In the current study, Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of power, capital, and position serve as the theoretical framework (42–44). According to Bourdieu (44), the real is relational, which means that social reality consists of power relationships between different objective positions and dispositions, unfolding through dialectic processes. Understanding people means understanding their inherent properties, attributes, or essences in relation to the field of objects, practises, or activities in which they exist (44). Power is central in all social interactions, especially symbolic power. Symbolic power functions as a structure in a social space where related people have accepted what is right or wrong about any phenomenon (things, thoughts, behaviours, traditions, and actions). Symbolic power exists among people in different social contexts, e.g., families, workplaces, and schools (45).

In a social context, actors or groups of actors assume different positions and act differently depending on their access to different valuable capitals, such as economic, social, cultural, and symbolic capital. These capitals are part of the social structure and impact on actors’ behaviours in a specific physical place (42–44, 46).

The physical context of the current study consisted of a physical setting with a specific interior, where different meetings between different actors took place, framing the conditions for their (inter)actions. (43), emphasises that a social context, where concrete human activity takes place, is always a pre-structured context as it is coded with specific rules and values. In the current study, the authors focused on how the structural framework of the support programme—consisting of seven consecutive support sessions with different themes, pre-defined content, and activities—guided and shaped the conditions for possible (inter)actions and vice versa. Hence, the concept of power was employed to illuminate its multidimensional aspects during actors’ (inter)actions in the specific physical setting. Subsequently, the concepts of positions, power, and capitals served as an analytical lens to illuminate how actors’ different social positions and capitals, such as age and roles, might have significance for the conditions of possibility to act in the programme. In the current study, Bourdieu’s relational theoretical framework was used to inspire a focus on symbolic and structural power, capital, and position. Bourdieu’s theoretical concepts highlight the dynamic power relationships between different actors’ positions that influence the possibilities to shape the content and proceedings of the programme, which, in dialectic processes, further influenced the actors’ (inter)actions.

The current study is a part of a larger ethnographic field study (10, 23), conducted within a Swedish support programme for bereaved children and their families from February to June 2019. Empirical materials were collected through multiple methods, totalling 82 h of observations that led to 130 pages of field notes, 29 semi-structured individual interviews with children and their parents, and one focus group interview with the volunteers. Additionally, short, spontaneous interviews were conducted during mingle sessions and breaks, and these were also documented as field notes. Photographs, drawings, and written notes used during sessions regarding emotions and feelings were also included in the empirical material. Thus, the current study exclusively built on field notes from the observational part of the larger study that is related to the aim of this investigation.

The studied support programme, developed and inspired by Swedish psychologist Gyllenswärd (47), was structured based on three key elements: (1) The remaining parents applied through email or phone to join the support programme, and then the remaining parent, their children, and volunteers had a planned initial meeting lasting 30–60 min where they exchanging information about the programme and discussed expectations. (2) Seven sessions were held where children were grouped according to age and parents had a separate group. (3) All seven sessions were structured in terms of time, themes, content, and activities (47). For more details, see Table 1, also presented in another article (23).

In total, 10 families participated in the support programme and all of them were informed and invited to participate in the study. Inclusion criteria required that children and their surviving parents participate as families, and the children’s ages ranged between 9 and 18 years. One family declined to participate, and one family was excluded due to inclusion criteria. Eight families, consisting of eight parents (three fathers and five mothers, aged 40–72 years, with an average age of 48) and 11 children (nine boys and two girls, aged 9–14 years), were included in the study. One of the included families only participated in the observational part of the study, while the other seven families participated in all parts of the larger study (10). All eight volunteers (aged 34–69 years, with an average age of 61) participated and had various professional backgrounds such as nursing, priesthood, teaching, deaconry, and leisure education with work experiences ranging from 8 to 44 years. Furthermore, the volunteers had varied experience as facilitators in the programme, spanning from 0 to 15 years. Two of them were beginners and were paired with experienced facilitators during the group sessions (10).

The field study observations were conducted during mingle sessions/breaks and in the seven group sessions for children. The first author conducted the field study with a focus on understanding with whom participants (inter)acted, and how, from the positions they assumed, and in which physical settings these interactions occurred. Furthermore, observations were also conducted during the volunteers’ other activities related to the programme, including initial meetings before the programme started and two planned group meetings on supervisions and reflections, which were led by a social worker specialising in family therapy.

All field observations were conducted in Swedish, and a field journal was written during field work and after all interviews to provide reflexivity support for the field researcher, following the approach of Bourdieu and Wacquant (48). The journal functioned as a reflection tool partly to challenge the field researcher’s preunderstandings but also to guide attention to the researcher’s own emotions in relation to the participants and situations. The journal documented what happened in various situations, what was captured in the observations and why, and how the researcher reacted, both emotionally and mentally. All these reflections supported the preparation and strategies for the next meeting within the studied field.

A latent thematic analysis was conducted, methodically inspired by Braun and Clark (49), and theoretically inspired by Bourdieu’s relational concepts of power, position, and capital (43, 44, 46, 48). Firstly, fieldnotes were read repeatedly by the first author to gain familiarity and get an overall understanding of the empirical material (49), with focus on contextual and relational perspectives regarding actors’ influences that shape the content and proceedings in the studied programme. Secondly, to generate initial codes (49), a table was inspired by Bourdieu’s relational theoretical concepts to carry out the analysis of features in the fieldnotes. The table’s horizontal rows contained information about the support programme’s context (structure, content, place, and environment), the actors’ different positions (volunteers, parents, children, and the researcher), and how power relationships between the actors appeared in the different organised physical spaces. The vertical columns contained information about the actors’ strategies—namely what, when, where, with whom, and how these strategies influenced the content and proceedings of the programme. The table functioned as a multidimensional map, organising initial codes within relational and contextual perspective (43, 44, 46, 48).

Thirdly, the initial coded extracts in the table were sorted in groups to capture both similarities and differences in the empirical material to construct initial sub-themes and themes. Forth, the initial themes were reviewed by all authors in relation to the coded extracts to ensure that the themes were not only cohesive but also distinct from each other, capturing the essence of each theme within the study’s aim (49). Furthermore, the process of defining and naming themes involved thorough discussions among all authors. This ensured a reflective approach (48), which meant that the authors consciously and continuously tried to break with preunderstandings and perceptions during the dialectic analysis processes. Finally, three themes were constructed ‘Positions defined the premises for confidentiality obligation’, ‘Visible and invisible communication patterns in the classroom’, and ‘Free time and non-bereavement-related interfaces connected people’. Moreover, the themes were developed from a relational perspective, focusing on the power relationships within the context of the studied support programme. Additionally, the actors’ different social positions based on cultural capital were considered in each theme. Quotes from the empirical material were used to illustrate transparency in the analysis process. All names have been changed.

The study was approved by the Swedish Regional Ethics Board and conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the World Medical Association (50). Participation was voluntary, and all participants were informed about confidentiality and their right to withdraw at any time without facing any consequences regarding their participation in the support programme. The first author informed all participants orally about the study and provided written information in age-customised versions, with one version for adults and another for children. All participants aged 12 years and above signed a written, informed consent form, and children below12 years gave oral consent. Moreover, children had the opportunity to ask the field researcher questions before and during mingles/breaks regarding their participation in the current study.

Six children, two volunteers, and one fieldwork researcher participated in the seven weekly meetings in the support programme. All actors were bound by an obligation to maintain the rule of confidentiality within the programme. The confidentiality obligation functioned as an essential element in the structural framework of the programme, however, the demands of confidentially obligation differed among the three groups of actors: children, volunteers, and the researcher. The volunteers, who had cultural capital as support providers, saw confidentiality obligation as a major part of their role, ensuring that information about the included parents and children was not spread outside the programme. Their confidentiality commitment also functioned as a trust-builder between the volunteers and programme’s participants.

However, the volunteers did not observe confidentiality obligation within the volunteer team and among related professionals, where they could discuss their experiences from the sessions and mingles with each other and an assigned supervisor. During the course, the volunteer team held two legitimate formal meetings with a supervisor, providing support and sharing reflections, emotions, and disillusioned expectations relating to the future strategies of the children, parents, and volunteers.

Children held the position of support recipients in the programme and were expected to refrain from disclosing or discussing any experiences from the programme outside it. In short, this structural premise was a requirement for participating in the programme, where children were supposed to accept the confidentiality obligation. On one hand, the programme offered the children an exclusive safe space to talk and share experiences and feelings. On the other hand, the programme restricted the children by not allowing them to share their experiences and feelings related to the programme outside its physical space. However, it was unknown to the volunteers how the children handled their imposed confidentiality. They neither accepted nor challenged this confidentiality obligation in the face-to-face meetings with the volunteers.

The fieldwork researcher was positioned as an observer and was the only one with the opportunity to share knowledge outside the programme regarding what had happened, when, where, and in relation to whom. As a private person, the researcher could not share information outside the programme, but as a researcher, the task was to make this support programme visible outside its own framework and space by exploring it. However, the researcher adhered to research ethical laws, including the Helsinki Declaration, ensuring the research participants’ integrity and confidentiality in the research process and subsequent dissemination of knowledge. In that light, the researcher could discuss and document what happened in the programme in anonymised forms, supported by permission obtained through informed consents from all the participants.

Overall, the volunteers held a position that allowed them to set the conditions for the children’s participation without negotiation. For the children, their role in the programme depended on them accepting these conditions. However, they could follow or break the imposed confidentiality obligation without the other actors’ knowledge. The children were the only actors involved who did not have a formal opportunity to express their experiences and feelings about what happened in the support programme outside of the programme itself. Conversely, the volunteers and the researcher could take their experiences and feelings outside the programme, albeit subject to different limitations and conditions.

Actions and interactions between children and volunteers were influenced by different organised physical contexts, such as sessions, breaks, and mingles. These different contexts created both space for interactions and clearly defined boundaries for possible interactions. The group sessions took place in a room equipped with educational facilities such as a whiteboard and pens, with a table and chairs arranged by the volunteers in advance. The lead volunteers sat at the head of the table, while the children and field researcher sat at the long sides of the table. This seating arrangement implicitly conveyed a hierarchal positioning with the volunteers symbolically assuming the power of teachers in the classroom. Furthermore, volunteers asserted their symbolic power by presenting their professional backgrounds to the children, positioning themselves as knowledgeable and mediators of information about bereavement. The children held a position as potential recipients of knowledge through the support provided by volunteers during the sessions. In addition, the two volunteers orchestrated the sessions within the hierarchal positions of their roles. The volunteer in a leading role took charge and directed all the activities, while the other volunteer had an assisting role, quietly observing the children’s behaviour, always ready to support the leading volunteer if needed. The field researcher took on the position of observer, obligated to remain silent and not disturb the activities in the sessions. However, the researcher’s position also held symbolic power, granting the right to determine what became research data through field notes, with none of the other actors knowing what was noted down. This symbolic power was reinforced by the presence of an additional adult in the room.

As a formal social context, the sessions had a fixed opening and closing ritual. The opening ritual was to light an electronic candle in memory of the deceased parent. Children followed this instruction without questioning the significance or purpose of this ritual.

The next ritual for those present was to declare their social identity through their names. Facilitated by the volunteers, everyone present in the session, including the field researcher, participated in the name game (sessions 1–3). The aim of the game was to get to know and remember each other’s name. This game created a sense of community, which was an important element in group cooperation, with ‘community’ being a pre-defined concept supporting children in the programme.

The closing rituals consisted of two elements: music and extinguishing the candles. The lead volunteer made a secret song list of the children’s favourite songs. Only the lead volunteer knew, which song had been selected by who, and played a selected song from their smartphone at end of each session. The children’s task was to guess whose song it was, which was sometimes successful, sometimes not. The music ritual was mandatory, and some children initially refused to take part in the game. The volunteer used their relational power position and persuaded those children to join in the game. Eventually, all the children had chosen a song. After the music ritual, children extinguished their electric candles before they left the room, symbolising the end of the session.

During the sessions, children listened to the volunteers’ instructions, and engaged in individual tasks such as writing or drawing within predefined themes related to their loss, grief, and emotions. The communication had a loss-oriented focus with the objective to support children in reflecting on their emotions, thoughts, and memories of their deceased parent. In the writing tasks, children often wrote single words such as angry, funny, and happy on paper. In the oral explication of the written words/drawings, the volunteers often designated ‘words’ that could point to poor grief processing such as anger. In the group setting, the volunteers asked follow-up questions about the children’s written words/drawings, and the children answered briefly, often by saying yes, no, or I do not know. Through the oral exchanges, the volunteers implicitly assessed the children’s psychological condition and suggested explicit solutions for how to cope with the emotions of grief. The children did not enter dialogues with each other during these sessions or ask the volunteers questions. However, they were present, accepting, and did everything they were asked to do during the sessions.

All the children sat quietly and listened. (Field observation fourth session).

The volunteers held high ambitions and expectations regarding the active participation and verbal expression of the children in the sessions, viewing their talking as another key element and an indicator of the programme’s success.

The volunteers were focused on visible forms of communication during the sessions, such as face-to-face expressions and spoken words. However, some children communicated without using voices. For instance, some covertly used their cell phones under the table, despite an established rule requiring phones to be on silent mode and not used during sessions. Others drew shapes of hearts or stars on paper during the verbal part of the sessions while still seeming to listen. Some communicated their feelings of unease in the session room by keeping their outside clothing on. However, over time, some of those children gradually became more at ease and felt more comfortable, which led them to remove their outside clothing.

In the spacious open lobby on the ground floor, children, parents, and volunteers gathered and mingled together before each session. The lobby functioned as a central gathering place and a waiting area for all actors before the sessions. In contrast to the structured sessions, the lobby was lively with different activities and the sounds of laughter and talking. The conversations between actors covered a range of topics, such as sports, the weather, vacations, and jobs. While mingling with each other, everyone had the opportunity to engage in free and self-selected content in the conversations. However, their positions were not equal as the children were in the company of their parents, placing parents in a higher position than children due to their custodial responsibility, including the upbringing of the children. Moreover, the volunteers had the role of ‘supporters’ and ‘facilitators’, while the others took on the role of ‘potential supported’. However, the ‘support’ agenda was reset during these informal mingles.

During the sessions, there were breaks lasting for 10–15 min, providing opportunities for the children to socialise with whomever they wanted. Children and parents had breaks at different times. The volunteers instructed the children: ‘Go down to lobby, get something to eat/drink, and come back to the session room’ (Field notes, first session). While some children followed this instruction, others chose to mingle independently in the lobby or in the corridor outside the session room. These breaks were the only ‘free zone’ away from adults within the programme. The children who interacted with each other had found common ground, i.e., shared interests such as the same taste in music or common affiliations, such as attending the same school.

The volunteers valued the children’s interactions during the breaks. According to the volunteers, ‘creating communities’ was interpreted as another success factor of the programme. It also contributed to their personal satisfaction and sense of meaning relating to the effort they had put into the programme. It alleviated their concerns about the limited verbal communication and interactions between the children during the sessions. When hopeful expectations of the children interacting became a visible reality for the volunteers, they demonstrated flexibility by changing the planned time structure and content of the sessions to give children more free time to develop connections and interactions.

Extended breaks made more children-led (inter)actions possible, and the volunteers paid attention to children who were not engaging with others. In contrast to the sessions, children actively talked with the volunteers about things other than their feelings and emotions. Communication centred around common interests, such as sports and pets. Both the children and volunteers smiled, laughed, and seemed to enjoy the conversations and each other’s company. The ways in which volunteers and children communicated and the topics they discussed changed when the context shifted from the formal sessions to informal breaks, and the formal bereavement agenda was temporarily set aside. The formal sessions on loss, bereavement, and emotions were put on hold, and conversations were based on mutual interests. Over time, informal parts of the programme saw interactions between children and volunteers blossom and friendships develop between the children.

In the last session, a balloon ceremony was conducted as a formal conclusion of the programme. This involved the release of balloons with letters to the deceased parent. This could be seen as a rite of passage, symbolising the transition back to their everyday lives after completing the support programme, and implicitly that they should be able to navigate their parental bereavement in new and better ways. A strong connection developed between some of the children during this ceremony when one of the children accidently let go of their balloon before they reached the hill where the balloons were to be released. The child without a balloon was supported by another child who they had developed a friendship with during the programme. The friend assisted the child without a balloon and encouraged them to write a new letter. Afterwards, this smaller group went to the hill where they released their balloons together with the rest of the group.

Symbolically, children engaged in individual communication with their deceased parent while simultaneously visualising a sense of joint action within the shared community. However, after the last session, all actors separated from each other, marking the formal dissolution of the programme.