In my essay, I explore the dilemma how I respond to the various hobbies that children carry with them to preschool. I want to be able to allow every child to take part of their hobbies at preschool, but I still get stuck in accepting some hobbies, while I deny others. In my stories, I focus on two situations where I have a hard time accepting the children's hobbies, because I think they interfer with preschool routine. Through my questions, I then go on to examine why I react like this, and how I could act differently towards these children. My method is to write a scientific essay, where I explore my own experience through writing, and reflect on my dilemma by looking at it from different angles. I set out from a hermeneutic perspective, where Hans-George Gadamer's theories on preconceptions and the horizon of understanding form a base for my reflections. I've chosen to explore two different approaches that I could take in my response towards the children. One is based on Gert Biesta's thoughts on a pedagogy of interruption, which is about interrupting the children in what they are doing, to make them take a break from their repetitive behaviour and give them new ways to access their hobbies. The other approach departs from Carina Fast's studies on literacy and the potential children have to learn through popular culture, and where I try to base my actions on what they children are currently doing, to elaborate on that instead. I try to apply both of these approaches on my stories, and reflect on how they would work here and what this could lead to. I feel that no two situations are the same and that I can't tell for sure that a certain method is going to work every time, thus I will have to see each and every situation for what it is and try different approaches each time.

I min vetenskapliga essä beskriver jag självupplevda situationer som behandlar fyra barn i förskolan och pedagogernas agerande. Berättelserna handlar vid första anblick om pedagogers relationsbyggande och relationskompetens och huruvida de lyckas eller misslyckas att bemöta barnets behov och känslor. I ett relationellt perspektiv, behandlas den första forskningsfrågan, hur pedagogen kan möta barnet för att bygga en god och professionell relation. Det relationella perspektivet har ett fokus på mötet mellan pedagog och barn, med begrepp som relationsbyggande, relationskompetens, barnets perspektiv, trygga relationer; utifrån docenten Emilson, professor Frelin, familjeterapeuterna Juul & Jensen, barnforskaren Johansson samt professor Aspelin och amerikanska professorerna McNally & Slutsky. Jag vidgar mitt synfält med den andra forskningsfrågan, hur pedagogen kan förstå och möta den andres annanhet. Genom ett hermeneutiskt perspektiv söker jag förstå och möta annanheten som varje människa besitter och hur detta påverkar mötet mellan pedagogerna samt mellan pedagog och barn. Jag reflekterar över mitt eget och andras agerande. Jag synliggör hur föreställningar om barnet och min konstruktion av pedagoger, kan påverka min förståelse för och mötet med den andre. Polisen Heder behandlar att professionen ansvarar för ett empatiskt möte. Filosofen Gadamer och hans begrepp förståelsehorisont, används genomgående, tillsammans med begreppet annanhet. Fil.dr. Bjervås och docenten Emilson bidrar till en ytterligare förståelse för annanheten, genom olika föreställningar om barnet. Vidare reflekterar jag över min konstruktion av den andre samt även mitt ansvar i kunnandet, med hjälp av docenterna Hjertström Lappalainen & Schwarz. Syftet med essän är att problematisera förskolan som en komplex mötesarena av relationer, erfarenheter, annanheter och föreställningar, vilket jag med mina perspektiv och forskningsfrågor ämnar synliggöra. Begreppet förståelsehorisont och mötet med annanheten, har givit mig en bredare blick för mitt framtida kunnande. Metoden har varit essäskrivandet, min berättelse, reflektion över erfarenheten, den teoretiska förankringen, mentorsamtal och en skrivgrupps reflektioner. Undersökningsmetoden har varit berikande då min praktiska kunskap har problematiserats och kan således utvecklas. / In my scientific essay, I describe self-experienced situations that deal with four children in preschool and the educators' actions. The stories are at first sight about educators' relationship building and relationship skills and whether they succeed or fail to respond to the child's needs and feelings. In a relational perspective, the first research question is addressed, how the educator can meet the child to build a good and professional relationship. The relational perspective focuses on the encounter between educator and child, with concepts such as relationship building, relationship skills, the child's perspective, safe relationships; from the docent Emilson, Professor Frelin, family therapists Juul & Jensen, child researcher Johansson and Professor Aspelin and American Professors McNally & Slutsky. I broaden my sight with the second research question, how the educator can understand and meet the other's otherness. Through a hermeneutic perspective, I seek to understand and meet the otherness each person possesses and how this affects the encounter between the educators as well as between educators and children. I reflect on my own and others' actions. I visualize how assumptions of the child and my construction of educators, can affect my understanding of and the encounter with the other. Policeman Heder deal with the profession as responsible for an empathetic encounter. The philosopher Gadamer and his concept horizon of understanding, is used consistently, with the concept otherness. PhD Bjervås, and the docent Emilson contribute to a further understanding of the otherness, through different assumptions of the child. Furthermore, I reflect on my construction of the other as well as my responsibility in the know-how, with the help of docents Hjertström Lappalainen & Schwarz. The purpose of the essay, is to problematize preschool as a complex arena of encounters, with relationships, experiences, otherness and assumptions, which I aim to make visible with my perspectives and research questions. The concept horizon of understanding and the encounter with the otherness, has given me a broader view of my future know-how. The method has been my essay writing, my story, reflection on the experience, the theoretical framework, mentor conversation and a writing group’s reflections. The research method has been enriching as my practical knowledge has been problematized and can thus be developed.

Using an analysis of the creation of the character Dan Kelly in my play, risk, I argue that fairytale characters work as more than personage representations. They function on a big canvas for the audience; they carry large chains of association. Given this, I then propose that the human response is to infer additional meaning, meaning beyond the scope of plot and immediate character interaction - the audience infers symbolic meaning, ‘amplifying’ what is there into more. They enter a ‘generative empty space’ within the play where they infer or ‘unfold’ more meaning. In creating this ‘greater tale’, they are engaged beyond their personal ‘horizon of understanding’, and so, ‘take in’ the work through a heightened perceptual acuity. Therefore, I pursued the idea of making space for the operation of this process, of leveraging the creation of meaning around a character. My inquiry led me to believe that a powerful way to do this was through absence rather than presence and silence rather than sound; and this had a profound impact on my choice of form for Dan Kelly: he progressed, through a number of stages, from reportage to a digital representation.