinking parent–staff partnership
While ongoing communication seems to be the key to understanding and replicating home practices in the early childhood setting, there are factors which inhibit the potential for this to happen. Parental choice when determining what information to provide and when to keep silent in relation to home practices impacts on communication and partnerships–parents may be making considered choices which inevitably result in the inclination for dominant macro-cultural choices to preside.

Staff attitudes at the mesosystem level are also strong determinants of continuity of practice from home to early childhood setting. Staff from similar macro cultures as those of the children in centre provide an opportunity to discuss and describe practices, something which may not have been occurring between families and staff. A greater understanding of the reasons for practices may reduce the potential for concealed practices, and challenge the maintenance of the dominant macro culture.

With the increasing number of parents accessing childcare centres, it is timely to consider parent–staff partnerships, and the processes for ensuring continuity of micro- and macro-cultural practices between home and setting.

Recommendations for practice:

• Ask parents what their expectations are for their child at the centre. Probe further and be direct: 'How do you want us to put your child to sleep? What are your thoughts on your child learning languages?'
• Identify ways to connect with parents that go beyond drop-off and pick-up chat. Consider how the childcare centre invites parents to feel welcome in the setting and offers opportunities for staff to talk meaningfully with parents.
• Find means to ensure that parents and staff who don't speak a common language can communicate on an ongoing basis–identify resource agencies in the community or parents within the centre who are willing to act as translators
• Start conversations with parents about routine practices. Have parents share with each other their ideas and practices. Parents will feel more comfortable about what they do if they hear how others do things in different ways or that they feel uncertain about their own practices.

There can be significant differences in the needs and expectations of parents and staff in childcare settings. The important factor is determining what these differences are and ensuring that there is open dialogue. Partnerships take time, but are essential for the continuity or negotiated discontinuity of micro- and macro-cultural practices for young children.

Reference

Abbott, S. (1992). Holding on and pushing away: Comparative perspectives on an Eastern Kentucky child rearing practice. Ethos(20), 33-65.

Australian Government Department of Families Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. (2004). 2004 Australian Government census of child care services [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 20 November 2006, www.facsia.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/childcare/04_census.htm.

Barnard, K., Hammond, M. A., Booth, C. L., Bee, H. L., Mitchell, S. K., & Spieker, S. (1989). Measurement and meaning of parent-child interaction. Applied Developmental Psychology(3), 39-80.

Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturaltion attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology(38), 185-206.

Bhavnagri, N., & Gonzalez-Mena, J. (1997). The cultural context of infant caregiving. Childhood Education., 74(1), 2-7.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question. London: Sage.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base: Clinical Applications of Attachment Theory. London: Routledge.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development.Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.

Caudill, W., & Plath, D. W. (1966). Who sleeps by whom? Parent-child involvement in urban Japanese families. Psychiatry, 29, 344-366.

Chang, H. N. L., Muckelroy, A., & Pulido-Tobiassen, D. (1996). Looking in, looking out: Redefining child care and early education in a diverse society. California: California Tomorrow.

Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services. (1998). Community centre based long day care handbook. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services.

De Gioia, K. (2003). Beyond cultural diversity. Exploring micro and macro culture in the early childhood setting. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Western Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Ebbeck, M. (2001). Cultural continuities: An Australian perspective. Early Child Development and Care, 171, 33-46.

Elkin, F., & Handel, G. (1989). The child and society. The process of socialization (5th ed.). New York: Random House.

Farooqui, S. I., Perry, J., & Beevers, D. G. (1991). Ethnic differences in sleeping position and risk of cot death. The Lancet, 338(1445).

Farver, J. A. M., Narang, S. K., & Bhadha, B. R. (2002). East Meets West: Ethnic Identity, Acculturation, and Conflict in Asian Indian Families. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(3), 338-350. Gonzalez-Mena, J. (2007). Diversity in early care and education: Honoring differences (5 edn.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 195-220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gubrium, J.F. & Holstein, J.A. (Eds.) (2002). Handbook of interview research: Context and method. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Hand, K., & Wise, S. (2006). Parenting partnerships in culturally diverse child care settings: A care provider perspective. (Research paper/Australian Institute of Family Studies; n.36).

Harkness, S. (1980). The cultural context of child development. In S. Harkness (Ed.), Anthropological perspectives on child development. New direction for child development (Vol. 8, pp. 7-18). San Francisco: Freeman.

Hayden, J., De Gioia, K., & Hadley, F. (2003). Enhancing partnerships and networks with culturally and linguistically diverse families in early childhood services: Final Report. Sydney: University of Western Sydney.

Hesse-Biber, S. (1995). Unleashing Frankenstein's monster? The use of computers in qualitative research. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Studies in qualitative methodology: Computing and qualitative research. London: Sage.

Hopkins, B. (1989). Culture, infancy and education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, IV(2), 289-293.

Hughes, P., & MacNaughton, G. (1999). Who's the expert: Reconceptualising parent-staff relations in early education. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(4), 27-32.

Hughes, P., & MacNaughton, G. (2000). Building equitable staff-parent communication in early childhood settings: An Australian case study. Paper presented at the Annual Conference and Exhibition of the Association for Childhood Education, Baltimore: April, 17-20.

Hughes, P., & MacNaughton, G. (2001). Building equitable staff-parent communication in early childhood settings: An Australian case study. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 3(2), 1-15.

Kelle, U., & Laurie, H. (1995). Computer use in qualitative research and issues of validity. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-aided qualitative data analysis. (pp. 19-28). London: Sage.

Koch, P. K., & McDonough, M. (1999). Improving parent-teacher conferences through collaborative conversations. Young Children, 54(2), 11-15.

Lee, R. M., & Fielding, N. G. (1995). User's experiences of qualitative data analysis software. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-aided qualitative data analysis. (pp. 29-40). London: Sage.

Lotman, I. M. (1985). The poetics of everyday behaviour in eighteenth century Russian culture. In A. D. Nakhimovsky & A. S. Nakhimosvosky (Eds.), (pp. 67-94). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

MacNaughton, G. M. (2006). Respect for diversity: An international overview. Working paper 40. The Hague, The Netherlands: Bernard Van Leer Foundation.

McBride, S. L. (1999). Family centred practices: Research in review. Young Children, 54(3), 62-70.

McKim, M. K. (2000). Choosing childcare for infants: Social, cultural and demographic influences and outcomes. In J. Hayden (Ed.), Landscapes in early childhood education: Cross national perspectives on empowerment - A guide for the new millennium (pp. 133 - 152). New York: Peter Lang.

Mead, M. (1975). Growing up in New Guinea. (2nd edn.). New York: William Morrow.

New South Wales Department of Community Services. (1998). Centre based and mobile child care services regulations (No 2) 1996. Under the Children's (Care and Protection) Act 1987. (Reprint No 2.). New South Wales: Department of Community Services.

Owen, T. M., Ware, A. M., & Barfoot, B. (2000). Caregiver-mother partnership behaviour and the quality of caregiver-child and mother-child interactions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(3), 413-428.

Pelo, A., & Davidson, F. (2003). Partnership building strategies. In C. Copple (Ed.), A world of difference (pp. 75-80). Washington D.C: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Provence, S., Naylor, A., & Paterson, J. (1977). The challenge of day care. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.

QSR International Pty Ltd. (2002). N6. (Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching & Theorizing) qualitative data analysis program (Version 6 student version). Melbourne: QSR International Pty Ltd.

Robinson, K. H., & Jones Diaz, C. (2007). Diversity and difference in early childhood education. Issues for theories and practice. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Rubin, H. & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schwandt, T. (1994). Constructivist, interpretist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

St John, W., & Johnson, P. (2000). The pros and cons of data analysis software for qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 32(4), 393-403.

Tak, H. S., Nield, M., & Becker, H. (1999). Use of computer software program for qualitative analyses-part 2: Advantages and disadvantages. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 21(3), 436-439.

Thomas, C. (1998). Culture defined: A twenty–first century perspective. Educational Horizons, 76(3), 122-126.

Thomas, D. R. (1986). Culture and ethnicity: Maintaining the distinction. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38(3), 371-380.