Content uploaded by Eric Lindland
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eric Lindland on Jun 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceye20
Early Years
An International Research Journal
ISSN: 0957-5146 (Print) 1472-4421 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceye20
Early means early: understanding popular
understandings of early childhood development in
South Africa
Linda M. Richter, Mark Tomlinson, Kathryn Watt, Xanthe Hunt & Eric H.
Lindland
To cite this article: Linda M. Richter, Mark Tomlinson, Kathryn Watt, Xanthe Hunt & Eric H.
Lindland (2019) Early means early: understanding popular understandings of early childhood
development in South Africa, Early Years, 39:3, 295-309, DOI: 10.1080/09575146.2019.1613346
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2019.1613346
View supplementary material
Published online: 13 May 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 57
View Crossmark data
Early means early: understanding popular understandings of
early childhood development in South Africa
Linda M. Richter
a
, Mark Tomlinson
b
, Kathryn Watt
a
, Xanthe Hunt
b
and Eric H. Lindland
c
a
DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Human Development, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg,
South Africa;
b
Institute for Child and Adolescent Health Research and Department of Psychology,
Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa;
c
Department of Global Health, FrameWorks Institute,
Washington, DC, USA
ABSTRACT
Scientific and policy advances are putting early childhood devel-
opment (ECD) at the center of efforts to improve human develop-
ment. This study was undertaken to understand what knowledge
and attitudinal barriers exist that hinder the full-scale roll-out of
services for the youngest children and their families. We used
anthropological methods honed by the Frame works Institute to
plumb beliefs about early childhood development among mem-
bers of the public and implementation and policy stakeholders,
andcomparethosewiththefindings from ECD research. While
members of the public and stake holders agree on the importance
of ECD, as demonstrated in other country settings, a major barrier
to directing services to the youngest children is a perceptual
tendency to ‘age up’. That is, to consider learning and other
important skills as being acquired in the pre-school rather than
infancy period. Communication strategies that incorporate debate
are needed to give full effect to the ECD and related policies,
especially around the topics of prioritizing the youngest children,
physical punishment, child rights, and the pervasiveness of threats
to ECD arising from poverty and disadvantage.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 10 June 2018
Accepted 26 April 2019
KEYWORDS
Conceptualizations of early
childhood; implementation;
cultural models; early
childhood development
Background
Huge strides in provisions for young children have been made in South Africa since
1994, aimed at undoing the caused damage by Apartheid. The country’s White Paper 5
on Early Childhood Education (2001) stated that it is the State’s responsibility to sub-
sidize quality ECD services.
The country’s National Development Plan acknowledges the significant role that early
childhood development (ECD) can play in achieving South Africa’s goals for socioeco-
nomic advancement. The 2012 Diagnostic Review of ECD, commissioned by the
Presidency, pointed to the many elements of comprehensive ECD support and services
already in place. However, the Review also identified important gaps, especially services
CONTACT Xanthe Hunt xanthehuntwrites@gmail.com Institute for Child and Adolescent Health Research and
Department of Psychology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
EARLY YEARS
2019, VOL. 39, NO. 3, 295–309
https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2019.1613346
© 2019 TACTYC
for the youngest children (0–3 years), support for parenting, a population perspective on
delivering service and the attention required to address the needs of children and
families living with disabilities (Davids et al. 2015; Richter et al. 2012). The remaining
gaps point to the need for an evidence-based, shared narrative which makes the
findings from ECD research more understandable and usable for those working to
communicate its importance to the public and other stakeholders.
A global scientific narrative has emerged over the past two decades, portraying the
fast-developing brain as plastic and responsive to environments, and emphasizing that
foundational skills are established early (Black et al. 2017; Britto et al. 2017b; Richter et al.
2017a). In this growing consensus among scholars in many parts of the world, ‘early’has
come to refer to the first 1000 days of life (conception to the end of the second or
third year). This research-based ECD narrative centers on the following; a focus on brain
development, that foundational skills emerge early, that genetic dispositions are man-
ifest in an environment of relationships, and that young children benefit from the
support of affectionate others (scaffolding) as they experiment, explore and engage
with the world around them.
This research also foregrounds the earliest months and years of a child’s life, both
during pregnancy and in the first 2–3 post-natal years, as foundational to subsequent
development. The research also acknowledges the substantial evidence that chronic
stress threatens development, and that inadequate services undermine development. As
such, the findings from research in ECD support a greater focus on the social determi-
nants of health and illness and improved conditions for families, caregivers, and children
and, because there is a social gradient to health risk, more attention is required for at-
risk populations.
Shawar and Shiffman (2017) have argued that knowledge of and support for this
narrative are imperative to the progress of the ECD agenda globally by improving
stakeholders’understandings of ECD, and shifting policy and public conversations
about ECD in a way that builds support for ECD policies and programs at scale.
However, research shows that the communication of research findings is beset with
challenges (Weigold 2001). Despite best efforts, no research is free of assumptions or
bias. Critical scholarship has drawn attention to the ways in which knowledge is imbued
with moral, ethical and cultural assumptions (Vandenbroeck et al. 2017; Eakin et al. 1996;
Ward et al. 2010). A qualitative study in South Africa, for example, explored the possible
disjunction between expert views about ECD and the beliefs of caregivers (Worthman,
Tomlinson, and Rotheram-Borus 2016). Despite receiving information about the early
years of life and the impact of adversity on development, respondents saw adolescence
as the most formative period in children’s lives and the best time to influence their
development.
Several authors argue that there is a need for an Afrocentric basis for ECD (Nsamenang
2007). For example, Okwany (2016) suggests that, to be sensitive and sustainable, ECD
narratives must build upon and support local mores and that Africa’s ECD agenda and its
programming are built on the back of ‘extrapolated evidence’from the North. The latter
contention ignores the enormous contribution African scholars make to the research
evidence for ECD (Richter et al. 2017a; Abubakar et al. 2008) and that many African
indigenous practices in relation to caregiving promote ECD. A different critical perspective
has been advanced by Vandenbroeck et al. (2017), who argue that neuro-behavioral
296 L. M. RICHTER ET AL.
perspectives in ECD, and their use as the motivation for intervention, originate from
a disproportionate focus on people’s value in the labor market.
Nonetheless, research and human rights come together in the acceptance that, for
infants to survive and thrive, families need an enabling environment to provide health
care, nutrition, responsive caregiving, security and safety, and opportunities for early
learning (World Health Organization, United Nations Children’s Fund, World Bank Group
2018). Yet, little is known about popular conceptions of ECD: what they are and how
they vary, what factors shape them, why they matter, what can and should be done to
improve developmental outcomes for children, and how these conceptions permeate
and influence the beliefs of policy and program leaders and members of the public in
low- and middle-income countries.
This paper presents the findings of a study describing the beliefs and cultural models
of a range of members of the public and a variety of stakeholders in South Africa about
ECD, using a well-tested methodology. We consider how local cultural models compare
to the findings from current global research in ECD. In the process, we identify chal-
lenges and tasks that emerge from the findings.
Method
Frameworks method
We used the methodology developed by the Washington DC-based FrameWorks
Institute, based on the use of frames and scripts as methods of cultural analysis
(Gilliam & Bales 2001; McAdam et al. 1996). In-depth interviews are used to uncover
shared narratives that structure thinking about a topic, while shorter, more spontaneous
interviews conducted in public spaces help to capture ‘top-of-mind’ways of thinking
(Kendall-Taylor and Haydon 2016). The method aims to identify key gaps and overlaps
between the available research findings on any given social issue and how members of
the public and other stakeholders think about the issue. This ‘mapping the gaps’
methodology brings into sharp relief the central challenges for communicators working
to build greater public understanding around a topic, by showing where help is needed
in understanding the research, building consensus and by identifying cultural models
that are most at odds with the prevailing evidence (Kendall-Taylor and Levitt 2017;
Lindland and Kendall-Taylor 2012). Through a partnership between FrameWorks, the
University of the Witwatersrand, Stellenbosch University, and UNICEF, a study was
conducted between November 2015 and April 2016 aimed at describing how stake-
holders and some members of the general public in South Africa conceptualize ECD.
Participants
Trained post-graduate research assistants from the University of the Witwatersrand and
Stellenbosch University conducted the interviews. With participants’permission, the
interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed for analysis.
Public (cultural models and on-the-street) interviews
Public understandings of ECD were probed through 30 in-depth Cultural Models
interviews
1
designed to uncover thinking at a deep level, as well as 48 shorter,
EARLY YEARS 297
spontaneous On-the-Street interviews, conducted in public spaces, to capture default
and ‘top of mind’ways of thinking.
The in-depth Cultural Models interviews were conducted one-on-one, using a semi-
structured interview protocol, and lasted two to two-and-a-half hours. Participants
were recruited through community-based organizations across the nine provinces
and were selected to represent variation in gender, ethnicity, age, residential location
(urban or rural), and primary language spoken. The final sample included 19 women
and 11 men. Twenty-three participants self-identified as Black and seven as White.
Themeanageofthesamplewas46yearsofage,witharangefrom21to79.Eleven
had their primary residence in a rural area, while 19 lived in urban or peri-urban
locations. Ten interviews were conducted in English, seven in Afrikaans, seven in
IsiZulu and six in IsiXhosa.
Data from these Cultural Models interviews were complemented by a set of 48 On-
the-Street interviews conducted in Johannesburg, Durban, and Cape Town, the three
major South Africa cities, in spaces traversed by a range of people, such as open
shopping precincts in the city centers. These centers were chosen because they are
major hubs for both urban and visiting rural people. These 10- to 15-min interviews were
conducted to illustrate the cultural models identified in the in-depth Cultural Models
research. They involved opportunistic recruitment of a diverse sample of people who
were asked to do a short on-camera interview in response to a series of open questions
about children’s early development. Efforts were made to sample people of diverse ages,
gender, and ethnic background. The interviews were coded for the use of cultural
models and, with informed written consent, were used to create a film reel as an
information and advocacy tool to link the cultural models' research to policy discussions
in South Africa.
Interviews with stakeholders
To identify dominant models of ECD held by policymakers and implementers in South
Africa, 10 interviews were conducted with people working in ECD in both government
and civil society, policy and program implementation. Demographics of this group were:
three male, seven female, and five Black and five White stakeholders. Two identified
stakeholders declined to be interviewed because of time pressures.
Analysis
For the analysis of the Cultural Models and On-the-Street interviews, the FrameWorks’
model has adapted analytical techniques employed in anthropology (Quinn 2005). The
model identifies common, standardized ways of asking questions and probing to reveal
assumptions, relationships, logical steps and connections that are commonly made, but
taken-for-granted. Patterns were discerned from both how things were related,
explained and understood, and assumptions and implied relationships.
For the analysis of the 30 Cultural Models interviews, an initial round of analyses,
divided across 6 analysts, using the software Dedoose
2
was followed by secondary
analyses of selected transcripts by LMR, MT and EL, to test and confirm findings. All
interviews were coded in the language in which they were conducted, and also
298 L. M. RICHTER ET AL.
transcribed and translated into English by dual language professionals for consensus
building among the analytical team. The analyses were also translated into English.
For the 10 stakeholder interviews, the same analysts employed a basic grounded
theory approach to analysis (Strauss and Corbin 1990). Common themes were identified
from each interview. When suitable, quotes were extracted from the transcripts to
demonstrate the patterns transecting members of the public in this study and stake-
holder thinking about ECD.
Results
We present first dominant cultural models of ECD held by members of the public in this
study, models that most powerfully orient and organize public thinking around these
topics, followed by models of ECD shared by stakeholders from government and
implementation organizations to provide perspectives from this influential group. All
findings are presented below under themes (in bold italics) and subthemes (in plain
italics text).
Public views on early childhood development
At the outset, we note that there was substantial variation within and across the four
language populations –Afrikaans, English, IsiXhosa, and IsiZulu. Some models that were
strongly evident among one or two groups were noticeably weak or absent among
others. For the purposes of this paper, we discuss only those models that were shared
across all four language populations. These are more likely to represent the cultural
models that influence how most South Africans understand ECD. The reason that the
FrameWorks method focuses on cross-cutting issues is that large-scale public commu-
nication strategies must necessarily ‘speak to’multiple groups, and broad issues.
Although there is an argument to be made for more targeted communication to smaller
sub-groups of the population to align specific cultural models with public health
narratives, this is not within the purview of mass advocacy campaigns. In the analysis,
we focus on a series of models that are common central challenges to efforts to elevate
support for policies that strengthen children’s development in South Africa and other
similar contexts. The models are organized as those that define, shape, determine and
improve ECD.
Models that define ECD
About the basics: early on, the focus is on the physical, social, and emotional
development of the child
When asked to think about the most important requirements for a child’s early develop-
ment, respondents spoke about four elements –love, nutrition, safety, and discipline. There
was an underlying assumption that much of early development happens automatically,
assuming basic conditions are met. There was attention to the idea of ‘nurturance,’
although this was not explicitly linked to the fact that key capacities of children emerge
in relationship to responsive, stimulating and contingent interactions (Kolb et al. 1998).
EARLY YEARS 299
What a newborn needs more than anything is love. Therefore, a child that is raised with love is
able to develop fast.(IsiZulu speaker)
Aging up
Interviewees responded to questions about ECD with talk about topics relevant to older
children. For instance, participants referred to ECD (although it was described in its full
form as ‘early childhood development’) as involving school or situated within
a preschool-aged period, as in the following instances:
Researcher: If you hear 'early childhood', what do you think about?
Participant: Three to six years. (Afrikaans speaker)
Relatedly, respondents attributed the capacities of older children to younger ones.
Interviewees spoke about an infant as if the young child possessed higher-order reasoning
and intentionality. This is exemplified in the following statement (regarding an infant):
No, he is just playing me. He is absolutely clever; he is manipulating me. I must just leave him to
cry if I know he’s fed and changed and he’s all well, leave him. And from that day that is when
I started learning his tricks. (English speaker)
Aging up was also demonstrated in the nature of interventions interviewees recom-
mended to improve ECD, which included support for school-age children, education,
sport, community infrastructure, and school feeding schemes.
Resilience –you have it, or you don’t
When asked whether and how a child can do well despite facing adverse conditions,
respondents stated that some children have the strength to do well and overcome
problems while other children simply do not. Resilience was often described as an
attribute that was inborn, with little consideration of the ways by which resilience can
be built through a child’s relationships and experiences. For example:
I just think it’s totally what that child is made of. [...] They’ve got their own characteristics, so it’s
purely on the characteristic of the child. (English speaker)
Models of what shapes ECD
Environments are key
Respondents believe that environments fundamentally shape children’s development
and life outcomes.
The environment is very important, my sister, because when we are born, we are not born with
any evil. You don’t think [yet], but [you] have a pure mind. [...] But the environment can shape
you into being another person. Some environments shape you to be a better person; others
may make you go down, depending on where you grew up. (IsiZulu speaker)
300 L. M. RICHTER ET AL.
Parents are primary, but early childhood development is a shared responsibility
Participants held parents primarily responsible for the development of their children.
Yet, they also pointed to the role of other agents, including relatives, educators, com-
munity members, and government, arguing that they too share responsibility for young
children’s development.
The parents are primary, primary, primary, primary in a child’s life. [...] Then, obviously the
secondary influential person would be the teacher because I mean they go to school from 3.
(Afrikaans speaker)
South African children face extreme dangers
Fed by steady media coverage of horrific events affecting young children, participants
described South Africa as extremely dangerous for children. Respondents cited multiple
hazards, including various forms of violence both within and beyond the home. This
aroused concern about whether any child is safe.
Children are confronted by these drugs people, and we also hear of human trafficking, and the
stealing of children by people who don’t have children, who want to make them their own.
(IsiZulu speaker)
There was also concern about the ways that increasing levels of exposure to digital
technologies and content are having damaging effects on children.
Technology, social media, access to bad sites on their cell phones. Kids are walking around 7
years of age with cell phones and they can access anything that an adult can as well so I think
that also has a big influence somewhat nowadays on children.(Afrikaans speaker)
Poverty undermines young children’s development
The members of the public in this study consider poverty to be a problem for children’s
development because it compromises the quality of their nutrition, shelter, education
and health, and because parents living in poverty struggle to make ends meet, and the
nature of their work means that they often have less time to support their children’s
development.
Yes, children do not develop the same way, one; we have to accept that there is a class struggle
there, you see? Now, there is a working class and a middle class, there is a ruling class and an
upper class therefore you cannot expect that a child that is up there would develop the same
way as a child who is down there. . .. (isiXhosa speaker)
Models of why ECD matters
‘Early’childhood development is foundational
Because of the Aging Up model described above, people were more likely to consider
a 3-year-old than a 3-month-old when thinking about important ‘early’developmental
processes. Yet, South Africans do understand that fundamental structures and behaviors
are set up very early and that is therefore important for caregivers and other adults to
promote ECD.
EARLY YEARS 301
Children are the roots of a person. I do not think a tree can survive without roots because it
must absorb nutrients, bear leaves and be beautiful. Any existing person originated from
a child. It’s a very important thing; I think it’s the most important thing. Take care of it. Once
children are taken care of, maybe, we might have a changed society. (IsiZulu speaker)
Participants drew particular attention to how young children are influenced by their
early experiences.
Participant: [ECD matters] because it is where you build the child. It is where there is potential
to see what the child is going to become when they grow up. [...] It is better to focus on early
childhood because that is where you can see where the child is headed in life. (IsiZulu speaker)
Society is affected
Participants understand that behaviors and capacities that adults possess emerge during
childhood, and affect the functionality of society. The view was widely held that if many
children develop poorly, society will suffer; and if most children develop well, society will
benefit.
We won’t always be governed by [today’s] adults. Children need to be developed because they
are future leaders. (IsiXhosa speaker)
Models for improving ECD
More control is needed over children
A prominent model emerged, that children in South Africa have too many rights and
privileges and that the balance of power has shifted too far in favor of children, at the
expense of parental authority and control.
“When the government said children should not be beaten up, no, the government did not say
the right thing. A child needs to be beaten up so they can know that what they are doing is
wrong and not do it again. (IsiZulu speaker)
Spanking is necessary
A robust model emerged valuing corporal punishment as a necessary and effective tool
for disciplining children. Participants criticized the government’s prohibition of physical
discipline through the Abolition of Corporal Punishment Act, 33 of 1997, and argued
that parents and other caregivers must be able to spank children as a disciplinary tool.
Right to a hiding! I am in favour of physical punishment. I know there are some people that
take it too far, but like in the good old days when a teacher was able to hit you with a ruler
twice on your hand –I think it is a child’s right that has to be there. A child should have the
right to be hit if they are out of control. This will bring back discipline in school and will make it
easier for the teacher to teach the class. (Afrikaans speaker)
Strengthen government services and oversight
In line with the model of shared responsibility described above, respondents empha-
sized that the government must play a strong role in supporting ECD. This role is seen as
one of direct service provision, particularly of health care, education, and youth services.
There was also a focus on the role government should play in raising public awareness
302 L. M. RICHTER ET AL.
about ECD, as this will translate into more effective parenting and broader support for
children’s development.
I think it is important that people are taught in the clinics, on radio and on TV, so that everyone
will have knowledge on how to raise children. (IsiZulu speaker)
Policy and implementation stakeholders
The stakeholders interviewed had a better understanding than the members of the
public in this study of the research on children’s need for stimulation, and the critical
role social relationships play in fostering brain development. They also recognized ECD
as a contingent process that relies on affectionate and supportive inputs and engage-
ments with parents and caregivers.
It is everything that is developed from the womb onwards. So, I think, first of all, you have got
to understand the rapid processes of brain development. Synapses that are forming and
synapses that are important in terms of later learning and later development and all of that.
So, it needs adequate nutrition; it needs the right stimulation; it needs health care and all the
health care interventions that are needed; and it needs attachment and good parenting; and
then obviously the resources of government enter.(ECD implementer)
Likewise, much of what stakeholders said was aligned with current research in empha-
sizing the first months and years of life as critical. Yet, there was also evidence of the
Aging Up model among stakeholders. This suggests that policymakers and implement-
ing stakeholders also need help to keep their focus on the earliest phases of children’s
lives as the critical window for interventions.
The public policy that I would change is, I would say, okay, state-funded universal access to early
childhood development program from the age of three for children with different modalities, not
necessarily in centres, but different modalities that can be provided. (ECD implementer)
In terms of factors that shape ECD, stakeholders in this study, like both the research
evidence and members of the public, emphasized family and community factors as well
as the role of poverty in undermining a family’s capacity to effectively promote a young
child’s positive development. Stakeholders understood that ECD matters for the future
of South African society.
If you don’t start at an early age to prepare the child, to be able to contribute to society in
a positive manner, have good self-esteem and be able to stand up confidently on their own,
you have failed that child. (National policy maker)
Stakeholders placed emphasis on the need to maintain and expand a robust public
health infrastructure, including expanded access to expecting and new mothers. Finally,
stakeholders also focused on the need to raise awareness of children’s early develop-
mental needs, especially their cognitive development, and to empower parents with the
support they need to promote their children’s development.
I would place a much higher emphasis on the importance of parental support and capacity
development. (ECD implementer)
EARLY YEARS 303
Discussion
South Africa’s National Development Plan 2030 and the National Integrated Early
Childhood Development Policy, adopted by Cabinet in 2015, expressed the country’s
determination to improve ECD. It is apparent that there is richness and diversity in how
South Africans understand ECD. These differences can lead to a lack of consensus
around approaches to improve ECD, as manifest in the public debate about corporal
punishment and the appropriate ages for large-scale interventions.
Our research identified an important overlap between current research findings and
the dominant cultural models held by both members of the public and ECD stake-
holders. This overlap provides leverage to achieve common language and action to
elevate support for ECD in South Africa. All parties agreed that the earliest years of
a child’s development are foundational to their wellbeing in life. The default definition of
what constitutes ‘early’differs, but this shared attention to the importance of ECD is
significant and should be core to ECD communications.
All participants in this study agreed that the environments in which young children
grow shape their development, and that poverty can undermine development. They
also all share attention to the importance of quality public services and recognize that
access to these supports is inequitable. There is agreement on the need to improve
access, especially for children and families living in poverty. There is also concurrence on
the view that development matters because a good society depends on it. Finally, all
three groups of participants felt that government has a key role to play in ECD. Though
the vision of this public role varies, the fact that there is a shared commitment to
a strong public sector role provides important leverage for actions in which government
takes the lead, but which includes the expertise and experience gained, to date, in non-
government sectors. Communications specialists can use these overlaps to strengthen
the argument for how and why supports for children and families in South Africa must
be sustained and expanded.
There are, however, critical gaps between the evidence from current research and
how members of the public in this study, and other stakeholders, understand ECD. The
first gap is in the matter of defining what is developing, a gap between a research-based
emphasis on brain development during the first 1000 days of a child’s life, and a public
and stakeholder focus on physical, social, moral, emotional, and psychological develop-
ment. While the evidence gap was not as pronounced with stakeholders as with the
members of the public, stakeholders did not emphasize the findings from research on
brain development and function as the central thread of the story of child development.
A second critical gap relates to the consistent focus in ECD research on the prenatal,
pregnancy and early post-natal stages in the first 1000 days of life as foundational to all
subsequent development. This is in contrast to the focus on older children among
members of the public, and even stakeholders, in this study. This ‘aging up’pattern in
public and stakeholder thinking includes the perception that learning starts, not from
birth or pre-birth, but around the time when children start to name and categorize.
Scholars argue that ECD policies and programs should start with pregnant mothers and
children in their first 1000 days of life (Gertler et al. 2014), while attention of members of
the public in this study is on preschools, schools and youth clubs as the most important
contexts in which challenges can and should be addressed.
304 L. M. RICHTER ET AL.
A third key gap revolves around the question of what children need in order for devel-
opment to go well. Scholars emphasize stimulation, social interaction, and communication
between caregivers and young infants, and point to the way in which these engagements
promote new neural networks and functional brain connectivity (Eluvathingal et al. 2006).
The members of the public in this study consider the basics of love, safety, nutrition, and
discipline as the key ingredients for ECD, and assume that development will proceed well
along a natural course provided these basic needs are met. Notably, stakeholders had
a better understanding than members of the public in this study of the research on children’s
need for stimulation and social relationships to foster critical brain development.
A fourth key gap is regarding threats to development. In the findings from ECD research,
ongoing cumulative risk factors can trigger stress responses in the developing child and
undermine healthy development (Evans and Kim 2007). The members of the public in this
study focused on a set of high-profile, but not widespread, threats to children’ssafety,
including kidnapping and killing children for muti (traditional healing practices). While these
extreme threats occur in South African society, their strength within public thinking over-
shadows attention to more pervasive and prevalent risk factors which harm greater num-
bers of children in South Africa, such as exposure to extreme poverty and violence in their
homes and in public (Naicker et al. 2017).
Further, ECD research shows that resilience is an important outcome that emerges from
interactions between genetic and environmental factors (Masten, Best, and Garmezy
1990). Members of the public in this study, however, assume that resilience is a largely
inborn characteristic, one that a child either has or not. This model diverts attention away
from the way in which a child’s environment and experiences can either foster or under-
mine the development of their resilience, and likely dampens support for measures
designed to strengthen childhood resilience.
Another area of divergence concerns children’s rights. Scholars and child advocates
emphasize the importance of protecting the human rights of all children, and the need to
maintain and build the structures necessary to guarantee children’s human rights (Bartlett
et al. 2016; Archard 2014). Members of the public in this study, in contrast, felt that
children are afforded too many rights in South Africa and that the discourse of ‘children’s
rights’comes at the expense of parental and community authority over children.
Asignificant gap also exists in beliefs about the necessity of corporal punishment.
Scholars consider corporal punishment to be damaging to development, especially when
applied to young children (Durrant 2008). As a result, they advocate for alternative forms
of socialization and discipline, and the need to make parents aware of the adverse effects
of physical punishment (Health, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child Family 1998).
In contrast, members of the public in this study endorse the value and benefits of
spanking, with little acknowledgment of the negative impacts that can ensue (Gershoff
2016).
Finally, findings from ECD research and the opinions of stakeholders and members of
the public in this study differed regarding the roles of government. Much of the ECD
research evidence and stakeholder focus is on how public institutions can better support
parents, families, and other caregivers in their capacity to create consistent conditions that
foster positive ECD (Fiene 2002; Britto et al. 2017a). Consistent with the ECD research
findings, implementers in this study want government to empower and support families
across a variety of domains, including through infrastructure development, services, and
EARLY YEARS 305
employment and other forms of income support. Members of the public in this study,
however, have a narrower focus on how government should provide direct services to
children, such as health and education, and are less attuned to how broader supports for
families and caregivers shape developmental outcomes for children.
Conclusions and future work
This paper presents the first step in identifying prevalent beliefs about ECD held by
stakeholders and members of the public in South Africa, and lays the groundwork for
communication strategies and tools that can elevate support from the public and
policymakers for national programs and budgetary allocation that support ECD.
The gaps in understandings of ECD held popularly, and the views promoted by leaders in
the field, both in South Africa and globally must be bridged through consensus building.
Further research is needed into what prompts differing understandings of ECD, for example,
of rights, physical punishment and the early years, to enable scholars and policymakers to
address these beliefs and find common ground; for example, on strategies that will
persuade members of the public that physical punishment is harmful to children, and
that protection of children’s human rights is not a challenge to authority in the home,
school or community. As the work of Okwany (2016) and others recognizes, assumptions
underlie all discourse. In order for consensus to be built around ECD promotion, the nature
and origins of beliefs, and the evidence from current ECD research, must be laid bare. For
instance, in communicating the findings from research in ECD, scholars and policymakers
must explain, through communication campaigns and public dialogues, the basis of best
practice guidance, and why it is important.
South Africa has made rapid progress in the field of ECD. Despite many shared beliefs,
differing understandings of ECD, of the origins and consequences of developmental varia-
tions, rights, punishment, and the optimal age for effective intervention, hamper efforts to
expand and improve the system. Despite clear articulation in South Africa’s ECD policy, the
sentiment of government, the public and, to some extent, stakeholders is biased toward an
aging up perspective, resulting in predominant investment in subsidies for privately pro-
vided, largely urban-based, fee-charging ECD centers that benefit3–5-year-olds from better-
offfamilies. However, given what we know about childhood development from conception,
preschools and early childhood centers will be much more effective sites of learning and
socialization for children who have experienced good early nutrition, health care, security
and safety, responsive caregiving and opportunities for early learning in the home (Black
et al. 2017).
Future research needs to test communication strategies that help to focus stakeholder
and public attention on very early development, starting prenatally. It is clear that both
members of the public and some implementation stakeholders find it difficult to conceive
services for the home-based period of infancy, parent-infant relationships and practices
and their home environment. This is largely because interventions are usually construed as
services provided to individual children, individual mothers or individual families. This may
be why home visiting is frequently proposed to improve ECD, but is frequently found not
to be cost-effective on the scale required in conditions such as those that pertain in South
Africa (Desmond et al. 2019). Social policy interventions, such as housing and transport
subsidies, cash transfers, and minimum wages, together with support provided during
306 L. M. RICHTER ET AL.
contacts with service providers seem very far from ECD and are often politicized.
Nonetheless, all have been found to help families to provide nurturing care with proven
benefits for ECD (Siddiqi, Rajaram & Miller 2018). Future research must consider commu-
nication strategies that promote both individual and structural level family- and commu-
nity-level supports for parents and caregivers that improve ECD.
Notes
1. The full text of the ‘Cultural Models Guide’used for these interviews can be found at [insert
link to ‘Early means Early Supplementary materials’].
2. https://www.dedoose.com/.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Stellenbosch University Humanities Research
Ethics Committee: Human Research (HS1164/2015).
Funding
•The EuropeAid/134258/M/ACT/ZA PSPPD2/CfP/2013/64, through the Programme to Support Pro-
Poor Development, South Africa
•The DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Human Development at the University of the Witwatersrand,
OPP20160033
•Institute for LifecourseHealth Research at Stellenbosch University provided support for travel and
meetings
•UNICEF supported the travel of participants to the stakeholder meetingsUNICEF, South Africa; DST-
NRF Centre of Excellence in Human Development at the University of the Witwatersrand
[OPP20160033]; Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation - EuropeAid [134258/M/
ACT/ZA PSPPD2/CfP/2013/64]; The Institute for Child and Adolescent Health Research, Stellenbosch
University.
ORCID
Linda M. Richter http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3654-3192
Mark Tomlinson http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5846-3444
Xanthe Hunt http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7531-6665
References
Abubakar, A., A. Van Baar, J. R. Van de Vijver Fons, P. Holding, and C. R. J. C. Newton. 2008.
“Paediatric HIV and Neurodevelopment in sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review.”Tropical
Medicine & International Health 13 (7): 880–887. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2008.02079.x.
Archard, D. 2014.Children: Rights and Childhood. london: Routledge.
Bartlett, S., R. Hart, D. Satterthwaite, X. de la Barra, and A. Missair. 2016.Cities for Children:
Children‘S Rights, Poverty and Urban Management. london: Routledge.
EARLY YEARS 307
Black, M. M., S. P. Walker, L. C. H. Fernald, C. T. Andersen, A. M. DiGirolamo, C. Lu, D. C. McCoy,
et al.; Committee Lancet Early Childhood Development Series Steering. 2017.“Early Childhood
Development Coming of Age: Science through the Life Course.”Lancet 389 (10064): 77–90.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31389-7.
Britto, P. R., S. J. Lye, K. Proulx, A. K. Yousafzai, S. G. Matthews, T. Vaivada, R. Perez-Escamilla, et al.;
for the Lancet Early Childhood Development Series Steering Committee Early Childhood
Development Interventions Review Group. 2017b.“Nurturing Care: Promoting Early Childhood
Development.”Lancet 389 (10064): 91–102. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31390-3.
Britto, P. R., S. J. Lye, K. Proulx, A. K. Yousafzai, S. G. Matthews, T. Vaivada, R. Perez-Escamilla, N. Rao,
I. Patrick, and L. C. H. Fernald. 2017a.“Nurturing Care: Promoting Early Childhood
Development.”The Lancet 389 (10064): 91–102. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31390-3.
Davids, M., M. L. Samuels, R. September, T. L. Moeng, L. Richter, T. W. Mabogoane, I. Goldman, and
T. Buthelezi. 2015.“The Pilot Evaluation for the National Evaluation System in South Africa–A
Diagnostic Review of Early Childhood Development.”African Evaluation Journal 3 (1): 7.
doi:10.4102/aej.v3i1.141.
Desmond, C., A. Viviers, T. Edwards, K. Rich, P. Martin, and L. Richter. 2019.“Priority-Setting in the
Roll Out of South Africa’s National Integrated ECD Policy.”Early Years 1–19. doi:10.1080/
09575146.2019.1572074.
Durrant, J. E. 2008.“Physical Punishment, Culture, and Rights: Current Issues for Professionals.”
Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics 29 (1): 55–66.
Eakin, J., A. Robertson, B. Poland, D. Coburn, and R. Edwards. 1996.“Towards a Critical Social
Science Perspective on Health Promotion Research.”Health Promotion International 11 (2):
157–165. doi:10.1093/heapro/11.2.157.
Eluvathingal, T. J., H. T. Chugani, M. E. Behen, C. Juhász, O. Muzik, M. Maqbool, D. C. Chugani, and
M. Makki. 2006.“Abnormal Brain Connectivity in Children after Early Severe Socioemotional
Deprivation: A Diffusion Tensor Imaging Study.”Pediatrics 117 (6): 2093–2100. doi:10.1542/
peds.2005-1727.
Evans, G. W., and P. Kim. 2007.“Childhood Poverty and Health: Cumulative Risk Exposure and
Stress Dysregulation.”Psychological Science 18 (11): 953–957. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2007.02008.x.
Fiene, R. 2002.“Improving Child Care Quality through an Infant Caregiver Mentoring Project.”Child
and Youth Care Forum 31: 79–87. doi:10.1023/A:1015318501688.
Gershoff,E.T.2016.“Should Parents‘Physical Punishment of Children Be Considered a Source of
Toxic Stress that Affects Brain Development?”Family Relations 65 (1): 151–162. doi:10.1111/
fare.12177.
Gertler, P., J. Heckman, R. Pinto, A. Zanolini, C. Vermeersch, S. Walker, S. M. Chang, and G.-M. Sally.
2014.“Labor Market Returns to an Early Childhood Stimulation Intervention in Jamaica.”Science
344 (6187): 998–1001. doi:10.1126/science.1251178.
Gilliam Jr, F. D., & Bales, S. N. 2001. Strategic frame analysis: Reframing America’s youth.
Health, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child Family. 1998.“Guidance for Effective
Discipline.”Pediatrics 101 (4): 723–728. doi:10.1542/peds.101.4.723.
Kendall-Taylor, N., and A. Haydon. 2016.“Using Metaphor to Translate the Science of Resilience
and Developmental Outcomes.”Public Understanding of Science 25 (5): 576–587. doi:10.1177/
0963662514564918.
Kendall-Taylor, N., and P. Levitt. 2017.“Beyond Hat in Hand: Science Advocacy Is Foundational for
Policy Decisions.”Neuron 94 (4): 708–712. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.04.039.
Kolb, B., M. Forgie, R. Gibb, G.Gorny, and S. Rowntree. 1998.“Age, Experience and the Changing Brain.”
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 22 (2): 143–159. doi:10.1016/S0149-7634(97)00008-0.
Lindland, E. H., and N. Kendall-Taylor. 2012.“Sensical Translations: Three Case Studies in Applied
Cognitive Communications.”Annals of Anthropological Practice 36 (1): 45–67. doi:10.1111/
napa.2012.36.issue-1.
Masten, A. S., K. M. Best, and N. Garmezy. 1990.““Resilience and Development: Contributions from
the Study of Children Who Overcome Adversity.”Development and Psychopathology 2 (4):
425–444. doi:10.1017/S0954579400005812.
308 L. M. RICHTER ET AL.
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., Zald, M. N., & Mayer, N. Z. (Eds.).(1996). Comparative perspectives on
social movements: Politicalopportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings.
Cambridge University Press
Naicker, S. N., S. A. Norris, M. Mabaso, and L. M. Richter. 2017.“An Analysis of Retrospective and
Repeat Prospective Reports of Adverse Childhood Experiences from the South African Birth to
Twenty Plus Cohort.”PloS one 12 (7): e0181522. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181522.
Nsamenang, A. B. 2007.“A Critical Peek at Early Childhood Careand Education in Africa.”Child
Health and Education 1 (1): 14–26.
Okwany, A. 2016.“‘Every Mother Dances Her Baby‘: Contextually Responsive Narratives of Early
Childhood Care and Education in Kenya and Uganda.”South African Journal of Childhood
Education 6 (2): 1–9. doi:10.4102/sajce.v6i2.464.
Quinn, N. 2005.Finding Culture in Talk: A Collection of Methods. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Richter, L., L. Biersteker, J. Burns, C. Desmond, N. Feza, D. Harrison, P. Martin, H. Saloojee, and
W. Slemming. 2012.Diagnostic Review: Early Childhood Development in South Africa. Pretoria:
Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation in the Presidency and the the Inter-
Departmental Steering Committee on Early Childhood Development, South Africa.
Richter, L. M., B. Daelmans, J. Lombardi, J. Heymann, F. L. Boo, J. R. Behrman, C. Lu, et al.; Group
Paper 3 Working, and Committee the Lancet Early Childhood Development Series Steering.
2017b. “Investing in the Foundation of Sustainable Development: Pathways to Scale up for Early
Childhood Development.”Lancet 389 (10064): 103–118. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31698-1.
Richter, L. M., B. Daelmans, J. Lombardi, J. Heymann, F. L. Boo, J. R. Behrman, L. Chunling,
J. E. Lucas, R. Perez-Escamilla, and T. Dua. 2017a.“Investing in the Foundation of Sustainable
Development: Pathways to Scale up for Early Childhood Development.”The Lancet 389 (10064):
103–118. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31698-1.
Shawar, Y. R., and J Shiffman. 2017.“Generation Of Global Political Priority for Early Childhood
Development: The Challenges Of Framing and Governance.”The Lancet 389 (10064): 119–124.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31574-4.
Siddiqi, A., A. Rajaram, and S. P. Miller, 2018,Archives Of Disease in Childhood, 103(10). 920-926. .
Strauss, A., and J. M. Corbin. 1990.Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Vandenbroeck, M., J. De Vos, W. Fias, L. M. Olsson, H. Penn, D. Wastell, and S. White. 2017.
Constructions of Neuroscience in Early Childhood Education. london: Taylor & Francis.
Ward, P. R., J. Thompson, R. Barber, C. J. Armitage, J. D. Boote, C. L. Cooper, and G. L. Jones. 2010.
“Critical Perspectives on ‘Consumer Involvement’in Health Research: Epistemological
Dissonance and the Know-Do Gap.”Journal of Sociology 46 (1): 63–82. doi:10.1177/
1440783309351771.
Weigold, M. F. 2001.“Communicating Science: A Review of the Literature.”Science Communication
23 (2): 164–193. doi:10.1177/1075547001023002005.
World Health Organization, United Nations Children’s Fund, World Bank Group. 2018.Nurturing
Care for Early Childhood Development: A Framework for Helping Children Survive and Thrive to
Transform Health and Human Potential. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Worthman, C. M., M. Tomlinson, and M. J. Rotheram-Borus. 2016.“When Can Parents Most
Influence Their Child‘S Development? Expert Knowledge and Perceived Local Realities.”Social
Science & Medicine 154: 62–69. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.02.040.
EARLY YEARS 309
