PARENT CONCEPTIONS OF THEIR ROLE IN
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE:
A PHENOMENOGRAPHIC STUDY FROM
QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA
Susan Irvine
Dip Teach EC (BKTC), B Ed St, M Ed St (UQ)
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Centre for Learning Innovation, Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
Australia
2005
Certificate of authorship and originality
I certify that this thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in
undertaking this research, and all sources used, have been acknowledged in the thesis.
I also certify that this research has not previously been submitted for a degree at any
other higher education institution.
Signed
Date
ii
Acknowledgements
As a PhD student, it has been my very great fortune to have enjoyed the support of so
many valued contributors. To begin, I am indebted to my co-supervisors, Associate
Professor Ann Farrell and Professor Collette Tayler for the high level of professional
support and advice they have provided throughout my study. Their intellectual
guidance and enthusiasm for the study have supported my growth as a researcher, as
well as my enjoyment of the not always easy pathway of postgraduate study.
Sincere thanks must also be extended to Gowrie Queensland Inc., in particular, to Dr
Rosemary Perry and the Board of Management, Ms Jenny Mobbs, Ms Lesley
McConnell and all the hub staff for their ongoing support and interest in my study. I
also wish to acknowledge the generosity of the parents who gave up time in a busy
day to meet and talk with me. The study would not have been possible without the
frank and thoughtful reflections of these parents.
While PhD students typically work alone, I have enjoyed and benefited from the
support of many departmental and academic colleagues – staff and students.
Particular thanks must be extended to those colleagues who participated in the group
discussions that supported data analysis.
On the home front, this has been a true team effort. Heartfelt thanks to my husband
John for his love and encouragement and to Sam and Georgia for having such
unflagging confidence in me, and giving up precious computer time. Thanks also to
my father and sister for final proof-reading and my mother for the very welcome food
parcels, particularly during the final write-up of the thesis. Sincere thanks also to the
many friends who have offered support in different ways, from participating in the
pilot study to offering encouragement over a meal and glass of wine.
Finally, I need to acknowledge the support of my employer, the Queensland
Department of Families (now Communities), in providing special leave to undertake
this study, and to QUT for the scholarship that enabled me to take time from my ‘day
job’ to pursue a personal goal.
iii
Table of contents
Certificate of authorship and originality .........................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................................................iii
Table of contents ...............................................................................................................................iv
List of tables .....................................................................................................................................vii
List of figures ..................................................................................................................................viii
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................... IX
Key words..........................................................................................................................................xi
Acronyms..........................................................................................................................................xii
PUBLICATIONS ARISING FROM DOCTORAL RESEARCH .................... XIII
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE THESIS........................................................................1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
Background to the study ................................................................................................ 1
The purpose of the research - aim and objectives........................................................ 5
The research question..................................................................................................... 6
Scope of the research ...................................................................................................... 7
Significance of the study...............................................................................................10
Organisation of the thesis.............................................................................................12
CHAPTER 2
PARENTS IN ECEC: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................14
2.1
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.5
Introduction ..................................................................................................................14
ECEC in Australia........................................................................................................14
A fragmented service system..........................................................................................14
Changing family demographics and unmet need in ECEC.............................................18
The policy context .........................................................................................................24
Defining policy ...............................................................................................................24
New public management and the rise of the ECEC market............................................28
Parent and community participation in ECEC................................................................35
Parents in ECEC: Consumer, participant or other? .................................................45
Parents as consumers ......................................................................................................46
Parents as participants.....................................................................................................53
Chapter summary.........................................................................................................60
CHAPTER 3
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY .................................61
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.3
3.4
Introduction ..................................................................................................................61
Engaging a phenomenographic research approach...................................................61
A second-order perspective ............................................................................................65
Discovering conceptions or ways of experiencing .........................................................66
Discerning variation between conceptions .....................................................................70
Categories of description and the outcome space ...........................................................73
A phenomenographic approach to public policy research ........................................77
The research method and design.................................................................................81
iv
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.5
3.4.6
3.4.7
3.5
Pilot study .......................................................................................................................84
The research site .............................................................................................................89
The participants ..............................................................................................................91
Developing the data collection instrument .....................................................................96
Data collection: Conducting the interviews.................................................................. 100
Data analysis: Finding and describing parent conceptions of their role in ECEC. ....... 104
Validity and reliability .................................................................................................. 116
Chapter summary....................................................................................................... 124
CHAPTER 4
DESCRIPTIONS OF PARENT CONCEPTIONS ...............................................125
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.4
4.5
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.5.4
4.6
4.7
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 125
The categories of description and outcome spaces................................................... 125
Five conceptions of the role of parents in using ECEC services ............................. 128
Category 1: Service user conception ............................................................................ 128
Category 2: Informed user conception.......................................................................... 135
Category 3: Consumer conception................................................................................ 142
Category 4: Partnership conception .............................................................................. 152
Category 5: Member of a service community conception ............................................ 161
The outcome space...................................................................................................... 166
Four conceptions of the role of parents in shaping ECEC public policy ............... 174
Category A: No role conception ................................................................................... 174
Category B: Raising concerns conception .................................................................... 178
Category C: Having some say conception .................................................................... 192
Category D: Participating in policy decision making conception................................. 206
The outcome space...................................................................................................... 215
Chapter summary....................................................................................................... 223
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION ...........................................................................................................224
5.1
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 224
Different conceptions of the role of parents in ECEC ............................................. 224
Parent conceptions of their role in ECEC ..................................................................... 225
Comparing parent conceptions with other typologies of the role of parents
in education...................................................................................................................229
Comparing parent conceptions with current policy perspectives on the role
of parents in ECEC ....................................................................................................... 232
Factors identified by parents as influencing their participation in ECEC ............ 247
Implications for ECEC policy and practice.............................................................. 250
Strengths and limitations of the study ...................................................................... 256
Recommendations for further research.................................................................... 260
Chapter summary....................................................................................................... 262
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................264
6.1
6.2
6.3
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 264
Study conclusions........................................................................................................ 264
Contribution of the study to phenomenography ...................................................... 269
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................271
v
APPENDIX 1 ..........................................................................................................283
ETHICAL CLEARANCE
APPENDIX 2 ..........................................................................................................287
WRITTEN INFORMATION FOR PARENTS
APPENDIX 3............................................................................................................291
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONAIRE
APPENDIX 4............................................................................................................293
GROUP DISCUSSION – INFORMATION FOR PARTICIPANTS
vi
List of tables
Table 2.1: Profile of ECEC services in Australia as at 2002-2003....................................................18
Table 2.2: Australian social trends 1993 - 2003 .................................................................................20
Table 2.3: Key Commonwealth and Queensland ECEC policy documents 1990 - 2004 ................26
Table 3.1: Interview framework for pilot study................................................................................. 86
Table 3.2: Selected characteristics of the research area....................................................................90
Table 3.3: Data collection instrument used in the main study..........................................................98
Table 4.1: Categories of description denoting the role of parents in using ECEC services ......... 167
Table 4.2: Most participatory conception of the role of parents in using ECEC services............ 168
Table 4.3: Full array of conceptions of the role of parents in using ECEC services..................... 168
Table 4.4: Categories of description denoting the role of parents in shaping ECEC public policy
.................................................................................................................................................... 216
Table 4.5: Most participatory conception of the role of parents in shaping ECEC policy........... 217
Table 4.6: Full array of conceptions of the role of parents in shaping ECEC policy.................... 217
Table 5.1: A comparison of the two sets of categories of description............................................. 228
Table 5.2: Similarities and differences between parent conceptions and ‘other views’ of the role
of parents ................................................................................................................................... 232
Table 5.3: Factors identified by parents as influencing their participation .................................. 251
vii
List of figures
Figure 3.1: Overview of the Parent Conceptions Study ......................................................................83
Figure 3.2: Number and ages of children connected to the study ....................................................94
Figure 3.3: Size of families linked to the study...................................................................................94
Figure 3.4: Level of parent education .................................................................................................94
Figure 3.5: Parent employment by industry ......................................................................................95
Figure 3.6: Parent work hours (e.g., full-time, part-time or at home) ............................................95
Figure 3.7: ECEC services used by families .......................................................................................95
Figure 3.8: Number of different ECEC service types used by families............................................96
Figure 4.1: Outcome space depicting conceptions of the role of parents in using ECEC services
.................................................................................................................................................... 171
Figure 4.2: Outcome space depicting parent conceptions of the role of parents in shaping ECEC
public policy............................................................................................................................... 219
viii
ABSTRACT
Over past decades, the face of Australian early childhood education and care (ECEC)
has changed substantially. It has been shaped by two dominant policy discourses: the
discourse of market theory, and, more recently, the discourse of parent and
community participation. The intertwining of these two seemingly opposing
discourses has led to the positioning of parents both as consumers of ECEC and as
participants in ECEC. Each of these perspectives promotes a particular way of
fulfilling the role of parent in ECEC. Reflecting general marketing principles, the
primary role of parent as consumer is seen as selecting the right service for their child
and family. In contrast, while arguably more ambiguous in meaning, the role of
parent as participant promotes a partnership approach, and, increasingly, parental
involvement in decision making at both service and public policy levels. Each of
these roles has been constructed for parents by governments and policymakers, with
little reference to the views and experiences of parents using ECEC.
Seeking to address this gap in the ECEC knowledge base, the present study
investigated the qualitatively different ways in which parents constitute their role in
Australian ECEC. The study focused on two related aspects of the role of parents: (1)
the role of parents in using ECEC services; and (2) the role of parents in shaping
ECEC public policy. To describe these roles, as viewed and experienced by parents,
and to reveal possible variation therein, the study engaged a phenomenographic
research approach (Bowden & Walsh, 2000; Marton & Booth, 1997).
Twenty-six parents participated in the study. Data were gathered through semistructured interviews with individual parents and subjected to a rigorous process of
phenomenographic analysis. The study results are presented in two parts. With
respect to the role of parents using ECEC, the study led to the construction of five
categories of description, denoting five distinctly different ways of seeing and
experiencing this role. The role of parents was seen as: (1) selecting and using the
best service for their child (the service user conception); (2) knowing what’s
happening for their child in the service (the informed user conception); (3) paying for
a service, and, thereby, enacting certain consumer rights (the consumer conception);
ix
(4) supporting their selected service and having some say in what happens for their
child at the service (the partnership conception); and (5) working as a member of the
service community for the benefit of all concerned, which includes participating in
decision making (the member of a service community conception). Taking a broader
perspective, the study again revealed variation in how parents constituted their role in
shaping ECEC policy, leading to the construction of four categories of description.
The role of parents was seen as: (1) no role in shaping ECEC public policy (the no
role conception); (2) being informed about policy that affects their child and family,
raising any concerns and/or seeking a change to current or proposed policy (the
raising concerns conception); (3) having some say in policy matters that affect their
child and family (the having some say conception); and (4) participating in policy
decision making, particularly where this is likely to affect their child and family (the
participating in policy decision making conception).
The study highlights variation in how these roles are constituted by parents, inclusive
of the basic concepts of parent as consumer and parent as participant. In addition, the
study offers an insider perspective on these two “dominant common-sense
understandings” (Vincent & Martin, 2000, p. 2) of the role of parents, prompting
questions about their future in ECEC policy. As an example of “developmental
phenomenography” (Bowden, 2000b, p. 3), the study also identifies factors perceived
by parents as influencing their participation at various levels, and discusses
implications for both policy and practice. Finally, the study extends the general
phenomenographic area of interest, from education to public policy research. Within
this area, phenomenography is seen to offer a useful and pragmatic research tool,
facilitating the identification and consideration of different constituent views and
experiences, and, thereby, signifying more possible options for action.
x
Key words
Early childhood education and care (ECEC), parents, participation, policy, Australia,
phenomenography, variation, conceptions, categories of description, outcome space.
xi
Acronyms
COAG
Council of Australian Governments
ECEC
Early childhood education and care
EPAC
Economic Planning and Advisory Commission
NCAC
National Childcare Accreditation Council
NPM
New Public Management
OECD
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
QIAS
Quality Improvement and Accreditation System
SCRCSSP
Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service
Provision
SEETRC
Senate Employment Education and Training Reference Committee
SFCS
Stronger Families and Communities Strategy
xii
PUBLICATIONS ARISING FROM DOCTORAL RESEARCH
Refereed papers
Irvine, S., Tayler, C., & Farrell, M. (2004). Lenses and lessons in phenomenographic
research for public policy in early childhood education and care. In E.
McWilliam, S. Danby & J. Knight (Eds.). Performing educational research:
Theories, methods and practices. (pp. 287-302). Flaxton, Queensland: Post
Pressed.
Irvine, S., Tayler, C., & Farrell, M. (2001). Effective early childhood education and
care services: A proposal for identifying parent expectations and perceptions
using phenomenographic research. In P. Singh & E. McWilliam (Eds.),
Designing educational research: Theories, methods and practices. (pp. 249261). Flaxton, Queensland: Post Pressed.
Other publications/articles
Irvine, S. (2003) Parent conceptions of their role in early childhood education and
care public policy and service development. Proceedings of the Current
Issues in Phenomenography Symposium, Canberra: Australian National
University. At www.anu.au/cedam/ilearn/symposium/Irvine.doc
Irvine, S., & Tayler, C. (2001). Testing the rhetoric: Will more integrated services
really make a difference for children and families? Every Child, 7(1), 13.
Irvine, S., Tayler, C., Farrell, M. A., & Gahan, D. (2001). Integrated child and family
services: Passing trend or way of the future? Educating Young Children, 7(1),
6-7.
Conference presentations
Irvine, S. (2003, October). Lenses and lessons in phenomenographic research for
public policy in early childhood education and care. Paper presented at the
Performing Research, Faculty of Education Postgraduate Student Conference,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Irvine, S. (2002, November). Parent conceptions of their role in early childhood
education and care public policy and service development. Paper presented at
the Current Issues in Phenomenography Symposium, Australian National
University, Canberra, Australia.
Irvine, S. (2001, November). Effective ECEC services: Identifying parent
expectations and perceptions using phenomenographic research. Paper
presented at the Designing Educational Research, Faculty of Education
Postgraduate Student Conference, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia.
xiii
Tayler, C., & Irvine, S. (2000, August). The Queensland ACCESS Project: Enhanced
wellbeing and community capacity through integration of early childhood and
family services. Paper presented at the European Early Childhood Research
Association 10th Conference, Complexity, Diversity and Multiple Perspectives
in Early Childhood, London, United Kingdom.
Tayler, C., Farrell, M. A., Gahan, D., & Irvine, S. (2001, July). The Kelvin Grove
ACCESS Project. Paper presented at the Biennial AECA Conference, Sydney.
xiv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE THESIS
1.1
Introduction
This chapter provides a general introduction to the study presented in this thesis. It
begins with a brief overview of related policy and research issues, and situates the
study within the current context of systemic reform in Australian early childhood
education and care (ECEC).1 Phenomenography is introduced as the research
approach used in the study. This is followed by an outline of the research design,
identifying the research purpose, aims and objectives, the research questions, scope of
the study and its significance.
1.2
Background to the study
This study is concerned with parents’ views and experiences of their role in Australian
early childhood education and care (ECEC). My interest in this topic is multifaceted,
stemming from my experience as an early childhood teacher and senior policy officer
in children’s services, and most importantly, as a parent using ECEC services. In a
significant Canadian study some years ago, Pence and Goelman (1987) drew attention
to the absence of parent voice in ECEC. Depicting parents as “silent partners”, they
concluded that “to better understand ECEC, these silent partners must be heard” (p.
17). Perceiving this to be a continuing problem in many countries, including
Australia, this study employed a phenomenographic approach to give voice to parent
views and experiences in ECEC. The aim of the study was to uncover the role of
parents in using ECEC services and in shaping ECEC public policy, as constituted by
a group of parents, and to reveal possible variation therein.
The study was located in a policy context of systemic reform, a process that
commenced during the 1990s and remains ongoing. During this period, there have
1
The term early childhood education and care (ECEC) is adopted from the OECD report, Starting
Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care (2001c). In this thesis, it refers to all formal early
childhood services providing education and care for children under compulsory school age (e.g., child
care, family day care, kindergarten, preschool and the preparatory year currently being introduced in
Queensland).
1
been critical changes in the nature and provision of ECEC services in Australia,
ostensibly to respond to diverse and changing family needs. A review of public
policy from 1990 to the present, at both national and state levels, provides insight into
new service directions. These include: an unprecedented increase in the number of
work-related child care places, supported by significant expansion in private for-profit
services; escalating competition within the market; and interest in more integrated
approaches to the provision of child and family services (Council of Australian
Governments Child Care Working Group (COAG), 1995; Economic Planning and
Advisory Commission (EPAC), 1996; Queensland Government, 1999; Senate
Employment, Education and Training Reference Committee (SEETRC), 1996).
Ostensibly promoting the need for flexible and responsive services to meet different
family needs, contemporary policy invokes concepts of consultation, collaboration
and the involvement of key stakeholders (e.g., service operators, staff, government
agencies and parents) in all aspects of ECEC. Within this context, there is a renewed
emphasis on the role of parents in ECEC, not just in the day-to-day life of their child’s
service(s) but also in public policy. For example, the Australian Government’s
Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (2000; 2004) articulates themes of
‘working together’, ‘empowering families’ and ‘local solutions to local problems’. In
a similar vein, the Queensland Child Care Strategic Plan (Queensland Government,
1999) urges closer attention to (parent) consumer needs and expectations, and
advocates a stronger role for parents in planning child care services, developing
quality standards, and monitoring service compliance with these standards.
Observing parallel trends in the international arena, the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2001c) recently concluded that the role of
parents in ECEC is expanding and becoming more formalised. Enhanced parent
participation is perceived to support a range of positive outcomes for all concerned
(i.e., children, families, service providers, governments and the broader community).
At the forefront are better outcomes for children and families, supported by
knowledge sharing and skill development, more responsive policy and practice,
enhanced family support, and improved targeting and investment of public funds
(McGrath & Kuriloff, 1999; OECD, 2001a; 2001c; Powell, 1998).
2
Now, while the public policy focus on parents in ECEC may be considered overdue in
Australia, and in spite of the emphasis on parent and community involvement, this has
been primarily a top-down (i.e., centrally-driven) policy process, allowing only
limited consideration of parent views. In the absence of specific research evidence,
the role of parents has been constructed by governments and policymakers, and
shaped by the dominant policy discourse of the day. For example, the discourse of
market theory and rise of the ECEC “quasi-market” (Marginson, 1997a, p. 6) has
strengthened the view of parents as consumers of ECEC services. As such, parents
are positioned as individual consumers whose key role is to select the right service(s)
for their child and family. While the ECEC quasi-market and notion of parent as
consumer prevails in Australian ECEC policy, an ascending discourse of parent and
community participation is challenging this rather limited view of parents. While
arguably more ambiguous in meaning, the view of parents as participants tends to
emphasise shared community, collective decision making and participatory
citizenship (Epstein, 1990). Parent participation discourse extends beyond service
choice to promote a partnership approach to service provision and, increasingly,
parents “taking part” in decision making (Rizvi, 1995, p. 18). As can be seen, each of
these perspectives promotes a particular way of fulfilling the role of parent in ECEC.
Although seemingly contradictory, consumer and participant discourse co-exist in
Australian ECEC policy, resulting in potentially conflicting images of parents in
ECEC. This tension is also evident in other Western OECD countries, including
Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Further contributing to this problem is the paucity of research identifying parent views
and experiences in ECEC. Despite a market-driven approach to service development
(Brennan, 1998), little is known about how parents view themselves in relation to
ECEC. As will be shown in chapter 2, the number of studies investigating Australian
parent views and experiences in ECEC remains small, and predominantly centered on
parent selection of, and satisfaction with ECEC service provision (e.g., Berthelsen,
2000; Department of Community Services, 2000; Greenblat & Ochiltree, 1993; Rodd
& Milikan, 1994; Tayler, Farrell, Gahan & Irvine, 2001; Tayler, Tennent, Farrell &
Gahan, 2002; Williams & Ainley, 1994). To date, no studies have investigated the
more problematic positioning of parents and their role in ECEC, not just as
participants in ECEC services but as shapers of public policy.
3
In contrast to the paucity of research identifying parent views and experiences, there
is an expanding international research base arguing the benefits of parent involvement
and promoting participative practices in education and schooling (Crozier, 2000;
Epstein, Coates, Salinas, Sanders & Simon, 1997; Hallgarten, 2000; Haynes, 1997;
Limerick & Nielsen, 1995; Vincent, 1996; 2000) and in ECEC (Galinsky, Shinn,
Phillips, Howes & Whitebook, 1990; Henry, 1996; McCain & Mustard, 1999; OECD,
2001c; Powell, 1989; 1998; Pugh, 1985). However, while providing useful insights,
these studies tend to offer a professional or expert perspective on the role of parents in
schools and ECEC. The focus is what parents do (or should do) as opposed to how
parents view and experience their role. The result is what phenomenographer Marton
(1981) labeled a first-order or from-the-outside perspective, and what Sandberg
(1994) referred to as an indirect description, leading the researcher to describe the role
of parents independent of the parent who performs the role.
On the basis of mostly indirect descriptions, policymakers and researchers worldwide
are constructing an enhanced role for parents in schools and ECEC. Supporting this
goal, governments in Australia, at both national and state/territory levels, have
implemented a range of strategies designed to provide parents with information about
ECEC and to access their views and experiences in ECEC. These strategies include:
the establishment of telephone hotlines and a range of information resources; the
inclusion of parents on representative industry forums; an increased focus on parents
in public consultation; and a small number of research projects surveying parent
views and experiences (Department of Community Services, 2000; Greenblat &
Ochiltree, 1993; Queensland Government, 1999; QUT Collaborative Research Group,
2003). However, evidence to date suggests that such strategies have met with only
limited success. Representative structures have been criticised as being restrictive and
not truly representative, parent participation in industry consultation remains
relatively low, and, while involving a larger number of parents, the use of surveys,
with predetermined categories, provides a surface-level and interspersed picture of
parent views and experiences (Irvine, 2002).
In light of this, some fundamental questions need to be asked. How do parents in
Australia view and experience their role in ECEC? Do different parents view and
experience this role in different ways? How do parent views and experiences
4
compare with current policy assumptions regarding the role of parents in ECEC?
These questions provided the basis for this program of research.
In line with broadening policy perspectives on parents in ECEC, this study focused on
two key areas of parent participation: (1) the role of parents in using ECEC services;
and (2) the role of parents in shaping ECEC public policy. As noted, a
phenomenographic research approach was used to uncover parent views and
experiences, and to identify different ways of experiencing these roles. The
phenomenographic research method for the study is detailed in chapter 3 of the thesis.
In short, phenomenography is a research approach used to map “the qualitatively
different ways in which people experience, conceptualise, perceive and understand
various aspects of, and various phenomena in, the world around them” (Marton, 1986,
p. 31). In phenomenography, the unit of research is a human conception or way of
experiencing a phenomenon which is seen as an internal relationship between the
person and world. The object of phenomenographic research is to discern variation in
ways of experiencing a phenomenon (Marton & Booth, 1997; Marton & Pang, 1999).
The phenomenographer seeks to describe variation in the ways of experiencing or
thinking about specific phenomena, concepts or principles and to characterise
variations in people’s understanding and experience (Pramling, 1995; Richardson,
1999; Svensson, 1997). The belief that a phenomenon is generally experienced or
viewed in a limited number of distinctly different ways underpins this research
(Ballantyne, Thompson & Taylor, 1994; Bowden, 2000a; Marton, 1981; 1986). It is
argued that, in identifying and drawing together different conceptions of the same
phenomenon, we can develop a richer understanding of the phenomenon as a whole,
in this case, the role of parents in ECEC. For these reasons, phenomenography was
seen to support the purpose of this research.
1.3
The purpose of the research - aim and objectives
The underlying purpose of this research was to enhance understanding of parent views
and experiences in ECEC, in particular, how parents constitute their role in using
services and in shaping public policy. The research problem relates to the
5
construction of parent roles by government and policy makers, without reference to
parent views and experiences. As noted, contemporary Australian policy positions
parents as consumers of ECEC and as participants in ECEC, a trend also evident in
many Western OECD countries (e.g., Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United
States). In short, these are the roles on offer to parents (Vincent, 1996), and each
prescribes a particular way for parents to act as service users.
Yet, within a diverse society, such as Australia, it is reasonable to expect that different
parents may have different views and expectations of their role in ECEC, and that the
role of parents may be influenced by a range of factors including work status, family
responsibilities (e.g., very young children), social class, cultural background and/or
gender (Hanafin & Lynch, 2002; Smrekar & Cohen-Vogel, 2001; Vincent, 2000).
With this in mind, the study also sought to identify variation in parent views and
experiences.
The primary aim of the study was to uncover the role of parents in using ECEC
services and in shaping ECEC public policy, as constituted by a group of parents, and
to reveal possible variation therein. Specifically, the research objectives were:
•
to identify and describe parents’ conceptions of their role in using services and in
shaping public policy;
•
to discern and make visible distinctly different ways of constituting these roles
within the group of parents in the study; and
•
to consider implications for future policy and practice.
It was perceived that making visible variation in parents’ views and experiences could
inform the development of a range of strategies to optimise parent participation in
ECEC, and, thereby, support realisation of the associated benefits for all concerned.
1.4
The research question
With the research purpose and the above noted aims and objectives in mind, questions
were designed to guide the study. The central research question was:
6
What are the qualitatively different ways in which parents in Australian ECEC
services constitute their role in using ECEC services and in shaping ECEC
public policy?
To answer this question, the study focused on four subsidiary questions:
1.
What are the distinctly different ways that parents constitute their role in using
services and in shaping public policy?
2.
What are the critical differences between the different ways of constituting
each of these roles?
3.
How do parents’ views and experiences compare with current public policy
assumptions about the role of parents in ECEC, as identified in the literature?
4.
What are the implications of the ways parents view and experience these roles
for future ECEC policy and practice?
1.5
Scope of the research
To sharpen the focus of research and to ensure feasibility, the scope of the study was
limited with respect to: (1) the type of ECEC services and, thereby, the age group of
children; (2) areas of parent participation; (3) size of the research sample; and (4) the
location, timing of the study, and related policy context.
Firstly, the context for this research was formal (i.e., funded and/or regulated) ECEC
services for children from birth to compulsory school age (i.e., in most states and
territories around six years of age). This included child care centres, family day care,
kindergartens, preschools and the proposed preparatory year currently being trialed in
a number of Queensland schools. This is a defined and idiosyncratic group of
services, as evidenced by current legislation, policy and administrative structures. All
families who participated in this study had recent experience using at least one of
these services. The study did not include informal (i.e., unlicensed) services (e.g.,
care by a relation, nannies, private care in a person’s home) as these care
arrangements tend to be of a more individualised and casual nature, and are not
subject to the same type of public regulation as formal ECEC services. This focus
was influenced by a number of factors, including my professional area of work and
7
interest in ECEC policy, and the predominance of research looking at parents within
the school context as opposed to ECEC. It is also suggested that changes to
Australian families, the growth of work-related child care, and the young age of
children in these services, present a different context for parent participation (in
contrast to parent participation in schools). For these reasons, the selected research
setting was a child care and family support hub2 and interview prompts were designed
to help parents to reflect on their experience of ECEC. This said, during interviews, a
number of parents also made reference to experiences in outside school hours care and
the early years of school.
Secondly, reflecting broadening policy perspectives on parents in ECEC, the study
concentrated on two key areas of parent participation: (1) the role of parents in using
ECEC services; and (2) the role of parents in shaping ECEC public policy. These
areas were initially selected because they addressed direct service-level interaction as well
as parent involvement in public policy. The pilot study for this research also demonstrated
the importance of commencing research interviews with concrete service experiences,
prior to moving into the more abstract area of public policy. With respect to the latter,
public policy was defined as any course of action (or inaction) adopted by government
with a view to steering the conduct of those involved in ECEC service provision
(Codd, 1988; Taylor, Rizvi, Lingard & Henry, 1997). This included policy activities
such as the development of quality standards and legislation, licensing processes,
funding programs and the development of new ECEC services such as the preparatory
year in Queensland. Nevertheless, with respect to each of these areas of the
investigation, the role of parents was kept very open to allow parents to express their
own way of viewing and experiencing these roles (Johansson, Marton & Svensson,
1985).
2
The term ‘Child Care and Family Support Hub’ is used by the Queensland Government to refer to a
funded child care program designed to support the integration of ECEC and family services within a
community. Hubs focus on the provision of ECEC services and may also include family support
services, parenting support, child health services, community activities and education services. A Hub
may operate from a central location, a local network or a central point of coordination. Each Hub is
unique to the community it supports. The mix of services provided and the operation of each Hub is
determined by the needs of parents and families in that area (Department of Families, 2002).
8
Thirdly, the research sample comprised 26 parents, including both mothers and
fathers, in a situated context. The selection of these participants was based on three
key criteria: (1) experience in the use of an ECEC service; (2) families comprised
children aged birth to eight years (ensuring recent experience in ECEC); and (3)
participants were linked to a particular child care and family support hub.
Consideration was given to restricting participation to mothers, the rationale being
that women most often maintain the greatest responsibility for ECEC arrangements
and general household matters (Berthelsen, 2000; Bittman, 1995). However,
discussion with other phenomenographers suggested this may be an unnecessary
restriction in this instance, limiting variation in my research sample and, therefore, at
odds with the purpose of this research. A process of purposive sampling was used to
recruit a mixed group of parents who varied with regard to gender, cultural
background, family structure, family size, ages of children, parental education, family
employment and family experience using early childhood services. Drawing on
phenomenographic principles, it is argued that while not ‘representative’ in the
traditional sense, the heterogeneity of this research sample supports broader
application of the research findings to other similar groups of parents (i.e., the range
of conceptions is likely to be found among a group of parents with similar family
backgrounds and experience using ECEC services). The number of participants also
fits well within the general criteria of a phenomenographic study, which typically
involves a research sample of 15 to 30 participants (Dunkin, 2000; Trigwell, 2000).
Finally, as illustrated in chapter 2 of the thesis, ECEC in Australia, as in other
Western countries, is strongly influenced by social and economic factors, and is
subject to changing government policy. Data for this study were collected over the
period 2001 to 2004, and located within the context of contemporary ECEC policy,
covering the period 1990 to the present. There is also the issue of differences between
jurisdictions. The study was situated in Queensland, Australia. Despite calls for
greater consistency in ECEC policy and practice, some differences remain evident
across Australian states and territories in key areas, including the regulation of
services, funding, industrial awards and work conditions. A particular difference in
Queensland is the proportion of private for-profit child care centres. This said, with
the introduction of a number of national initiatives during the 1990s, such as national
9
standards and national quality assurance systems, and in the new millennium, for
example, the National Agenda for Early Childhood (Australian Government Task
Force on Child Development Health & Wellbeing, 2003b), there is growing
commonality in the organisation and delivery of ECEC services across Australia
(Berthelsen, 1997; SCRCSSP, 2004). Demonstrating this is the supporting overview
of Australian ECEC policy, which offers both a state and national perspective on
ECEC, identifying key policy initiatives of the Queensland and Australian
Governments over the noted period. Consequently, while the study was set in
Queensland, it is argued that the policy findings and implications are worthy of
consideration by all Australian jurisdictions, and, by other countries subject to similar
trends in ECEC policy.
1.6
Significance of the study
The study is significant for several reasons. Firstly, the study addresses an identified
gap in the ECEC evidence base. As noted, current policy positions parents as
consumers and participants in ECEC, with each perspective prescribing a particular
role for parents. However, these roles have been constructed for parents, with limited
reference to their views and experiences. The fact is that little is known as to how
parents constitute their role in ECEC. To date, there have been only a small number
of studies investigating the views and experiences of Australian parents in ECEC, and
none of these has looked at the role of parents in using ECEC services and in shaping
public policy. As demonstrated in chapter 2, an extensive search of the literature also
reveals limited attention to this topic. This study addresses this gap with a view to
generating strategies to optimise parent participation in ECEC.
Secondly, the study is innovative in its use of phenomenography as the research
approach. Because it is concerned with revealing parent views and experiences of
ECEC, the study offers a unique perspective on the role of parents. Marton (1981)
referred to this as a second-order perspective, a feature that distinguishes this research
from earlier studies in this area. Supporting this outcome, data were collected via
individual semi-structured interviews with parents, whereas previous studies in this
area have tended to rely on parent surveys and the use of predefined categories.
10
While providing much useful data, such surveys generally do not address issues of
variation in meaning. This is viewed as a limitation of such research, and problematic
in the sense that, in ECEC, generality of meaning cannot be assumed. In
phenomenography, generality of meaning is explored empirically. I share Marton’s
(1981) view that phenomenographic research is complementary to other kinds of
research, in this case, providing a new insights on the role of parents in ECEC. In
addition, the study adds to the small number of phenomenographic studies in ECEC
(Cullen, 1998; Evans & Fuller, 1998; Pramling, 1996) and demonstrates the
conceptual appropriateness and pragmatic value of this approach, particularly in
public policy research.
Finally, the significance of the study is further strengthened by its timeliness on two
counts. First, enhanced parent participation in ECEC is currently a policy priority for
many OECD nations and perceived to have multiple benefits for all stakeholders
(OECD, 2001c). This is certainly a focus of government within Australia, at both
national and state levels, as will be shown in the policy review in chapter 2 of the
thesis. However, current strategies to support parent participation appear to have met
with limited success. It is suggested that this may be because current policy
perspectives do not accurately reflect the varied experiences of parents in ECEC. The
categories of description arising from this study provide a model of the different ways
in which the role of parents can be viewed and experienced, and, thereby, a solid basis
for the development of a range of strategies to optimise parent participation in ECEC.
Second, the study contributes to the international literature on government-citizen
relations, in particular enhanced citizen participation in public policy decision
making. According to the recent OECD report, Citizens as Partners (2001a),
engaging citizens in policymaking is a sound investment and a core element of good
governance. In this report it is argued that “governments in all OECD countries are
under pressure to integrate public input into the policymaking process and respond to
citizens expectations that their voices be heard and their views be considered in
policymaking" (p. 11). Whereas the OECD review concentrates on current
government activities, this study reverses the focus to identify the views and
experiences of citizens in policy decision making and the varying ways in which their
11
role may be experienced. Within this context, the study provides a basis for the
development of strategies to support civic engagement in policy decision making.
In summary, the study is significant because it: (1) addresses an identified gap in the
ECEC evidence base; (2) applies a phenomenographic approach to identify variation
in parent views and experiences; (3) demonstrates the conceptual appropriateness and
pragmatic value of a phenomenographic approach to public policy research; and (4) is
timely in terms of international interest in enhanced parent participation in ECEC and
enhanced civic engagement in policy decision making, providing a basis for the
development of strategies to support these goals. Findings from this study are
pertinent to policymakers, service providers, ECEC professionals and families
accessing ECEC services.
1.7
Organisation of the thesis
This thesis comprises six chapters. This first chapter has introduced the study and
provided an overview of the context for this investigation, the research approach and
the research design. Chapter 2 presents the results of an extensive international
literature review framing the research topic. This includes an overview of Australian
ECEC services and public policy from 1990 to the present. Particular attention is
directed toward the influence of the discourses of market theory and parent and
community participation, and the related view of parents as consumers and/or
participants in ECEC. Chapter 3 presents the conceptual framework of the study,
providing a detailed description of the phenomenographic research approach and the
rationale for its use in this study. The research design is presented, along with details
of how the study was implemented and how data were analysed. Chapter 4 presents
the results of the study, describing the role of parents in using ECEC services and in
shaping public policy. As per phenomenographic practice, the study results are
presented in the form of categories of description and an outcome space. Chapter 5
discusses the outcomes of the study and looks at how these contribute to
understanding of the role of parents in ECEC. This includes identification of factors
perceived by parents to influence their participation and the implications of these for
policy and practice. Looking back across the study, the strengths and limitations of the
12
study are discussed and recommendations made for further research. Finally, in
chapter 6, conclusions are presented and a case is made for phenomenography as a
viable approach to public policy research.
13
CHAPTER 2
PARENTS IN ECEC: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of an extensive literature review framing the thesis
topic. It comprises three sections: (a) Early childhood education and care (ECEC) in
Australia; (b) the Australian policy context; and (c) parents in ECEC. The first
section provides an overview of ECEC in Australia, illustrating a fragmented system
and growing concerns over the appropriateness and effectiveness of traditional service
models. The second section reviews the Australian ECEC public policy context from
1990 to the present, with particular focus on the discourse of market theory, and the
emerging discourse of parent and community participation in ECEC. Here, it must be
noted that the focus of this review is policy discourse, that is, the tactical use of policy
language (Ball, 1994b; Codd, 1988) as evidenced in the discussed policy documents.
This review does not extend to evaluation of the effectiveness of these policies. The
final section examines the position of parents in ECEC public policy and research,
investigating the dominant concepts of parent as consumer and parent as participant in
ECEC.
2.2
ECEC in Australia
A review of the current ECEC system in Australia indicates the need for, and
timeliness of, research to identify parent views and experiences in ECEC. This
section offers an overview of Australian ECEC, highlighting the diversity and
fragmentation of services and indicating evidence of unmet family needs. Current
trends in Australia are considered within an international context.
2.2.1
A fragmented service system
Historically, Australian ECEC services have developed with a narrow focus (e.g., to
provide long day care for children of working families; to provide an educational
program for children age 4-5 years prior to school entry), resulting in a fragmented
array of separate, specialised and competing services (Tayler & Irvine, 2000). With
14
this background, it is not surprising that the present system is characterised by
diversity (Hayes, Neilsen-Hewett & Warton, 1999; Press & Hayes, 2000; Wangmann,
1995).
The current Australian service system can be represented by two broad categories:
formal and informal services. Formal services include: centre-based services such as
long day care, occasional care, kindergartens, preschools and outside school hours
care (most often based on school sites); and home-based services such as family day
care. Informal services include care provided for a fee in the child’s home (e.g.,
nanny) or a carer’s home (e.g., private home-based care), and services such as
playgroups where parents remain with their child. A distinguishing characteristic is
that formal services are most often subject to government regulation or some other
form of quality assurance, where informal care is generally unregulated. This
research is situated within the formal ECEC sector or what is more broadly recognised
by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as
“organised ECEC provision” (OECD, 2001c, p. 15).
Reflecting patterns in other Western countries, such as the United Kingdom and the
United States, the Australian ECEC sector is complex and diverse, comprising a range
of different service providers. These are most often classified according to their
management and financial bases as either community-based not for-profit or private
for-profit services (Brennan, 1999; Press & Hayes, 2000; Wangmann, 1995). Not-forprofit service providers include government (state and local), community - based
organisations, schools, churches and other welfare-related groups. The for-profit
sector encompasses an equally diverse group of private businesses that operate on a
commercial basis. Over past decades, the number of private for-profit service
providers has grown considerably within Australia, changing the balance of ECEC
service providers, particularly with respect to the provision of child care. Recent
Australian Government statistics indicate that most centre-based long day care is now
provided by the private sector (73%) (Press & Hayes, 2000, p. 21), which includes a
number of large corporate providers, many listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.
This said, most other ECEC services (e.g., family day care, outside school hours care
and preschool) continue to be provided by state governments, local governments and
the not-for-profit sector.
15
There is a further distinction between care and education, with some services
“considered to be essentially for child care, that is ‘child minding’, while others are
primarily seen to be for child education” (Wangmann, 1995, p. 48). While the
care/education dichotomy is recognised by many to be a by-product of history, in
particular, governmental policy divisions and particular funding programs (Ashby,
Kennedy & Mellor, 2002; Tayler & Irvine, 2000; Wangmann, 1995), this division
continues to be a feature of ECEC in Australia. In Australia’s Background Report for
the OECD Thematic Review of ECEC policy, it was suggested that, while there is
enhanced understanding of the interrelationship between these spheres, the delineation
between schools and preschools (i.e., education) and other children’s services
continues to shape the provision of ECEC (Press & Hayes, 2000). Despite rhetoric,
professional commitment and changing government policy promoting a more
integrated approach to ECEC, the division remains. Different administrative
arrangements, different methods of quality assurance and prevailing community
assumptions about care and education perpetuate a fragmented Australian ECEC
system. Again, this is not unique to Australia, with the care/education split presenting
a barrier to more integrated service provision in several other OECD countries
(OECD, 2001c).
Adding to the complexity of the present system is an operational framework that
involves three levels of government (i.e., Australian, State/Territory, and, to a lesser
extent, local government). Despite ongoing efforts to “rationalise a system built up
over many years with layers of government policies built on top of each other”
(COAG, 1995, p. 11), responsibility for ECEC continues to be shared across
government. Although by no means straightforward, respective roles and
responsibilities may be best explained in terms of the aforementioned care/education
split and stated government objectives for ECEC. Within this context, responsibility
for child care is shared between the Australian (national) Government, and State and
Territory governments, with the former providing the majority of operational funding.
States and Territories, on the other hand, maintain nearly all responsibility for the
provision and funding of preschool. This distinction is further clarified in the most
recent Report of Government Services (Steering Committee for the Review of
Commonwealth/State Service Provision (SCRCSSP), 2004):
16
The primary focus of the Australian Government is support for families
through payments such as Child Care Benefit, which is payable to families
using approved child care services or registered informal carers. State and
Territory governments place greater emphasis on providing educational and
developmental opportunities for children, such as preschool services. (p. 14.3)
Current government roles and responsibilities reflect these objectives. For example,
key Australian Government responsibilities include: providing child care services and
payments; planning the location of services; providing information to parents and
providers; and helping to enhance the quality of child care by funding the National
Childcare Accreditation System (SCRCSSP, 2004). The roles and responsibilities of
State and Territory Governments vary somewhat across jurisdictions, however, key
responsibilities include: delivering some services directly (especially preschool
services); licensing and setting standards for children’s services; monitoring and
resourcing licensed services; and providing information and advice to parents and
others about standards and the availability of services (SCRCSSP, 2004). Finally,
albeit to a lesser extent, local government is involved in ECEC, with respect to town
planning and building regulation, health and hygiene regulation, and, in some
jurisdictions, as a service provider.
In summary, diversity is a distinguishing feature of ECEC in Australia. What can
only be loosely described as the current ECEC system comprises a mix of formal and
informal services. Formal ECEC encompasses a diverse range of child care and
preschool education services, including long day care, occasional care, kindergarten,
preschool, outside school hours care and family day care. Each of these service
models may be further classified according to their locale (i.e., centre or home-based)
and/or their management and financial bases (i.e., not-for-profit or for-profit). The
sector comprises a range of service providers, and government continues to play a
significant role in shaping and supporting service provision. Table 2.1 provides a
profile of ECEC in Australia, highlighting this diversity while also indicating the
scope and size of ECEC in Australia.
17
Table 2.1: Profile of ECEC services in Australia as at 2002-2003
This figure is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
-
The net result is a fragmented and incoherent system of services for young children
and their families. This type of system is not confined to Australia. The recent OECD
report, Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care (2001c) observed that,
in most OECD countries, policies for care and education have developed separately,
with different systems of governance, funding streams and training for staff (p. 76).
This, in turn, has resulted in disjointed policymaking and service delivery, which
continues to be a major problem in several OECD countries (OECD, 2001c).
2.2.2
Changing family demographics and unmet need in ECEC
Underpinning the current Australian system is a tacit belief that “variety is good”
(Geddes, 1993; Irvine, Tayler & Farrell, 2001; Wangmann, 1995); and parents should
be able to select the service that best meets their child and family needs. The current
diversity in ECEC is recognised to be the result of a supply and demand approach to
service development (Brennan, 1999; Wangmann, 1995), responding to the different
and changing needs of families. For example, it has been suggested that long day care
centres have been supported by government primarily to meet the needs of working
18
parents, while preschools are oriented to providing sessional educational experiences
for children prior to school entry (Press & Hayes, 2000). However, concern has been
raised with respect to the sameness and inflexibility of these services (COAG Child
Care Working Group, 1995; EPAC, 1996; Geddes, 1993) A number of factors are
likely to contribute to the lack of differentiation and innovation in service provision,
including licensing requirements, funding, pre-service training of staff, professional
practice and industrial awards (Irvine et al., 2001; Walker, 2004).
As in other developed Western countries, demographic trends in fertility, family size,
family type, workforce patterns and family mobility are also impacting on ECEC
service availability and utilisation (Bowes & Watson, 2004). Of particular
significance are changes relating to family workforce participation. These include:
the increased workforce participation of women with young children, the increased
number of part-time and casual positions within the workforce, the loss of extended
family due to workforce mobility, and the impact of unemployment on families.
Changes such as these are challenging current modes of service provision, with many
services unable to respond to the “flexibility and unpredictability” of new family work
patterns (Press & Hayes, 2000, p. 15). In addition, there are growing expectations of
ECEC services in terms of family support. Whereas this was once provided by the
extended family, smaller families, sole parent families and increased family mobility
have generated greater need for formal support mechanisms. Table 2.2 provides
further details of changing social trends, which, in turn, may impact on the nature and
functioning of Australian families, and on ECEC in Australia.
In light of changes such as these, there is also growing evidence of unmet need in
ECEC in Australia. A small number of recent studies indicate that the current ECEC
system, and traditional service types, are failing to meet the needs of an increasing
number of children and families (Australian Government Task Force on Child
Development Health & Wellbeing, 2003a; Department of Community Services, 2000;
EPAC, 1996; Queensland Government, 1999; Rodd & Milikan, 1994; SEETRC,
1996; Tayler et al., 2001; Tayler & Irvine, 2000; Walker, 2004). While difficult to
compare, a review of these studies suggests a couple of common themes, including:
(1) multiple service use; and (2) the perceived need for more integrated ECEC
services. These will now be discussed.
19
Table 2.2: Australian social trends 1993 - 2003
This figure is not available online.
Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
2.2.2.1 Multiple service use
A key theme is multiple service use, where parents are using two or more services
(i.e., formal and/or informal services) to meet their child and family needs. A decade
ago, Rodd and Milikan (1994) interviewed 175 Victorian parents to identify patterns
of usage and factors behind parental choice of ECEC services in the year prior to
school entry. Findings revealed that the majority (73.8%) of children in the study
spent time in more than one ECEC environment. Some six years later, the New South
Wales Department of Community Services (2000) surveyed over 1000 parents
statewide and found many families to be reliant on a mixture of unrelated services to
meet their child and family needs. In the same year, the Queensland Government
20
commissioned research, including a parent survey, to inform the development of a
strategic plan for child care. Telephone interviews with more than 500 Queensland
families pointed to the incapacity of existing service models to meet new and
emerging family needs, and the related use of multiple care arrangements. Most
recently, a Queensland study surveyed families using ECEC services in inner urban
Brisbane (Tayler & Irvine, 2000; Tayler et al., 2002). Drawing on a sample of 160
parents, this study identified a similar pattern of mixed service use. In light of
findings such as these, Gammage (1999) concluded that many Australian children will
have experienced a considerable number of prime care-takers by age three.
Why are Australian parents using several ECEC services? In the New South Wales
study (Department of Community Services, 2000), the main reason given for multiple
service use was that the combination “benefited the child”, however, many indicated
this was also related to work patterns (p. 53). Interestingly, the Queensland study
(Tayler & Irvine, 2000; Tayler et al., 2002) reported similar findings. Reflecting on
their ECEC arrangements, the Queensland parents gave two broad reasons for
multiple service use: (1) perceived child benefits – “variety is good for the child”; and
(2) “to meet work and family/child needs” (Tayler & Irvine, 2000, p. 9).
2.2.2.2 The need for more integrated child care and early education services
A second related theme is growing parent dissatisfaction with the division between
care and education, resulting in what Wangmann (1995) referred to as “a patchwork
system that is unable to meet their needs” (p. 50). In 1996, the Australian
Government commissioned the Economic Planning Advisory Commission (EPAC)
Child Care Task Force to consider future directions for child care in Australia. The
EPAC Report (1996) contended that parents wanted quality, affordability and
flexibility from ECEC services:
They [parents] find the institutional history, which has led to the development
of segmented sectors (for example, the pre-school and child care sectors, the
community and private sectors) is irrelevant to their needs. They want
kindergartens to deliver child care and child care centres to deliver a
kindergarten experience. They want to choose a service which meets both
their children’s and their family’s needs. (p.3)
21
A short time thereafter, another Australian Government inquiry into ECEC
(SCRCSSP, 2002) documented concerns regarding the “great divide” between
education and care in Australia (p. 1), advocating the need for a more integrated
approach to meet changing child and family needs. The related report reinforced the
inter-relationship of care and education:
The Committee accepts without reservation the argument put forward by many
witnesses and submissions that all education should contain a care component
and that care should involve education (SCRCSSP, 2002, p. 4).
This said, both of these government inquiries were notably short on strategies to
address perceived inequities between child care and preschool services and to
facilitate more integrated service provision. The division between care and education
was again identified as a problem in the later Queensland Government study (1999),
with parents arguing inequitable access to early education services for three to five
year olds. Similar issues were raised by parents and other stakeholders during the
consultation process for the development of an Australian National Agenda for Early
Childhood (Australian Government Task Force on Child Development Health &
Wellbeing, 2003a) Most recently, leading an independent inquiry on the provision of
universal access to preschool education, Walker (2004) reinforced parental preference
for integrated services. This said, she also observed that the current system remains
fragmented, characterised by “enormous variation of preschool education” (Walker,
2004, p. 10).
Now, it is important to note a tendency for parents, in particular mothers, to express
high levels of satisfaction with their ECEC service (Berthelsen, 2000; Galinsky et al.,
1990). This trend is also apparent in the previously noted studies. However, as Fuqua
and Labensohn (1986) point out, parent satisfaction may still be accompanied by
some specific concerns. For example, while expressing high levels of general
satisfaction, parents in the Rodd and Milikan study (1994) identified specific
problems with ECEC services, including: inability to access a place in a service of
choice due to ballot enrolment systems or long waiting lists in certain areas; distance
from services (especially for rural families); and unsuitable hours (especially for
working parents who wanted kindergarten for their child).
22
While not offering an indication of the general level of parent satisfaction with
services, the Queensland Government study (1999) also identified perceived problems
with the existing system. Findings reflected some of the earlier Victorian concerns,
for example, the need for greater flexibility to meet the needs of different regional
areas and the inability of traditional service models to meet the needs of shift workers
and those working non-standard hours. The Queensland Government study also
identified new concerns, such as the lack of adequate provision for the care of sick
children and children with special needs, and the employment and retention of
qualified and experienced staff, a continuing problem in child care nationally
(Australian Government, 2003). The Queensland Government study also raised the
issue of parent participation in public policy, with participants (i.e., parents and
service providers) perceiving limited mechanisms for families to “have a say” and to
influence the provision of services for their children (p.7).
Notably, this last finding informed the design and conduct of the present study, raising
questions about the role of parents in shaping ECEC policy to support relevant and
responsive service provision. As will be shown in the following sections, there
appears to be growing realisation, at both policy and service level, that we can no
longer assume to know what parents need and want from their ECEC services, nor
how they view and experience their role in ECEC. Hard (1997) maintained that:
In the current climate of rationalism and accountability, ECEC services need
to be more aware of their clientele than ever before…Account needs to be
taken of the needs, values and perceptions of parents accessing the service and
these need to be actively canvassed by those designing programs for children.
(p. 33)
Research to elicit parent thinking about ECEC is a significant priority in any context
where service provision is being reviewed or changed.
23
2.3
The policy context
As noted previously, government plays a significant role in shaping ECEC in
Australia. During the 1990s, ECEC was a major national policy priority (Brennan,
1998; Hayden, 2000; Wangmann, 1995) and the result was significant growth in the
provision of services, in particular work-related child care. This section examines
contemporary ECEC policy in Australia, identifying key influences and fundamental
policy shifts as evidenced by the unprecedented number of Australian and
State/Territory Government policy documents released over the period 1990 to 2004.
The section provides the policy context for the developing notions of parent as
consumer and parent as participant to be explored in the final section of this chapter.
2.3.1
Defining policy
Acknowledging ambiguity and inconsistency in use of the term policy (Ball, 1994b),
there is a need to clarify my use of the term. Drawing on the work of Codd (1988),
the term policy is used in this thesis to refer to:
…any course of action (or inaction) relating to the selection of goals, the
definition of values and the allocation of resources. Fundamentally, policy is
about the exercise of political power and the language that is used to legitimate
that process (p. 19).
My focus is public policy, in this case, policy which is made on behalf of the state to
“steer the conduct” (Taylor et al., 1997, p. 2), and, in some circumstances, “to
control” (Ball, 1990, p. 3) the activities of those involved in Australian ECEC (e.g.,
children, parents, staff, sponsors, operators and related government agencies). Within
this context, policy is construed to be a state (i.e., government) activity that sits within
a particular context, is multi-dimensional and can have intended and unintended
consequences (Farrell, 2001; Taylor et al., 1997). It is also recognised to be valueladen:
24
The state puts forward its policy initiatives in the rhetorical language of
reform…a term which presupposes legitimacy and invites support for the ideas
propagated in the particular policy. In this way the state is not seen to be
neutral with respect to changes occurring in society, and its own interest in
sponsoring some changes and preventing others is reflected in policy. (Taylor
et al., 1997, p. 5)
In this section I examine the language of reform that pervades the majority of
Australian ECEC public policy documents released during the 1990s and into the new
millennium. Table 2.3 provides a descriptive overview of some key ECEC policy
documents initiated by the Australian Government and, as an example of state
activity, the Queensland Government, from 1990 to 2004.
Understanding policy to be more than “text” (Ball, 1994b; Taylor et al., 1997), this
section reviews the broader policy context and examines a selection of recent
Australian ECEC policy documents as examples of “official discourse of the state”
(Codd, 1988, p. 237) to reveal emergent and sustained policy themes. Particular
attention is directed to the tactical use of language to frame policy and, thereby, to
serve a political purpose (Ball, 1994b; Codd, 1988). While not undertaking a
Foucaultian study, I refer here to Foucault’s (1972) notion of discourse:
sometimes using the term to mean the general domain of all statements...
sometimes as an individualisable group of statements... and sometimes as an
ordered practice which takes account of a certain number of statements...
(Frank, 1992, p. 110).
In line with this notion, I use the term discourse in this thesis in its colloquial sense,
meaning the language (or talk) of public policy.
With reference to the selected policy texts, I look first at the general impact of
economic rationalism, new public management and market theory on ECEC policy
within and beyond Australia throughout the 1990s. I then turn attention to more recent
policy releases, and the emerging discourse of parent and community participation in
ECEC policy.
25
Table 2.3: Key Commonwealth and Queensland ECEC policy documents 1990 - 2004
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Australian (National) Policy
Queensland (State) Policy
National Childcare Strategy 1988-1992 – expansion of child
care places, in particular work related places.
Accreditation Consultative Committee. Report on
establishment of a national child care accreditation system.
Federal Budget 1990-1991. Extension of Child Care
Assistance to private child care centres.
Functional Review of Child Care. Joint review of government
roles and responsibilities.
Interim National Accreditation Council – recommendations
for a national child care accreditation system, including linking of
accreditation to receipt of Child Care Assistance.
National New Growth Strategy 1992-96 – further expansion of
child care places, in particular work-related places in rural areas.
National Childcare Accreditation Council established.
National Standards for Centre-based Long Day Care –
national minimum quality standards to be incorporated in state
regulations.
Australian Law Reform Commission. Review of child care
legislation (administrative law, secrecy, privacy and criminal law)
administered by the Commonwealth.
Quality Improvement and Accreditation System (QIAS) for
long day care centres – commencement of national quality
assurance system building on minimum quality standards.
Council of Australian Governments. Discussion paper on a
proposed National Framework for Children’s Services in
Australia.
National Standards for Family Day Care - national minimum
quality standards to be incorporated in state regulations
National Standards for Outside School Hours Care - national
minimum quality standards to be incorporated in state
regulations or funding guidelines.
Economic Planning Advisory Commission Future childcare
provision in Australia – Inquiry into future child care provision
in Australia recommending systemic reform
Senate Employment, Education and Training Reference
Committee,Childhood matters. Parliamentary inquiry into early
childhood education.
Federal Budget 1996-1997. Reforms to child care funding,
including end of operational subsidy for community-based
centres, and new limits on hours for both work & non-work
related care.
National Childcare Access Hotline – national telephone infoline for parents established.
National Child Care Competencies endorsed – introduction of
national competencies for child care workers
National Child Care Curriculum accredited – competencybased curriculum for child care workers
Commonwealth Childcare Advisory Council (CCCAC)
established to advise Commonwealth Minister on priorities for
service system reform and research
National Policy Framework for Children’s Services in
Australia. National approach to system development (Vetoed by
Victoria).
National Standards for Family Day Care Coordinators –
addendum to National Standards for FDC (1995).
Review of the QIAS for long day care centres announced.
Community Services and Health Training Package (including
Children’s Services) accredited – replaced earlier curriculum.
26
Proposed new Child Care Legislation. Draft proposals to
change the 1973 child care legislation/regulations.
Child Care Information Service (CCIS) – telephone
information service for parents established
Child Care Act 1991; Child Care (Child Care Centres)
Regulation 1991; Child Care (Family Day Care) Regulation
1991 – proclaimed June 1992.
Handbook for licensing of long day care centres, Handbook
for licensing family day care – policy guidelines for service
providers to support implementation of new legislation
Shaping the future: Report of the review of Queensland
school curriculum. Review of the Queensland school
curriculum, encompassing preschools (not child care)
Caring for Queensland’s children. Election policy - choices
for families and high quality preschool and child care for
children, including subsidies to support the employment of
qualified preschool teachers in child care centres.
Development of the Queensland Preschool Curriculum
Guidelines – consultation on curriculum for preschool.
Proposed implementation of the National Standards for
Centre-based Long Day Care in Queensland, including a
minor technical review of the state child care legislation and
Proposed implementation of the National Standards or
Family Day Care in Queensland, including a minor technical
review of the state child care legislation (both incomplete due to
election and change of government).
New State Child Care Curriculum (TAFE) accredited –
introduction of competency-based training for child care workers
Pilot of the Preschool Curriculum Guidelines – Report on the
evaluation of the pilot supporting implementation.
Board of Teacher Registration, Early Childhood Teacher
Education - the preparation of early childhood teachers.
Proposed implementation of the National Standards for
Outside School Hours Care in Queensland (Incomplete).
Queensland Preschool Curriculum Guidelines implemented.
The development of the Queensland Child Care Strategic
Plan - Information paper and consultation.
Future directions for school-based management in
Queensland state schools – consultation.
Queensland Child Care Strategic Plan 2000-2005. State
Government policy framework for child care in Queensland
Child Care Forum – government consultative mechanism
The next decade: A discussion about the future of
Queensland state schools – consultation (including preschool)
2010 Queensland State Education – A future strategy. Focus
on preparation for school, including flexible and integrated
approaches to preschool and child care services.
Year
2000
2001
Australian (National) Policy
Queensland (State) Policy
Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2000-2004 –
Promoting greater flexibility and choice in child care:
•
Expansion of in-home care
•
Private providers to offer FDC & OSHC
•
Incentives for private providers in rural & remote areas
The Commonwealth Child Care Advisory Council (CCCAC).
Inquiry into the nature of child care in 2001 and beyond.
CCCAC, Child Care beyond 2001 - Vision for the future.
Review of QIAS completed – recommendations for change
endorsed by Minister. CCAC to develop implementation plan.
Draft Quality Assurance System for FDC (FDCQA) trial of
national quality assurance for FDC
Introduction of Child Care Benefit – combined Child Care
Assistance and Child Care Rebate into one payment for families.
Review of Funding and Charging Practices (CCCAC project)
– no change
Review of child care regulatory system (CCCAC project) - no
change
Stronger Families Early Intervention projects – targeting ‘atrisk’ children and families
Revised QIAS for long day care centres – updated handbook
Implementation of FDC Quality Assurance
2002
FDCQA – Handbook – information to support service providers.
New National Child Care Reference Group – (replaced
CCCAC) – to focus on policy and business aspects of providing
quality child care and strategic directions for child care in
Australia.
Draft OSHC Quality Practice Indicators – trial of national
quality assurance for OSHC.
Review Childcare Support Broadband Funding – government
review of priorities relating to existing training and support funds
for child care.
New Community Services Training Package (including
Children’s Services) accredited.
2003
Implementation of OSHC Quality Assurance (OSHCQA)
Towards the Development of a National Agenda for Early
Childhood – consultation paper
Towards a National Agenda for Early Childhood - What you
told us – consultation feedback
Federal Budget 2004-2005 – increase in child care places,
including small number of new flexible services targeting
children with additional needs.
Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2004-2008
•
Communities for children
•
Early Childhood – Invest to Grow
•
Local answers
•
Choice & flexibility in childcare
The National Agenda for Early Childhood - A Draft
Framework
Introduction of the new Childcare Support Program
(reshaped Broadband funding)– to support high quality care,
include children with additional needs, and support viability of
centres, particularly in rural and remote communities
FDCQA Quality Practices Guide (Revised edition)
Long Day Care Incentive Scheme funding for non-profit and
for-profit providers to establish services in rural and remote
communities & to cater for infant care.
Taking schools to the next level: The national education
framework for schools - consultation. Focus on meeting local
community needs and providing information for parents.
2004
Queensland Child Care - A proposed new regulatory
framework. Consultation paper. (includes OSHC)
Child care Amendment Act 2000 – introduction of standards
for informal care.
Child Care and Family Support Hub Strategy. Funding
program to support integrated child care, education and family
support.
Putting Families First: Policy Statement - Whole-ofgovernment (integrated) family policy framework.
Child Care Statewide Training Strategy - Enhanced funded
access to training for child care workers.
Queensland Child Care Industry Plan 2002-2005 –
collaborative industry plan to strengthen child care ‘industry’ in
Queensland (developed in conjunction with Child Care Forum).
Queensland Child Care Strategic Plan 2000-2005: Progress
report. Government performance against set indicators.
Exposure draft new child care legislation – Bill introduced to
Parliament.
Queensland the Smart State: Education and Training
Reforms for the Future: A Green Paper.
Queensland the Smart State: Education and Training
Reforms for the Future: A White Paper – includes
announcement of the preparatory year trial.
Early Years Curriculum Project – Prep Year curriculum
Child care centres on Education Queensland school sites –
new policy for siting of centres (including for-profit) in schools.
First years prevention projects – flexible funding and support
targeting ‘at-risk’ children entering school.
Child Care Act 2002 and Child Care Regulation 2003
commenced.
Preparatory Year Trial begins
Preparatory Year Trial expands to include more schools
Evaluation of the Preparatory Year Trial, identifying benefits
and recommending full roll out.
Ministerial decision to implement the preparatory year and raise
school entry age (to commence 2007)
Department of Education Strategic Plan for 2004-2008
(includes universal access to preparatory year)
Note. Many of the identified Commonwealth policies were national initiatives, jointly developed and/or implemented by
Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments (e.g., the Functional Review of Child Care, the National New Growth
Strategy, National Standards, COAG working group, the National Policy framework for children’s services in Australia).
27
2.3.2
New public management and the rise of the ECEC market
Over past decades, the face of ECEC in Australia has changed substantially. To meet
expanding need, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of
work-related child care places, significant expansion in private for-profit service
provision, and greater emphasis on competition within a market context. Without
doubt, one of the strongest and most influential forces during this period was the
prevailing ideology of economic rationalism. In public administration, the application
of this ideology is evidenced in the emergence of new public management (NPM)
(Dempster, Freakley & Parry, 2001; Ferlie, Ashburner & Pettigrew, 1996), a
phenomenon occurring throughout the developed world.
Recognising differences across countries, Dempster et al. (2001) suggested that the
effect of NPM on public sector activity may be broadly characterised by:
•
a reduction in government’s role in public service provision;
•
the imposition of the strongest feasible framework of competition and
accountability on public sector activity (and an increase in consumer control over
service provision);
•
explicit standards and measures of performance and clear definition of goals,
targets or indicators of success, preferably in quantitative form;
•
a greater emphasis on output controls – a stress on results not processes; and
•
a reduction in the self-regulating powers of the professions (p. 2).
Changes such as these are seen to reflect a “market theory view” (Dempster et al.,
2001, p. 2) of public service provision, based on the belief that the creation of a more
competitive market place will provide particular benefits:
Increased competition is meant to improve responsiveness, flexibility and rates of
innovation; to increase the diversity of what is produced and can be market
chosen; to enhance productive and/or allocative efficiency; to improve the volume
and quality of production; and to strengthen accountability (Marginson, 1997a, p.
5)
28
A growing body of research documents the rise and impact of this view in education
and schooling in Australia (Dempster et al., 2001; Kenway, Bigum & Fitzclarence,
1993; Lingard, Knight & Porter, 1995; Marginson, 1997a; 1997c; Yeatman, 1987),
and in countries such as New Zealand, (Lauder et al., 1994), the United Kingdom
(Ball, 1994a; Ball, 1994b; Munn, 2001; Vincent, 2000), Canada (Thomson, 2001) and
the United States (Stambach, 2001; Timpane, 1996). There is, however, considerably
less research relating to ECEC (Ashby et al., 2002; Brennan, 1998; Hayden, 2000;
1994; Moss, 2003). Nevertheless, a brief review of Australian ECEC in the 1990s
reveals many similar effects to those being identified within the school sector. These
include the creation of conditions to encourage competition between services and the
concept of parent as consumer.
The remainder of this section presents a potted history of Australian ECEC policy in
the 1990s, tracing the influence of market theory discourse and the emergence of the
ECEC “quasi-market”. The term “quasi-market” is borrowed from Marginson
(1997a), who distinguished between a “quasi-market” and a “fully developed
economic market” (p. 6) on the basis of continuing government influence on matters
of supply and demand (e.g., through policy, legislation and funding). Applying this
distinction, he suggested that education in Australia is a quasi-market. In a similar
sense, it is suggested here that ECEC in Australia also fits within this intermediate
zone. I focus now on four transformational policy events during the 1990s: (a) the
extension of parent fee subsidies to private for-profit child care services (1991); (b)
the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) proposal of a national framework
for children’s services (1995); (c) the Economic Planning Advisory Commission
(EPAC) report on future childcare provision in Australia (1996); and (d) the abolition
of operational subsidy for community-based not-for-profit child care centres (199697). It is argued that each of these events has served to strengthen the ECEC quasimarket in Australia, and the image of parents as consumers of ECEC.
2.3.2.1 The extension of fee relief to private for-profit child care services
The 1990s commenced with a clear focus on expansion in Australian ECEC,
specifically within the area of work-related child care. Linking ECEC to economic
policy, the then Australian Labor Government implemented the first National Child
29
Care Strategy (1988-1992), negotiating individual agreements with States and
Territories to jointly establish new child care places in identified areas of need.
Funding comprised capital grants for construction and equipment, ongoing
operational subsidy, and access to parent fee subsidies (i.e., Childcare Assistance or
Fee Relief). As per established policy and practice, funding was available only to
community-based, not-for-profit sponsors. It is, therefore, not surprising that, at this
time, the majority of child care services were provided by the community-based
sector. Press (1999) suggested that community-based services were initially favoured
by government because they offered parents a voice in the way their young children
were educated and cared for, as well as opportunity to be involved in service
management. Moreover, as not-for-profit services, they were considered to have
broader social goals and unlikely to be exploitative of children and families (Brennan,
1999).
However, change was in the air. In 1990, fulfilling an election promise to make workrelated child care more accessible and affordable, the Australian Government
announced a fundamental shift in ECEC policy: the extension of parent fee subsidies
to private for-profit child care services. As noted, until this time, fee subsidies were
only available to families using community-based child care services. During the
second reading of the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill
1990, Peter Staples, then Minister for Aged, Family and Health Services, reflected on
the Government’s primary objectives for child care - affordable care, equity of access,
quality care – and offered the following explanation for this far-reaching change to
Australian ECEC policy:
The main challenges facing the Government in the l990s in childcare are… to
increase the supply of quality childcare places and to make sure that ordinary
Australian families are able to afford care. The proposed amendments promote
these objectives, and enable the introduction of fee relief arrangements that are
equitable across the non-profit community based sector and commercial sector
of the childcare industry. ("Second Reading Speech on introduction into the
Australian Parliament of the Community Services and Health Legislation
Amendment Bill (No 1)," 1990)
30
While presented as an equity measure, many perceived a link to broader economic
reforms, arguing that this initiative was more about reducing public expenditure and
direct government involvement in child care over the longer term (Ashby et al., 2002;
Brennan, 1999; Press, 1999). Hayden (2000) put forward a similar argument,
contending that private sector growth reduced the pressure on government for
increased public provision of ECEC services. The follow-up national New Growth
Strategy (1992-96), targeting child care in rural areas unlikely to attract private
business investment, supported this interpretation. Whatever the original
motivation(s), the outcome was massive, unprecedented growth in for-profit child
care.
As evidenced in the school sector, the expansion of for-profit ECEC services and
extension of public funds to private businesses stimulated a new policy focus on
quality standards and accountability, again primarily in the burgeoning area of child
care. Key initiatives included regulatory reviews in many states and territories, the
development of national standards for child care (1993-1995), the establishment of the
National Childcare Accreditation Council (NCAC) and implementation of the Quality
Improvement and Accreditation System (QIAS) for long day care centres. Of
particular significance to the present study is the growing emphasis on the rights and
responsibilities of parents in ECEC (to be discussed in the following section).
2.3.2.2 The COAG review and a national framework for children’s services
As the number of services, and related public expenditure on ECEC (primarily on
child care services) continued to increase, government, at national and state level,
initiated a series of reviews and inquiries into ECEC. The language of these policy
documents provides further evidence of the growing influence of economic
rationalism and NPM in Australian social policy. Key words and phrases clearly
signal the strengthening market agenda for ECEC, with sustained use of terminology
such as [ECEC] ‘industry’, ‘level playing field’, ‘efficient and effective service
provision’, ‘flexibility’, ‘responsiveness’ and ‘consumer choice’. The early activity of
the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) provides a good example of this.
Established in 1992, COAG is the primary intergovernmental forum in Australia,
comprising the Prime Minister, State Premiers, Territory Chief Ministers and the
31
President of the Australian Local Government Association. In 1994, COAG
commenced a review of government roles and responsibilities across a number of
portfolios, including child care. Perceiving unnecessary overlaps and duplication in
government, the task was to examine the potential allocation or reallocation of
responsibilities to “produce more efficient and effective arrangements for the delivery
of services” (COAG, 1995, p. 7). In 1995, COAG released a Discussion paper on a
proposed national framework for children’s services in Australia. The aim was “to
clarify roles and responsibilities with the overriding objective to improve outcomes
for families and value for money for taxpayers and users of children's services3”
(COAG, 1995, p. 11).
Presenting children’s services as a “billion dollar industry” (p.11), COAG argued the
need for systemic reform to meet the changing needs of families and to ensure
“efficient and effective program delivery” (p. 11). The notion of efficient and
effective program delivery pervaded throughout the paper, and while not clearly
defined, the proposed children’s services “program outcomes” (p.15) provided some
indication of meaning. Outcomes included: responsive service provision; consistent
quality standards; effective targeting of places; convenient and equitable access for
families; effective preschool programs; appropriate services provided efficiently at
reasonable cost to users and governments; and effective administration of the system
at the lowest possible cost (COAG, 1995, pp. 15-16).
Despite intergovernmental beginnings, COAG’s vision was not to be realised, due to
mid-stream governmental changes, at national and state level, and, ultimately, the
unwillingness of Victoria to agree to reform components.
2.3.2.3 The EPAC Report
In the wake of COAG, and clearly concerned by spiraling expenditure in child care
(approximately $1.2 billion in 1995-1996), the newly elected Australian LiberalNational Government initiated yet another inquiry into child care. In June 1996, the
Government asked the Economic Planning Advisory Commission (EPAC) to
establish a Task Force to “investigate and report on the prospective demand for child
care, best practice in the provision of child care and the links between the provision of
32
child care and other children’s and family services” (EPAC, 1996, p. 13). The
decision to work through EPAC, and to rely on a Task Force whose membership
reflected bureaucratic and business backgrounds, and no early childhood content
expertise, marked a first in Australian ECEC, and received considerable criticism
from within the sector.
Perhaps, not unexpectedly, the Task Force presented a lengthy list of
recommendations for systemic reform, including the adoption of national objectives
for child care and the redirection of funding from services to parents, via the
introduction of ‘smart card’ technology. Key themes included a focus on family
needs (as opposed to child needs), availability and affordability of services, equitable
access to services, flexible service provision, quality and cost effectiveness.
Significantly, in spite of a change in government, many of the earlier COAG themes
prevailed in the EPAC report. As in the COAG paper, the word ‘industry’ is used to
describe child care, and the descriptors ‘efficient’ and ‘effective’ appear throughout
the final report. Here we can also see the growing emphasis on the role of parent as
consumer and the benefits of choice. Press (1999) again perceived market theory at
work:
Put simply, direct funding to services would be replaced by direct funding to
parents. Parents as consumers of child care would find their increased buying
power gave them choice and markets would thus be provided with an incentive to
respond to child care needs (p.22).
While firmly grounded in the philosophy of microeconomic reform, the EPAC report
did concede the need for some continuing government involvement in ECEC, albeit
on the basis of promoting equitable and efficient outcomes. The perceived need for
some government intervention in ECEC continues to this day, resulting in what
Marginson (1997a) referred to as a “quasi-market”, as opposed to a “fully developed
economic market” (p. 6).
3
The COAG paper uses the broad term ‘children’s services’ to refer to all child care services plus
linkages with State and Territory preschool systems. The paper notes that the treatment of linkages
with the preschool system is difficult because of the extent of differences between States and
Territories in objectives, program structures and administrative arrangements for preschools (COAG,
1995).
33
2.3.2.4 End of operational subsidy for community-based child care centres
The recommendations of the EPAC report have only been minimally implemented:
the proposed objectives and principles were not endorsed and direct funding to
parents did not proceed. Nevertheless, within the context of a “responsible economic
strategy” ("Budget Speech 1996-97," 1996, p. 1), prior to the release of the final
EPAC report, the Coalition Government used the 1996-97 Budget to announce
another major shift in ECEC policy: the abolition of operational subsidy for
community-based child care centres. Furthering the quasi-marketisation of ECEC,
and seemingly responding to the voice of the for-profit child care sector, the
government ended operational subsidy for community-based child care centres.
Policy rhetoric at this time spoke of the benefits of increased competition, the need for
‘a level playing field’ and ‘parental choice’:
The promotion of reliance on the market place for the provision of services is
accompanied by a belief that competition produces better quality services,
therefore government subsidies should not provide one sector...with an unfair
advantage over another.... Thus removal of such subsidies is required in order
to create a level playing field. (Press, 1999, p. 22)
As can be seen, looking at the impact of economic rationalism, NPM and market
theory on Australian ECEC over this period, it is impossible to dismiss the power of
the policy discourse. Examining the effects of market discourse in education, a
number of researchers argue that the use and acceptance of marketing language has
been instrumental in bringing into effect a new and different era in public education in
Australia (Dempster et al., 2001; Kenway et al., 1993). Press (1999) raised similar
concerns with respect to ECEC, concluding:
Words are evocative. In general, the language of government policy has
obfuscated the rough edges of policy outcomes, and created a halo around policy
initiatives. The language of microeconomic reform has framed the debate within
the terms of consumers and markets, replacing our status as citizens with that of
consumers. (p. 23)
34
Once again, similar trends have been identified in other developed Western nations,
particularly with regard to education and schooling. Crozier (2000) discussed the
operationalisation of the market within the British education system, and the
positioning of parents in the role of “client, consumer and monitor of their children’s
educational activity and behaviour” (p. 2). Choice in education is also a major theme
in educational reform in the United States, based on the economic argument that
“choice amongst schools will lead to greater competition for students and
improvements in school efficiency with respect to student achievement” (Levin, 1990,
p. 250). In the following section, I continue to focus on the power and impact of
policy discourse, and examine the emergence of another, potentially conflicting
discourse in ECEC policy: the discourse of parent and community participation.
2.3.3
Parent and community participation in ECEC
While the discourse of market theory remains evident in current Australian ECEC
policy, a review of more recent policy reveals another emerging discourse, that is, the
discourse of parent and community participation. This section focuses on two recent
government initiatives offering evidence of the ascending discourse of parent and
community participation in ECEC policy in Australia. Providing an example of
national and state activity, and sponsored by different colours of government, the
initiatives are: the Australian Coalition Government’s Stronger Families and
Communities Strategy 2000-2004; 2004-2008; and the Queensland Labor
Government’s Queensland Child Care Strategic Plan 2000-2005.
Now, the concept of parent participation is not new to ECEC practice in Australia.
Unlike the school sector, where there has been a lengthier history of centralised
bureaucracy and decision making, as noted earlier, ECEC commenced as a
community-based, grass-roots, initiative (Brennan, 1998; Press, 1999; Press & Hayes,
2000). Consequently, while Rizvi (1995) declared “participation to be a new concept
in the lexicon of Australian education” (p. 17), this is not true in ECEC. In fact, in
Australia’s Background Report to the OECD review of ECEC policy (Press & Hayes,
2000), parent participation was identified as a strong principle underpinning ECEC in
Australia. While most would agree that this is true, it is also true to say that there
35
exist many different views on what constitutes parent participation in education and
ECEC services (Crozier, 2000; Epstein et al., 1997; Rizvi, 1995; Smrekar & CohenVogel, 2001; Vincent, 2000). Moreover, the growing emphasis on parent
participation in broader ECEC public policy is a relatively new phenomenon,
reflective of the broader trend toward increased citizen engagement in public policy
decision-making in many OECD nations (OECD, 2001a; 2001b; 2003). In it’s recent
report, Citizens as partners: Information, consultation and public participation in
policymaking, the OECD observed that “governments in all OECD countries are
under pressure to integrate public input into the policymaking process and respond to
citizens’ expectations that their voices be heard and their views be considered in
policymaking” (OECD, 2001a, p. 11).
Confusing the issue of parent participation is the inconsistent, and often
interchangeable, use of related terms such as involvement, collaboration, partnership,
and most recently engagement in educational practice, and within the research
literature. Most often, these terms are used to broadly signify a range of conceptions
of the role of parents in their children’s care and education. At service level, this role
may be considered within a broad framework of interactions and activities, which may
encompass choosing a service, attending meetings and exchanging information, taking
on various support roles, advocating child and family needs, and, taking part in
service decision making. Increasingly, terms such as involvement, collaboration and
partnership are also sitting side by side in education and ECEC policy documents,
most often promoting a greater role for parents in areas such as service planning,
monitoring and public policy decision making.
While terms such as these are often used synonymously, some researchers have
distinguished between concepts such as involvement on the one hand, and
participation and/or engagement on the other, perceiving the latter convey a greater
role in decision making. For example, Limerick (1995) described three dimensions of
parent interaction: traditional “involvement”, that is, the execution of routinised
activities such as fund-raising, attending special events, helping at working parties;
“consultation” on decisions which set up routines; and “participation” in decisions
which set up routines (p. 46). In a similar sense, Soliman (1995) claimed that “the
term involvement connotes a weaker form of engagement than the term participation,
36
which implies having a say in significant areas of decision making…” (p. 161). More
recently, Stonehouse and Gonzalez-Mena (2004) distinguished between
‘involvement’ and ‘partnership’ on the basis of power, suggesting that the latter
involves greater sharing of power between teachers and parents. Nevertheless, there
is no common agreement with respect to this. The definition and use of terms such as
involvement and participation remain contested (Crozier, 2000; Limerick & Nielsen,
1995), and, despite their proliferation in contemporary education and ECEC policy,
there can be no assumption that these are used in a uniform and consistent manner
(Gestiwicki, 2000; Rizvi, 1995). As a result, there are a number of different
approaches to, and images of, parent participation in education and ECEC policy and
practice (Crozier, 2000; Reeve, 1993; Vincent, 2000).
Different conceptions of the role of parents in ECEC are explored in detail in the final
section of this chapter. However, to pursue analysis of the discourse of participation
in ECEC policy, it is necessary for me to define my use of the term participation
within this thesis. Drawing on the recent work of Epstein et al., (1997), I have
adopted a broader view of parent participation, to encompass all interactions and
activities, whether initiated by government, services and/or parents, to facilitate
information sharing, involvement of parents in service and policy activities, and
participation of parents in decision making. This stance was taken to enable parents
in this study to express their own way of viewing and experiencing their role in
ECEC. Findings demonstrate the importance of this stance. While leaning toward the
terminology of involvement, the parents in this study expressed a range of different
conceptions of their role in using ECEC services and in shaping ECEC public policy,
extending beyond narrow conceptions of parent participation.
Acknowledging the problematic nature of the terminology, Rizvi (1995) suggested
that, rather than focus on definitions, it may be more useful to look at how these terms
and concepts are used. Following this suggestion, the remainder of this section
analyses the way the concept of participation is promoted in two recent policy
initiatives, in particular who is supposed to participate, how and why? Consideration
is also given to the sometimes uneasy co-existence of these concepts with prevailing
marketing perspectives.
37
2.3.3.1 The Stronger Families and Communities Strategy, 2000-2004.
In 2000, with the child care sector still feeling the effects of the 1996-97 Federal
Budget reforms, the Australian Coalition Government announced its Stronger
Families and Communities Strategy (SFCS). From the outset, the Government
promoted this as a new approach to working with families and communities, and, at
face-value, this would appear to be the case. To begin, this was a broad national
policy, with an integrated and longer-term focus. Drawing on theories of social
capital and community capacity building (Putnam, 2000), the Strategy committed
$240 million dollars over four years to prevention and early intervention initiatives
(e.g., parenting education, family relationship counseling, community development
projects). Within this context, the SFCS marked a significant shift in policy
discourse, away from the overt language of industry and markets, to notions of
strengthening and supporting families and communities, prevention and early
intervention. A key principle underpinning the strategy was “working together in
partnerships”, and the document went on to identify who was being targeted:
The Strategy encourages local communities, business, individuals and other
levels of government to work together in genuine partnerships to develop
practical and innovative projects from the ground up. It gives families and
communities the opportunity to develop their own solutions to local problems.
(Australian Government, 2000, p. 3)
At the level of rhetoric, the Strategy talked about ‘strengthening families’, the
‘development of community leaders’, ‘local solutions to local problems’ and ‘can do
communities’. Emphasis was placed on “bottom-up approaches” (Lingard et al., 1995,
p. 83) to service planning and development:
It’s about community involvement and giving communities the chance to think
about their own local issues and what solutions they can put in place to deal
with them. It’s about promoting a ‘can do’ community spirit and helping
families and communities develop support networks and the skills and
resources they need to deal with their own issues. (Australian Government,
2000, p. 1)
38
This said, the term participation was not used in the Strategy and the scope and
purpose of involvement were defined by centrally determined targets and outcomes,
reflecting a more traditional “top-down” policy approach (Lingard et al., 1995, p. 83).
Significantly, earlier market themes and terms were also sustained, particularly in
child care. Family choice remained the central platform, an objective reinforced in
other Australian Government child care policy documents released around the same
time. Thus, parents were positioned as both individual consumers, encouraged to
make the best choices for their own child and family, and as participants who needed
to maintain a broader community focus.
2.3.3.2 The Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2004-2008
In 2004, the (same) Australian Coalition Government announced a second phase of
the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (SFCS), and a further $365.8 million
over four years (2004-2008) “to invest in the well-being of Australian children, their
families and their communities” (Australian Government, 2004, p. i). Building on the
perceived success of the first phase, the new Strategy comprises four funding strands:
Communities for Children providing funding for local early childhood initiatives in
‘disadvantaged communities’; Early Childhood: Invest to Grow providing funding for
national early childhood programs and resources; Local Answers supporting locally
developed and implemented community projects; and Choice and Flexibility in Child
Care funding the provision of “flexible and innovative child care solutions”
(Australian Government, 2004, p. ii).
As can be seen, earlier policy themes are sustained, in particular the promotion of
parental choice and flexibility in service provision The new Strategy strengthens the
focus on early childhood initiatives, linking these to the development of the National
Agenda for Early Childhood (Australian Government Task Force on Child
Development Health & Wellbeing, 2003a; 2003b). This said, while continuing to
promote community capacity building in a general sense, the second phase arguably
adopts an even more targeted approach, with much of the funding directed toward
“families, children and communities at risk” (p. i).
39
Once again, a key principle underpinning the new Strategy is the concept of
partnership, an approach now promoted as ‘building the social coalition’:
The Government believes social policy is best developed and delivered in
partnership with communities, business and individuals. The ‘social coalition’ is a
name that has come to be used for this partnership. The social coalition is critical
to developing new opportunities for families and communities beyond those
generated by economic growth. Community, business and government all have a
part to play in generating opportunities. (Australian Government, 2004, p. 3)
The term ‘partnership’ appears frequently throughout the new policy, supported by
references to ‘collaboration’ and ‘working together’. Similar partners or
‘stakeholders’ are identified, however, the government now goes to some length to
spell out the role of these partners, emphasising this includes involvement in decision
making:
Developing solutions to complex social problems requires all stakeholders to work
together. The new Strategy continues to engage stakeholders in the decision
making process. Through the Stronger Families and Communities Partnership
[Ministerial Advisory Group] the community sector will have a significant role in
guiding the direction of the Strategy. Community organisations have unrivalled
knowledge and understanding of local communities and we are involving them at
the highest level of social policy development. (p. iii)
As in the earlier SFCS, the new Strategy steers clear of any overt marketing language
- the term child care ‘industry’ is nowhere to be seen. Nevertheless, there are some
signs of the ECEC quasi-market at work, particularly in the competitive tendering
process for funding. Prospective providers are required to respond to prescribed
program aims, objectives and outcomes and to demonstrate value for money (i.e., cost
effectiveness). Furthermore, the Choice and flexibility in child care strand also seems
to be more about expanding places in rural and remote areas. Notably absent is any
specific reference to parent involvement or participation in ECEC. This said, some of
this funding is to be used to extend the national Quality Assurance processes to other
40
ECEC services, a move that may be argued will support greater information sharing
and involve parents in service evaluation and quality improvement.
Significantly, while the previous Strategy sat beside other policy that reinforced the
concept of the ECEC quasi-market, more recent Australian policy documents (e.g.,
Towards the Development of a National Agenda for Early Childhood, 2003) promote
a much broader view of ECEC. While workforce participation remains focal, ECEC
is now promoted as a key early intervention service as well as a means of general
family support and parent education.
2.3.3.3 The Queensland Child Care Strategic Plan 2000-2005
Providing an interesting comparison, and further evidence of this new theme of
participation in ECEC public policy, is the Queensland Child Care Strategic Plan
2000 – 2005, developed by the State Labor Government to “ensure … a responsive,
high quality, and sustainable child care system” (Queensland Government, 1999, p.
1). As in the previous example, the idea of participation is conveyed through use of
other related terms, such as ‘collaboration’, ‘involvement’, ‘partnership’ and
‘consultation’, which are used interchangeably and without definition.
In addition, while the Australian Government’s Stronger Families and Communities
Strategy identifies the targeted stakeholders, the Queensland policy is less
forthcoming with respect to this important matter, referring simply to “collaborative
relationships between Government and stakeholders” (p. 8). Nevertheless,
membership of the related Queensland Child Care Forum, a ministerial advisory
group similar to the Australian Government’s SFCS Partnership, offers some insight
as to who the government considers to be the “key stakeholders” (p. 9). The forum
membership comprises representation from parents/consumers, service providers,
child care support services, employment, rural/remote, academic and government
(Australian Government, various State Government Departments) (Department of
Families, 2002b, p. 43-44).
In terms of participation, the plan is said to have been informed by broad industry and
public consultation, with particular attention to the views of parents:
41
A key emphasis for the first time was to talk directly with parents to ascertain
their views. In particular, Indigenous parents, parents of culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds, parents of children who have a disability, and
families identified as locationally disadvantaged or of low socio-economic
background were consulted. (Queensland Government, 1999, p. 6)
As noted in the previous section, key issues identified through this consultation
included: the lack of integration between child care and early education services, the
failure of existing service models to meet diverse and changing family needs, and
concern regarding the limited mechanisms for families to have a say, and to influence
the provision of care and education services for their children (Queensland
Government, 1999, p. 7).
Picking up on these issues, in particular the latter, the Strategic Plan promotes the role
of parents as participants in ECEC, and, going a step further than the SFCS, identifies
how they can, and perhaps should, participate. For example, under the key result area
“better planning for the provision of child care”, the government identifies the desired
outcome: “Parents have a greater role in the planning and monitoring of child care
services” (Queensland Government, 1999, p. 14). To achieve this outcome, the
government proposes to: “initiate a range of parent consultative processes to identify
client needs and satisfaction levels” (p.15). Parents are also designated a role in child
care regulation. Introducing a new regulatory framework for child care, the Strategic
Plan states:
The regulatory framework for child care needs to support improved service
planning, innovation, and the flexible delivery of services that meet the diverse
needs of families…. To ensure that this happens, there needs to be greater
involvement of parents as consumers in the development and monitoring of
child care services’ compliance with standards. (Queensland Government,
1999, p. 16)
Key strategies include: strengthening the involvement of parents in developing and
monitoring standards for child care services; enhancing the provision of information
42
to parents about child care services, standards and their rights as consumers; and
promoting consumer confidence by addressing misleading advertising (p.17).
Yet, while promoting democratic notions of involvement and collaboration, the
Queensland Government is explicit in linking the Strategic Plan to its broader
economic agenda, in particular “more jobs for Queenslanders” (Queensland
Government, 1999, p. 2). The identified vision for child care in Queensland
highlights a dual focus: (1) child care – valuing children, supporting families; and (2)
contributing to the social and economic development of Queensland (p. 8). In this
policy example, the discourse of participation sits within the overarching, and
arguably more powerful, market discourse of earlier policy documents, and key
marketing themes and terminology prevail. For example, the Strategic Plan continues
to talk about the ECEC ‘industry’, ‘access to appropriate affordable child care’,
parents as ‘consumers’ (and ‘client’ on one occasion), and ‘enhanced information and
choice’. It identifies key result areas and related outcomes and strategies, and
commits to a process of regular review and reporting on achievements under the plan.
For some, these are competing discourses, which sit uneasily together in the same
policy text. However, this depends entirely on how the notion of participation is
viewed. As noted earlier, for many, the true nature of participation is most evident in
opportunity to take part in decision making (Limerick, 1995; Marginson, 1997c;
Rizvi, 1995). Yet, as Rizvi (1995) observed this may be viewed in a number of
different ways. For example, applying a market perspective, this may be interpreted
simply as exercising freedom of choice when selecting or deciding to exit a service.
However, from a social democratic perspective, participation is more about
“community, equal and reciprocal relations, and the establishment of participatory
structures that facilitate a sense of common culture and citizenry” (Rizvi, 1995, p. 20).
Here there is a direct relationship between the act of taking part and the outcome of
decision making.
A review of related literature reveals diverse images of, and approaches to, parent and
community participation in education and ECEC policy and practice. For example,
Haynes (1997) noted contrasting images and assumptions, spanning democratic rights
and the desirability of participative democracy to political management of state
43
agendas and increased market efficiency. Rizvi (1995) looked at the nature and scope
of participation in education policy and practice, and characterised three different
traditions or “discourses of participation” (p.18): “the representative view” where the
state establishes representative structures to mediate individual interests; “the social
democratic view” underpinned by the principles of caring and sharing; and “the
market view” that highlights the sovereignty of the individual and promotes individual
consumer choice (pp. 19-20). Reviewing Australian educational policy in the early
1990s, Rizvi (1995) perceived a resurgence of the market view of participation,
located within the context of economic rationalism, NPM and the ideology of market
individualism. This section provides evidence of a similar trend in ECEC, which may
explain the seemingly contradictory co-existence of market and participation
discourses in current Australian ECEC policy (i.e., it is a market view of participation
that is being promoted). Yet, there is also some suggestion of growing dissatisfaction
with market ideology amongst parents, teachers and others (Marginson, 1997b; Rizvi,
1995), and calls for a more social democratic view of participation (OECD, 2001a).
Renewed interest in the benefits of collective decision making and participatory
citizenship is not confined to Australia. Two recent reports, undertaken by the
OECD, point to similar trends in other OECD nations. Firstly, a recent report on
public participation in policy-making (OECD, 2001b) observed that OECD countries
are strengthening their relations with citizens to:
…improve the quality of policy… to integrate public input into the policy-making
process… to respond to calls for greater government transparency and
accountability… and to strengthen public trust in government (p. 2).
Secondly, Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care (OECD, 2001c), a
report analysing policy and services across 12 countries4 characterised different levels
of parent engagement in ECEC, the most desirable being participatory and managerial
4
The following countries participated in the OECD thematic review of ECEC policy and services:
Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,
Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.
44
engagement. The report concluded that the role of parents in ECEC was expanding
and becoming more formalised. The present review of contemporary ECEC policy in
Australia supports a similar conclusion. In the final section of this literature review, I
draw on the policy and research literature to look more closely at the changing role of
parents in ECEC, in particular the concepts of parent as consumer and parent as
participant.
2.4
Parents in ECEC: Consumer, participant or other?
As revealed in the previous section, current Australian ECEC public policy is
underpinned by changing views of the role of parents in ECEC. Notably, this trend is
not confined to Australia. Looking at British education policy, and working from a
post-structural standpoint, Vincent (1996; 2000) proposed four parent “subject
positions” (i.e., popular understandings of ‘appropriate’ parental behaviour in relation
to schools). These were: a minimal relationship - parent as independent;
consumerism – parent as consumer; partnership – parent as supporter/learner; and
citizenship – parent as participant (Vincent, 2000, pp. 1-2). The distinction between
partnership and citizenship here is reflective of earlier discussion about perceived
differences between involvement and participation (Limerick, 1995; Soliman, 1995).
In addition, the concept of partnership is seen to have more of an individual focus,
with parents supporting their service and adopting the concerns and approaches of the
service. In contrast, the concept of participant connotes the potential for a broader
focus (i.e., individual, whole school and national policy issues), and extends to
involvement in governance of the school (Vincent, 2000, p. 2).
While Vincent makes this distinction, other researchers (e.g., Ashton & Cairney,
2001; Crozier, 1997; Epstein et al., 1997; Gestiwicki, 2000) rely on one or other of
these terms to encompass a broad range of participatory behaviours (e.g., taking on
various support roles, attending meetings, participating in decision making).
Reflecting the application of a broader definition of participation (see section 2.3.3), I
have opted for the latter approach. Within this thesis the concept of parent as
participant incorporates parent as partner/supporter/learner. Consequently, with
reference to the earlier policy analysis, this final section looks more closely at the two
45
“dominant common-sense understandings” (Vincent, 2000, p. 3) of the role of parents
in Australian ECEC: parent as consumer and parent as participant.
2.4.1
Parents as consumers
As discussed, the rise of market language in social policy during the 1990s has
produced the notion of parent as consumer in Australian ECEC. In the previous
section, I traced the evolution of parents from service users (COAG, 1995) to
consumers (EPAC, 1996; Queensland Government, 1999) over a relatively short
period of time. The central tenet underpinning this view of parents is “freedom of
choice” (Marginson, 1997c, p. 184), that is, the right of the individual to choose the
most appropriate service for their child (Levin, 1990; Reeve, 1993; Rizvi, 1995).
Lingard et al. (1995) provided further insight into current arguments on parents’ rights
and/or assertions of freedom of choice:
Such a view sees parents as consumers and education as a commodity that
may be purchased. Just as consumers have a right to express their preferences,
so should parents in their choices of educational policies and practices (p. 92).
Looking at American schooling, Levin (1990) put forward three key reasons for the
growing emphasis on ‘educational choice’:
First, there is the argument that families should have the right to choose the
type of education that they want for their children…. Second, even amongst
schools of the same type, families should be able to choose the school which
best fits the specific educational needs of their child…. Third, there is the
more general argument that choice among schools will lead to greater
competition for students and improvements in school efficiency with respect
to student achievement. (pp. 249-250)
In a similar sense, proponents of the ECEC market maintain that choice facilitates
efficient and effective service provision, leaving service providers directly
accountable to individual consumers. According to Rizvi (1995), this amounts to a
“market view of participation” (p. 20), where emphasis is placed on the sovereignty of
46
the individual and the key avenue for participation is at the point of selecting or
exiting a service.
While there is a paucity of research on this phenomenon in ECEC, a review of
broader educational policy suggests that the notion of parent as consumer in education
is an international phenomenon among Western nations (Crozier, 2000; Marginson,
1997c; Munn, 2001; Reeve, 1993; Smith, 1993; Stambach, 2001; Vincent, 2000).
Linking this trend to decentralisation and school-based management, Munn (2001)
claimed that Western governments have been proactive in redefining the relationship
between the “consumer” (i.e., the parent) and the “producer” (i.e., the school) (p. 1),
tilting the balance of power between the two towards the former. Looking at
schooling in Scotland, England and Wales she observed:
Over the past fifteen years, parents have been given new rights over their
children’s schooling - the right to choose the school their children will attend, to
be involved in school management and right to a range of information about
schools. (Munn, 2001, p. 1)
Crozier (2000) also claimed that changes in British educational policy have had a
fundamental impact on parent-school relationships, suggesting that:
Government policy, both recent and current places parents in the role of client,
and consumer, and increasingly monitor of their children’s educational activity …
and behaviour (p. 2).
Investigating parent involvement in American charter schools, Stambach (2001) put
forward a similar view, characterising education as a “market place” where parents
are viewed as “consumers” and the product is “the educated child”’ (Stambach, 2001,
p. 3). Similar trends have been documented in relation to the rise of the education
quasi-market in Australia (Marginson, 1997a; 1997c; Smith, 1993).
Once again, trends in ECEC seem to have paralleled those within the schooling sector.
Reviewing changes in Australian child care, Vining (1994) promoted the need for
ECEC services to become more “customer-focused” (p. 16), observing that parents
47
were shopping around, that is, seeking information, doing research and becoming
more discerning in their selection and use of services. In fact, promoting a “changing
marketplace” she goes so far as to argue:
…the very word ‘parent’ is giving away to the term ‘customer’ to denote the new
generation of service users who demand quality care and a high level of
accountability (p. 16).
In a more recent British study, Vincent and Ball (2004) discussed the peculiarities of
the childcare market in Britain, and described mothers participating in their study as
“formidable skilled consumers” (p. 7), highly proficient in accessing information and
researching options.
Particular conditions are necessary for the effective working of any marketplace. For
example, consumers are often protected by legislation and afforded certain rights. As
indicated above, there is also a need for consumer information to promote knowledge
of alternatives, a key to the competitive efficiency of market structures of choice
(Levin, 1990). There is also an emphasis on understanding consumer needs and
expectations to respond to consumer demand and secure market share. It is therefore
not surprising to see the rise of the ECEC quasi-market in Australia being
accompanied by a number of government initiatives supporting the above-mentioned
conditions, with a view to promoting parent choice and strengthening their role as
consumers of ECEC services. These may be divided into three broad and overlapping
categories.
2.4.1.1 Empowering parents as consumers of ECEC
Responding to consumer demand for greater involvement and service accountability
(Pugh, 1985), Australian regulations and other policy guidelines sought to strengthen
parent rights. For example, among the early starters, the Queensland Child Care Act
1991 introduced a raft of new standards designed to empower parents as consumers of
ECEC. In introducing the legislation, Anne Warner, then Minister for Family
Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs referred to the involvement of parents:
48
The rights of families using child care will be paramount…. The positive
involvement of parents and other members of the community in child care
services will be promoted. Parents will have information about policies and
practices of centres which their children attend and through their active
involvement in the formulation of programs. ("Second reading of the Child Care
Bill (No. 79)," 1991)
The new Queensland legislation required service providers to ensure that parents had
open entry to their chosen service, access to service policies, information and their
child’s records, and clear grievance procedures including recourse to the State
licensing authority. Reflecting the intent of this new legislation, objects of the Act
included “to promote the positive involvement of consumer parents and other
members of the community in child care services” ("Child Care Act 1991," s. 4).
Comparable standards formed the basis of National Child Care Standards (1993) and
were subsequently implemented in other jurisdictions throughout the 1990s.
Significantly, the recently enacted Queensland Child Care Act 2002 preserves the
earlier granted parent rights, and, arguably goes one step further, introducing the
guiding principle that “child care should be planned and provided in a way that
involves parents and other members of the community”("Child Care Act 2002," s. 9).
2.4.1.2 Promoting informed choice
As observed in Australian education, the rise of the ECEC quasi-market was
accompanied by growth in the ‘information technologies of market choice’
(Marginson, 1997c; Smith, 1993), that is, an expanding array of booklets, brochures
and websites designed to support informed choice. Information and referral services
were established at state, and later national level, providing telephone and Internet
access to service databases and a range of printed information. Particular attention
was directed toward explaining the different types of ECEC services available and
helping parents to identify and monitor quality service provision. At the same time,
the quasi-market fuelled an increase in individual service marketing, with service
providers anxious to “manage customer communication” (Vining, 1994, p. 16) to
entice prospective consumers, and, then, to ensure they understood the benefits of the
product they had chosen (Reeve, 1993; Smith, 1993). The net result was an
49
unprecedented and sometimes confusing, array of information services and resources
for parents.
2.4.1.3 Accessing parent consumer views on ECEC
In conceptualising ECEC, in particular work-related child care, as an integral
component in Australia’s economic development, government, at all levels,
positioned parents as the primary consumer in ECEC. Following general marketing
principles, governments and policymakers began to explore ways to access parent
(consumer) views on ECEC. A variety of approaches was implemented. To begin,
there was an increased emphasis on accessing the views of parents, as key
stakeholders, in the course of general industry consultation. This view is reflected in
the Queensland Child Care Strategic Plan which urges “closer attention to understand
consumer needs and expectations …and the implications of these for the future
directions and sustainability of the child care industry” (Queensland Government,
1999, p. 14). In addition, several representative structures were established to provide
more formal access to parent perspectives on particular ECEC matters. These
included a national Parent Advisory Group, the inclusion of parent representatives on
national and state Ministerial Advisory Committees, and support for communitybased ‘parents of children in child care groups’. It was hoped that the latter would
provide a practical mechanism for consultation with a greater number of parents.
However, the reality of busy families using ECEC to balance work and family
demands worked against this plan and most of these groups were short-lived.
Typically, research within and beyond Australia during this period also focused on
parents as consumers of ECEC. Common areas of research interest included: patterns
of ECEC service use and factors behind the selection of services (Department of
Community Services, 2000; Greenblat & Ochiltree, 1993; Queensland Government,
1999; Rodd & Milikan, 1994; Tayler et al., 2001; Tayler & Irvine, 2000); parent
views on the purpose and benefits of ECEC, with particular focus on kindergarten and
preschool (Evans & Fuller, 1998; Hard, 1997; Incerti, 1990; Rodd & Milikan, 1994);
parent perceptions of quality in ECEC service provision (Berthelsen, 2000; Carlson &
Stenmalm-Sjöblom, 1989; Farquhar, 1990; Fuqua, 1986; Kontos, 1991; Williams &
Ainley, 1994); and parent perceptions of current and desired service provision
50
(Department of Community Services, 2000; Hofferth, Brayfield, Deich & Holcomb,
1991; Kontos, 1991; Queensland Government, 1999; Rodd & Milikan, 1994; Tayler
et al., 2001; Tayler & Irvine, 2000).
In summary, the notion of parent as consumer has emerged from the quasimarketisation of ECEC in the 1990s. Government initiatives encouraged parents to
shop around, and ECEC service providers to be more customer-focused.
Underpinning the identified policies and initiatives is a belief in the efficacy of quasimarkets to bring about improvements in public services (Levin, 1990; Marginson,
1997a; 1997c; Munn, 2001). Within this context, parental choice is presented as a
mechanism which will extend personal freedom while making services more
responsive to their consumers (Gewirtz, Ball & Bowe, 1995). It is argued that “the
power of consumers, able to vote with their feet, will result in ‘good’ services,
because ‘bad’ services will be forced to close through lack of support” (Reeve, 1993,
p. 7). In his seminal work, Exit, Voice and Loyalty (1970), economist Albert
Hirschman examined this idea of consumer sovereignty within competitive markets.
He observed:
The availability to consumers of the exit option, and their frequent resort to it, are
characteristic of “normal” (non-perfect) competition… …the exit option is widely
held to be uniquely powerful: by inflicting revenue losses on delinquent
management… (p. 21).
While perceiving certain strengths in the “exit option” (p. 22), Hirschman (1970) also
drew attention to a number of weaknesses, in particular, the reliance on perfect
consumer knowledge, the potential for collusive behaviour amongst producers, and
the effect of elasticity of demand (e.g., if demand is highly inelastic, the loss of
revenue will be minimal, and there is little pressure to make any quality changes).
Hirschman identified a second, less common mechanism by which consumers may
exert pressure on producers within a particular market - the political mechanism of
voice. Voice is explained as follows:
51
To resort to voice, rather than exit, is for the customer or member [of the
organisation] to make an attempt at changing the practices, policies, and
outputs of the firm from which one buys or of the organisation to which one
belongs. Voice is here defined as any attempt at all to change, rather than to
escape from, an objectionable state of affairs, whether through individual or
collective petition to the management directly in charge, through appeal to a
higher authority with the intention of forcing a change in management, or
through various types of actions and protests, including those that are meant to
mobilize public opinion. (Hirschman, 1970, p. 30)
A key distinction is that the exit option rests on the power of individual consumers,
whereas the voice model provides opportunity for both individual and collective
action.
Looking at these two models of (consumer) participation in the education quasimarket, there is increasing agreement that, contrary to the marketing discourse, the
exit model offers weak choice to parents (Crozier, 2000; Marginson, 1997c; Vincent,
2000). For example, reflecting the earlier noted concerns of Hirschman (1970),
Marginson (1997c) argued that consumer sovereignty is not universal and that many
parents lack detailed knowledge of available choices. Focusing on the Australian
context, he observed that not all localities provide choice, not all parents can afford to
access their preferred service, and elite services tend to pick their own customers.
Perceiving similar conditions in Australian ECEC, the situation is further
compounded by the lack of ECEC places in many parts of the country, particularly
outside the main metropolitan areas, forcing many parents to make do with less than
satisfactory service provision. Characterising this as a weak choice model, Marginson
(1997c) concluded that once a service has been chosen, parents have little control over
its internal life and little capacity to shape the character of the choices available (p.
186). Smith (1993) put forward similar views, concluding that the concept of parent
as consumer within education (and ECEC) constrains the role of parents to that of
decision making agent (i.e., choosing to use or exit a service) as opposed to
participant. In the next section, I look at the alternative voice or strong choice model
of parent as participant, examining the effect of this perspective on the role of parents
52
in ECEC, and identifying differences and potential tensions between these two
contrasting views of parents in ECEC.
2.4.2
Parents as participants
As noted earlier, current Australian ECEC public policy is underpinned by shared
responsibility, collaborative relationships and the engagement of all stakeholders (e.g.,
government, service operators, staff and parents). At the national level, the Australian
Government’s Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (2000; 2004) promotes
partnership, empowering families and community capacity building. It emphasises
grass-roots projects (i.e., bottom-up program solutions), local collaboration and broad
community support. Despite different party politics, the Queensland Child Care
Strategic Plan (1999) articulates similar themes, and while neither document uses the
term participation, language such as ‘consultation’, ‘involvement’, ‘partnership’ and
‘collaboration’ at least suggest enhanced opportunity for community participation in
ECEC at all levels. Nevertheless, recognising different images of participation in
education generally (Crozier, 2000; Epstein et al., 1997; Haynes, 1997; Vincent,
1993; 1996; 2000), the true intent and likely effect of these new policy directions on
the role of parents in ECEC remains unclear.
As suggested previously, it may be argued that the view of parent as participant is not
new to Australian ECEC (Brennan, 1998; Press, 1999; Press & Hayes, 2000).
However, in the past, this image of participation has focused more on the day-to-day
engagement of parents in the service. The suggestion of an enhanced role for parents
in ECEC public policy is relatively new (Irvine et al., 2001). The ideal of expanded
parent participation typically suggests extending a voice to parents. Within the
current context, there is growing emphasis on opportunity for parents to take part in
service decision making and the development of broader public policy. From this
perspective, the new discourse of participation may be seen to promote a collective
sense of community and a more “social democratic view of participation” (Rizvi,
1995, p. 19). Referring back to the models of participation put forward by Hirschman
(1970), in contrast to the exit model discussed previously, more recent ECEC public
policy discourse appears to be promoting parent voice. As a reminder, Levin (1990)
defined voice as follows:
53
…voice refers to protest, discussion, negotiation, voting, and other forms of
political or client participation to obtain one’s goals. These acts tend to be more
personal in nature and often require individuals to work with other individuals
and groups to achieve their ends. (p. 261)
Considering democratic practice and civic responsibility, a growing number of
educational researchers contend that voice offers parents “strong or active choice”
(Marginson, 1997c, p. 181; Vincent, 2000), as opposed to the weak choice offered by
the market exit option. Looking at education generally, Haynes (1997) identified
some of the assumptions underpinning this view of parent participation. These
include:
•
it is a good thing for individuals to have some say and control over decisions
which influence their own lives;
•
participation can manage social diversity and enable conflict to be dealt with in
small, manageable situations;
•
change can be incremental where participation facilitates ongoing adjustment; and
•
social justice requires that participation enhance a more equitable distribution of
social goods among the various social groups (p. 245).
McGrath and Kuriloff (1999) perceive both similar and different motivations
underpinning government’s interest in parent involvement. From the policy-maker’s
perspective, they suggest parent involvement is about:
•
improving schools by making them more accountable to parents;
•
strengthening ties between schools and families traditionally under-served by
schools;
•
improving services to students by taking advantage of parents’ knowledge about
their children; and
•
recognising parents to be key stakeholders within their children’s education (p.
605).
54
The push for increased parent participation is based on research promoting the
benefits of parent and community participation in education and ECEC (e.g., Epstein
et al., 1997; Galinsky et al., 1990; Limerick & Nielsen, 1995; McCain & Mustard,
1999; Pence & Goelman, 1987; Powell, 1989; Pugh, 1985). The general view is that
enhanced parent participation yields positive outcomes for all concerned (i.e.,
children, families, service providers, governments and the broader community).
Parent participation is seen to support better outcomes for children and families,
through knowledge sharing, skill development and improved relationships, more
relevant and responsive curriculum, increased continuity and enhanced family support
(Gestiwicki, 2000; Powell, 1998; Stonehouse & Gonzalez-Mena, 2004).
In light of this evidence, educational policymakers and researchers worldwide are
emphasising parent/school involvement (Epstein et al., 1997; McGrath & Kuriloff,
1999; Munn, 2001). Reflecting this trend, the OECD report, Starting Strong (2001c)
argued for a participatory and democratic approach to engaging parents in ECEC:
Parent engagement seeks to: a) build on parents unique knowledge about their
children, fostering continuity with learning in the home; b) promote positive
attitudes and behaviour towards children’s learning; c) provide parents with
information and referrals to other services; d) support parent and community
empowerment. (OECD, 2001c, p. 10)
Adding further strength to the discourse of parent and community participation is
growing interest in citizen engagement in government decision making, seen to
support more responsive policy and practice and improved targeting and investment
of public funds (OECD, 2001a; 2003).
Within this new discourse, considerable emphasis is placed on ‘listening to parents’.
Advocates of enhanced participation argue that those involved in ECEC can learn to
better understand parents, and meet their child and family needs, by providing
increased opportunity for meaningful dialogue (Elliott, 2003b; Hard, 1997; Hughes &
MacNaughton, 2002; Pence & Goelman, 1987; Rodd & Milikan, 1994). While many
would argue that there is a way to go in achieving the goal of ‘meaningful dialogue’
with parents (Crozier, 2000; Hughes & MacNaughton, 2002; Vincent, 2000), a review
55
of Australian ECEC policy and practice during the 1990s reveals a number of broad
government strategies designed to access parent views and arguably increase their
participation in ECEC.
2.4.2.1
Implementation of national quality assurance
In 1994, following some four years of consultation, the Australian Government
introduced the first phase of national quality assurance for child care: the Quality
Improvement and Accreditation System (QIAS) for long day care centres. The system
was to be administered by the National Childcare Accreditation Council (NCAC)
established the previous year. While clearly related to the rise of the ECEC quasimarket, in particular, the need to establish some accountability mechanisms around
the extension of child care fee subsidies to the private for-profit sector (see section
2.3.2.1), quality assurance was also widely recognised to be an important mechanism
for raising the quality of service provision (Elliott, 2003a; Wangmann, 1995). Setting
Australia apart from other Western nations who have ECEC quality assurance systems
(e.g., the United States), the QIAS is fully funded by government and linked to the
receipt of child care subsidy (i.e., all funded services are required to participate). Of
particular significance to the present study, the QIAS is also seen as a way to enhance
parent awareness of quality in child care, and to increase their involvement in service
decision making. Positioning parents to be participants in quality child care, the
NCAC asserts:
Parents are the first teachers and the main influence in a child’s life and play a
key role in the quality systems for child care services administered by the NCAC.
Parents’ ideas and suggestions are essential to the efforts of child care services to
continuously improve the quality of care they provide. (NCAC, 2002)
The QIAS seeks to achieve this by promoting a collaborative approach to service
evaluation and quality improvement (i.e., the accreditation process includes
information for parents, parent surveys, and encourages parent involvement on local
level accreditation committees). More recently, similar quality assurance processes
have been introduced for family day care (NCAC, 2001) and outside school hours
care (NCAC, 2003).
56
2.4.2.2 Parents as ‘key stakeholders’ in ECEC consultations
As noted in the previous section, within the context of the ECEC quasi-market,
parents were positioned to be the primary consumers and thereby key stakeholders in
ECEC. During this past decade of intense scrutiny of ECEC, policymakers set out to
increase parent participation in general industry consultations and, at least outwardly,
the policy decision making process. A variety of approaches was implemented, for
example: COAG (1995) facilitated a small number of parent focus groups; EPAC
(1996) and the Senate Inquiry into Early Childhood Education (1996) encouraged
parents to attend public meetings and to make submissions. However, on the whole,
these approaches met with limited success, offering insight on the personal views and
experiences of a relatively small number of parents, and leaving professional and
industry perspectives to dominate. Recognising the short-comings of previous efforts,
government became more proactive in its attempts to involve parents in policy
consultations. A good example of a more proactive approach is the development of
the Queensland Child Care Strategic Plan (2000), where the Queensland Government
undertook a significant telephone survey of parents, followed by a small number of
focus groups targeting families traditionally under-served by ECEC. Research
undertaken by the New South Wales Government (2000) also demonstrated a more
proactive approach to engaging parents in research and policy development.
2.4.2.3 Representative forums
Recognising the diversity of the Australian ECEC sector, and acknowledging different
interests and perspectives, government, at national and state/territory levels,
established a number of representative forums to inform public policy (e.g., the
Queensland Ministerial Advisory Committee of Child Care (1991-1995), the
Queensland Child Care Forum (1999-current), the Commonwealth Childcare
Advisory Council (1999-2002), and the Australian Government Childcare Reference
Group (2002-present). As a general rule, these comprised industry/sector,
professional, academic and government representatives, and, as the decade
progressed, an increasing number of parent representatives. Rizvi (1995)
characterised this as a representative view of participation, based on a pluralist theory
of state:
57
Pluralism is a theory which assumes that, in a complex society, extensive popular
participation is impossible, and that individual interests must therefore be
mediated and represented by groups. Pluralism is thus concerned with the
development of representative structures through which the nominated
individuals can negotiate decisions on behalf of the groups whom they represent.
In such a representative system, individual preferences are supposedly aggregated
to guide the state. (p. 19)
While selected representation has provided enhanced access to parent views and,
perhaps, greater participation in public policy decision making, questions have been
raised regarding the validity and democratic nature of such structures and systems
(Rizvi, 1995). For example, in a representative system, the state is perceived to be
neutral, and “potentially open to any interest group that is able to mobilise sufficient
pressures” (Rizvi, 1995, p. 19). However, in light of government selection processes
for representative committees, and the tendency for government to set agendas and
outcomes, this notion of neutrality has been contested (Munn, 2001; Rizvi, 1995;
Soliman, 1991; 1995).
In summary, the new discourse of parent and community participation seemingly
promotes enhanced parent participation (i.e., involvement, engagement, partnership)
in ECEC policy and practice, including decision making. However, a number of
researchers question whether current practice is living up to the rhetoric of enhanced
parent participation. For example, reviewing the discourse and practice of partnership
in a school in New South Wales, Ashton and Cairney (2001) perceived that “while
partnership rhetoric in primary schools is strong, what actually constitutes
home/school partnership is more limited” (p. 145). Looking at Australian ECEC
services, Elliott (2003b) suggested that staff often “determine how and when
opportunities relevant to children’s care and education are made available to parents
and specify how parents can contribute to programs” (p. 14). Investigating parent
roles and relationships in British schools, Vincent (2000) has drawn a similar
conclusion, arguing that opportunities for the exercise of individual or collective
parental voice within a school appear limited. Moreover, Epstein’s (1997) framework
of six types of parent involvement illustrates the potential for different approaches to
participation, which should, but may not extend to taking part in decision making.
58
In a similar sense, there are less enthusiastic appraisals of the intention and effect of
the new discourse of participation in public policy, now evident in many OECD
countries. Soliman (1991) pointed out that participative strategies designed to extend
the role of parents in education can be used to “both reform and to defend the existing
order” (p. 54). In a similar sense, Reeve (1993) perceived a gap between the early
“rhetoric” of community participation and the “reality” in schools (p.4), contending
that community participation in decision making is often restricted by power-holders
who allow it to operate only in those directions they deem acceptable (p.2). Also
wary of the broad rhetoric of participation, Vincent (1993; 2000) cautioned that
moves to introduce participatory processes can also be motivated by a wish to
legitimise the more general action of the institution concerned. This literature review
does not seek to evaluate whether current Australian ECEC policies offer opportunity
for participation to further democracy or are designed merely to increase support for
the existing political system. Rather, the purpose of this literature review is to
highlight the expanding discourse of parent and community participation in Australian
ECEC, while also drawing attention to differing views on what this means in practise.
As Haynes (1997) succinctly observed:
Some of the viewpoints related to community participation assume it will make a
real difference and others assume it will maintain the status quo. There is
agreement that in community participation, all can get their hand on the helm, but
there is disagreement as to whether this means that the community merely
steadies the ship against the waves or sets the course. There is also disagreement
over who benefits from the voyage and who is to blame if the voyage does not
meet expectations. (p. 245)
Significantly, little is known about the viewpoints of parents, or as Pence and
Goelman (1987) observed, “parent voices have been strangely silent” (p. 17). And,
herein lies the underpinning rationale for the present study. While policy rhetoric
promotes parents as consumers and participants in ECEC, there remain significant
gaps in our evidence base. Little is known about how parents view themselves in
relation to ECEC, in Australia or internationally, and how this influences their
expectations and perceptions of their role as ECEC service users and shapers of public
59
policy. Thus, there is a need for explorative research in situated contexts to elicit
parent thinking about their role in ECEC.
2.5
Chapter summary
This chapter presents a review of literature in this relatively under-researched area,
demonstrating the need for, and timeliness of, the present study. To summarise, the
current Australian service system is fragmented and is seen to fail to meet the needs of
an increasing number of families with young children. The current policy context is
one of change and reform, shaped by the quasi-marketisation of ECEC during the
1990s, the discourse of market theory, and, most recently, the discourse of parent and
community participation. Intertwining these two seemingly opposing discourses in
more recent policy documents has resulted in the dual notion of parents as both
consumers and participants in ECEC. Yet, as Stambach (2001) pointed out, tensions
exist between the view of parent as individual consumer and parent as participant
within a [school] community. Moreover, it may be expected that in a diverse society
such as Australia, different parents will have different views and experiences of their
role in ECEC, which may or may not sit well with current government assumptions
about the role of parents. In short, little is known about how parents view themselves
in relation to ECEC and how this influences their expectations and perceptions of
their role in ECEC. This paucity of evidence necessitated the current
phenomenographic study to elicit the views and experiences of parents using ECEC
services and shaping ECEC public policy.
60
CHAPTER 3
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
The previous chapter examined the different ways in which the role of parents in
education and, more specifically in ECEC, is presented in the literature. It has been
shown that, while policy positions parents as consumers of ECEC, and/or as
participants in ECEC, little is known as to how parents view and experience their role
in ECEC. Seeking to fill this gap, this study set about to investigate variation in the
ways in which parents constitute their role in Australian ECEC. Within this context,
the study focused on two particular areas of parent participation: (1) the role of
parents in using ECEC services; and (2) the role of parents in shaping ECEC public
policy. To describe the role of parents, as viewed and experienced by parents, and to
reveal possible variation therein, the study engaged a phenomenographic research
approach. This chapter presents the conceptual framework of the study, and provides
a detailed description of the phenomenographic research approach and the rationale
for its use in this study. The research design is presented, along with details of how
the study was implemented and how data were analysed.
3.2
Engaging a phenomenographic research approach
Phenomenography emerged as a new research approach in the 1970s, developed
predominantly by educational researchers in Sweden (Marton, Dahlgren, Svensson &
Saljo, 1977; Marton & Svensson, 1979; Saljo, 1979). The term phenomenography
stems from the Greek words “phainemonon” and “graphein” which mean appearance
and description respectively. Hence, phenomenography is about the description of
things as they appear to and are experienced by people (Marton & Pang, 1999).
Concerned with people’s experiences of the world, phenomenography developed as a
“a reaction against, and an alternative to, the then dominant tradition of positivistic,
behaviouristic and quantitative research” (Svensson, 1997, p. 171). In a general
61
sense, these research approaches are most often based on a dualistic ontology, where
person and world are seen as two separate entities, and an objectivistic epistemology,
that is, belief in the “existence of an objective, knowable reality ‘out there’ beyond the
human mind” (Sandberg, 1994, p. 16). In contrast, phenomenography is underpinned
by a non-dualistic ontology, where person and world are seen and studied in relation
to each other. Marton (2000) explained:
From a non-dualistic ontological perspective there are not two worlds: a real,
objective world, on the one hand, and a subjective world of mental
representations, on the other. There is only one world, a really existing world,
which is experienced and understood in different ways by human beings. It is
simultaneously objective and subjective. (p. 105)
Knowledge is seen to be constituted through this relation between person and world
(Bowden & Marton, 1998), and people are seen to act on the basis of their interpreted
meaning (Saljo, 1988; Sandberg, 1994).
Phenomenography is most frequently described as a research specialisation aimed at
the “mapping of the qualitatively different ways in which people experience,
conceptualise, perceive, and understand various aspects of, and various phenomena in,
the world around them" (Marton, 1986, p. 31). To this effect, phenomenography
adopts what Marton (1981) labeled a “second order perspective” (p. 177) (i.e., an
insider perspective). From the outset, phenomenography has been concerned with the
study of variation between qualitatively different ways of seeing, experiencing and
understanding various phenomena in the world. As such, phenomenographic studies,
in the main, have tended to address research questions such as: “What are the different
ways of experiencing a particular phenomenon?” and “How are different ways of
experiencing the same phenomenon related to each other?” For example, many of the
early phenomenographic studies investigated the different ways in which students see
and experience learning (Lybeck, Marton, Stromdahl & Tullberg, 1988; Marton,
Dall'Alba & Beaty, 1993; Marton & Svensson, 1979; Saljo, 1979; Svensson, 1989).
The aim is to reveal variation in ways of seeing and experiencing something, as
experienced and described by the researcher (Pang, 2003).
62
More recently, theoretical developments within phenomenography, to be discussed
shortly, have led to heightened interest in capturing the nature of such differences. As
a result, phenomenography has moved on, from attempts to describe different ways of
experiencing various phenomena, to attempts to answer questions such as “What is a
way of experiencing something?” and “What is the actual difference between two
ways of experiencing the same thing?” (Marton & Pang, 1999, p.4).
This shift in focus has given rise to a new phase in phenomenography, being referred
to as “new phenonmenography” (Booth & Hulten, 2003; Linder & Marshall, 2003;
Marton & Pang, 1999; Pang, 2003). In new phenomenography, the aim is twofold: to
reveal variation among different ways of experiencing something, as seen by the
researcher (as in early phenomenography); and to make visible the dimensions of
variation, as experienced by the person and described by the researcher (Marton &
Pang, 1999; Pang, 2003). Studies fitting within this new orientation of
phenomenography include Runneson’s (1999) study investigating how teachers
handled specific mathematical content, and Pang and Marton’s (2003) study of
different approaches to teaching and learning economics. In each of these examples,
conceptions were explicated in terms of the critical differences distinguishing the
different ways of experiencing. The present study also sits within this new
orientation, aiming to identify variation in ways of experiencing the role of parents in
ECEC and to describe the different conceptions in terms of the dimensions of
variation experienced by these parents.
The phenomenographic unit of research is a human conception or way of
experiencing something which, as noted, is seen as an internal relationship between
the person (i.e., the experiencer) and their world (i.e., the experienced). Marton and
Booth (1997) further clarified this relationship:
An internal relationship between A and B implies that neither A nor B would
be identically the same without the relationship between them…. How can we
picture an internal relationship between person and world? The world, or at
least some part of it, is present to the person; the world is experienced by the
person. (p. 113)
63
As noted, the belief that a phenomenon is generally experienced in a limited number
of different ways underpins phenomenographic research (Ballantyne et al., 1994;
Bowden, 2000a; Bruce, 1997; Marton, 1981; 1986; 1988b). Individuals are seen to be
bearers of different ways of experiencing a phenomenon (i.e., fragments of the
phenomenon), which are brought together to constitute the phenomenon of interest
(Marton & Booth, 1997). The phenomenographer’s task, therefore, is to discern
variation in ways of experiencing the phenomenon, across a selected research sample,
and to construct categories of description to make visible different ways of
experiencing that phenomenon. In this sense, the categories of description thematise
collective ways of experiencing, and highlight the critical differences in meaning and
structure between the different ways of experiencing (McMahon & Bruce, 2002).
These are seen to be logically related and come together to form a complex commonly
referred to as the “outcome space” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 125), which, in turn,
constitutes the description of the phenomenon.
In summary, the following key concepts, taken together, distinguish
phenomenography from other established qualitative research traditions, such as
phenomenology and ethnography:
•
the adoption of a second-order or from-the-inside perspective, where the
researcher is oriented towards people’s ideas and experiences of the world;
•
the knowledge interest in discovering human conceptions or ways of experiencing
an aspect of reality;
•
the focus on discerning variation between conceptions or different ways of
experiencing an aspect of reality; and
•
the construction of categories of description thematising collective conceptions,
and an outcome space representing the logical relationship between the different
conceptions or ways of experiencing.
An appreciation of these concepts is fundamental to understanding the
phenomenographic research approach and, therefore, the conceptual framework for
this study. The following sections offer further explanation of these concepts and
their impact on the nature of this research. To recap, the key terms are: second-order
64
perspective, conception (i.e., way of experiencing), discerning variation, categories of
description and outcome space.
3.2.1
A second-order perspective
Orienting the researcher toward people’s ways of seeing, understanding and
experiencing the world around them (Marton & Pang, 1999), phenomenography takes
a second-order perspective. Marton (1981) first made the distinction between a
“first-order” or “from-the-outside” perspective and a “second-order” or “from-theinside” perspective (p. 177). Developing this argument, he observed that traditional
scientific research is primarily of the first-order, in that the researcher is oriented
towards the world and makes statements about it. In contrast, he presented
phenomenography as offering a second-order perspective, in that the researcher is
oriented towards people’s ideas and experiences of the world. Within this context,
phenomenographic investigations are seen to belong to a much smaller group of
studies, along with certain branches of anthropology, history and philosophy of
science, that seek to yield statements about people’s experience of the world (Marton
& Booth, 1997).
More recently, Marton and Booth (1997) linked the two perspectives to different
objects of research. Applying this to the present study, the general premise is that if
the object of research is to make statements about the role of parents in ECEC, a firstorder perspective is required. However, if the object of research is to make visible
parents’ ways of seeing and experiencing their role in ECEC, as in the present study, a
second-order perspective is necessary. As Säljö (1988) pointed out, this will
influence the type of questions asked. For example, a first-order perspective leads to
a question such as “What role do parents currently play in ECEC?” The object is to
make a statement about the reality of parents in ECEC. In contrast, a second-order
perspective generates questions concerned with people’s experiences of the world and
how they interpret aspects of reality, for example, “How do parents experience their
role in ECEC?” and “What is the difference between two different ways of
experiencing this role?”
65
The present study used a phenomenographic research approach to come as close as
possible to people’s experience of their reality (Sandberg, 1994, p. 45), and, therefore
adopted a second-order perspective. The study was not concerned with identifying
what parents were currently doing or not doing in relation to ECEC. Nor was the
object to classify parents, to compare groups of parents, to explain or to predict their
behaviour or make fair or unfair judgments of parents (Marton, 1981, p. 180). Rather,
the object of the research was to find and systematise the different ways that parents
viewed and experienced their role in using ECEC services and in shaping ECEC
public policy.
3.2.2
Discovering conceptions or ways of experiencing
The “phenomenographic knowledge interest” (Marton, 1988b, p. 180) is to discover
and carefully describe human conceptions of reality, that is, the qualitatively different
ways of experiencing particular phenomena in the world. As discussed in the
previous section, this stems from an interest in human perceptions and experiences of
reality. From the outset, Marton (1981) saw this knowledge interest as a defining and
distinguishing feature of phenomenographic research, as is evident in the following
excerpt from his seminal paper:
This focusing on conceptions of specific aspects of reality, i.e., on
apprehended (perceived, conceptualised or "lived") contents of thought or
experience, as a point of departure for carrying out research, and as a base for
integrating findings, is in fact the most distinctive feature of the domain
labeled “phenomenography". (p. 189)
Nonetheless, although central to phenomenography, there has been a lack of clarity
regarding the nature of a conception (Bruce, 1997; Marton, 2000; Sandberg, 1994;
Svensson, 1997; Uljens, 1992). This, in turn, has given rise to diverse usage of the
term amongst phenomenographers (Bowden, 2000b).
While using the term conception in his seminal paper, Marton (1981) did not
explicitly address its nature. Nevertheless, the text as a whole, provides some early
66
pointers regarding use of the term within phenomenography, most importantly that
conceptions denote human ways of interpreting certain aspects of reality. Marton
observed that these can vary between individuals, within individuals, and change over
time (1981, p. 186).
Even as the body of phenomenographic studies steadily increased over the next few
years, the nature of a conception remained somewhat vague, generally taken to mean
a way of thinking about or experiencing something (Lybeck et al., 1988; Marton,
1986; Marton, Hounsell & Entwistle, 1984). Within this context, terms such as
conceptions, ways of understanding, and ways of experiencing were often used
interchangeably (Marton & Booth, 1997). Recognising the need for greater clarity,
Svensson (1989) differentiated between concept, conception and conceptualisation:
•
Concept refers to an abstract and general meaning or structure of a phenomenon,
either as it is present in a language or as it is present within the cognitive potential
or repertoire of an individual.
•
Conception concerns the experienced meaning of a phenomenon, within a unit of
thinking. Usually, several different concepts are included in a conception in a
specific way. Conceptions represent knowledge of the world.
•
Conceptualisation refers to a cognitive activity seen from the point of view of a
conception which is constituted by means of that activity (Svensson, 1989, p.
531).
Of course, the term conception must also be considered within the broader nondualistic ontological perspective of phenomenography. Marton (1988b) reinforced
the idea that:
[Phenomenography] is neither about the phenomena that are experienced or
thought about as such, nor about the human beings who are doing the
experiencing or thinking. Phenomenography is about the relations between
human beings and the world around them” (p. 179).
67
Thus, a conception represents the internal relationship between the individual and
their world. It denotes “the world as experienced by the person” (Marton & Booth,
1997, p. 113). From this perspective, conceptions are concurrently seen to be
relational, experiential, content-oriented and qualitative (Dall'Alba, 2000; Marton,
1988b).
Conceptions are also recognised to comprise ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects, which are
dialectically intertwined (Marton, 1988a; Marton & Booth, 1997; Marton et al., 1993).
Reflecting on studies investigating student conceptions of learning, Marton (1988a)
explained this distinction:
Qualitative differences in the outcome of learning have logically and
dialectically related structural and referential aspects [italics added].
Structure refers to the how the outcome is arranged, and reference refers to
what the outcome is about (p. 64).
This framework was developed further in a significant paper by Marton, Dall’Alba
and Beatty (1993):
Different conceptions of a particular phenomenon usually differ both with
regard to how the phenomenon and its component parts are delimited and
related to each other (the structural aspect) and with regard to the global
meaning of the phenomenon (the referential aspect). The way in which the
phenomenon is delimited from, and related to, its context constitutes the
external horizon of the phenomenon. The way in which the component parts
of the phenomenon are discerned and related to each other identify the internal
horizon of the phenomenon. (p. 278)
In spite of elaborations such as these, criticism over perceived theoretical vagaries
continued into the 1990s, in particular, the basis for a phenomenographic conception
(Saljo, 1994; Uljens, 1992). Seeking to address these concerns, some
phenomenographers, including Marton himself, drew upon phenomenological
principles and concepts to further develop the theoretical foundation of
phenomenography (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000; Marton, 2000; Sandberg, 1994). For
68
example, Sandberg (1994) drew on the work of Husserl (1970/1936) and explored the
phenomenological notion of life-world as a base for human conceptions. Within this
context, he described a conception as signifying “the basic meaning structure of
individuals’ experiences of a specific aspect of their reality” (p. 55). Reflecting on the
intentional character of consciousness, another Husserlian principle, he also
contended that human conceptions were intentionally constituted and could be
described in terms of “a conceived meaning and a conceiving act” (Sandberg, 1994, p.
55). To support clear and faithful descriptions of conceptions, he argued each of these
dimensions must be identified and understood. Clearly, similarities exist between this
model of description and Marton’s aforementioned structural and referential aspects
of a conception (Marton, 1988a; Marton et al., 1993).
Continuing interest in the nature of a conception, in particular, what it means to
experience something in a certain way, led to further theoretical advances over recent
years, and the development of new phenomenography. Underpinning new
phenomenography is the contention that a way of experiencing something is related to
the structure of human awareness. Expanding on this theory, Marton (2000; 1997)
again made reference to phenomenology, acknowledging similarities between the
structure of awareness and Gurwitsch’s (1964) theory of consciousness. He offered
the following explanation:
Our awareness has a structure to it. Certain things come to the fore, they are
figural, they are thematised, while other things recede to the ground, they are
tacit, they are unthematised. And again, there are not two categories: figureground, thematised-unthematised, explicit-implicit. There are different degrees
of how figural, thematised, and explicit things or aspects are in our awareness.
(Marton, 2000, p. 110)
Thus, a way of experiencing something, for example, the role of parents in ECEC, can
be analysed and described in terms of the structure of human awareness at a particular
moment (Bowden & Marton, 1998; Marton, 2000; Marton, Runesson & Tsui, 2004).
Clearly, the role of parents may be seen against different backgrounds, and what is
discerned may also be influenced by the context of the experience, including past
encounters. Nonetheless, a way of experiencing this role can be characterised in
69
terms of aspects discerned and taken into consideration or, more simply, “in terms of
a particular pattern of aspects” (Bowden & Marton, 1998, p. 7). Qualitative
differences in ways of experiencing this role can, therefore, be understood in terms of
differences in this figure-ground structure (i.e., what is focal in awareness).
Furthermore, aspects in focal awareness can change, they may recede into the
background, while other aspects come to the fore, constituting a change in meaning.
To summarise, in phenomenography, a conception or way of experiencing something
is an “internal relation between the experiencer and the experienced” (Marton &
Booth, 1997, p. 113). Within this context, reality is seen to be “constituted through
the mutual and intertwined emergence of humans and their world” (Bowden &
Marton, 1998, p. 206).
It involves experiencing a meaning that is dialectically
intertwined with a structure, and, in terms of the structure of our awareness, reflects a
way of discerning something from, and relating it to, a context. As Bruce (1997)
pointed out, these recent developments in theory enable phenomenographers to
present a much clearer picture of research outcomes. In the present study, identifying
parent conceptions yielded descriptions of the differing internal relations between
parents and their role in ECEC, and the differing ways in which the various
components of this relation were thematised. To provide the fullest explanation of
variation in parent views and experiences, conceptions have been described in terms
of their structural and referential aspects as well as what is focal in awareness. This
description enables others to see the role of parents, as constituted by these parents
(Bruce, 1997). It is anticipated that finding and systematising parent conceptions will
lead to new understandings of the role of parents in ECEC, and, perhaps, improved
strategies to support their participation at both service and policy levels.
3.2.3
Discerning variation between conceptions
As discussed in the previous section, the object of phenomenographic research is to
discern variation in ways of experiencing a particular phenomenon (Marton & Booth,
1997, p. 111). Furthermore, it has been established that different ways of
experiencing a phenomenon can be understood in terms of the structure of human
awareness, that is, what aspects are discerned and held in focal awareness
simultaneously. And, while the same phenomenon can be experienced differently by
70
different individuals, or even by the same individual at different points in time, there
is a limited number of ways in which every phenomenon can be experienced. It is the
phenomenographer’s task to make visible the different ways of experiencing a
phenomenon, and to bring these together to constitute the phenomenon as a whole.
Reflecting on the development of phenomenography as a research specialisation,
Marton and Pang (1999) highlighted two aspects of this interest in variation. First,
there is the interest in studying the variation between different ways of seeing and
experiencing a particular phenomenon. This interest is evident in early
phenomenographic research seeking to identify the qualitatively different ways of
experiencing a phenomenon, as identified and described by the researcher. However,
the aforementioned advances in theory, and the development of new
phenomenography, have lead to what is arguably a more refined interest in variation
as it is experienced by people (Marton & Pang, 1999). Pang (2003) clarified this
“second face of variation”, distinguishing between early and new phenomenography:
Every phenomenon that we encounter is infinitely complex, but for every
phenomenon there is a limited number of critical features that distinguish the
phenomenon from other phenomena. What critical features the learner
discerns and focuses on simultaneously characterises a specific way of
experiencing that phenomenon. But a feature cannot be discerned without
experiencing variation in a dimension corresponding to that feature. So, while
in phenomenography in the past, researchers described the variation they could
detect between the different ways in which people experience various
phenomena, in phenomenography now, researchers also describe variation in
various aspects of the world around as experienced by the learners. (p. 6)
This new focus reflects interest in what it means to experience something in a certain
way, and how particular ways of experiencing evolve (Marton & Pang, 1999).
Stemming from phenomenographic research into learning and teaching, this particular
focus on variation, in terms of critical differences between ways of experiencing, has
given rise to variation theory (Bowden & Marton, 1998; Marton & Booth, 1997; Pang
& Marton, 2003) and has strong pedagogical implications. Within variation theory,
learning is explained in terms of the dynamic structure of our awareness, and is
71
characterised as “coming to see things in distinctly new ways” (Booth & Hulten,
2003, p. 65). This requires further explanation, and reflection on established
phenomenographic principles.
Underpinning this theory is the idea that a way of experiencing a phenomenon can be
defined in terms of the critical features that are discerned and focused on
simultaneously. It is then argued that in order to discern particular features of a
phenomenon, a person must experience variation. Marton, Runesson and Tsui (2004)
illustrated this perspective using the example of colour. They suggested that, if there
was only one colour in the world, terms such as red, yellow and blue would have no
meaning to us. Rather, they argued that knowing the colour ‘red’ presupposes the
experience of other colours, that is variation in colours. Thus, in order to see
something in a certain way, that is, to discern critical features, it is necessary to
experience variation in the dimensions corresponding to these features (Bowden &
Marton, 1998; Pang, 2003).
Within phenomenography it has also been established that (1) every phenomenon can
be experienced in a finite number of different ways; (2) different ways of
experiencing a phenomenon are logically related, and (3) these can often be
hierarchically ordered (e.g., some ways of experiencing may be seen to be more
complex or advanced than others) (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 125). Consequently, if
the goal is to assist the learner to see a particular phenomenon in a different, and
perhaps, better way, making visible dimensions of variation takes on new educational
significance. Booth and Hulten (2003) offered the following explanation:
“Variation” is an essential aspect of learning in this sense: that learning occurs
(things are seen in distinctly new ways) when a dimension of variation opens
around a phenomenon or aspect of a phenomenon that once was taken-forgranted. “Discernment” is the act of seeing this no-longer-taken-for-granted
phenomenon or aspect of a phenomenon in a new light. “Simultaneity” –
seeing both the once-taken-for-granted and the no-longer-taken-for-granted –
is demanded for the dimension of variation to open. Lack of understanding is
thus linked with being unaware of the potential for variation – seeing only that
which is taken-for-granted. (pp. 69-70)
72
Within the context of the present study, it is anticipated that “opening dimensions of
variation” (Booth & Hulten, 2003, p. 65) around the role of parents in ECEC may
challenge taken-for-granted policy perspectives, and may assist governments and
policymakers to see different, and perhaps, better ways of experiencing this role. It is
also proposed that the identification of critical differences in ways of experiencing
this role might inform new strategies to assist parents to see different, and perhaps,
better ways of experiencing this role, and, thereby, enhance their participation in this
area.
3.2.4
Categories of description and the outcome space
In phenomenographic research, conceptions are presented as categories of description
in the form of an outcome space. These are both commonly recognised to be the
results or outcome of phenomenographic research. To understand phenomenographic
research and the conceptual framework of this study, there is a need to distinguish
between conceptions and categories of description. This, however, is not a
straightforward task, with the terms conception and category of description often used
interchangeably in the phenomenographic literature (Bowden, 2000b).
Upon first examination, conceptions and categories of description appear to refer to
the same thing, that is, a way of experiencing a phenomenon. Drawing on a secondorder perspective, each entity shares a number of core characteristics. Conceptions
and categories of description are each seen to be:
•
relational, dealing with the intentional, or subject-object relation comprising the
conception;
•
experiential (i.e., based on the experience of participants in the study);
•
content-oriented, focusing on the meaning of phenomenon being studied; and
•
qualitative or descriptive (Marton, 1988b).
Nevertheless, upon closer examination, it is clear that there is an intended difference
in the meaning and application of these terms in phenomenographic research. This
section seeks to clarify the use of these terms in the present study.
73
On the basis of earlier discussion, a conception or way of experiencing something is
an internal relationship between the individual (i.e., the experiencer) and their world
(i.e., the experienced). A way of experiencing is experiencing something as
something, experiencing a meaning that is dialectically intertwined with a structure
(Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 112). Therefore, in phenomenography, knowledge is
described in terms of the individual understandings and experiences of selected
phenomena, and this knowledge is expressed in terms of conceptions or ways of
experiencing (Marton, 1981; Svensson, 1997). Note here the emphasis on individual
understanding of the phenomenon. In contrast, categories of description are presented
as the “ abstract instruments” (Marton, 1981, p. 196) used to characterise variation in
ways of experiencing a phenomenon (Bruce, 1997; Marton, 1988b). Johansson,
Marton and Svensson (1985) provided early explanation of this distinction:
Conceptions, which make up our unit of analysis, refer to whole qualities of
human-world relations. They also refer to the qualitatively different ways in
which some phenomenon or some aspect of reality is understood. When
trying to characterise these conceptions, we use some categories of
description. These categories are, however, not identical with the conceptions
– rather, they are used to denote them [italics added]. To the extent that
conceptions reflect the terms in which people interpret the world around them,
categories of description express our interpretations of others interpretations.
(p. 249)
Before proceeding, the idea of characterising conceptions warrants further
explanation. The phenomenographer’s task is to identify and describe (i.e.,
characterise) distinctly different ways of experiencing a phenomenon, making visible
critical differences between the different ways of experiencing that phenomenon.
This necessitates separating forms of thought both from the process of thinking and
from the thinker. Marton (1981) offered the following explanation:
What we want to thematise… is the complex of possible ways of viewing
various aspects of the world, the aggregate of basic conceptions underlying not
only different, but even alternative and contradictory forms of propositional
knowledge, irrespective of whether these forms are deemed right or wrong. (p.
197)
74
Characterising or thematising conceptions leads to the construction of categories of
description, which are based on the most distinctive features that differentiate one
conception from another (Bowden, 2000a, p. 50). In this sense, the categories of
description highlight the critical differences in meaning and structure between the
different ways of experiencing (McMahon & Bruce, 2002, p. 125).
Thus, the key difference between conception and category of description is seen to
relate to the scale of experience under examination, that is, whether the focus is on
individual or collective ways of experiencing. Sandberg (1997) saw this as the
primary distinction, observing that conception is used to refer to people’s ways of
experiencing a specific aspect of reality, while multiple or collective conceptions are
presented in the form of categories of description. Marton and Booth (1997)
concurred:
When we talk about “a way of experiencing something” we usually do so in
terms of individual awareness…. When we talk about “categories of
description” we usually do so in terms of qualitatively different ways a
phenomenon may appear to people of one kind or another. Thus categories of
description refer to the collective level. (p. 128)
Providing further clarification, Marton and Booth (1997) described individuals as
“bearers of different ways of experiencing a phenomenon, and as bearers of fragments
of differing ways of experiencing that phenomenon (p. 114). The idea being that
these fragments can be drawn together, through the construction of categories of
description and the outcome space, to constitute the whole phenomenon.
Consequently, as Bowden (2000b) maintained, while the categories of description
should be as faithful as possible to the individual’s conceptions, they cannot be
claimed to be equivalent to them. In a similar sense, categories of description are not
seen to be categories for classifying individuals, but as categories for describing ways
of perceiving the world around us – “the perceived world, rather than the perceiving
individual is the focus of attention” (Marton, 1981, p. 195).
In phenomenography, the constructed complex of categories of description is labeled
the outcome space. This is simply a “diagrammatic representation” (Bruce, 1997, p.
75
87), or “map” (Saljo, 1988, p. 43) of the categories of description, that is, the different
ways of experiencing the phenomenon under investigation. The outcome space is
underpinned by two key principles:
•
the belief that, whatever the phenomenon, it is experienced in a limited number of
qualitatively different ways; and
•
the categories of description are logically, and, most often, hierarchically related
to one another (Marton, 1994).
Regardless of the type of outcome space, Marton and Booth (1997) maintained the
need for:
•
categories of description to stand in clear relation to the phenomenon;
•
categories of description to stand in a logical relationship with one another, a
relationship that is frequently hierarchical; and
•
the system to be parsimonious, that is, as few categories should be explicated as is
feasible and reasonable for capturing the critical variation in the data (p. 125).
These principles and related quality criteria have been applied in the present study.
The study revealed five distinctly different ways of experiencing the role of parents in
using ECEC services, and four distinctly different ways of experiencing the role of
parents in shaping ECEC public policy. Within each outcome space, each category of
description tells us something distinct about the role of parents in ECEC, and the
relationship between the categories is hierarchical in nature.
While seeking to describe the totality of ways in which people experience, or are
capable of experiencing, a particular phenomenon, clearly it is not feasible to capture
all possible ways of experiencing (Marton & Booth, 1997). It is not my claim that
the outcome spaces presented in this study describe all ways of experiencing the role
of parents in Australian ECEC. Rather, in constructing these outcome spaces, my
goal was to describe the collective views and experiences of the parents who
participated in this study, treating all parent views and experiences as equally
important and leaving nothing in their collective experience left unspoken (Marton &
76
Booth, 1997). In this way, the outcome spaces identify and describe the role of
parents in ECEC, as constituted by the parents in this study, and the variation therein.
3.3 A phenomenographic approach to public policy research
Phenomenography is a specialised research approach, “suited to identifying,
formulating and tackling certain sorts of research questions” (Marton & Booth, 1997,
p. 111). As stated earlier, the aim of phenomenographic research is to make visible
variation in ways of experiencing phenomena in the surrounding world. Focusing on
the nature of collective human experience, the idea is not to describe things “as they
are”, but to characterise how things “appear to people” (Marton, 1988b, p. 181). Of
key interest is the identification of the critical differences between different ways of
experiencing the same phenomenon, as this is seen to provide a sound basis for future
learning and development (Booth & Hulten, 2003; Bowden & Marton, 1998; Pang &
Marton, 2003; Sandberg, 1994). The previous sections have discussed the
distinguishing features of the phenomenographic research approach. To reiterate,
these are:
•
the adoption of a second-order or from-the-inside perspective;
•
the knowledge interest in discovering conceptions or ways of experiencing
something;
•
the focus on discerning variation between conceptions or different ways of
experiencing something; and
•
the construction of categories of description and an outcome space as the results of
phenomenography.
Traditionally, phenomenographic research has been located in the field of education,
investigating conceptions of teaching and learning. Recently, pedagogical
developments stemming from new phenomenography have served to reinvigorate
phenomenographic research within this field. Nonetheless, the growing number of
phenomenographic studies outside the education context demonstrates wider
application. For example, Evans and Fuller (1998) employed a phenomenographic
research approach to explore parents and children’s perceptions of nursery education
in England; Theman (1983) investigated public conceptions of political power in
77
Sweden; Dunkin (2000) used phenomenography to study organisational change; and
McMahon and Bruce (2002) employed a phenomenographic research approach to
identify the information literacy needs of local staff in cross-cultural development
projects. Reflecting on these studies, and the distinguishing features of
phenomenography, this section argues the conceptual appropriateness and pragmatic
value of a phenomenographic approach to public policy research in a diverse society.
As discussed previously (Irvine, Tayler & Farrell, 2004), four particular features of
phenomenography make it well suited to the present study, and contemporary public
policy research. In short, phenomenography offers governments and policymakers:
•
access to citizen views and experiences;
•
a pragmatic approach to make visible variation in citizen views and experiences of
various phenomena, and, thereby, to generate more possible options for action;
•
a sound basis to effect change and improvement; and
•
a rigorous, empirical research approach.
First, as discussed in chapter 2, contemporary Australian government policy is
invoking concepts of public consultation and involvement in decision making, a trend
also evident in many western countries (OECD, 2001a; 2003). Within the current
policy context of “engaging citizens in policy-making” (OECD, 2001a, p. 11),
phenomenography provides a means to access citizen (i.e., constituent) perspectives
on a wide range of public policy issues. Marking a shift away from traditional
rationalistic approaches to social science research, phenomenography offers a secondorder perspective, focusing attention on different ways of seeing and experiencing a
particular phenomenon. The goal is to make visible variation in ways of seeing and
experiencing the same phenomenon. Thus, it is argued that, within the context of
more collaborative and participatory approaches to policy decision making,
phenomenography has the potential to give voice to the various stakeholders.
Seeking to give voice to parents in ECEC, this study employed a phenomenographic
research approach to reveal how parents constitute their role in ECEC, and the
possible variation therein. As shown, while current policy presents a particular view
of parents in ECEC, assigning specific roles and responsibilities, little is known as to
78
how parents view themselves within these contexts. This study addresses this gap in
the ECEC knowledge base.
Second, within a diverse society, there always exists a range of possible ways of
seeing the same thing (Bowden & Marton, 1998). Pramling (1996) reasoned that, on
the basis of variation in life experience, phenomena in the surrounding world will
appear different to different people. For example, there is evidence to suggest
considerable variation in parent views and expectations linked to the selection and use
of different ECEC service types (Pence & Goelman, 1987; Tayler et al., 2001).
Similarly, diversity in family life experiences may lead to diversity in the way(s)
parents constitute their role in ECEC. Phenomenographic research, leading to the
generation of categories of description and an outcome space, provides a “pragmatic”
approach (Bowden, 2000b, p. 16) to facilitate consideration of different citizen views
and experiences, for example, the different ways that parents view and experience
their role in ECEC. Shifting the focus from popular opinion and majority rule,
phenomenography can help governments and policymakers to envisage the same
thing from a range of different perspectives, and thereby, to identify more possible
options for action (Bowden & Marton, 1998). Clearly, this has the potential to
support more flexible and responsive policy and practice.
Third, while some remain skeptical of the intentions underpinning the current policy
discourse of participation (Haynes, 1997; Reeve, 1993; Soliman, 1991), the broad
assumption is that giving voice to those likely to be affected by policy will support
relevant and responsive policy and improved service provision. Significantly, one of
the primary purposes of phenomenography has been to produce descriptions of
people’s conceptions of reality that can be used as a basis for learning and
development activities (Sandberg, 1994). The underlying rationale is that people act
on their own interpretation of situations, rather than on the objective, matter-of-fact
characteristics of situations (Saljo, 1988). Consequently, to effect change and
improvement in any aspect of life, it is essential to first understand the perspective(s)
of those involved. In this study it is argued that, to optimise parent participation in
ECEC, it is necessary to first identify and understand how parents constitute their role
in ECEC, and the variation therein. Further, it is suggested that making visible
different ways of experiencing this role can provide a basis for different, and, perhaps,
79
better approaches to support parent participation. In this sense, the present study
supports learning in two areas. Firstly, it offers governments and policymakers insight
on different ways of experiencing the role of parents in ECEC, as constituted by
parents, to support improved policy and practice. Secondly, highlighting critical
differences between different ways of experiencing this role, it provides a basis for
new strategies to assist parents to see different, and perhaps better, ways of
experiencing this role. Consequently, the study may be regarded as an example of
“developmental phenomenography” where the primary motivation for research is “to
use the findings to affect the world in which I live and work” (Bowden, 2000b, p. 3).
Fourth, phenomenography offers governments and policymakers a rigorous empirical
approach to policy research that complements and expands upon other more
traditional approaches to policy research. For example, there has been a tendency to
rely on a combination of public meetings, focus groups and survey methodology.
While providing useful data, surveys with predefined categories fall short of
addressing issues of meaning and variation in views. In phenomenography, individual
and general meaning is explored empirically. The present study offers rich detailed
descriptions of the role of parents in ECEC, as constituted by parents, and highlights
both similarities and differences in how parents view and experience this role.
Significantly, the study revealed varying perspectives on what constitutes ‘parent
involvement’ in ECEC, an important difference unlikely to be captured by a parent
survey.
Furthermore, a key problem has been the over-representation of ‘industry’ groups in
public consultation processes as opposed to service users and general citizens.
Tackling such issues, phenomenography employs a process of purposive sampling
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967) with a view to ensuring participants fit the focus of research
and maximising variation in views and experiences. In line with the research purpose,
the present study targeted parents with experience using an ECEC service, while also
seeking to maximize the possibility of different parent views and experiences.
According to Marton and Booth (1997), to the extent that the sample group represents
the variation of individuals in a wider population (e.g., ECEC stakeholders), findings
(i.e., the categories of description) can also be said to apply to that wider population.
80
This section has presented the rationale for the use of phenomenography in this study,
and makes a case for the broader use of this research approach in general public
policy research. This said, it is not my intention to promote exclusive application
within this context. As Marton (1981) argued, phenomenographic research is
complementary to other kinds of research. And, as with all research approaches, there
are limitations to phenomenography. Most notably, within the context of public
policy research, these limitations include: a small sample size, the general reliance on
face-to-face interviews to collect data, and the time-consuming nature of interpretative
data analysis. Rather, phenomenography is presented as another useful approach to
public policy research, with the potential to enhance understanding of different citizen
views on a broad range of public policy issues, and, thereby, to support more flexible
and responsive policy and practice. In the present study, this approach was adopted to
offer an insider-perspective on the role of parents in ECEC, offering insight on
effective ways to access parent views and experiences and to support participation.
This study sits within new phenomenography, extends the general phenomenographic
area of interest (i.e., education), and adds to the small number of existing
phenomenographic studies in ECEC.
3.4
The research method and design
This next section of this chapter outlines the research design and discusses how the
study was implemented. To reiterate, the aim of the study was to uncover the role of
parents in using ECEC services and in shaping public policy, as constituted by a
group of parents, and to reveal possible variation therein. The central research
question was:
What are the qualitatively different ways in which parents constitute their role
in using ECEC services and in shaping ECEC public policy?
To answer this question, the study focused on four subsidiary questions:
1.
What are the different ways that parents view and experience their role in
using ECEC services and in shaping ECEC public policy?
81
2.
What are the critical differences between the different ways of viewing and
experiencing these roles?
3.
How do parent views and experiences compare with current public policy
assumptions about parents and their role in ECEC, as identified in the
international literature search?
4.
What are the implications of the ways parents view and experience these roles
for future ECEC policy and practice?
The study received full ethical clearance from the University Human Research Ethics
Committee in April 2003 (see Appendix 1 for copy of ethical clearance). Working
within university guidelines, I implemented a range of measures to ensure the
informed consent of participants and to protect their anonymity. Written information
detailing the nature and purpose of the research, the expected role of participants (and
their right to withdraw from the study at any time) and confidentiality provisions was
given to all interested participants (see Appendix 2 for copy of parent letter,
information sheet and newsletter article). Following the interviews, all parents were
provided with a copy of their interview transcript, and invited to make changes as
required (e.g., to clarify a particular point or delete a point). Finally, the identity of
those participating in the study remained confidential (i.e., individuals were not
identified in the study).
The study comprised three sequential phases:
1.
A preliminary phase comprising an international literature review,
development of research instruments and protocols, and a pilot study;
2:
The major study; and
3:
Analysis, interpretation and reporting of study findings.
This section describes the research design for the study, detailing the pilot study, the
research site and participants, the design of data gathering instruments and strategies,
and the process of data analysis. Figure 3.1 provides an overview of the empirical
research design and identifies the links between the research questions, different
phases of the study, and data collection and analysis procedures.
82
Figure 3.1: Overview of the Parent Conceptions Study
RESEARCH QUESTION
What are the qualitatively different ways in which parents constitute
their role in using ECEC services and in shaping ECEC public policy?
PHENOMENOGRAPHIC RESEARCH APPROACH
PHASE 1
PRELIMINARY
PHASE
Literature review
including prevailing themes
in ECEC policy, specifically
the role of parents in ECEC
Development of
instruments & protocols
Pilot Study
Participants
5 ‘experienced’ parents
Data collection & analysis
PHASE 2
MAJOR PHASE
Participants
26 ‘experienced’ parents
linked to a ‘child care &
family support hub’
Data collection
Short questionnaire –
(family composition &
service use)
Semi-structured individual
interviews (45 – 60 mins)
Interviews were audiotaped & field notes taken.
PHASE 3
ANALYSIS PHASE
Interviews transcribed
verbatim
Data Analysis
• different conceptions
(structure & meaning).
• critical differences
between conceptions
• categories of
description & outcome
space
• comparison - parent
conceptions to policy
applications
• implications for policy
& practice
Research outcomes
Enhanced understanding of parents views and experiences in ECEC,
specifically
•
•
•
different ways of experiencing the role of parents in using services and in
shaping policy, as constituted by parents
critical differences between various conceptions of these roles
implications for future ECEC policy & practice, including practical data to
support enhanced parent participation in ECEC
83
3.4.1 Pilot study
A pilot study, comprising five ‘experienced’ parents (i.e., parents with recent
experience using an ECEC service), was conducted in 2003 prior to the main study.
The initial purpose of the pilot study was to test and authenticate data gathering
instruments and strategies and to rehearse the process of phenomenographic analysis.
The experience of the pilot study affirmed the benefits of pilot work in
phenomenography, in particular the value of early ‘trouble shooting’ with respect to
interview prompts and techniques. This said, as evidenced below, the traditionally
small sample size for pilot work can be problematic in terms of practising
phenomenographic analysis.
In the pilot study, data were gathered using individual semi-structured interviews.
While Marton (1988b) identified a range of approaches to collecting data (including
participant observation, drawings, behaviour, and the products of work), the interview
continues to be acknowledged as the primary method of phenomenographic data
collection.
Further influencing the selection of this strategy was its perceived
suitability to the purpose and nature of this study in that:
•
interviews could be staged in a way that encouraged participation and helped
parents to feel comfortable in sharing their views and experiences (e.g., over a cup
of coffee in the family home);
•
this was perceived to be the most user-friendly data collection strategy because
each interview could be conducted in around one hour and did not necessitate
written responses; and
•
most importantly, face-to-face interviews provided opportunity for ongoing
clarification of potentially ambiguous concepts, such as ECEC public policy.
Each parent was interviewed at their chosen location, four in their family home and
one at the university. As noted, interviews were conducted over a cup of coffee, and
younger children were present during two of the interviews. Prior to each interview,
parents were asked to complete a one-page questionnaire, designed to provide
relevant demographic information (see Appendix 3 for copy of questionnaire).
84
Following the lead of Trigwell (2000), I devised a brief introduction to orient
participating parents to the purpose of my research, and a prompt trail to align the
interviews to the research question. Table 3.1 presents the broad framework of the
pilot interviews, including the introduction (which was shared in general
conversation, not read audibly), interview prompts and the rationale for their selection
and ordering. Also included are my personal reflections regarding the effectiveness of
the pilot prompts, identifying areas that needed to be reworked.
The pilot study identified several areas for further reflection:
•
The data collection instruments. The pilot study highlighted the need for further
clarification of potentially abstract concepts such as policy, and, subsequently, the
value of relevant practical examples to support reflection. Despite early attempts
to make clear my use of the term policy, each of the parents sought clarification
regarding the focus of my research. To sharpen this focus, I found it useful to
draw upon a contemporary policy example: the proposal to introduce a
preparatory year in Queensland and to raise school entry age. This proved a good
example for two reasons: (1) these parents had prior knowledge of the preparatory
year through the media coverage, local discussion and the trial application
process; and (2) this policy was particularly meaningful to these parents as it could
have a direct impact on their family. This example clarified my use of the term
policy, supported personal reflection, and helped to ensure parents discussed the
same phenomenon. In addition, pilot work demonstrated the pivotal nature of the
lead prompt, and the need for a broad ‘conversation starter’ (i.e., something that
all parents could respond to). In short, the pilot demonstrated the effectiveness of
selected prompts, and, thereby, informed the development of the major study
instrument. The pilot study also confirmed the effectiveness of the preliminary
parent questionnaire in obtaining relevant demographic data.
•
Interview techniques. The pilot study confirmed the appropriateness of individual
interviews as the primary data gathering strategy for this research. However, some
potential pitfalls were revealed. One of these was the tension of aligning
interviews to the purpose of research while, at the same time, avoiding leading
questions. Trigwell (2000) described phenomenographic interviewing as
85
Table 3.1: Interview framework for pilot study
Introduction:
I’m looking at the role of parents in early childhood service provision (e.g., child care, kindergarten, preschool) in particular their role in using
services and shaping public policy. Government is promoting increased parental involvement in all areas of ECEC. However, to date, we
know little about how parents view these matters. I’m talking with parents to see how they view their role in ECEC, and if and how they would
like to participate in public policy.
I’d like to record this interview on audio-tape. I will then transcribe it, along with others in the study, making sure that the identity of participants
remains confidential. Is this still okay?
Prompt
1
Lead Prompt (All interviews started with this
prompt). You’ve used early childhood
services for your child/ren. Can you tell me
how you see your role as a parent in relation
to these services?
How would you describe this role?
2
Have you ever participated in an activity to
influence early childhood policy, for example,
attended a parent meeting or public forum,
completed a questionnaire or written a
submission?
Can you tell me about one of these
experiences?
3
4
Why did/ didn’t you participate?
What role do you think parents could or
should play in the development of early
childhood policy and services?
Parents were asked to read 2 contemporary
policy excerpts:
There are currently limited ways for families
to have a say, and to influence the provision
of care and education services for their
children.
Rationale
Further Reflection
This prompt was designed to orient
interviewees to the broad context of
investigation, while also encouraging
reflection on personal views and experiences.
It seemed best to start with concrete
experience of service provision prior to
moving on to the more abstract realm of
policy. I also wanted a ‘conversation starter’–
something that all parents would be able to
respond to.
This prompt was planned to help parents shift
their focus from the narrow service context
(role of parents in selected ECEC services) to
the broader systemic context (ECEC public
policy). The intention was also to help
parents to make the link between local
activities and public policy, by offering some
examples of the types of activities that may
be relevant. The focus remains individual
experience and thinking underpinning this.
This prompt was included to encourage
parents to share their ideal role. Perceiving
there are, at present, limited ways for parents
to participate in ECEC public policy, I asked
parents to think about how they would like to
participate. Consideration of ideals can
further inform improved policy and practice.
This prompt was successful in orienting
parents to the context of investigation. It was
sufficiently open to enable parents to define
their role, and asked them to reflect on
concrete experiences. Further attention
needs to go toward clarifying “role in relation
to ECEC”. This concept needs to be
sufficiently open to capture all levels of parent
participation (service level and systemic).
This prompt encouraged parents to reflect
and report on how current government policy
perspectives fit with their own views and
experiences of the role of parents in ECEC.
By providing another perspective, I was
hoping to stimulate further reflection and
thereby a fuller explanation of individual
views and experiences.
This prompt achieved its aim, providing
further insight into the views and experiences
of parents and how they compare to current
policy perspectives. This said, the two
excerpts could easily be addressed together.
This prompt was planned to encourage
parents to reflect on the interview, sum up
their role in ECEC, and, in doing so, highlight
the most important dimensions of this role as
seen and experienced by them.
This prompt could be simplified. The
inclusion of consumer and participant is
unnecessarily leading. Some parents had
already sufficiently covered this in earlier
responses, highlighting the need for flexibility
in interviews.
This prompt was only partially successful in
shifting focus from service level to systemic,
and needs further refinement. This could be
achieved by refocusing on the concrete
experiences of parents, and reshaping
prompts to build on what individual parents
say. (i.e., getting parents to talk and then
using their own words to help them move in
directions I am interested in).
This prompt was greatly assisted by the use
of a concrete policy example. Reference to
‘could or should’ prompted unnecessary
confusion as to the nature of information
sought. This needs further clarification
There needs to be greater involvement of
parents, as consumers, in all areas of early
childhood service provision, including the
planning and monitoring of services, the
development of policy and standards and
monitoring compliance with standards
(Queensland Govt. 1999)
5
What do you think about this view of parents
in ECEC?
Parents are variously portrayed as
consumers of ECEC, as participants in
ECEC, and sometimes as both.
How would you sum up your role in ECEC?
86
“exploring at greater and greater depths of thinking without leading” (p. 68).
Clearly, the focus was the participant’s views and experiences of the phenomenon
being investigated, and care needed to be taken to avoid leading questions. But,
what constitutes leading? Reflecting generally accepted practice, each pilot
interview commenced with the same lead prompt, discussed the same policy
example – the proposed introduction of a preparatory year in Queensland schools,
and followed a similar line of discussion. This said, prompts were incorporated
into the flow of conversation, and used to build on or clarify a point already raised
by the parent. Techniques such as reflection, paraphrasing and active listening
facilitated further exploration of the breadth and depth of individual views and
experiences (McCosker, 1994). As a result, while covering the same general
ground, each interview followed a somewhat different course (Marton, 1986).
Another salient point is the potential for the phenomenographic interview to cause
frustration and unease for participants (Bruce, 1997; Trigwell, 2000). While
appearing to take the form of a conversation, it was only participants who shared
their views and experiences. Observing this fact, two parents noted, at the end of
the interview, “I really wanted to know what you were thinking”. Furthermore,
the very probing nature of the interview needs to be acknowledged and managed.
Two particular strategies were implemented in the main study to address these
concerns: (1) I provided opportunity for parents to ask questions following the
completion of interviews; and (2) where appropriate, I paraphrased points raised
by parents and sought their permission to explore these in further detail (e.g.,
“Now you said that you were a member of a preschool management
committee…Could you tell me a little more about your role on that committee?”).
•
Analysis. As in the case of other research methodologies, the pilot study was also
viewed as an opportunity to practise phenomenographic analysis, and to gain
some insight into potential findings. The pilot interviews were transcribed
verbatim, and subjected to a process of phenomenographic analysis (Bowden,
2000a; 2000b; Marton, 1986; Marton & Booth, 1997; Sandberg, 1994). The aim
of analysis was to uncover parent conceptions of their role in ECEC, and to
construct categories and an outcome space which would communicate the
different ways these parents experienced this role, and show the logical
relationship between the different conceptions (Bruce, 1997). To achieve this, I
87
sought to discern both the referential and structural aspects of parent conceptions
of their role in ECEC (Marton & Booth, 1997), that is, the meaning parents
assigned to their role and how the role aspects were delimited and related to each
other. Two key questions provided the focus for analysis: (1) What are the
distinctly different ways that these parents view and experience their role in using
ECEC services and in shaping ECEC public policy; and (2) What are the critical
differences between these different ways of viewing and experiencing each of
these roles? Broadly speaking, analysis included highlighting relevant statements
(within the whole transcript), identifying the focus of parent responses, looking for
similarities and differences in parent conceptions, both within individual
transcripts and across the set of transcripts and, ultimately, looking at ways of
grouping and describing distinctly different ways of constituting the role of
parents in ECEC.
Following this procedure, it became possible to discern some variation in the ways
that these parents experienced their role in ECEC, in terms of the meaning they
assigned to this role. However, the small number of pilot participants (i.e., 5
parents) resulted in limited variation, making it much more difficult to clearly
distinguish structural variation. Consequently, in this instance, it was not possible
to confidently progress to the construction of categories of description and an
outcome space. This is clearly a risk in phenomenographic pilot work, where the
number of participants is most often well below the desired 20 to 30, and, as a
result, variation may be limited. Arguing this perspective, Bowden (2003)
maintained:
A phenomenographic outcome is the product of maximising the similarities
within, and the differences between, categories of description. Thus the
outcome is the product of all of the data…. There is no outcome with just a
few interview transcripts (Bowden, Personal Communication, 28 June 2003).
While this perspective has been challenged by the conduct of recent
phenomenographic studies with a smaller research sample (e.g., McMahon &
Bruce, 2002), my experience was that the smaller number of participants
generated insufficient data to discern structural variation and to establish credible
88
categories. Notwithstanding this limitation, I perceive that the pilot fulfilled its
primary purpose, which, according to Bowden (2003), is:
to eradicate false steps, to determine those aspects that work and those aspects
that do not (Bowden, Personal Communication, 28 June 2003).
Successful within this context, the pilot provided valuable insight on effective
interview prompts and techniques, thereby informing the research design for the main
study, generating high levels of sensitivity in interview conduct, and assuring the
probity of data for analysis and discussion.
3.4.2
The research site
The research site was a recently developed child care and family support hub5,
situated in a coastal region north of Brisbane. This region is recognised to be a
growth corridor, with a rapidly expanding population. At present, around 115,000
people live and work in the region. While the research was conducted in, and through
the hub, families participating in the study were distributed across the region.
According to recent census data (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001) the majority of
the population in this region is Australian born, with approximately 2% being of
Indigenous origin, and around 15% born overseas. The region is home to a young
community, with an average age of 34 years. Couple families with children make up
the majority of families in the area (47%), followed by couple families without
children (35%), one parent families (17%) and other families (1%). In 2001, 89% of
the population was employed, earning an average individual income of $250 - $349
per week. In 2001, the vast majority of adults had no formal qualification (72%), and,
amongst those with a qualification, vocational training was more common than a
university degree. Table 3.2 presents selected characteristics of the region, comparing
these with the Australian average.
5
The term Child Care and Family Support Hub is used by the Queensland Government to refer to a
funded child care program designed to support the integration of ECEC and family services within a
community. Hubs focus on the provision of ECEC services and may also include family support
services, parenting support, child health services, community activities and education services. A Hub
may operate from a central location, a local network or a central point of coordination and is unique to
the community it supports. The mix of services provided and the operation of each Hub is determined
by the needs of parents and families in that area (Department of Families, 2000; 2002a)
89
Table 3.2: Selected characteristics of the research area
Characteristic
Indigenous population
Families born overseas
Average age
Families & Households
Research Area
Australian Average
2%
2.2%
15%
22.8%
34 years
35 years
47% couple family with children 47% couple family with children
35% couple family no children
35.7% couple family no children
17% one parent families
15.4% one parent families
1% other families
1.9% other families
Level of education
6% university degree
22% vocational qualification
72% no qualification
Employment
89% employed
11% unemployed
7.4% unemployment rate
Median individual income
$250 – $349 per week
$292 per week (1996)
Note. Figures cited for the research area have been obtained by averaging data compiled by ABS
(2001) for the four main Statistic Local Areas involved in the study.
As these figures demonstrate, unemployment in this region is higher than the national
average and education and income levels are low. On the basis of factors such as
these, the region is generally perceived to be disadvantaged. In fact, since early 2000,
the community in which the hub is located has been part of the Queensland
Government’s Community Renewal Program. This program aims to “reduce the level
of disadvantage and raise the confidence and image of identified communities”
(Department of Housing, 2001b, p. 7), targeting factors associated with social and
economic disadvantage, including high crime rates, low income, high rates of
unemployment, evidence of intergenerational unemployment, and poor school
retention rates and achievement. Of significance to this study, the Community
Renewal Program also “seeks to make communities more resourceful and effective in
their engagement with government” (Department of Housing, 2001a, p. 4), and
promotes local consultation and involvement in decision making:
It’s about giving local people a real say in what happens in their area and
encouraging them to work together with State and Local government to really
make a difference (Department of Housing, 2001b, pp.1-2).
The Hub in which this study is situated received funding from the Queensland
Department of Families (now the Department of Communities) to employ a service
co-ordinator, and also received funding for capital works through the Department of
90
Housing’s Community Renewal Program. Bearing this in mind, it was felt that the
selected research site and community provided maximum opportunity to recruit
parents with different views and experiences of public policy to participate in the
study (e.g., from parents who had played an active role in the community renewal
program, and, perhaps, the related development of the hub, to parents who for a
variety of reasons had not played a role).
3.4.3
The participants
Phenomenographic research engages a process of “purposive sampling” (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967), in that research participants are selected on the basis of their
appropriateness to the purpose of the research (Bowden, 2000b). Twenty-six parents
(mothers and fathers) participated in the study. The selection of these parents was
based on three criteria:
•
Experience in the use of an ECEC service. Only ‘experienced parents’ were
recruited, that is, parents who had used an ECEC centre (e.g., for at least one child
prior to compulsory school entry). This was viewed as an important prerequisite,
ensuring that participating parents had knowledge and experience in use of an
ECEC centre, and, that conceptions would thereby be grounded in lived
experience.
•
There were children in the family from birth to 8 years. Mindful of changes in
ECEC over the past decade, I targeted families who had at least one child in the
age range birth to 8 years to ensure current experience using an ECEC service.
•
Participants were connected to a ‘Hub’. The study was set in a community
supporting the recent development of a Child Care and Family Support Hub, a
funding initiative of the Queensland Government. In addition, this community
had received funding for a range of community development projects through the
State Government’s Community Renewal Program. It was perceived that these
parents would be more likely to have some experience of recent public policy,
through local need assessment, service development, and related action research.
91
Bruce (1997) observed that, in any phenomenographic study, the number of
participants should be sufficient to yield adequately rich descriptions of the varying
conceptions, which, together, comprise the phenomenon (p. 94). In establishing the
number of participants in this study, I took note of the experience of other
phenomenographers that 20 to 30 participants provided an appropriate sample (e.g.,
Ballantyne et al., 1994; Bruce, 1997; Dunkin, 2000; Gerber & Bruce, 1995; Grandin,
1994; Sandberg, 1997). Trigwell (2000) suggested that this number provides a
reasonable chance of finding variation in conceptions, while also ensuring that the
volume of data produced remains manageable (p. 66).
A letter and information sheet, detailing the study and inviting parents to participate,
was distributed to 300 families in June 2003, as an attachment to the regular hub
community newsletter (see Appendix 2 for copies of the letter and information sheet).
Parents were asked to indicate their interest by returning an Expression of Interest to
the Hub. After seven days, this had resulted in only one positive response. A more
proactive approach proved more successful, with a further 34 parents responding to a
direct invitation (and enthusiastic appraisal of the study’s merit) from an onsite senior
staff member. I talked with interested parents by telephone, and, using the identified
criteria, selected 26 parents to participate in the study.
To maximise variation in my research sample, I sought assistance from Hub staff who
encouraged parents known to have different views and experiences to participate in
the study. As a result, the research sample incorporated parents with a wide range of
family views and experiences relevant to the phenomenon under investigation.
Aspects of variation included:
•
Gender. The sample comprised 22 mothers and 4 fathers. Consideration was
given to restricting participation to mothers, the rationale being that women most
often maintain the greatest responsibility for ECEC arrangements and general
household matters (Berthelsen, 2000; Bittman, 1995) and are more likely to
volunteer in schools and early childhood services (Blackmore, 1995; Limerick,
1995). However, discussion with other phenomenographers (Bowden, Personal
Communication, 30 May 2003; Bruce, Personal Communication, 2 June 2003)
suggested that this may be an unnecessary restriction, limiting variation in my
92
research sample, and, therefore, at odds with general phenomenographic
principles. Consequently, I extended an open invitation to all interested parents
(i.e., mothers and fathers) to participate in the study.
Nonetheless, recognising
the purpose and limitations of phenomenography, this study does not attempt to
explain this variation in terms of gender.
•
Family structure. The sample comprised 20 two-parent families and six sole
parent families (including sole fathers and mothers).
•
Family size and ages of children. The sample covered a total of 59 children, aged
birth to over 8 years. The number of children in families ranged from one to more
than four children, with an average of 2.3 children. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 provide
details of the number and ages of children, and size of families in the study.
•
Parental education and family employment. The highest level of parent
education varied from completion of Year 10 secondary to completion of a
university degree (i.e., Masters level). Figure 3.4 offers a more detailed
educational profile of parent education levels. The vast majority of mothers were
employed, with relatively equal numbers working part and full-time. All fathers,
with one exception, were employed and worked full-time. The father not working
at the time of the study was a retired serviceman. Figures 3.5 and 3.6 offer a more
detailed work profile of parents.
•
Family experience using different early childhood services. Child care centres
and family day care were the ECEC services most commonly used by families in
the study. Family experience using early childhood services ranged from 1 month
to 7 years, with the vast majority of families having experience of more than one
service type. Figures 3.7 and 3.8 provide details of the type and number of
services used by families. As the study findings indicate, parental involvement in
the day-to-day life of their early childhood services, and in public ECEC policy,
also varied considerably.
•
Cultural background and other characteristics. The study sample was limited in
terms of cultural diversity, with one parent reporting they were from a nonEnglish speaking background. One parent also identified as having a disability.
93
Figure 3.2: Number and ages of children connected to the study
Number of children
12
TOTAL = 59 CHILDREN
10
8
6
4
2
0
<1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
>8
Age of children in years
Figure 3.3: Size of families linked to the study
Number of families
10
8
TOTAL = 26 FAMILIES
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
>4
Number of children in the family
Figure 3.4: Level of parent education
Number of parents
10
TOTAL = 46 PARENTS
8
Father
6
Mother
4
2
0
Year 10
Year 12
Vocational
Highest level of education
94
University
Figure 3.5: Parent employment by industry
Number of parents
10
TOTAL = 46 PARENTS
8
Father
6
Mother
4
2
Other
Home
FamilyDayCare
Child care
Health
Community
services
Education
Government
Property
services
Finance
Communication
Transport
Retail
Construction
Manufacture
Agriculture
0
Type of work
Note. Industry divisions adapted from ABS (2002), Labour Force Survey, Sydney: AGPS.
Figure 3.6: Parent work hours (e.g., full-time, part-time or at home)
Number of parents
25
TOTAL = 46 PARENTS
20
15
Father
10
Mother
5
0
FT
PT
Home
Parent work hours
Note. Home includes mothers who identified themselves as “stay at home mums” & one retired father.
Number of families
Figure 3.7: ECEC services used by families
25
20
TOTAL = 71 SERVICES
15
10
5
0
Child Care
Family Day
Care
Preschool
Outside
School Hours
Care
Type of ECEC service
95
Vacation care
Other
Figure 3.8: Number of different ECEC service types used by families
Number of families
10
TOTAL = 71 SERVICES
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
>5
Number of different ECEC services used
3.4.4
Developing the data collection instrument
The next two sections focus on data collection. This section describes the
development of the instrument used to elicit parent conceptions of their role in using
ECEC services and shaping public policy. The following section discusses the
conduct of the interviews and strategies used to help parents to reflect on and share
their views and experiences of these roles.
While it is possible to identify some broad characteristics of phenomenographic
research, most significantly the link between the purpose and nature of research, there
is no consensus method of phenomenographic research (Hasselgren & Beach, 1997;
Prosser, 2000). Consequently, as Bruce (1997) pointed out, techniques have to be
formulated for each study, taking into account the nature of the phenomenon under
investigation and the data gathering principles which must be adhered to (p. 95). In
designing data collection methods for the present study, I focused on how best to elicit
parent conceptions of their role in using services and shaping policy. The pilot study
confirmed the appropriateness of purposive sampling (i.e., recruiting parents most
likely to provide insight on the phenomenon under investigation), the effectiveness of
the short demographic questionnaire, and the use of individual semi-structured
interviews as the primary data gathering strategy. In addition, the pilot study offered
valuable insight on effective prompts and interview strategies, and, thereby, provided
the basis for the major study instrument.
96
In phenomenographic research, data are generated by methods that allow openness
and variation in response (Ballantyne et al., 1994). The instrument used in this study
comprised an abbreviated introduction to the study and six key prompts. These are
detailed in Table 3.2. While the extent of pre-planning and/or structuring of
interviews remains a point of contention in phenomenography, the need for some predetermined prompts, which align the interview to the purpose of the study, is
generally accepted (Bowden, 2000b; Francis, 1993; Walsh, 2000). In line with this
perspective, prompts were designed, and used as necessary, to help parents to reflect
on their experience and understanding of the role of parents in ECEC, and to bring to
light the different ways this role was constituted by parents participating in the study
(Bowden, 2000a; Bruce, 1994; Marton & Booth, 1997). Bearing in mind
phenomenography’s relational focus, my task was to encourage parents to share their
views and experiences “in relation to real world phenomena” (Prosser, 2000, p. 36).
Accordingly, parents were asked to describe concrete experiences, to reflect on
relevant ‘real-life’ scenarios, and to discuss their desired role. The prompts were
carefully designed to ascertain both structural and referential aspects of parent’s
conceptions, that is, to bring to light how parents discerned their role in ECEC public
policy and what meaning the role had for them (Marton & Booth, 1997). Clarifying
questions, such as those proposed by Bowden (2000b), were used as required to
encourage further reflection, fuller explanations, and to reveal different ways of
understanding the role of parents in ECEC (e.g., Could you explain that further? Can
you tell me a little more about that? What do you mean by that?)
In the present study all interviews began with the same lead prompt - How would you
describe your role as a parent using ECEC services? This prompt was deliberately
broad, asking participants to reflect on their general experience as a parent using
ECEC services. It was intended to orient parents towards the phenomenon of interest,
situating the interview within the context of ECEC. It was also designed to be a
‘conversation starter’, asking parents to reflect on and describe concrete family
experiences, something that all parents were able to do.
97
Table 3.3: Data collection instrument used in the main study
Introduction
I’d like to talk with you about your experience as a parent using early childhood services. I’m looking to
identify the different ways that parents think about their role in using early childhood services and
shaping public policy. I’d like to record our conversation. Is that still okay?
Primary prompts (as needed)
1
•
2
•
Can you tell me about one or two of those
opportunities? OR
Can you think of ways you might “have a
say”?
•
Do you see the activities you described
before as contributing to the development
of public policy? Tell me how you think it
contributes and why you got involved?
•
•
Do you think it’s a good idea for parents to
get involved in this way? Why?
Have you ever thought about getting involved
in this way?
Policy excerpts - combined
There are currently limited ways for families to
have a say, and to influence the provision of care
and education services for their children.
•
What is your view?
The Queensland Government is thinking about
introducing a preparatory year and raising the
entry age to school. Let’s suppose your school is
involved in the prep year trial.
•
6
•
•
Do you know of any other parents who are
having a say?
How are they doing this?
What do you think of that?
(If no, or no activities described in 2)
Can you think of ways that you or other
parents might influence public policy?
There needs to be greater involvement of
parents, as consumers, in all areas of early
childhood service provision, including the
planning and monitoring of services, the
development of policy and standards, and
monitoring compliance with standards.
5
•
I’m particularly interested in the role of parents in
shaping government policy and services for
children.
•
4
How would describe your role as a parent
using early childhood services?
Have you, as a parent, had any opportunities to
“have a say” in how services or the system as a
whole runs?
•
3
Secondary prompts (as needed)
Like most parents, you’ve chosen particular
services for your child – you enrolled your child,
transported them to and from these services, you
have contact with the staff…
What role would you, as a parent, have in
the development of this policy and the
new prep year service?
How would you sum up your role in shaping
government policy and services for children?
98
•
Do you think of yourself as a ‘consumer’ of
early childhood services?
The second prompt was also concerned with the general role of parents in ECEC,
however, focused on participation in decision making – Have you, as a parent, had
any opportunities to have a say in how services or the system as a whole runs? Can
you tell me about one or two of those opportunities? The context for participation
included within individual services, as well as at the broader systemic level (e.g.,
having a say on proposed policy changes, such as the introduction of a preparatory
year in Queensland schools). As in the lead prompt, parents were asked to draw on
their personal experience, and the question was left sufficiently open to allow each
parent to choose the dimensions of the question they wished to respond to, thereby
providing further insight on individual relevance structures (Marton, 1986). In the
absence of personal experience, parents were asked to think about ways they might be
able to have a say, and/or to share their views on the activities of other parents who
were ‘having a say’.
The third prompt was designed to assist parents to shift their focus from the more
familiar service level experience (i.e., family experience with individual ECEC
services) to broader systemic and public policy experience – I’m particularly
interested in the role of parents in shaping public policy and services for children.
Do you see the activities you described before as contributing to the development of
government policy and services for children? Tell me how you think this contributes
and why you got involved. To help parents to make this shift, I drew on points offered
in response to the second prompt, and, wherever possible, used the parent’s own
words to steer them toward participation within this broader context. For example,
You said you were involved in a change from sessional to full-day preschool. That’s a
really good example of a policy change. A lot of preschools are going through that.
Can you tell me a little more about the process and how parents were engaged in
that? As in the second prompt, parents were first encouraged to reflect on their
personal experience, and, in the absence of personal experience, to think about ways
they might be able to have a say in policy, and to share their views on the activities of
other parents who were ‘having a say’.
The fourth and fifth prompts were intended to provoke further reflection on the role of
parents in ECEC, and, thereby, fuller explanation of individual conceptions. In the
first instance, parents were asked to respond to a government perspective on the role
99
of parents in ECEC, as articulated in a contemporary policy excerpt. Following this,
parents were presented with a real-life policy scenario (i.e., the State Government trial
of a preparatory year in schools), positioned within this context, and asked to describe
their role in shaping this new policy and service for children. As revealed in the pilot
study, the proposed preparatory year proved to be a useful policy example, helping to
clarify the concept of ECEC public policy, and, thereby, ensure that parents discussed
the same phenomenon.
The final prompt was planned to encourage parents to reflect on the interview, to sum
up their view of the role of parents in ECEC in shaping policy, and in so doing, to
highlight the most important dimensions of this role as seen and experienced by them.
This said, it was my experience that by this stage of the interview, these points had
often been covered sufficiently and this prompt was seldom needed.
In summary, the development of this instrument was guided by the purpose of my
research, phenomenographic data gathering principles, and findings from the pilot
study. To support the best possible quality of data, consideration was also given to
Bruce’s (1997) quality criteria for interview prompts. In adherence with this, all
prompts were constructed to:
•
be sufficiently open to embrace all current understandings of the role of
parents in ECEC, without drawing attention to any particular view or
experience of this role;
•
allow parents to choose their own interpretation of the phenomenon;
•
focus on the views and experiences of the parents, helping me, as researcher,
to put aside my own views of the phenomenon when asking questions; and
•
encourage parents to take a describing orientation, making it possible to
identify, from the responses, different conceptions of the role of parents in
using services and in shaping policy (p. 96).
3.4.5
Data collection: Conducting the interviews
As noted in the previous section, data were collected by individual semi-structured
100
interviews6. The pilot study confirmed the appropriateness of this strategy, indicating
that parents were prepared to talk about their views and experiences, and, that,
interviews were a user-friendly data collection strategy, in terms of parent time and
energy. Most significantly, as opposed to other possible data collection strategies
(e.g., written data), the conduct of individual interviews allowed ongoing clarification
of potentially ambiguous concepts such as ECEC policy.
The phenomenographic interview is centred on the researcher’s problem, that is,
obtaining research data to answer specific questions (McCosker, 1994). In this study,
the overriding research question was:
What are the qualitatively different ways in which parents constitute their role
in using ECEC services and in shaping ECEC public policy?
Thus, the purpose of interviews in this study was to access parent conceptions of their
role in ECEC, with a view to identifying variation in conceptions. My interest was to
reveal how this phenomenon was constituted by parents participating in the study, and
to identify the meaning these parents saw in, and ascribed to, this role (Marton, 1981;
Saljo, 1988).
Bruce (1994) described the phenomenographic interview as a “specialised form of the
qualitative research interview” (p.49). Drawing on the work of Kvale (1983), she
identified the following shared characteristics:
They [both] are centred on the interviewee’s life-world; seek to understand the
meaning of the phenomenon in the interviewee’s life-world; are qualitative,
descriptive, specific and presuppositionless; are focused on certain themes; are
open to ambiguities and change; take place in an interpersonal interaction; and
may be a positive experience (for the interviewee!). (Bruce, 1994, p. 49)
While acknowledging similarities, Bruce (1994) also identified distinctive features of
the phenomenographic interview, most significantly, the direct relationship between
the aim of the interview and the aim of phenomenographic research (i.e., to elicit the
6
In one case (Interview 3/4), both parents (mother and father) participated in the interview.
101
qualitatively different conceptions of a phenomenon). This link is clear in the present
study, influencing the focus of interviews (i.e., the relation between parents and their
role in ECEC) and my role as interviewer (i.e., to see this phenomenon as it was seen
by parents participating in the study).
Working on the premise that conceptions are most readily available to the researcher
in discourse (Saljo, 1988), the goal was to access parents’ ways of seeing and
experiencing their role in ECEC through conversation. This approach to data
collection is by no means unique to phenomenography. As Säljö (1997) pointed out,
various approaches including ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and social
constructionism recognise the fundamental role of discourse in human affairs.
However, the way in which discourse is used in phenomenography is distinct.
Without regard for the rules of discourse production and analysis, phenomenography
uses discourse to “produce expressions of conceptions” (Hasselgren & Beach, 1997,
p. 197) which can be analysed phenomenographically. The researcher’s task is to
characterise the conceptions which are implicit in descriptions of a particular
phenomenon (Marton, 1981). The premise is that, through purposeful discourse,
meaning is constructed and shared through language. In this way, conceptions are
constituted and communicated to others within a situated context.
Traditionally, this has been the phenomenographic approach to accessing people’s
ways of experiencing selected phenomena. However, more recently, Säljö (1997) has
questioned the assumption that interview data refer to ways of experiencing. Instead,
he distinguished between ways of experiencing and “accounting practices” (p. 178),
that is, ways of talking about and understanding experiences. Clarifying this
distinction, Säljö proposed:
What we are studying is what people say and it would seem wise to refer to
this object of inquiry as “accounting practices”.... This unit of analysis refers
to ways of understanding, talking, arguing and in general, ways of bringing the
world into language in order to be able to communicate. (p. 178)
This view seems to capture better the nature of phenomenographic interview data, and
acknowledges “the constitutive and social nature of language in human practices”
102
(Saljo, 1997, p. 179). Thus, in the present study, interviews were directed toward
obtaining individual accounts of the phenomenon under investigation. Parents were
asked to talk about (i.e., to provide an account of) their views and experiences of the
role of parents in ECEC within the situated context of an interview.
Interviews were conducted in the parent’s preferred location, most often the Hub or
family home, arranged at a time convenient for families, and presented as a ‘talk over
a cup of coffee and cake’. Seeking to ensure that parents understood the focus of my
research (Francis, 1993), I explained the intent of the study, on three separate
occasions, prior to the interviews. As noted, a letter and information sheet were
initially distributed to all parents connected to the Hub (see Appendix 2). This
provided details of the study, including the study’s aim, and asked parents to indicate
their interest in participating in the study. While contacting interested parents to
arrange a time to meet, I took further opportunity to explain the intent of my research,
and reinforced this at the beginning of interviews.
As noted, all interviews started with the same lead prompt. used the same policy
example, and were broadly based on some predetermined content. Nevertheless,
while covering similar ground, interviews often took quite different courses. A key
reason for this was my desire to build the conversation by drawing on points raised by
parents, and using their words to steer the conversation to areas that I was interested
in exploring. As a result, pre-planned prompts were used only as necessary, and the
general order of conversation varied considerably across interviews.
To encourage full descriptions and to gain access to individual meanings, I used
techniques such as reflection, paraphrasing and active listening (McCosker, 1994). At
the same time, drawing upon the experience of the pilot study, I tried to avoid direct
or leading questions that may have prompted parents to see their experience through
my eyes, rather than through their own (Francis, 1993). Consequently, I deliberately
evaded extensive dialogue during interviews (Bowden, 2000b) and, wherever
possible, used parent’s own words to avoid suggesting an interpretation that was not
intended (Dall'Alba, 2000). Strategies such as these were implemented, alongside a
range of accepted measures, to support the validity and reliability of the outcomes of
103
the study. A detailed account of measures used to support validity and reliability is
provided in the final section of this chapter (see section 3.4.7).
All interviews were audio-taped, then transcribed verbatim. To support an accurate
and faithful account, transcripts were checked against the tapes, and then forwarded to
interviewees for confirmation (see Appendix 2 for letter to parents). At this time,
parents were invited to make any additions or changes to the transcripts, and asked
whether they would like to receive information about the outcomes of the study
(Bruce, 1997). Only one parent responded, to confirm the accuracy of the transcript
and to request information about the study outcomes.
3.4.6 Data analysis: Finding and describing parent conceptions of their role in
ECEC.
So far, this chapter has dealt with the phenomenographic design and data collection.
This section focuses on data analysis, describing the processes used to uncover
conceptions of the role of parents in ECEC. Phenomenographic analysis works to
characterise conceptions which are implicit in descriptions of a particular
phenomenon (Marton, 1981). At the most basic level, phenomenographic analysis
may be condensed to identifying and grouping accounts of different ways of seeing
and experiencing a particular phenomenon (Marton & Booth, 1997). Walsh (2000)
elaborated on this perspective, describing analysis as a process of “looking into the
data to discover what is there…considering similarities and differences in the data,
and then attempting to represent those similarities and differences in …descriptive
categories” (p. 27). The focus remains the relation between subject and object, in this
instance, the relation between parents and their role in ECEC.
As noted previously, there are two main outcomes of analysis. The first is the
development of categories of description, denoting different conceptions or ways of
experiencing the phenomenon at the collective level (i.e., across the group studied),
and highlighting the critical differences between different conceptions. The second is
the diagrammatic representation of these different conceptions, in the form of an
“outcome space” (Lybeck et al., 1988, p. 97), showing the logical relationship
between them. As discussed, two key principles underpin the outcome space: the
104
belief that, whatever the phenomenon, it is experienced in a relatively limited number
of different ways; and the categories of description are logically and hierarchically
related to one another (Marton, 1994). Thus, the aim of analysis in the present study
was to uncover conceptions of the role of parents in ECEC, as constituted by the
parents in this study, and to construct categories and an outcome space which would
communicate the different ways of viewing and experiencing this role, and show the
logical relationship between the different conceptions.
While the desired outcome of phenomenographic research has been identified, the
processes and techniques of analysis used to support this outcome are not prescribed.
In fact, in view of the nature of research such as this, it is argued that it is not possible,
nor indeed desirable, to prescribe a set of techniques for phenomenographic analysis
(Bruce, 1997; Johansson et al., 1985; Prosser, 2000; Saljo, 1988). Rather, while
observing general phenomenographic principles, analysis is tailored to suit each
particular investigation. Consequently, what happens in any one study is seen to be
“an interplay between the researcher’s understanding, the nature of the phenomenon
being studied and the style of the available database” (Bruce, 1997, p. 104).
Nevertheless, until recently, the general dearth of literature addressing the principles
and practices of phenomenographic research has been problematic and a point of
criticism (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000; Francis, 1993; Richardson, 1999; Saljo, 1997;
Uljens, 1996). However, going some way to address this paucity are a small number
of publications over the past decade focusing on methodological issues and offering
personal accounts of phenomenography at work (Bowden & Marton, 1998; Bowden
& Walsh, 2000; Dahlgren & Fallsberg, 1991; Dall'Alba & Hasselgren, 1996; Marton
& Booth, 1997). These have provided a valuable source of reference, and influenced
the conduct and analysis of this study.
3.4.6.1 Different approaches to phenomenographic analysis
Reviewing recent literature, Akerlind (2002) highlighted both commonalities and
variation in phenomenographic method. Focusing on data analysis, she maintains
that, while there are no methodological algorithms, there are common principles
guiding phenomenography. These include: maintaining an open mind during data
105
analysis; minimising any predetermined views or too rapid foreclosure on categories
of description; focusing on the transcripts and categories of description as a set (rather
than on individual transcripts and individual categories of description); and searching
for meaning or variation in meaning; and then searching for structural relationships.
Following these generally accepted principles by phenomenographers, the process
employed in this study is best described as iterative and comparative, “involving the
continual sorting and resorting of data, plus ongoing comparisons between the data
and the developing categories of description, as well as between the categories of
description themselves” (Akerlind, 2002, p. 3).
There are three notable areas of variation in the way that phenomenographers
approach data analysis. The first is the selected unit of analysis, the question being
whether to base analysis on segments of interviews (Bruce, 1992; 1997; Marton,
1981; 1986; Marton & Booth, 1997) or on complete interviews (Bowden, 2000a;
2000b; Patrick, 2000). For example, Marton (1986) described an approach that
involves the selection and marking of key utterances within interview transcripts:
The first phase of analysis is a kind of selection procedure based on criteria of
relevance.
Utterances found to be of interest for the question being
investigated…are selected and marked.
The meaning of an utterance
occasionally lies in the utterance itself, but in general the interpretation must
be made in relation to the context from which the utterance was taken… The
phenomenon in question is narrowed down to and interpreted in terms of
selected quotes from all the interviews. Of course, the quotes themselves are
interpreted and classified in terms of the contexts from which they were taken.
(p. 42)
The selected excerpts make up the data pool for analysis, what Marton referred to as
the “pool of meanings” (p. 42). Taking a different stance, Bowden (2000b) saw merit
in dealing with whole transcripts throughout the analysis process. Underpinning this
perspective is the belief that a “cut and paste construction of a pool of meanings” (p.
12) makes it more difficult to preserve context and, thereby, to ensure accurate
interpretation. To this effect, Bowden (2000b) looked at particular utterances within
106
the context of the whole interview and, in grouping data to discover conceptions, he
assigns whole transcripts to categories of description.
In the present study, I followed Marton’s (1986) lead and focused on key statements
and quotes, but maintained and interpreted these within whole transcripts in order to
preserve context. Underpinning this choice was my desire to allow for multiple
conceptions contained within the transcript of one parent. Marton (1981) advised that
this may occur, noting that differences in conceptions may emerge between
individuals, between different periods in history and within individuals. Furthermore,
working toward the construction of a “pool of meanings” (Marton, 1986, p. 42)
supported my focus on collective rather than individual conceptions, and, from a
practical point of view, assisted data management. Nonetheless, I consciously sought
to address Bowden’s (2000b) concern regarding decontextalisation by highlighting
key statements and retaining these within the whole transcript to allow ongoing
reference to the broader interview context.
The emphasis on collaboration, primarily with respect to data analysis, reflects a
second point of variation in method. While many phenomenographers work alone,
there is growing argument promoting the benefits of collaboration in constructing
categories of description and the outcome space. For example, Bowden (2000a)
promoted the benefits of bringing together a group of researchers, comprising a mix
of content and phenomenographic expertise, to test and probe the developing
categories of description and outcome space. Proponents of the group process
maintain that this encourages greater open-mindedness, consideration of alternative
perspectives, and thereby, more faithful descriptions of conceptions, and a more
complete outcome space (Bowden, 2000b; Trigwell, 2000; Walsh, 2000). I found
Bowden’s arguments with respect to this technique to be persuasive and, as a result,
recruited seven colleagues to participate in a “group process” (Bowden, 2000a, p. 57)
to support faithful representation of the parent conceptions, and a “complete” outcome
space (Akerlind, 2002, p. 9). (See section 3.4.7 for further details of this process.)
A third area of variation concerns the nature of the process used to obtain the set of
categories, that is, whether data analysis is seen to be a process of construction or
discovery. Walsh (2000) highlighted the differences between these two perspectives.
107
Field Code Changed
She suggests that a constructionist view tends to emphasise the ‘expert’ role of
researchers, and their overall control of the data. The ensuing process, she argues, is
one where the researcher is seen to be “consciously interpreting the data, choosing
and discarding data, and thereby constructing the relationships” (p. 20). In contrast, a
discovery view is based on the assumption that the categories of description are
present in, and constitutive of the data. From this perspective, the process involves
“looking into the transcripts to discover the particular ways in which people
understand the phenomenon” (p. 20). Thus, analysis tries to incorporate all aspects of
the data, seeking to provide a holistic account of the phenomenon under investigation.
In this study, data analysis incorporated the merit of both perspectives. Following the
lead of researchers such as Bruce (1997) and Johansson et al. (1985), the process of
analysis used in this study is best described as one of discovering conceptions and,
then, constructing categories of description. Within this context, the parent
conceptions revealed themselves through the data, and are the product of a discovery
process, while the categories of description are my construction, designed to
communicate the different ways of experiencing the role of parents in ECEC, and to
highlight the critical differences between these.
In light of such differences in approach, and the “nonalgorithmic” nature of
phenomenographic research (Saljo, 1988, p. 45), there is growing consensus amongst
phenomenographers regarding the need for detailed descriptions of method to
demonstrate the validity of findings (Bowden, 2000b; Francis, 1993; Prosser, 2000;
Sandberg, 1997). Reflecting this trend, Francis (1993) argued for rigorous accounts
of research methodology within the broader corpus of the phenomenography. She
observed:
…researchers who contribute to the phenomenographic program are being
asked to say how their work is being faithful to its aims, to be more explicit in
reporting their research procedures, and to provide the rationale for them.
Findings will not be accepted just because they are interesting and plausible,
which they are, but because they are seen to be well-grounded and weighed up
against other possibilities. (p. 46)
108
3.4.6.2 The process of analysis used in this study
In line with this perspective, the remainder of this section details the process of
analysis used in this study. While drawing on the accounts of a number of
phenomenographers, in particular Bowden (2000a; 2000b), Bruce (1994; 1997),
Marton (1986), Marton and Booth (1997) and Sandberg (1994), the procedure I
decided to employ is based broadly on Patrick’s (2000) sequence of six steps, which
she modeled on the work of John Bowden and colleagues (1992). This said, there
were some differences in approach. Whereas Patrick elected to work alone, I chose to
incorporate the group discussion process (Bowden, 2000a, p. 57) into my analytic
framework. In addition, in line with new phenomenography, analysis was also
directed toward explicating the dimensions of variation between the different
conceptions of the role of parents in ECEC public policy and service development.
Thus, the process of analysis used in this study involved:
1. formulating the phenomenon of interest and immersion in the transcripts;
2. searching for responses that described perceptions of the phenomenon under
investigation (i.e., the role of parents in using services and in shaping policy);
3. identifying and sorting responses in terms of their structural and referential
aspects, and their focus in relation to the phenomenon being investigated;
4. comparing responses to identify similarities and differences between them;
5. developing a draft description of these groupings, highlighting the critical
differences between the different ways of experiencing the phenomenon;
6. using the group discussion process – justifying the preliminary groupings and
checking the fit between individual responses and my description of the grouping;
and
7. considering the relation between groupings and establishing the outcome space.
While these steps may seem to imply a sequential and linear approach, as noted, the
process of analysis in this study was iterative and comparative, and I cycled
backwards and forwards between these phases. Throughout this process, I tried to
adopt the perspective of “researcher as learner” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 133),
seeking the meaning and structure of the role of parents in ECEC, as constituted by
the parents in this study, and, then, the dimensions of variation between different
parent conceptions. I began by focusing on the role of parents in using ECEC, and
109
then repeated the same steps to look at the role of parents in shaping ECEC public
policy.
Early consideration was given to the use of qualitative data management software
(e.g., Nvivo) to support the process of phenomenographic analysis.
However,
discussion with other phenomenographers raised concern regarding the early
extraction of excerpts from interview transcripts, and the potential loss of context to
support later interpretation of meaning. Convinced by these arguments, I decided
against the use of such software, and, instead, worked from the original transcripts
until very late in the analytic process.
•
Step 1: Formulating the phenomenon of interest – and becoming familiar with
the transcripts. The analysis commenced with my reading through the interview
transcripts, while listening to the tapes (again and again), to develop a detailed
overview of the reflected views and experiences of the parents in this study, and a
sense of the ‘whole’ (i.e., the collective views and experiences of parents).
Individual transcripts were read through, initially without any marking of text.
Instead, I tried to adopt an orientation toward the parents’ descriptions of their role
that was as open as possible and to refrain from making early judgements. This
necessitated withholding my personal views and experiences of the role of parents
in ECEC, and trying to put myself inside the views and experiences of the
participants. Early reading of the transcripts highlighted the need for a clear
focus, prompting me to review my research questions and to reformulate my
phenomenon of interest. I confirmed this to be “the role of parents in using ECEC
services and in shaping ECEC public policy”.
•
Step 2: Searching for responses that described perceptions of the phenomenon.
As I became more familiar with the transcripts, I began to look for some overview
of parents’ conceptions of their role, firstly in relation to using a service, and,
secondly, in relation to shaping public policy. Reading through each transcript
now, I started to search systematically for aspects of these roles which appeared or
“stood out” (Sandberg, 1994, p. 86) in the individual interviews. This search had
a dual purpose. I first looked for responses that provided insight on what parents
110
perceived to be their role in ECEC, that is, the conceived meaning or noematic
correlate of the role (Husserl, 1962/1931; Sandberg, 1994). I then looked for
responses that discussed how this role was enacted (or could be enacted), that is,
the conceiving act or noetic correlate of the role (Husserl, 1962/1931; Sandberg,
1994). This said, it is important to note that not all individual descriptions
contained both, a fact also observed by Trigwell (2000, p. 74). Relevant responses
were marked with coloured flags for future reference. As discussed earlier, while
deciding to base my analysis on segments as opposed to whole interviews, I was
mindful to preserve the overall context of these. Thus, pertinent statements were
marked and preserved within the whole interview text. As Dean (1994)
suggested, at this early stage of the analysis, I used a process of “dense coding” (p.
117) to allow as many meanings as possible to be captured, and to avoid any
premature foreclosure on parent conceptions. Drawing on the work of Bowden
(2000a) and Bruce (1997), I devised the following guiding questions to help retain
my focus on what these parents conceived to be their role, and how they
experienced (or would like to experience) this role:
o What does this tell me about the way the parent understands their role in
ECEC?
o What must this role mean to the parent if they are saying this?
o How is this parent experiencing their role in ECEC?
o How would this parent like to experience this role?
As Trigwell (2000) observed, this is not always a straightforward task. My
experience here was that some potential conceptions were clear, brought to light in
a definitive statement and/or in similar statements reiterated, while others were
less so, manifested in a series of complementary statements or a lengthy
descriptive narrative. To assist me in this process, I made brief notes next to
flagged excerpts (in a dedicated column) to capture key themes and related points.
At the end of each transcript reading, I attempted to draw together the related
“what” and “how” aspects and to summarise my developing interpretation of this
parent’s conception(s) of their role in using a service and in shaping public policy.
111
•
Step 3: Sorting responses in terms of the focus and frame of reference they
evinced in relation to this phenomenon. The next step in analysis involved a
more indepth and refined analysis of emerging conceptions in terms of the
structure of human awareness (Bowden & Marton, 1998; Marton, 2000; Marton &
Booth, 1997). As noted previously, Marton and Booth (1997) argued that “if we
consider any individual at any instant, he or she is aware of certain things or
certain aspects of reality focally while other things have receded to the
background” (p. 108). Using this conceptual framework, I returned to the
individual transcripts, firstly reviewing my summary of the parent’s conception(s),
and then re-reading the whole transcript to identify the focus of pertinent
responses. These were also analysed in terms of their structural and referential
elements. Again, drawing on the accounts of Bowden (2000a) and Bruce (1997), I
adapted the following questions to guide this part of the analysis:
o How does this parent view and experience their role in ECEC?
o On what is this parent focusing in order to experience this role in this
particular way?
o How do the various role aspects relate to each other and what does this
tell me about how this parent constitutes their role?
This search involved going beyond particular words and statements to consider
how conceived role aspects were delimited from and related to their immediate
context, and how these were delimited and related to each other and the whole
interview context (Marton, 2000; Marton & Booth, 1997). In practical terms, this
involved consideration of the relation between key statements and their immediate
context to identify the inner horizon of the parent’s conceived role aspects (i.e., to
clarify and delimit what a conceived role aspect meant for that particular parent).
I then looked at the external horizon of conceived role aspects, that is, how a
particular conceived role aspect was internally related to other conceived role
aspects, and to the whole transcript. This helped to further clarify and specify the
meaning of the conceived role(s) (Sandberg, 1994, p. 87). This was very much an
iterative process which, in turn, helped to clarify and delimit possible parent
meanings. Upon completion of the first analysis of individual parents’ conceived
role(s), I shifted my focus to compare conceived roles across the group of parents
112
studied. This, in turn, led to an initial sorting of the identified roles into groups on
the basis of similarities, differences, and complementarities (Marton et al., 1993,
p. 282), marking a change in focus from individual to collective conceptions, and
the first step toward devising categories of description (Bruce, 1997).
•
Step 4: Comparing the emergent groupings to explicate similarities and
differences between them. Having established some preliminary groupings, my
next task was to review and consolidate these in terms of similarities, differences
and complementarities. Sorting on the basis of complementarity requires further
explanation. According to Marton et al. (1993), complementarity, as a basis for
grouping responses, takes account of the fact that statements often represent
fragments of the same conception. For example, parents often talked broadly
about ‘being involved’, but it was through other statements (e.g., ‘I want to know
what’s happening for her at the centre’, ‘I think it’s important to support the
centre’) that I was able to identify the meaning assigned to ‘being involved’. This
varied across the sample. In practice, this step involved selecting one emerging
conception of the phenomenon (as denoted by one of the groupings) and then
inspecting responses within this group to ensure they reflected a similar
understanding of the role of parents in ECEC. When this had been completed, I
considered this conception in relation to the broader “pool of meaning” (Marton &
Booth, 1997, p. 133) to see where it lay in the pool relative to other emerging
conceptions and the background of all the groupings. At this point, my task was
to identify the most distinctive characteristics of each conception, illustrating
qualitatively different ways of experiencing the role of parents (Marton, 1986).
Following Bowden’s (2000a) advice, I drew on the following questions to guide
this part of the analysis:
o Do these parents see their role in ECEC in a similar way?
o Are there any differences between them significant in the sense that they relate
to a fundamentally different understanding of the role of parents in ECEC?
o Why do I think they are similar?
o Why do I think they are different?
113
This process was greatly assisted by the earlier consideration of parent
conceptions in terms of their structural and referential aspects. Again, this was a
highly iterative process that necessitated going back to the whole transcripts to
clarify the meaning of particular statements. For example, when reviewing some
groupings, it became clear that some of the parents within that group did not share
the same conception of the role of parents in ECEC. This resulted in some revised
interpretations of responses, and further resorting and refinement of the groupings.
Through this process, I achieved what seemed to be a relatively stable set of
groupings, each identified by an “indigenous label” (Dean, 1994, p. 118), most
often taken directly from parent responses within that group. While endeavouring
to capture the essence of the developing categories of description, labeling at this
point was seen to be purely an interim functional measure.
•
Step 5: Developing a draft description of these groupings, highlighting the
critical differences between the different ways of experiencing the phenomenon.
Having reached this point in the analysis, my focus was now on collective ways of
seeing and experiencing the role of parents in ECEC. Working from this
perspective, my task was to construct a label and description to make clear the
most distinctive features differentiating one way of seeing or experiencing the role
of parents in ECEC from another (Bruce, 1997). This step is central to
phenomenographic data analysis, that is uncovering the various conceptions and
representing these in the form of categories of description (Bruce, 1997). The
indigenous labels provided my starting point, along with notes taken during the
earlier steps explicating similarities and differences between the various
groupings. Keeping these in mind, I read through each group, and then attempted
to construct a description that captured the spirit of the responses within that
group. In line with general phenomenographic methodology, my focus was to
describe the relation between subject and object, in this case, parents and their role
in ECEC, and each description addressed both referential and structural elements
of conceptions of the role. Once the draft categories of description had been
formulated, I returned to the grouped responses, still maintained within whole
transcripts, and selected quotes to support and illustrate my description. Having
reached this point, my final task was to settle on a ‘stand-alone’ label for each
category of description. In some cases this involved minor refinement of the
114
earlier assigned indigenous label, while, in other cases, the description
necessitated a new label.
•
Step 6: Group discussion – justifying the draft categories of description and
assessing the fit between individual responses and my description of the
grouping. Once I had a relatively stable system of categories, I set out to ‘test’
and ‘justify’ them through a process of group discussion with research colleagues,
similar to that described by Bowden (2000a; 2000b). I drew together a group of
seven researchers, comprising a mix of expertise in ECEC and phenomenographic
research, to test and probe what I saw to be draft categories of description. This
group met on two occasions, firstly to consider the emerging categories of
description denoting the role of parents in using an ECEC service, and, secondly,
to look at the categories of description denoting the role of parents in shaping
public policy. Prior to each meeting, I provided participants with written
information about the study, including the purpose, aim and objectives, research
questions, data collection and analysis processes, and the emerging categories of
descriptions (illustrated by parent quotes) (see Appendix 4 for information
provided to participants). With the permission of those involved, I audio recorded
each meeting to support further refinement of the categories of description. At the
meeting, as the person primarily responsible for the analysis, I introduced the
categories of description and explained my reasons for these groupings. Group
members examined and questioned these, in some cases, seeking further evidence
from the transcripts to justify a grouping. The process of group discussion
resulted in general confirmation of the categories (with one label change –
‘supporting parent conception’ to ‘the partnership conception’) on the basis there
was evidence to support these and ‘they made sense’ in a pragmatic way.
Bowden promotes group discussion as a key strategy in overcoming researcher
bias, and thereby supporting more faithful categories of description. While
implementing a somewhat abbreviated process, this experience assisted me to
review my work, to look critically at the draft categories of description, and to
refine these further. As Prosser (2000) suggested, the outcome was much
improved descriptions of experiences than if treated completely independently.
115
•
Step 7: Considering the relation between groupings and establishing the
outcome space. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the product of
phenomenographic research is to arrive at a structure within which the various
conceptions of the phenomenon under investigation are fitted. The complex of
categories of description capturing the different ways of experiencing the
phenomenon is commonly known as the “outcome space” (Marton & Booth,
1997, p. 125). According to Marton (1981) this involves examination of the
categories of description “from the point of view of logic”, to show how the
varying conceptions are related to each other. In this study, there are two outcome
spaces relating to each area of parent participation investigated. The outcome
spaces needed to communicate the critical differences between different ways of
experiencing each of these roles and how these different conceptions were related
to the conceived role of parents in ECEC. Having established a stable set of
categories of description through the group discussion process, I returned to one of
my earlier questions, to consider:
o How are these different ways of seeing and experiencing the role of
parents in ECEC related to each other?
With respect to each area of parent participation examined, the outcome space was
seen to be hierarchical in nature (i.e., the categories of description signified
expanding and more participatory conceptions of the role of parents in ECEC).
3.4.7
Validity and reliability
As noted in the previous section, there is an increasing expectation that
phenomenographers will provide sufficient detail of the methods used to enable others
to judge the trustworthiness of outcomes (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000; Francis, 1993;
Sandberg, 1994; 1997). This chapter has described the research design and
implementation procedures for the study, offering a detailed account of the research
question(s), development of the research instrument, and processes used for data
collection and analyses. This final section builds on this discussion, specifying the
measures that were implemented throughout the research process to support the
validity and reliability of the study outcomes.
116
Validity in social research concerns the justification of knowledge claims (Kvale,
1989, p. 90). In traditional social research, validation is typically underpinned by an
objectivistic epistemology (i.e., the social world is seen as a universe of facts),
involving consideration of criteria such as “internal validity, external validity,
reliability and objectivity” (Guba & Lincoln, 2004, p. 32) Applying these criteria,
validity and reliability are most often gauged in terms of factors such as: the
generalisability of outcomes – whether findings can be applied to other subjects in
other contexts; replicability – whether repetition of a similar study would yield
essentially similar findings; and intersubjective agreement - if multiple observers can
agree on a phenomenon, then their collective judgment can be said to be objective
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Applying these criteria to phenomenographic research presents some obvious
difficulties, for example, the idea that replication of study findings demonstrates
reliability. As Säljö (1988) pointed out, the results of phenomenographic research
(i.e., the categories of description and outcome space) are constructions of the
researcher, emerging in a “context of discovery” (p. 45). Therefore, as Säljö
concedes, there is always a possibility that another researcher may arrive at a different
categorisation. While acknowledging this reality, Marton (1986) maintained that it is
still possible and reasonable to apply this criterion of reliability to phenomenographic
results, albeit in a modified manner. He argued:
The original finding of the categories of description is a form of discovery, and
discoveries do not have to be replicable. On the other hand, once the categories
have been found, it must be possible to reach a high degree of inter-subjective
agreement concerning their presence or absence if other researchers are to be
able to use them. (p. 35)
This perspective has given rise to a process known by a range of phenomenographers
as “interjudge reliability” (Saljo, 1988, p. 45), where the validity and reliability of
phenomenographic results (i.e., the categories of description) are demonstrated
through secondary analysis and replication. Until recently, this has been the most
117
common approach to establishing validity and reliability in phenomenographic
research. The basic process is as follows:
Interjudge reliability requires that one or more researchers (co-judges) read the
same data as the original researcher, but with reference to the categories of
description that have been identified by the original researcher…. Interjudge
reliability is measured in terms of percentage agreement with the original
researcher’s classification. The greater percentage agreement, the higher the
reliability is considered to be. (Sandberg, 1997, p. 132)
As can be seen, this process reflects an attempt to address the aforementioned
validation criteria, however, increasingly researchers are questioning the
appropriateness of using traditional positivist criteria within qualitative research
(Kvale, 1989; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Sandberg, 1994; 1997). For example,
perceiving theoretical inconsistencies, Guba and Lincoln (2004) advocated the use of
alternative criteria in naturalistic inquiry, suggesting measures such as credibility,
transferability, dependability and confirmability. Reflecting a similar view,
phenomenologist Giorgi (1988) claimed that “the manner of achieving the evidence
[supporting phenomenological research findings] is different because of different
assumptions which, in turn, inspire different criteria” (p. 175).
Examining approaches to validity in social research, Kvale (1989) perceived shifting
views on truth and validity, and the emergence of what he termed “an altered
conception of validity” (p. 77). He identified two key consequences: (1) a move away
from the quest for absolute knowledge toward defensible knowledge claims; and (2) in
terms of practice, a change in emphasis from observation of, to a conversation and
interaction with, the social world involving “a communicative and a pragmatic
concept of validity” (Kvale, 1989, p. 77). Communicative validity involves testing
the validity of knowledge claims in a dialogue, and pragmatic validation involves
testing the knowledge produced in action. Within this context, validity is ascertained
by examining the sources of invalidity, and involves continual checking and
questioning of the subject matter investigated throughout the research process.
118
In line with these broader developments, phenomenographers such as Sandberg
(1994; 1997), and more recently Ashworth and Lucas (1998; 2000) argued the need
for new approaches to assure validity and reliability in phenomenographic research,
and, suggested the application of some established phenomenological principles. A
vocal critic of interjudge reliability, Sandberg (1994; 1997) argued that this process,
based on an objectivistic epistemology, was at odds with phenomenographic theory,
specifically the view of knowledge as intentionally constituted through individuals’
lived experience. Perceiving this to be an unreliable measure, he saw greater merit in
the phenomenological principle “to the things themselves” (Husserl, 1962/1931;
Sandberg, 1994), and argued the need for strategies throughout the research process to
support fidelity in identifying and describing human conceptions. This approach
reflects Kvale’s (1989) “altered conception of validity” (p. 77), requiring the
researcher to demonstrate how they have dealt with potential sources of invalidity in
order to justify their knowledge claims. Sandberg (1994; 1997) argued that it is also
more attuned to phenomenographic theory, where the researcher is seen to be
intentionally related to the research object. Consequently, validity and reliability are
gauged in terms of how the researcher has dealt with this intentional relation and, in
particular, guarded against subjective interpretation. Sandberg (1997) offered the
following explanation:
In order to be as faithful as possible to the individuals’ conceptions of reality, the
researcher must demonstrate how he/she has controlled and checked his/her
interpretations throughout the research process: from formulating the research
question, selecting individuals to be investigated, obtaining data from those
individuals, analysing the data obtained and reporting the results. (p. 209)
To support, and later demonstrate, the validity and reliability of outcomes, Sandberg
applied the aforementioned criteria of communicative validity and pragmatic validity,
and used the phenomenological reduction, as described by Idhe (1977), as
interpretative guidelines. This involves:
• an orientation towards the appearance of the phenomenon;
• a describing orientation;
• horizontalisation of all phenomena;
119
• looking for structural features of the phenomenon; and
• using intentionality as a correlational rule (Sandberg, 1994, pp. 67-69).
A key difference here is the focus on reliability in researching human conceptions, as
distinct from validating established categories of description. Ashworth and Lucas
(2000) were also more interested in the process by which the research is conducted,
arguing that this is “of key importance in terms of determining whether the outcomes
are ontologically defensible and epistemologically valid” (p. 296). Their prime
interest is in how the researcher enters the research participant’s “life world” (p. 297),
and, in doing this, what steps are taken throughout the research process to ensure a
faithful representation of participants’ lived experience. They argue the need for
effective “bracketing”, a term borrowed from phenomenology, referring to the need
for the researcher to set aside his or her own assumptions, so far as is possible, in
order to register the participant’s own point of view (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000, p.
297). To support this goal, they have devised a set of practical guidelines to support
validity and reliability in phenomenographic research.
Finding such arguments to be persuasive, I decided against interjudge reliability as a
criterion of validity and reliability in this study. Instead, I conceptualised validity and
reliability in terms of defensible knowledge claims, and adopted the phenomenological
principle “to the things themselves” (Husserl, 1962/1931; Sandberg, 1994) as the
main criterion for the acceptability of the study outcomes. To this effect, I
implemented a range of strategies, throughout the research process, to ensure that the
parents’ conceptions of their role in ECEC were represented as faithfully as possible.
Drawing on the work of Ashworth and Lucas (2000), Kvale, (1989) and Sandberg
(1994; 1997), these strategies included application of the criteria of communicative
and pragmatic validity, and use of the phenomenological reduction as interpretative
guidelines. To maintain “interpretative awareness” (Sandberg, 1994, p. 65), I also
drew on some of the practical strategies suggested by Ashworth and Lucas (2000).
Finally, as discussed in the previous section, I’ve also incorporated group discussion
(Bowden, 2000a; 2000b) in the process of analysis to support the best possible
description of conceptions. The remainder of this section seeks to demonstrate how I
have applied these criteria, in each part of the research process, to support validity and
120
reliability in researching the parents’ conceptions, and thereby, to justify the outcomes
of the study. Their application is discussed with reference to the following key stages
of the research process:
• The design of the research question. My starting point was framing the research
question. I perceived this to be of crucial importance, recognising that it guided
and, thereby, influenced all parts of the research process (Bowden, 2000b;
Sandberg, 1994). In the study, the central research question was demonstrably
oriented toward the phenomenon of interest, focusing attention on the role of
parents in ECEC and how it appeared throughout the research process. The
question was deliberately broad and took an “open view of the phenomenon to be
studied” (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000, p. 300), recognising that parent views and
experiences of this role may be quite different.
• Selecting parents to participate in the study. The selection of participants needed
to be appropriate to the purpose of the research (Bowden, 2000b). The study
employed a process of purposive sampling, recruiting parents who had recent
experience using ECEC services, and had an increased likelihood of having some
knowledge and/or experience of contemporary public policy. To maximise
variation within the sample, I sought assistance from staff at the research site to
recruit parents likely to have different life worlds, and, perhaps, different views
and experiences of their role in ECEC. Nevertheless, I worked to ensure that the
selection of parents avoided presuppositions about the nature of the phenomenon
or the nature of conceptions held by particular types of individuals (Ashworth &
Lucas, 2000, p. 300). Therefore, while proactively seeking variation in the
research sample (e.g., mothers and fathers, different family compositions and
backgrounds, different parent employment profiles and different parent education
levels), I identified and tried to suspend personal assumptions concerning the likely
ways of experiencing this role by different parents, acknowledging that these may
be false.
• The design of the research instrument. Interviews were selected as the most
appropriate means of eliciting parents’ conceptions of their role in ECEC. A series
121
of open-ended prompts was designed to help parents to reflect on and describe this
role, and, thereby, align the interviews to the purpose of my research. Following
the advice of Sandberg (1994), I asked what and how questions to orient parents
toward their experience of the role. This strategy assisted me to obtain rich
descriptions, and to access the structural and referential aspects of parents’
conceptions. These prompts were used, as necessary, to orient parents toward the
phenomenon under investigation, while also allowing maximum freedom for
parents to describe their experience (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000).
• Data collection. The focus of each interview was the parent’s way(s) of seeing
and experiencing their role in ECEC. Following the advice of Ashworth and Lucas
(2000), I regarded each interview as a “conversational partnership” (p. 302), with
my role being to assist parents to reflect on their lived experience of the role. To
this end, I used open-ended questions, drew on the pre-prepared prompts, only as
needed, engaged in empathetic listening and sought to clarify and validate
statements and interpretations (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000). At the same time, I
remained conscious of the need to avoid leading questions and entering into
extensive dialogue during the course of an interview. Throughout the interviews, I
continued to strive to set aside my own views and experiences of the phenomenon
as much as possible. To this effect, I adopted the perspective that parents had the
“right descriptions” (Sandberg, 1994, p. 80) and endeavoured to view all aspects of
the lived experience of the role of parents as equally important. This was done to
avoid any unwarranted colouring of parents’ descriptions which may have lead to
invalid interpretations later.
• Data analysis. Analysis was based solely on the parent interviews. I transcribed
the parent interviews verbatim, rechecking the draft transcripts against the tapes,
before sending these to the parents for verification. I invited parents to review
their transcript, and, if necessary, to add or delete text to ensure the faithful
representation of their views. There were no requests from parents for
amendments. Maintaining awareness of the danger of importing presuppositions, I
sought to remain open and oriented toward different parent views and experiences,
nevertheless treating all ways of experiencing the role of parents in ECEC as
122
equally important. To this effect, I followed general phenomenographic procedure
and initially immersed myself in the whole data set.
I read and reread the transcripts, while listening to the audio-tapes, noting any
emotion or emphases likely to affect the interpretation of meaning (Ashworth &
Lucas, 2000). Trying to sensitise myself to the experience of the participants, I
refrained from early marking of the transcripts. Instead I worked toward the
development of a preliminary “individual profile” (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000, p.
304), summarising my developing interpretation of individual conceptions. Once
familiar with the transcripts, I moved on to identify and mark pertinent responses.
However, to ensure that descriptions remained faithful to individual ways of
experiencing, these were retained within the transcripts to enable ongoing
reference to context and individual meaning. Following the lead of Bruce (1997),
sections of discourse were not extracted until the final stages of preparing the full
versions of the categories of description (p. 109). Throughout data analysis, I
viewed my task as a descriptive rather than explanatory exercise. This involved
searching for both the structural and referential aspects of parents’ conceptions of
their role, and then bringing these two aspects together to constitute a particular
way of experiencing the role. Adhering to the criterion of communicative validity,
tentative interpretations were checked and questioned against several alternative
interpretations until a basic meaning structure had been stabilised.
This process was used to discern individual and, ultimately, collective conceptions,
and helped to guard against premature foreclosure on conceptions. In addition, a
process of group discussion supported the best possible descriptions of the
conceptions, and demonstrated the communicative and pragmatic validity of the
study outcomes. The final categories of description were further verified on the
basis that they identified the referential and structural features of parent
conceptions and the object of focal awareness, and, the categories were logically
related (Saljo, 1988, p. 46). These are also supported by parent quotes, selected
because they illuminated a particular way of experiencing the role of parents in
using services or in shaping policy. As Bruce (1997) suggested, this strategy has
the further benefit of allowing the parents’ ‘voices’ to be heard in the categories.
123
3.5
Chapter summary
Following the advice of phenomenographers such as Ashworth and Lucas (2000),
Francis (1993) and Sandberg (1994; 1997), this chapter presented the conceptual
framework and research approach used in the present study. The rationale for such a
detailed account is that it allows others to trace the process by which the study
findings have emerged (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000), and to draw their own conclusions
about their validity and reliability. As discussed, my primary focus was to ensure that
the different conceptions of the role of parents in ECEC were described faithfully. To
this effect, I implemented a range of proactive strategies, throughout the research
process, to guard against potential sources of invalidity and to support and
demonstrate the validity of the study findings.
124
CHAPTER 4
DESCRIPTIONS OF PARENT CONCEPTIONS
4.1
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the phenomenographic study, describing the role
of parents in ECEC as constituted by the group of parents who participated in this
study. Following the processes of data collection and analysis outlined in the
previous chapter, the study results are presented here in the form of categories of
description and an outcome space.
The chapter is divided into two sections. Each section addresses the two central
research questions:
•
What are the qualitatively different ways in which parents constitute their role
in using ECEC services?
•
What are the qualitatively different ways in which parents constitute their role
in shaping ECEC public policy?
The first section identifies parent conceptions of their role in using ECEC services.
The second section reveals parent conceptions of their role in shaping ECEC public
policy. Each section comprises a discrete set of categories of description and an
outcome space.
4.2
The categories of description and outcome spaces
Following the focus of phenomenographic inquiry to discern variation in the ways
that people experience phenomena (Boulton-Lewis, Marton, Lewis & Wilss, 2004),
the categories of description presented here characterise parents’ different conceptions
of their role in ECEC. This includes their role as users of services and shapers of
public policy. As discussed in the previous chapter, these categories have been
constructed to show the varying relations between parents and their role in ECEC.
They describe the role of parents as it is conceived by them, as distinct from the role
125
as determined by someone else (e.g., researcher, policymaker-maker). Furthermore,
they reflect the “collective mind” (Marton, 1981, p. 196) of the group of parents
studied and do not represent individual ways of experiencing this role. As has been
discovered elsewhere (Boulton-Lewis, Smith, McCrindle, Burnett & Campbell, 2001;
Marton, 1981), most of the parents in this study expressed more than one conception
in response to both questions. Thus, the categories have been constructed by me, the
researcher, to thematise the complex of possible ways to experience this role and to
highlight the critical differences between the different conceptions.
To develop a precise characterisation of each conception, I drew upon the framework
developed by Marton et al. (1993) to use general aspects of conceptions (i.e., what
and how, structural and referential) in order to explore different ways of experiencing
a phenomenon. As a consequence, conceptions are described in terms of what the
role of parents is conceived to be and how this role is conceived and/or enacted.
Furthermore, descriptions address both the referential (i.e., meaning) and structural
components of each conception. As Bruce (1997) reminds us, the referential
component is the global meaning associated with the conception – primarily described
through the category labels and the statement describing how the role of parents is
seen or experienced (e.g., the role of parents is seen as using the ECEC service). The
structural components illuminate the meaning further by showing how that meaning is
constituted through a particular arrangement of parts of the conception. Finally, as
discussed in the previous chapter, a way of experiencing a phenomenon can be
described in terms of the structure or organisation of awareness at a particular moment
(Marton & Booth, 1997). Accordingly, the conceptions are examined in terms of their
awareness structure to determine what is focal (i.e., the object of focal awareness) for
parents when conceiving their role in a particular way. This is identified as the
distinguishing feature of each conception (i.e., the key feature that separates this way
of experiencing from other ways of experiencing the role of parents in ECEC).
In line with general phenomenographic practice (Boulton-Lewis et al., 2004; Bruce,
1997; Marton et al., 1993), the categories of description include:
126
•
a label – which acts as an easy identifier for each conception, designed to
“communicate quickly, but perhaps also superficially” (Bruce, 1997, p. 110) the
different meanings parents assign to their role in ECEC;
•
a discursive description - addressing the what and how aspects, the referential
and structural aspects, and the focal element for each conception; and
•
illustrative quotes – drawn from the interview transcripts to further illuminate
and support the categories of description, whilst also providing opportunity for
the reader to form their own opinions as to their validity and reliability. All
quotations are accompanied by a statement identifying the parent in terms of
gender, the interview number and lines extracted (e.g., Mother, 1: 10-15 stands
for Mother, Interview 1, Lines 10-15). In some longer extracts, I have included
the interviewer’s prompts to maintain the natural flow of conversation. The letter
‘I’ denotes interviewer; the letter ‘P’ denotes parent.
Following their explication, the categories of description are presented as an outcome
space, showing the logical relationship between the various conceptions. This
provides a typology of the different kinds of conceptions held by the parents
themselves, albeit interpreted by me as the researcher (Ashworth & Lucas, 1998, p.
416). The outcome space, showing the relationship between the different conceptions,
represents the phenomenon of the role of parents as it has been uncovered in this
investigation. In each set of categories of description, the relationship between the
various conceptions of the role of parents is seen to be hierarchical, with successive
conceptions demonstrating a broader perspective as to what constitutes the role of
parents (Bruce, 2004) and an increasing degree of complexity of focal awareness
elements (McMahon & Bruce, 2002, p. 122). In this sense, each level builds on the
previous one. As noted by Marton and Booth (1997), such an interpretation is clearly
reflective of the researcher’s knowledge of the phenomenon under investigation, and
his or her value judgment as to what reflects a more complex way of seeing and
experiencing that phenomenon. This said, the notion of a hierarchy here relates to the
contemporary concept of parent participation in education and ECEC (Hughes &
MacNaughton, 2002; Powell, 1989; Pugh, 1985; Rizvi, 1995; Vincent, 1996; 2000),
and is not meant to imply that parents expressing one conception are in any way better
parents than those expressing an alternative conception.
127
4.3
Five conceptions of the role of parents in using ECEC services
In my interpretation, five qualitatively different conceptions of the role of parents
using ECEC services emerged:
•
The service user conception - the role of parents is seen as selecting and using
the best service for their child (Category 1);
•
The informed user conception – the role of parents is seen as knowing what’s
happening for their child in the service (Category 2);
•
The consumer conception – the role of parents is seen as paying for a service,
and, thereby, enacting certain consumer rights (Category 3);
•
The partnership conception – the role of parents is seen as supporting the
service they have selected for their child and having some say in what happens
for their child in the service (Category 4);
•
The member of a service community conception – the role of parents is seen
as working as a member of the service community for the benefit of all
concerned, which includes participating in service decision making (Category
5).
Each of these conceptions differs through the meaning parents assigned to their role in
using ECEC services (i.e., what they see their role to be or what’s focal in the
structure of awareness) and through the structural aspects which framed and delimited
this role.
4.3.1
Category 1: Service user conception
The role of parents is seen as selecting and using the best service for their child.
The parents expressing Conception 1 delimited and organised the role of parents as
selecting the best service for their child, based on a range of criteria, and then using
that service. The relation between parents and their role may be described in terms of
selecting and using a service. It is this concentrated focus on service use that is the
distinguishing feature of this conception. This view of the role of parents using ECEC
was revealed through the use of phrases such as ‘finding the best one’ [service],
‘using it’ [the service], ‘picking up and dropping off ‘ [the child], and ‘dropping off
128
and leaving’. These parents questioned the notion of any formal role, beyond making
a choice of service (i.e., deciding to use a service and then selecting from pre-existing
service options). Having selected and enrolled their child, they expressed reliance on
the service to provide information, in particular if ‘something happens’ or there is a
problem. Monitoring tended to be a retrospective activity (i.e., after the fact) and, in
the case of a problem arising, these parents said they would be more likely to change
service than to raise the problem with the service provider. Thus, it can be seen that
these parents viewed and experienced their role in relatively narrow terms. As the
label indicates, the referential element of this conception is using the ECEC service.
Taking the analysis a step further, it is possible to distinguish a number of key role
aspects that come together to constitute this particular way of seeing and experiencing
the role of parents using ECEC.
•
Select the best service for their child. As noted, there was a strong emphasis on
finding the ‘best’ service, that is, the service most able to meet child and family
needs. In fact, all parents in the research sample expressed a desire to find the
best or most suitable service for their child, viewing this as a key parental
responsibility, as illustrated by the following interview excerpts:
o
Well, obviously the main thing is to make sure the children are going to be looked
after properly. So you’ve got to find a service that you’re comfortable with, and that
they’re going to get the best attention from (Mother, 19: 2-5).
o
As a parent I’ve probably been fairly selective in how I’ve chosen the services for my
daughter. I only have the one child. I’m an older mum. I work in the field. I had some
preconceptions of what I was looking for in a service and I sought them out…
I wasn’t necessarily looking for academic. I wanted her to have fun. I wanted her to
be safe and I wanted someone who cared. That was what I was looking for (Mother,
7:1-5, 14-15).
o
And, so I chose the one that I thought would provide the best care, like the best
experiences for him, and he’s in the optimal learning experience (Mother, 8: 5-7).
For some parents, finding the best service was also influenced by factors such as
their preference for a particular service type (e.g., home-based care, centre-based
care) and the availability of services in their local area.
129
o I always had a bit of a thing with child care centres. I’m not real keen on them. So, it
[family day care] just seemed a better alternative at the time, and it seems to have
worked out (Father, 11: 6-8).
o
I chose family day care first, because it was for my oldest son, when I went back to
work, and he was about 5 months old. And, I felt that FDC gave him more of a home
environment. It wasn’t as many kids as in a centre, so he’d get more one on one,
which I thought was important when he was only little (Mother, 21: 2-6).
o
Make sure I find the best one. The cleanest one. One that will be the most for my
son. When I lived out at (rural town) I didn’t have much of a choice cause they only
had the one (Mother, 22: 1-3).
For all families, selecting a service involved some form of investigation, leading
to a choice between available service options. Parents in the study identified a
range of strategies they used to assist this process including: visiting services in
their area; looking at facilities and talking with staff; talking with friends and
relatives (word-of-mouth); reading service information; and specialist referral
(e.g., pediatric nurse, pediatrician). Parents also identified a range of criteria they
considered as part of this process, including: their child’s safety and happiness;
feeling comfortable with the service; service cleanliness; the approachability of
staff (including administrative staff who are often the first point of contact); staff
qualifications; the quality of the learning environment; location and convenience;
familiarity with staff and/or other children at the service; link to future school
(particularly when selecting a preschool service) and cost. The following
excerpts provide insight on the different selection criteria and processes engaged:
o
I chose one close to me, close to where I live. At that stage, I had to walk to it, so I
had to have one quite close. And I spent probably an hour up there, just observing
them, asking questions (Mother, 20: 26-29).
o I went to all of them around this area and I chose (name of centre). It’s the best that
I’ve seen. It’s the cleanest. It’s really professional and they have a good after school
care program and they actually pick them up from the school, take him back and they
give him afternoon tea (Mother, 22: 4-8).
o
Word of mouth. I went to my sister and said, “Now, you live in the area, which is the
best one to go to?” And then I had a quick look myself (Mother, 9: 3-5).
o
Talk to people who know the centres. Spend time there. Like at the preschool. I spent
a day there before I enrolled her. And, just your feel of it, I suppose, what you feel.
How happy the other children are at the centre (Mother, 19: 6-9).
130
•
o
I look for location. I prefer to have the kids close to me, so, whether it’s close to
home or close to work. I look at the area and the different services there are in the
area. Also I like to talk to the staff, meet them and have a look around first before I
go there. That has a lot to do with where I would let my children stay, the
environment. That’s basically it. Reputation too, and word of mouth. If someone else
has been saying it’s a good centre, that’s good (Mother, 26:18-25).
o
And when I put (child) in at the kindergarten, I knew that I wasn’t going to be there.
So, I went in there and I basically interviewed her teacher, who I just love, she’s just
a wonderful, wonderful teacher…. But, I actually gave her scenarios and said, like,
what are you going to do if this happened? You know, how do you approach this?
…But yeah, it was very important for me to make sure they knew what they were
doing (Mother, 23: 55-60, 85-86).
Take their child to and from the service. Another key role aspect for parents
expressing this conception was transporting their child to the service (i.e.,
dropping them off at the ECEC service and collecting them at some point later).
After selection of the service and enrolment, parents expressing this conception
identified this as their main, if not only, ongoing role in relation to their ECEC
service. The following excerpt from an interview with a father illustrated this
perspective:
I
So, you selected family day care and made a choice in terms of that. Do you
have an ongoing role?
P
Um, oh, not really. I just pick him up and drop him off, and say, how are you going
to whoever it is, and that’s probably the end of it (Father, 11: 22-24).
The focus for this father was simply using the service. This perspective was
reinforced throughout this particular interview. In the following extract, we
discussed the hypothetical establishment of an outside school hours care service at
his son’s school.
I
So you’d be prepared to complete a survey in those circumstances?
P
Yeah, if I needed it [the service].
I
Would there be any other role that you might have?
P
No, not that I can think of. No.
I
Would you have a role to play in any trial?
P
Yeah, I’d use it. (laughs)
131
I
Would you have any other role to play?
P
I don’t know what else I could do, I really don’t (Father, 11: 139 - 144).
Reflecting on her own experience, a young mother shared a similar perspective.
She indicated, however, some dissatisfaction with this perspective, and her desire
to have “more of a role” in her child’s service.
I
You’ve used a child care centre for your daughter. I’m wondering how you see your
role as a parent using a child care centre? What’s your role as a parent?
P
Basically, the role that I have, well I’ve been to two, was to drop them off and leave.
I don’t like that. Yeah, I’d rather have more of a role in it and more communication
between. Yeah (Mother, 20: 1-4).
Later in the interview, it became clear that a greater role for this parent meant
greater communication and information from her service provider.
•
I
And you said that you would like a different sort of role? Can you talk to me about
the kind of role you would like to play?
P
Even just spending five, ten, fifteen minutes with them, of a morning or afternoon,
going through their things, what they did during the day. I know there’s only two
people or sometimes one person there, but I’d like to see what she’s done during the
day, and then tell me. Not just that she’s had a good day today. I’d like to see her
progress and what she’s done (Mother, 20: 19-25).
Receive information. Parents expressing this conception continually emphasised
reliance on their service provider to provide them with any important information
(i.e., to let them know if a problem arises). Monitoring of service provision was
described retrospectively, and there was no mention of any proactive strategies to
seek information, monitor the child’s time at the service and/or influence what
happened for the child at the service. Rather, the program (i.e., what happens on a
day-to-day basis within the service) was seen to be the responsibility of the service
provider, and information sharing tended to be viewed as a one-way process, with
the service provider again seen as bearing primary responsibility:
I
Do you want to know anything about what happens during the day?
P
Oh, yeah. Well, if something happens, the lady who runs it down there would tell me
anyway. So, if I don’t hear anything, I assume everything is okay.
(Father, 11: 25-27)
132
Reflecting on past opportunities to share his views, the same father confirmed his
focus on one-way information sharing:
I
Are there any ways that you’re able to have a say in how things operate?
P
No, we just get newsletters and that kind of thing.
I
What’s the purpose of the newsletters?
P
Oh, just to let them know what’s going on, things, events that are coming up if
they’re taking them places, things like that. That’s about all.
I
Not inviting you to give ideas or comment on anything?
P
There has been stuff come through of that nature. I’ve never done anything about it
(laughs). That’s fine with me, but, yeah, there has been some stuff that’s come
through.
I
Do you remember what sort of things they were asking you to comment on?
P
Oh, ordinary things, how it was run, and any ideas, and how to make it better and
things like that. Basically just little things like that. That’s only with the outside
school hours care.
I
And you said you didn’t participate in that. Can I ask why you didn’t participate?
P
Oh, I thought things were fine so I didn’t really have any other ideas. Things
seemed… When things are working fine, I just sort of leave them alone.
(Father, 11: 53-66)
This view was reinforced by other parents, and reflected in phrases such as ‘I got
very little communication down at [the service]’ and ‘I haven’t received a lot of
information.’ The following parent distinguished between a ‘good’ and not so
good service on the basis of communication and information sharing:
o
•
The first one [day care centre] was quite good in that sense. They came up and talked
to me, explained what they did and that type of thing. But the second one, well, the
ladies are gone now, but the second one was sort of, oh, you’re here, I don’t care.
You know (Mother, 20: 29-33).
If a problem arises – leave. Finally, clarifying the focus on service use, and the
outer limits of this conception, was the notion that ‘if things are working fine, you
leave them alone. If there’s a problem, you leave the service.’ Building on earlier
statements to this effect, the same father clarified this perspective:
133
P
Well, see, I’ve got no problem with any of the care that I’ve had, you know. And, If I
need to have some sort of input, I can have it directly with whoever’s doing it. So,
I’m sort of reasonably happy with that. Any more than that, I don’t know.
I
[And later] Can I ask why you don’t complete the [service] surveys?
P
Like I said, I’m looking after my little space and unless there’s a great problem with
that, I don’t see the need to do anything about it. I’m not of these people who’d be
going out to [pause]… crusade is probably a bit strong of a word, but that kind of
thing, you know?
I
If it was a great problem, something you didn’t like or felt wasn’t going to be good for
your child?
P
I’d probably be inclined to just change his care in some way, more than do something
like that. I sort of deal with things more directly [laughs].
(Father, 11: 106-110, 118-125)
Some parents described situations where they had, in fact, taken this course of
action.
P
There was one centre he went to, because I was so really in need of care, but it just
didn’t work out. He got bitten and everything, so I pulled him out and put him in
another one.
I
What happened when he got bitten? Were you able to raise that with the centre?
P
Well, there were a few incidents. He got hit in the head with a wooden block, and had
a butterfly clip put into it. And then he got bitten and that was it. Yeah.
I
So what happened?
P
They just told me at the end of the day that he’d been bitten, they applied ice, and
they talked to the parents of the child who’d done it. So I pulled him out.
(Mother, 25: 22-31)
This role aspect was reflected in statements such as ‘So, I pulled him out’ and ‘I
decided to try another one’. Some parents talked about ‘being too scared to do
anything’ [but leave], while others expressed concern about the potential
consequences of speaking out for their child and family:
o
How are they going to treat my child next week when I go back, if I caused trouble?
I thought, I’m not going to put her through that. So, I’d rather just not have her go
there. So I just thought, that’s the easier way to do it (Mother, 1: 389 – 391, 394).
134
4.3.1.1 Category 1 summary
In Category 1, the role of parents is constituted as selecting and using an ECEC
service, with the focus on using a needed service (i.e., the referential aspect). In this
category, the role of parents is defined in quite narrow terms (i.e., using the service).
This context is confirmed by the structural aspects of this conception (i.e., the
different role aspects and their relationship to each other and the whole). Selecting
the service is arguably the most proactive aspect of the role of parents here, whereas
other ongoing role aspects may be viewed as passive and reactive – receiving rather
than providing information, and leaving the service if a problem arises rather than
raising any problems with the service provider. Focal in the awareness of these
parents is their need to use the ECEC service. This is the distinguishing feature of this
conception. Perhaps, not surprisingly, all of the parents interviewed fit within this
category – as service users. Consequently, I suggest that this is the base conception
(i.e., the conception from which all the other conceptions emerge). In this way it is
both “prior and super ordinate to the other conceptions” (Marton et al., 1993, p. 284).
This said, as will be shown, the vast majority of the parents interviewed expressed a
broader perspective on the role of parents within this context.
4.3.2
Category 2: Informed user conception
The role of parents is seen as knowing what’s happening for their child in the service.
As in the previous category, parents expressing Conception 2 saw their role as
selecting the best service for their child, but, in contrast to the previous category, they
also identified an ongoing monitoring role. Parents expressing this conception
delimited and organised their role as ‘knowing what’s happening’ for their child in the
service. It is this focus on information and communication that is the distinguishing
feature of this conception. Parents expressing this conception discussed their role in
terms of ‘knowing what’s going on’, ‘making sure my child’s happy’, ‘chatting with
staff’ and ‘making sure everything’s okay’. Thus, the relation between parents and
their role here may be described in terms of seeking information and monitoring
what’s happening for their child in the service. These parents still perceived that their
service had primary responsibility to provide them with this information, but also
identified a number of proactive strategies they used to gain insight on service
135
activities and their child’s progress and development. These included: talking with
their child, chatting with staff, reading notice boards and newsletters, and visiting the
service. Nevertheless, the service provider tended to be seen as having control of ‘the
information’, with the capacity to assist or hinder parents in their monitoring role. In
a similar sense, while putting forward the view that parents know their children, and
therefore have information which may assist the service, these parents perceived it
was a service responsibility to seek this information (e.g., through surveys etc.) and to
provide opportunity for parent input. In situations where the service provider doesn’t
fulfill this role, having any sort of parent input was viewed by parents as difficult, if
not impossible.
Taking the analysis a step further, it is possible to distinguish a number of key role
aspects that come together to constitute this conception of the role of parents using
ECEC. To begin, this category incorporates a number of elements from the previous
category. Parents expressing this conception also set out to select the best service for
their child, and saw themselves as service users. As noted, these parents also
emphasised the service provider’s responsibilities in terms of communication and
information sharing, and talked about receiving information from the service. This
said, the following key role aspects distinguish this conception from the previous one.
•
Find out what’s happening for their child. Central to this conception was the
focus on parents knowing what was happening for their child at the service. This
is the referential or meaning aspect of this conception. This role aspect was not
identified by parents expressing Conception 1, but was evident in all subsequent
categories, reflected in statements such as:
o
I wanted a really one-on-one role. I wanted to know every intricate thing that she was
doing. I still do now (Mother, 16: 2-4).
o
I like to know what’s going on. I like to be part of it (Mother, 9: 22).
o
I want to know what’s going on. I don’t like feeling cut out. I like to know exactly
what’s going on with my children (Mother, 3:182-183).
Further distinguishing this conception from the previous one was the use of
proactive strategies by parents to access the desired information about service
activities and their child’s progress. Strategies included: talking with your child,
136
chatting with staff, reading notice boards and newsletters, and visiting the service.
The following excerpts provide further insight on how parents expressing this
conception viewed their role and set about keeping themselves informed.
I
So, you selected a service that you heard was a good service, and you’re obviously
keeping tabs on things. Do you have any other role in terms of the child care centre?
P
Not role. I just go and drop my kids off, and make sure everybody’s fed and happy,
and their nappies get changed, and everybody’s taking their sleeps, and I bring them
home again.
I
So, how do you do that? How do you monitor all those things?
P
They have a book or a chart on the wall, and if you can get a quick talk to somebody
in their ear. Normally they’ll come up to you if your child hasn’t had a sleep and say
(child’s) really grumpy today. So, they are.. Like, the first class (child) was in down
there, the staff were very very good and came up and talked to me every time I
picked him up. But, this new class, the staff are a bit different. They’re more
stand-offish. A bit like, oh, your mum’s here. Bye. And, so, yeah. It just seems more
harsh.
I
[And later] So you see yourself as a parent rather than a consumer? (Yes) Why?
P
To be part of it. To be part of your child’s day. Be it just dropping off and picking
them up, and talking to somebody, and dropping in some old cotton reels, and looking
at the drawings on the wall. It’s all participating at the end of the day to a small
degree, as much as you can.
(Mother, 9: 29-41)
Another mother described her role in very similar terms, also equating knowing
what’s happening to being involved:
I
So, you used that service for roughly 12 months. Did you have an ongoing role as a
parent in that child care centre?
P
Yeah, because they tell you when you go to pick him up, what they’d done for the
day, and we got. They took pictures of what the kids had done. So, at 6 months, and
at the end of the year, you got like a little photo album of what the kids had been
up to, which I thought was good. And, then, all around the rooms and laminated to the
table, they put the kids photos and what the kids had been up to, and on the walls,
the art work and that sort of stuff. And, at the end of the week, you go a folder with
all of the things they’d been making. So, I thought that was good. You were still
involved in it.
(Mother, 21: 23-33)
As can be seen, parents expressing this conception tended to focus on one-way
communication and information sharing, and emphasised the role of the service
provider in keeping them informed. In the following excerpt, a mother made clear
137
her dissatisfaction with the level of communication she was receiving from her
child care centre:
o
•
I had to go to her after the first day to say, well, how did she [the child] go today?
That type of thing. I think they need to be more aware that people just don’t want to
dump their kids at the door all the time, and just say thanks for that, and come back
and get them, and not want to know anything about what’s happened (Mother, 18: 4954).
Monitor service provision. Closely related to the previous role aspect was the
desire to monitor the child’s time at the ECEC service, with ‘child happiness’
identified as a key indicator of service satisfaction. This focus was reflected in
statements such as ‘make sure she’s happy where she is’, ‘check that he’s
enjoying it’, and ‘she doesn’t go if she’s not happy’. There was also some
discussion about the ‘fear factor’, the need to ‘make sure your child is safe’, and
‘to ensure appropriate supervision’. As in the previous category, monitoring
tended to be seen as a retrospective activity (i.e., after the fact). The following
excerpt from an interview with a father illustrates this perspective:
P
First thing I do is ask my children if they’ve had a happy day, every day, ask them,
have you had a good day? What have you done? Make sure they’re stimulated with
various activities throughout the day from the carer.
I
And what about an ongoing role? You said you talk with your child. Are there other
ways you follow her activities in FDC?
P
I talk to the carer, make sure I ask her every day how they got on…sleep patterns,
what they’ve eaten. My second child, did she chuck any tanties or just stuff like that.
Normally, actually, the carer, the one that we’re using now, will say what they’ve
done today. You know, just to keep your finger on the pulse, so to speak. No, it’s
very good. Yeah, that’s about how I keep track of it. That’s about as much as I really
can.
(Father, 5: 3-6, 18-25)
For some parents, this role aspect was simply an extension of their general
parenting role or, as one parent explained, “You don’t drop off your child
somewhere without checking. It just comes with the territory”. In addition, some
parents described their role in terms of monitoring their child’s development and
progress, and talked about ‘keeping track of their child’s learning,’ ‘making sure
they are learning what they need to learn’ and ‘ensuring [the child] got a decent
education.’ This perspective is evident in the following excerpt:
138
I
[Talking about teacher meetings at the school] Do you initiate those or does the
school?
P
Yeah, I do. I just like to. Cause he’s an only child too, and he went through a hard
time when his father and I separated, and just to make sure he’s on track. Just to
keep on top of it, because I don’t want him getting lost in the system. Just want to
make sure.
(Mother, 22: 203-207).
Another parent clarified the focus and boundaries of her current monitoring role:
I
I’m wondering if you can just summarise how you see your role as a parent using
ECEC services?
P
I don’t know. I’m a parent. I just want for him to get a decent education, and go up
and check with the teachers and check that he’s behaving.
I
Do you have any other role? You said that you want him to get a good education. Do
you have any role in that?
P
Not really, because I can’t be there to see that it’s happening. Other parents go up
and can help with the reading and any of the activities and stuff, but, I personally
don’t have the ability to go and do that. So, I think my role in that situation is rather
limited, unfortunately. Might be different by the time (new baby) goes to school.
(Mother, 21: 202-207)
•
Have input/share information when invited. Within this category, parents
perceived they had information to share about their children, and that this could
assist their service provider and enhance their child’s enjoyment of the service.
This view was reflected in statements such as ‘I know my child best, other parents
know their child’ and recognition that many ECEC staff are young and lack
parenting experience. Nevertheless, as in the previous category, the service
provider was still seen to hold primary responsibility for communication and
information sharing, and this extended to providing opportunity for parents to
share their views and expectations of service provision. This view of the service
provider controlling parent input is evidenced by statements such as ‘I input as
much as I can’, ‘I’ve never been asked’, ‘I don’t think the private centres are
interested’ [in parent input] and the general view that ‘good services provide
information and invite parent feedback.’ In the following example, a mother
described how her child’s school sought parent input:
139
I
Have you had any experience of situations, like that, where parents have had
opportunity to have a say about what happens?
P
They have a lot up at (child’s) school, and they have a lot of meetings like that at the
moment because they’re trying to work out new traffic and parking arrangements, and
they’re also putting on some new buildings. So, what people wanted out of that. And,
then also new playgrounds and stuff. So, they asked for parent feedback on all those
things. So, yeah, they sent home questionnaires, we filled them out, and sent them
back. But, as of yet, we haven’t got any feedback on how they’re going.
I
[Later] So what do you think motivates parents to fill in surveys and attend meetings?
P
Probably just to have a say in their kid’s education and their upbringing.
I
So, what can you contribute?
P
They’re our kids. I think that you spend so much time with them you’d have a small
idea of what they’re like and how they’re going to deal best with situations and that.
(Mother, 21:125-133, 140-141, 142-145)
Another family’s experience was quite different, as illustrated by the following
excerpt:
I
Did you have any opportunity to have a say in how the preschool service was
provided – what they were doing for your child?
P
No. No, actually. There were forms throughout the year that were sent out, that was
like, in the first term, a couple of weeks after we started. It was a discipline thing.
And it just basically said, this is what we expect from your child. This is what we will
tolerate, and this is what we won’t tolerate, and this is how we go about it… and we
just had to sign that. There was a space in there to ask how you deal with things at
home.
I
They asked you how you deal with things at home?
P
Yes. Any disciplinary things at home. But, that was basically it. There was never,
okay, we’re going to have a meeting tonight on everything about preschool, and we
would like you to tell us how you think your child should be disciplined at preschool.
Or, do you think there should be any discipline? And, I’m not just talking about
discipline, but everything. But, there were forms that were sent home during the year,
and, I can remember thinking, what if I was a parent that didn’t agree with that? What
happens if I don’t sign that piece of paper?
I
How did you feel about that?
P
Um, most instances fine. But, I did think, what happens if I don’t agree with that?
There were a couple of things I thought, mmm. But, it was just something that,
they’ve got them for six hours and if that’s the way they can deal with them, well,
then, that’s what they have to do.
(Mother, 2: 44-53, 54-62, 75-79)
140
While putting the onus on the service provider to ensure opportunity for parents to
have a say on general service matters, some parents within this category saw the
‘program’ as off-limits, perceiving they were unable to contribute to curriculum
matters:
o
Yeah, I don’t… I do try to keep out of primary school things because, yes, they have
a curriculum and I’d rather not go in there and mess everything up and complain
(Mother, 20: 111-114).
Nevertheless, the general view remained that the service provider should invite
parent input. Summing up her role, a mother stated:
o
I would like to be asked what I expect. I think I would expect to be given the
opportunity (Mother, 2: 378-379).
Emphasising the link between information and parent input, and, thereby, the
controlling influence of the service provider, a young mother talked about her first
experience using an ECEC service:
I
At the child care centre, did you ever have any opportunity to have a say in what
happened for your son?
P
I think, cause I was a new mother and I didn’t know a great deal about it. I wasn’t
involved with family day care at the time, so I didn’t know a lot about what you could
or you couldn’t. Unless someone gave me a newsletter saying you could, I probably
wouldn’t even approach them.
I
A little later… Do you think giving the parents the information is a good thing?
P
I think so. They need to know. Otherwise how can they have an opinion on
something, if they don’t know about it? That’s how I felt at the first day care centre,
when (child) was younger. I didn’t really have an opinion, because I wasn’t given
information or approached about it. And, I’m not the type of person that just goes
out there and I want to know this and I want to know that. I’m pretty laid back.
(Mother, 22: 41-45, 115-116, 134-140).
4.3.2.1 Category 2 summary
In Category 2, the role of parents is constituted as knowing what is happening for
their child while they’re at the service (referential aspect). This is the distinguishing
feature of this conception. Whilst seeking information and using proactive strategies
to access information, the role of parents continues to be seen within a relatively
passive context. This view is confirmed by the structural aspects of this conception
141
which define the role of parents in terms of service initiatives (e.g., the service
provider has primary responsibility to keep parents informed; when invited, parents
can have input into service provision). Communication and information sharing is
focal in the awareness of these parents, with an emphasis on one-way information
sharing (i.e., service provider to parent).
4.3.3
Category 3: Consumer conception
The role of parents is seen as paying for a service, and, thereby, enacting certain
consumer rights.
The parents who expressed Conception 3 saw themselves as consumers, paying for a
service and enacting certain consumer rights. The relation between parents and their
role may be described broadly in terms of paying for a service, monitoring service
provision and raising any issues or concerns relating to their child in the service. As
in the previous two categories, these parents set out to find the best service for their
child. As in Conception 2, these parents also perceived an ongoing monitoring role
and sought information about what was happening for their child and how they were
progressing. However, distinguishing this conception from the previous one is the
focus on parent as consumer and paying for the ECEC service. This view of the role
of parents using ECEC was reflected in the use of phrases such as ‘because I’m
paying for it’ and ‘if I’m not happy, I’m going to let them know’ and [as a consumer
of the service] ‘I have the right to say so’. Seeing themselves as consumers or
customers, paying for a service (either directly or indirectly as tax payers), these
parents perceived they have certain consumer rights, in particular, the right to raise
issues or concerns relating to their child in the service, and to expect that these will be
addressed.
Within this category, varying orientations to the role of parent as consumer gave rise
to two sub-categories:
• Monitoring, and raising any issues or concerns relating to their child in the
service (no other proactive input) (Sub-category A), and
142
• Monitoring, raising any issues or concerns, and having some say in what
happens for their child in the service (e.g., tell needs, make specific requests,
offer suggestions for service improvement) (Sub-category B).
Taking the analysis a step further, it is possible to distinguish a number of key role
aspects that come together to constitute this conception of the role of parents. These
are also used here to differentiate between the two identified sub-categories.
4.3.3.1 The role of parents using ECEC services is seen as monitoring service
provision and raising any issues or concerns relating to their child in the
service (Sub-category A)
This category builds on the previous two, the service user conception (Category 1)
and the informed user conception (Category 2), and thereby incorporates previously
discussed role aspects. For example, parents expressing Conception 3 recognised the
importance of selecting their ECEC service, and discussed this in terms of ‘shopping
around’ and ‘making a choice’. Having selected the best service for their child, these
parents focused on their role as users and/or consumers of their chosen service. As in
Conception 2, these parents received information from their service, implemented a
range of strategies to keep themselves informed about what’s happening for their
child at the service, and provided input when invited (i.e., they responded to service
questionnaires and surveys). This said, the following key role aspects expand upon
earlier role aspects to distinguish this conception from the previous one.
•
Pay for the service (i.e., parent as consumer). Focal in awareness for these
parents was the fact that they were purchasing (i.e., paying for) a service. Not
surprisingly, this emphasis was strongest where services were being provided on a
user-pays basis (e.g., child care services – community-based and for-profit, private
preschools and schools). This said, there was also a sense of paying for public
education, indirectly through taxes. Some of the parents expressing Conception 3
actually used terms such as ‘consumer’, ‘customer’ and ‘client’ when describing
their role using ECEC, as reflected in the following excerpt:
143
I
How would you describe your role as a parent using these services?
P
Basically as a consumer of the particular service I have chosen to use.
I
Can you talk to me a little bit more about being a consumer of the service?
P
Okay. Well, I pay fairly high rates for my child to go to child care and for that I
expect a good service. I expect that my child is going to be nurtured and looked after
during her day, and , in return, I guess they expect me to pay them on time and
provide my child with whatever it is that is necessary.
I
Beyond selecting the service, do you do anything else as a consumer?
P
Not really. I’m probably a bit of a slack parent. I mean there are opportunities, if
there are problems. If they have a difficulty with my child or I have a difficulty with
them. There’s always opportunities to discuss that. I’ve never felt that I’m not given
that opportunity.
(Mother, 14: 1-2, 13-17, 23-29)
Other parents shared similar perspectives:
o
Well, I’m paying for it, so I suppose I am a consumer. And early childhood centres
are offering a service which is quality care. So, yeah, I suppose consumer could be
the word to use for parents. And, as a consumer, if we’re not happy, we say so. You
have a right to say so. Yeah (Mother, 12: 322-327).
o
Sure, sure. It’s probably not the nicest word, but that’s what you are. You are a
consumer of their service, a user of the service…I have children that need care,
because I’m not able to provide that because I go to work. They’re offering a service
which we are utilizing and paying for (Mother, 13: 250-255).
o
I see a consumer as anyone who pays for a service, a plumber, a brickie, whatever. If
you’re paying someone to look after your child, whether the government pays the
whole lot of it or not, you are paying somebody and you should be getting a certain
level of…you should have an expectation (Mother, 16 280-285).
The concept of parent as consumer was related to using an ECEC service, paying
for it, and, the belief that these services wouldn’t exist without ‘customers’ or
‘consumers’. Significantly, not all parents in this category felt comfortable with
the term consumer. During the interviews, I asked parents to reflect on a public
policy excerpt that used the terminology ‘parents as consumers of child care
services’, and this notion was rejected by some parents. However, it is interesting
to note that these parents still described their role within a consumer framework.
In the following excerpt, a mother defined her role as paying for a service and
raising any concerns, but later rejected the concept of parent as consumer:
144
I
Can you talk to me more about how you can have a say, as a parent, in these
services?
P
Well, I think a lot of it comes down to because I’m paying for it. If I’m not happy
with something, I feel I have probably more of a way of expressing it, because I’m
paying for it. I look into where they go, in the sense if I’m not happy with something,
I’m going to let them know, and I expect something to be dealt with or some options
to come up. I don’t know why I feel that, cause I pay for it I should have more of a
say. I don’t know where my logic is in that thinking. But, I sort of figure, if I’m not
happy with it, I’m going to let you know
I
[Later, reflecting on the policy excerpt] Do you see yourself as a consumer?
P
(Laughs) No. No, I don’t.
I
Can you tell me why not?
P
Um. I really have never thought of it. I just see myself as the parent that’s getting the
most for my child. I really don’t know there.
I
What difference do you see between the word consumer and parent?
P
Just, like, I don’t know. It’s probably a silly way, but like, it’s like one of the cows in
the paddock. It’s not as personal. It’s like you’re at the shops or you’re buying
something. I think when it’s your children and family, it tends to be a lot different
than just a straight down the line consumer. Parents are totally different to a
consumer, because it just puts us all in the same circle when some consumers don’t
have children.
(Mother, 18: 18-27, 357-368)
•
Monitor service provision to ensure it meets family expectations. As in the
previous category, parents expressing Conception 3 also identified an ongoing
monitoring role. This role aspect was reflected in the use of phrases such as ‘to
make sure’ [all is well], ‘it’s a continual monitoring of that’ and ‘just to keep your
finger on the pulse’. Again, child happiness appeared to be the foremost concern
and measure of service satisfaction, with child safety and learning and
development also noted as areas of particular interest. Within this category,
monitoring continued to be described in retrospective terms, with parents wanting
to ‘know what happened during the day’. However, unlike its counterpart in the
previous category, monitoring here had a clear and expressed purpose, that is, to
gauge child happiness with a view to identifying any issues or concerns impacting
on this:
145
I
What is your role as a parent using those services?
P
Basically, I like to know what (child) is doing during the day. What she does and how
her behaviour is and everything like that. With the centre she’s in at the moment, we
don’t really have an input into what they do, but, I like to ask questions about what
they do and everything like that. And, make sure, if she’s not enjoying it, she doesn’t
go. But as long. She loves it. She loves kindy days, and, so, basically, just to make
sure she’s happy.
I
So, how do you go about that?
P
Umm, talk to her. I have a good friendship with the teachers there, and so talking to
them. I’ve never gone and spent time there, during the day, to see how she goes. I
think that’d probably make it too difficult for her to do what she’s got to do, with me
hanging around. But I make sure I’ve got a good friendship with the teachers and I
have a really good relationship with (child). So, if she’s unhappy, she talks to me.
(Mother, 1, 1-16)
Another parent described her role in a similar way:
P
Um. I haven’t felt that I’ve had a role. I don’t really understand, other than we are
users of the service. I haven’t really felt that we’ve had a role in the service. Just in,
you know, when we take the children, and spend time there, making sure that it suits
our needs and the children are happy. That’s been probably our main concern.
I
So is that an ongoing thing, that sort of monitoring?
P
Oh definitely, definitely. Our only daughter, she just went through a period of not
wanting to go, and I actually spent the morning there, interacting with her there and
just seeing what she’s doing, and getting a feel.. You know, you get much more of a
feel for the centre if you’re actually there, spending a lot of time with them. And just
sort of trying to determine if there was something in particular that was upsetting
her…I spoke with her group leader and we’re still communicating…. So it’s a
continual monitoring of that, just to make sure it’s handled properly.
(Mother, 17: 32-45, 51, 61-62)
Parents expressing this conception identified a range of monitoring strategies:
o
Talking to him, asking him what he’s done during the day. Is he happy? Spending
time there and observing what happens there. Talking to other parents to see whether
they’ve got any problems. Things like that. (Mother, 6: 1-8).
o
I still talk to the teachers. I try, hard as it is to spend a day there, if I can. If I have a
day off, I’ll spend my day there. In the mornings when I drop her off, you can spend
as long you want. So, sometimes I just sit there and listen and watch (Mother, 19: 1418).
146
•
Identify and raise any problems. As noted, the primary purpose of monitoring
was to gauge the child’s happiness at the service with a view to identifying any
issues or concerns impacting on this. In short, it seemed that child happiness
equated to parental happiness and satisfaction with the service. This, in turn,
appeared to result in lower levels of parental involvement (i.e., parents perceive no
real need to be involved). On the other hand, child unhappiness prompted
increased parental involvement. When parents perceived a problem, they reacted
by investigating (i.e., seeking further information), raising their concerns with
staff and monitoring to ensure these concerns were addressed. In the following
excerpt, a mother described how she monitored her children’s happiness with their
ECEC service, and addressed any arising problems:
I
So how do you go about keeping an eye on that? [the children’s time at the service]
P
Just by their behaviour at home. Because I talk to them all the time, and ask them
what they’ve done. How their teachers are? I’m constantly asking them questions and
I’m always talking to the teachers or the child care providers. What’s happening
through the day? How they’re reacting at kindy? How they’re settling in? And if I see
they’re not happy, well, then I’ll look into it a bit further
I
And if you sense they’re not happy, what do you do then?
P
Ask a lot of questions. Talk to the director or talk to the actual teachers that they’re in
with, and find out what’s happening in the kindy.
(Mother, 10: 20-29)
While identifying the limitations of a problem-based approach to parental
involvement in ECEC, another mother suggested that work and family demands
and lack of time caused parents, such as herself, to adopt this approach:
I
Have you, as a parent, ever had opportunity to have a say in how things were done,
in how the services were provided?
P
At times parents are so busy, as long as their kids are happy, and your fees are paid,
then off you go type thing. And the only times parents do [have a say] is when there’s
a problem. And by then it’s too late. Other than that, I’ve never been involved in any
of the [ECEC services]. I mean, I’m involved in family day care, because I work here
now. But, before, as a parent, and when I was a student, you sort of take the rules and
policies as they come and you just follow them.
P
[And later] Well, myself, I don’t even get involved with our school P&C because I
just don’t have the time…And I suppose, until you’re disgruntled with the school,
you don’t say anything, because everything’s going on hunky dory. Once things go
wrong, that’s when you go up, I suppose.
(Mother, 12: 90-98, 304-305, 314-317)
147
Within this category, some parents continued to view the educational program to
be off-limits, perceiving it was set by an external agency (most often a
government department) and was the ‘job of the teachers’. Nevertheless, while
not perceiving a role in curriculum design, these parents said they would raise any
issues or concerns regarding the program or curriculum. The following excerpt
reflected this view and reinforced the link between problem identification and
increased parental involvement:
I
Have you ever had an opportunity to have a say in what happens at the preschool
she is using?
P
Not at the preschool she goes to this year. I suppose they can’t. They’re preschool, so
I suppose they have their guidelines. But I suppose if you weren’t happy with
something, you could direct it to them.
I
[Later – reflecting on a government policy excerpt] Have you ever had an opportunity
to have a say in anything like that?
P
I don’t think so. No-one’s ever said, “How would you like this centre to be run”?
“How would you like this policy to be carried out?” No-one’s ever said that. When
you enroll at a preschool or a kindergarten, normally the policies are already there.
And, that’s it.
P
[And later] But a lot of parents don’t want to have a say. I admit, I’m probably one of
them. My child’s happy and I’m happy with the service she’s getting. But, then, if an
issue came up, if an issue came up, parents would soon let you know.
(Mother, 19: 60-63, 93-100, 266-270)
Other parents put forward similar perspectives. In the following excerpts, parents
talked about when they might want to have a say in relation to service provision:
o
It [the program] is the teacher’s job, though you’d like to know the outcome. But I’m
quite happy for them to do it, and then send me what comes out of it, and then if I’m
not happy, I can follow up (Mother, 19:206-209).
o
Okay. Let me think. Maybe some behaviour was coming home that I don’t like. Um.
If they weren’t doing enough there, they weren’t doing anything. Um. You felt the
people who were caring for them weren’t doing it the way you thought they should
be.
[And later] You just keep going. Unless it’s a life and death thing. I guess as long as
it’s an okay situation, you just keep going and you don’t worry about it (Mother, 6:
35-39, 160-163).
148
o
Well, they’re our children which are our future, and we’re the one’s who are paying
for this service, and we should have a voice in how it works, if it doesn’t work. I
guess that ultimately we have the right to take our child out of that service, however,
a lot of child care centres have lengthy waiting periods (Mother, 14: 87-92).
Encapsulating this view of parent as consumer, a mother summarised her role
using ECEC services:
o
Yes, so again, I sit back. And the reason I’m paying for it, the reason I’m going for
that (a private school] is because, again, my dollar is paying that teacher’s wage. She
has to provide a good service. If I have a problem, I feel if I’m paying for it, and I go
to that school and I have a problem, I feel I have the right to stand up and say, I’m
paying my fees every month or I’m paying my fees every year. Fix it, it’s not good
enough (Mother, 16: 310-317).
4.3.3.2 The role of parents using ECEC services is seen as monitoring, raising any
issues or concerns, and having some say in what happens for their child in
the service (Sub-category B).
In Sub-category B there is a subtle but significant change in the relation between
parents and their role using ECEC services. While maintaining a similar focus,
namely, parent as consumer paying for a service and enacting certain consumer rights,
this sub-category extends to include an additional proactive role aspect. Parents in
this sub-category perceived their role also encompassed sharing information and
expectations, including providing information about their child’s needs and interests,
making specific requests of their service and offering suggestions for service
improvement. It is this proactive focus, the fact that these parents talked about
initiating this contact with the service, and the related emphasis on two-way
communication, that distinguishes Sub-category B from Sub-category A, and the
previous categories of description.
•
Share information and expectations. Within Sub-category B there was a shift in
focus from one-way to two–way information sharing and communication. These
parents talked about sharing their ‘expert’ knowledge of their child - their needs
and interests, as well as family expectations of the service with the service
provider. This role aspect and its proactive nature were reflected in the use of
phrases such as ‘you tell them the needs of your child’ and ‘I asked them to…’ In
the following excerpts, parents described how they viewed and experienced this
role aspect:
149
o
Well, you’ve got to air your grievances or your requests or your recommendation.
Sure, they’re your children. You’ve obviously got a vested interest in what they do.
So yeah, I do, I do (Mother, 13: 114-117)
o
Just not only to drop them off, but you want them to listen to what your child’s needs
are and take them into consideration, and help you with it…And if you think the
service can be improved, that they take your thoughts into consideration and do
something about it. That’s about it (Mother, 25, 131-133, 136-138)
In the following excerpt, a mother discussed the need for two-way communication
and information sharing, detailing how she saw her role with respect to this:
P
You basically tell them the needs of your child, and, I try to find out how their day
was, and what was going on, and then try to tell them what was going on at home
with problems and little things. But I didn’t know I have any other major role
I
So sharing information? Can you tell me why you think that’s important?
P
It helps them to look after the child better because they know their needs and like
what circumstances are going on in their life at that time.
(Mother, 25: 1-5, 6-7)
A number of parents described situations where they had made specific requests
of their ECEC service, and had some results:
o We’ve actually asked that daughter and son be able to play together during the day. If
one’s upset, would they please, if they can’t settle daughter or son down, would they
please get the other one. Because they’re very close…And I guess their sleep time,
we said to them, that was an issue with my (son). We know they want the children to
lie down at nap time and you know have a sleep. But he doesn’t do that, so please
don’t force that. And can he please go and sit in the reading corner and read books
quietly? So, we’ve had a compromise there. They allow him to takebooks onto his
bed and he’s happy with that (Mother, 17: 108-115).
o So, that’s one thing, the next centre she went to, I made sure they knew she is a big
drinker and she does this and this. Please make sure that’s done. And I say to (child),
if you’re thirsty, please tell them (Mother, 1: 383-386).
Another mother perceived a recent personal experience to be less satisfactory:
o I asked them… (child) is very good with her letters and loves doing letters and that
type of thing. I asked them to encourage it, and they never encourage, so yeah
(Mother, 20: 40-42).
150
In the following excerpt, a parent offered further insight into this extended view
of parent as consumer, linking the payment of fees, consumer rights (i.e., the right
to have some input into what happens for your child) and service satisfaction:
o To pay for the service and let them know if there’s anything they can do to make that
service any better. Let them know what they can do, so you get what you’re paying
for (Mother, 25: 106-108).
Other parents talked about ‘having a voice’ in what happened for their child:
o I think in one way we are a consumer, because we are using a service. But to make
ourselves different from that, we’d have to have a voice. So, if we input, and as I said,
I think I input at my centre by making sure that I keep a relationship with the people
at the centre and I can speak with them. I’m not just walking in, dropping (child) off,
and walking out. I’m not just paying for the service. I’m discussing it and finding out
how things are going. I don’t have a great input on what they do, but I like to know
what they do (Mother, 1: 344-353).
4.3.3.3 Category 3 summary
In Category 3, the role of parents is constituted as paying for a service and, thereby,
enacting certain consumer rights, in particular, the right to raise any issues or concerns
relating to the child in the service (referential aspect). Focal in the awareness of these
parents is the concept of parent as consumer of the ECEC service, and this is the
distinguishing feature of this conception. Differing orientations to the role of parent
as consumer, evident in the structural aspects of this conception, give rise to two subcategories. These are: (a) monitoring, and raising any issues or concerns relating to
their child in the service (no other proactive input); and (b) monitoring, raising any
issues or concerns, and having some say in what happens for their child in the service
(e.g., tell needs, make specific requests, offer suggestions for service improvement).
Within Sub-category A, the role of parents is conceived primarily as a reaction to an
identified problem with service provision. Parent involvement is motivated by, and
restricted to, identifying and raising problems and then monitoring to ensure these are
addressed. Within Sub-category B, the role of parents is similar, however also
includes a proactive element, with parents initiating information sharing prior to and
outside of problem identification. Thus, in this second sub-category, parent
involvement is more than a reaction to a perceived problem. It extends to having some
151
say in what happens for the child at the service in order to enhance their enjoyment of
the service and to ensure ‘you get what you are paying for’.
4.3.4
Category 4: Partnership conception
The role of parents is seen as supporting the service they have selected for their child
and having some say in what happens for their child in the service.
As in the previous conceptions, the parents who expressed Conception 4 saw finding
the best service for their child as a key parental responsibility. They wanted to know
what was happening for their child at the service, and also described an ongoing
monitoring role which included raising concerns, making specific requests and
offering suggestions for quality improvement. However, distinguishing this
conception from the previous conceptions is a sense of shared responsibility for
quality service provision and the right of parents to have some say in what happens
for their child at the service. Parents expressing Conception 4 described their role in
terms of a partnership, discussed shared responsibilities, and said they looked for
ways to ‘have a say’ and ‘be involved’. These parents delimited and organised their
role as ‘supporting the service they have selected and having some say in what
happens for their child.’ They appeared to be more proactive in their relationship with
their ECEC service, and talked about ‘building relationships’, ‘helping out as they are
able’ and ‘working with the teachers’ to support quality service provision. Such
activities were equated by these parents to ‘being involved’. Thus, the relation
between parents and their role here may be described in terms of a partnership with
the service provider, where parents take on particular (and most often additional) roles
to monitor and support quality service provision for their child. These parents
perceived they had something to offer the service (i.e., particular skills, time, an extra
pair of hands) and that their contribution made the service better for their own child as
well as for other children (including future attendees). In addition, these parents
perceived that their involvement, in various ways, provided enhanced access to
information and service staff, and, thereby, helped them to monitor their child’s
progress and to look out for any problems. Furthermore, the enhanced relationship
with service staff made it easier to raise issues or offer suggestions.
152
Taking the analysis a step further, it is possible to distinguish a number of key role
aspects that come together to constitute this conception of the role of parents. As
noted, this category builds on Conceptions, 1, 2 and 3. As in the previous categories,
these parents set out to find the best service for their child, were interested in what
was happening for their child and monitored service provision. This said, the
following key role aspects distinguish this way of seeing the role of parents from the
previous conceptions.
•
Share information. As in the previous category of description (i.e., sub-category
B), these parents identified a role for themselves in information sharing and
emphasised the importance of two-way communication. This role aspect helps to
distinguish this conception from the previous ones (i.e., 1, 2 and 3A) where the
focus is on one-way communication. For these parents, their role included telling
the service about their child’s needs and interests, sharing their expectations of
service provision, making specific requests and offering suggestions for quality
improvement. Keeping the service informed and up-to-date was seen to be a
parental responsibility and these parents were proactive in their efforts to ensure
two-way information sharing. Describing her role, a mother talked about this
responsibility:
I
Now, you’ve had four children and quite a lot of experience using early childhood
services. How do you see your role as a parent using early childhood services?
P
Make sure they’re notified if the children aren’t coming in, is a role, or my
responsibility. Keeping them informed, as well as making sure that I’m being
informed of what’s happening in the centre. Helping out. Normally, you’re working
when you have children in that sort of service, so you can’t – you haven’t got a lot of
time to offer to them, but think you still have to show them support too, because your
children are with them all the time
P
[And later in the interview] Because the parents also have a responsibility to the
teachers, as much…not as much. But, the teachers have responsibility to inform the
parents and let them know what’s happening with their children, and how they’re
growing and how they’re learning. But the parents also have a responsibility to the
children and to the teachers. I feel…it’s just communication. That way, there’s
nothing…. You don’t know what’s going on.
(Mother, 26: 1-17)
These parents perceived they had expert knowledge of their child, and that sharing
this information assisted the service provider, and, ultimately enhanced their
child’s experience (and happiness) at the ECEC service.
153
o
Well, we know our children. Even though they’re with them during the day, if they’re
in that age group, they haven’t been in the system for long. They’ve just gone into
the system. So, the teachers don’t know them the way the parents know them
(Mother, 26: 285-289).
o
We also know our kids…I know them through and through. I know when there’s
something not right…And I think that’s the difference. Parents know the difference
(Mother, 3: 574-577).
o
Parents know what suits their kids (Mother, 8: 143).
In the following excerpt, a parent talked about what it took to facilitate two-way
communication, highlighting the responsibilities of both service provider and
parents:
o
•
Good communication. Sharing views and then active listening on both parts. The
information, more so. Knowing what your children are doing. Being kept informed of
what’s happening in the centre. And, then, also, as a parent, having that responsibility
myself of letting the centre know what’s happening with the children, as in, if they’re
sick, just anything like that, what’s happening. Partnership and communication
(Mother, 26: 269-275).
Build relationships. Parents expressing this conception discussed the importance
of building a ‘good relationship’ with their ECEC service and the staff caring for
their children. A positive relationship was linked to open (two-way)
communication and was seen to help parents to keep informed about service
activities and their child’s progress, and to share their ideas and expectations
regarding service provision. One young mother described her friendship with staff
at her service:
o
Like, mostly, wherever I’ve gone, it seems I become good friends [with the staff].
Like I get to know them really well, and sit down and talk to them (Mother, 8: 54-56).
Other parents offered insight on the purpose and benefits of “a good relationship”:
o
We have a pretty good relationship with the centre…We have a lot of input with
them. I go in, and they say, oh, we’re thinking about doing this, what do you think?
And I give them my suggestions, or, if I say the girls have worked well with
playdough or cooking, they usually say, oh good, let’s come up with some ideas and
they’ll follow that through. So we’re pretty good with that. We get on pretty well
there. It’s very open (Mother, 3: 1, 4-11).
154
o
[Reflecting on his role as a parent using ECEC services] …be hands on with the use
of the service, and then developing a relationship with the service so that we can both
be open with each other (Father, 24: 14-16).
Promoting the idea of partnership and shared responsibilities, these parents
rejected the basic concept of parent as consumer, arguing that this was too narrow
and failed to capture the inter-reliance and ‘give and take’ of their relationship
with their ECEC service. In the following excerpt, a parent described her
relationship in terms of a partnership as opposed to simply consuming a service:
P
I feel more of a partnership rather than a consumer. It would be more of a
partnership.
I
That’s interesting. Can you talk to me a little more about the difference between
partnership and consumer?
P
Well, in a partnership it’s equal. You’re both sharing views and you’re willing to
participate together. Whereas a consumer, to me, it’s something that you do. I’m just
trying to work out…. With a consumer, you’re consuming something, using
something, so you’re a consumer. Whether you’re going to a supermarket…but I
wouldn’t say I’m in partnership with the supermarket. So, you know, we work in a
partnership. Because without them, we wouldn’t be able to go to work and without
us going to work, they wouldn’t exist. So there’s a partnership there.
(Mother, 26: 243-252, 260-263)
The shop analogy was used often. In the following excerpt another parent
explained why the term consumer did not reflect her role accurately:
o
•
I’d probably prefer client, because that sort of gives you…. Cause a consumer is like
a person at the end. You don’t have any say. Like if you’ve got a shop, the consumers
are the people who come and get the stuff. But that’s not… I don’t know what I’m
trying to say. They’re just the end product. You’ve got the stuff and the consumers
come and take it away. Whereas, if you’ve got a service and you’ve got clients, it
says a bit more about give and take. Like these are my clients and I’m providing a
service to them, and it’s a little bit more both ways. I’m their client so they need to
work for me, not, I’m the consumer and I’m just what happens at the end (Mother,
23: 386-396).
Support the service they selected for their child. Another distinguishing feature
of this conception was the focus on supporting the service selected for the child.
Showing support for the service was seen to amount to ‘showing an interest in
your child’ and ‘being involved’. As reflected in the following excerpts, these
parents undertook a broad range of tasks in support of their service, including
volunteering their time at the service, undertaking maintenance tasks, fund155
raising, providing resources and joining management committees. With the
exception of the last activity, parents took on these additional responsibilities in
both community-based and private for-profit services. The following excerpt
illustrates the efforts of one mother:
I
Once you’ve selected the service, do you have any ongoing role?
P
Yes, those community-based centres, I went on the parent management committee.
Yes, I also volunteered any extra work. If they needed sewing, if they wanted things
made…I also provided resources. If I came across things that I thought would be
really creative for the children, I would take those. When she went to preschool I
volunteered time (Mother, 7: 66-74).
Another mother described her role as ‘active’:
o I have a very active role, as far as helping out…so anything that needs to be done…
You know, like getting up at 5am in the morning to help out with the garage sale, and
working bees, painting the fence, and all that sort of thing…So, anything that needs to
be done, like taking washing home. There’s always a sheet that says can anyone
help out with this or can anyone do this or we’ve got this coming up and we need this
fundraising or whatever (Mother, 23: 7-11, 15-16, 19-22).
In the following excerpt, a parent discussed why she supported her ECEC
service:
P I think you still have to show them support too, because your children are with them
all the time.
I
Tell me a little more about the support role. Why do you see that as necessary?
P Because you still have to be part of your children’s lives, whether they’re with you or
whether they’re in care. Working with…Showing support toward the service that
you’re getting from them, is still showing you’re interested in what your children are
doing. So, you’ve got to be supportive towards your children, and also towards the
centre, I suppose. That’s my view. So, helping out, if you can. This week I’ve been
involved with the preschool. I’ve been on the management committee, and, so, just
put time into it (Mother, 26: 9-17).
These parents perceived that their efforts made a positive difference, enhancing
the quality of service provision for their child and others:
P It’s very important to me and I don’t think the kindy could do without the support of
parents. The kids as a whole would miss out. It’s just not going to be done and the
kindy’s not going to run as well.
156
I
Why do you think it’s important?
P Because if the parents didn’t do it, didn’t help, then who’s going to do it? They just
don’t have the resources. Because it’s a community run kindy and they rely on
government grants and money that they raise. They wouldn’t be able to do it and the
kids would miss out….So, it’s just not going to be done and the kindy’s not going to
run as well as it can (Mother, 23: 35-41, 49-51).
While the primary focus was supporting the ECEC service, parents within this
category also perceived a number of reciprocal benefits stemming from
heightened parental involvement. These included an enhanced relationship with
staff, increased access to information, greater capacity to monitor service
provision and to have some say in how the ECEC service is provided.
P I like to know what’s happening with my children. I like to know what’s there and
how the kids are going. Being involved, I can see the teachers more than just when
I’m dropping the children off.
I And later in the interview…And being involved helps?
P Oh, yes, yes. You find out a lot of things.
(Mother, 26:44-47,215)
Another mother shared a similar perspective:
o I think it’s. I wanted to see what they were doing. I wanted to see. (Child) is an only
child. I also wanted to see what her social interactions were in the centre. And I just
felt that I had something to offer the room as well. And, I know myself, as a teacher,
it’s great when you get an offer of support. (Mother, 7: 66-74).
Other parents perceived their involvement with the service influenced the
relationship staff had with their child:
o
Because I like to know what’s happening, and I like to be involved. Because I think
that if you’re involved, you have some sort of say in how your kids…what’s
happening to them. And, if there are problems with your kid, then… I don’t know,
they’re more likely to treat your children differently, if you’re involved, than a parent
that never comes along, and, I don’t know, just drops her kid off and picks them up
(Mother, 8: 91-98).
o Working on the management committee – I think it also gave me a good relationship
with the staff, because in some ways the management committee is their employer.
But, also, there’s that mutual respect, I think, that they know that you’re working for
them. I think that… I do believe that parent involvement influences the care your
child receives. I strongly believe you are treated different. As a staff member, I
observed the way that staff interact with management committee members that are
parents, and then other parents. I think they go out of their way to create a warm
relationship with the management committee (Mother, 7: 117-130).
157
While acknowledging time pressures and multiple demands on modern family
life, these parents said they ‘make time’ to ‘be involved’ and ‘help out as they are
able’. Again, this was seen to be ‘showing interest in your child’ – in where they
are and what they’re doing.
o I thought it was important for (child) to see me in that role as another parent helping
the children, that…. It was important for her to see that I was also caring about where
she was (Mother, 7: 92-95).
o
•
If there’s something to be done, I’ll make time for it. Even if it’s during the day. If
it’s important, I’ll speak to my boss and say, look, I’ll work the extra hours, I need
half a day off. So, if it comes down to something to be involved with the kids, that’s
where I want to be. I want to be more involved with the kids (Father, 4: 545-550).
Having some say in what happens. Within this category, parents talked about
their desire and efforts to have some say in what happened for their child at their
ECEC service. These parents argued that ‘parents should definitely have a say’
and ‘they [the service provider] need to ask the parents’. Having a say was
perceived to be both a parental right and responsibility, linked to the fact that ‘it’s
your children who are accessing the service’ and the view that ‘parents want the
best for their children’. A father identified opportunity to ‘have input’ as a
deciding factor in selecting his current service.
o I think because it was a brand new centre, everything was brand new, all of the toys
and activities and everything else was. And, also, because when we decided to go
through with them, they said to us that our input was going to be more important than
anything else…to decide what did or didn’t happen in the kindergarten (Father,
4: 48-53).
In the following excerpt, a mother shed light on why she felt ‘having a say’ was
important:
o Talking about why parents want a say in what happens at the ECEC service….
They’re still bringing up their kids. I think parents get lost with their kids in care for
so long because they have to work. You don’t bring them up. The carers bring them
up, or the kindys bring them up. And you just have them for a little while at home, at
night time. So, I think if you know what’s going on, and you have a say in what’s
going on, it might feel like you’ve still got something to do with it (Mother, 3: 472479).
As in previous conceptions (i.e., 2 and 3), there was a strong expectation that the
service provider would provide opportunity for parents to have input into service
matters. The desire to have a say tended to be delimited to matters of perceived
158
family relevance, although a smaller number of parents indicated that professional
interest may also influence their participation in some matters:
o Like I said, I’m a parent and I’m trying to watch out for my kids, so I want to be able
to help shape their world and be able to have some say in what affects them (Mother,
8: 344-346).
Reinforcing this focus, these parents were less interested in commenting on
matters that did not affect their family (e.g., when a program change, such as a
move from sessional to full day preschool, is to be implemented after their child
has left the service). Discussing this scenario, a mother emphasised the need to
talk with parents who are likely to be affected by a delayed policy change (i.e.,
future service users):
o
They need to ask the parents on the waiting list now for next year [about a proposed
policy change from sessional to full-day preschool] And later…They need to engage
the community to find out what their wants and needs are, because that’s who’s going
to use their service (Mother, 26:102-103, 113-114).
While the majority of parents expressed their desire to ‘have a say’ on relevant
matters, some continued to perceive the program to be off-limits. Parents within
this category expressed a range of reasons for this view, including: satisfaction
with the existing program, the view that the program was ‘set’ by an external
agency (e.g., the Education Department), the teachers were trained and had their
way of ‘doing it’, and a sense that parents lacked the required educational
expertise. In the following excerpt a mother reflected on her role as a member of
the preschool management committee, and the influence of that committee on
what happened in the preschool, revealing many of these themes:
o
We didn’t really do a lot of that. I couldn’t say. It wasn’t really required – we felt the
school was going well. The teacher reports that we were receiving at our meetings,
you could see what was happening…what was being achieved…The day to day
learning was the Education Department, the standards they set, and the teachers had
their way of doing it. So, we didn’t have a great deal of influence in that respect
(Mother, 26: Lines 65-68, 74-77).
However, distinguishing this conception from previous conceptions, these parents
were not reliant on service initiatives to have their say and discussed ways they
had initiated comment and influenced what was happening for their child. A
number of parents talked about particular requests they had made of ECEC
services:
159
o
They’re very good when you say specifics. Like (child), I wanted her to drink at least
a bottle of water during the day. I said, I don’t care how you get it done, just, I’d
really like her to drink it. So, when I came back that afternoon, she was, wherever she
went, they’d made it into a little handbag, so she could drink her water. So, they made
it fun, and whatever it takes to get them to do it, they do it. So, whatever they want,
they pretty much do it for you (Mother, 3: 144-151).
o
I really wanted to know about her day…. And, I also made it clear, things that I didn’t
want staff to do with her. I didn’t want her in time out. I didn’t want her removed
from the room. So, there were things that I knew were early childhood practice at the
time, that I felt emotionally she would not cope with. See I wanted confidence in the
staff that they would follow what I wanted for her in the day as well (Mother, 7: 5965).
Encapsulating this role aspect, a father, who incidentally worked in the area of
health promotion, described himself as an advocate for what his children want and
need:
P
I suppose, to summarise, you can almost put it down to being an advocate. [ For?]
For what my family is looking for.
I
Can I ask, in terms of that advocate role, does that influence the types of issues that
you would want to have a say in?
P
It would. I wouldn’t be looking to have comment on every workplace health and
safety issue, for example, because it’s not an area where I have a lot of technical
expertise. But, on a lot of the, okay, on the health side, the activities…I’d be choosing
areas that I’d offer comment on. And, again, I suppose, a little bit self-centred. If it
was a service or a policy that I couldn’t see had a direct bearing, and this is probably
more a time issue, but if it doesn’t have a direct.. a payback to me, to my family, to
my kids, I’d consider what sort of time I’d put into having comment. So, it’s got to be
meaningful at the time
(Father, 24: 267-268, 291-301).
4.3.4.1 Category 4 summary
In Category 4, the role of parents is constituted in terms of a partnership. This
translates to supporting the service selected for the child and having some say in
service matters likely to impact on their child and family (referential aspect). Focal in
the awareness of these parents is a sense of shared responsibility for quality service
provision, which includes having some say in what happens for their child at their
ECEC service. This view is confirmed by the structural aspects of this conception.
Key role aspects include: sharing information; building relationships; supporting the
service you have selected for the child; and having some say in what happens at the
ECEC service. This category marks a significant shift in the nature of the role of
160
parents in ECEC, from passive and reactive to supportive and proactive. Throughout
the first three conceptions, the role of parents is seen in terms of using or consuming
an established ECEC service. The ECEC service is viewed as preset, the service
provider is held responsible for the quality of service provision, and parents have little
say in how the service is provided. Within this context, the role of parents tends to be
passive and reactive, and ultimately limited to deciding whether or not to use a
particular service. In contrast, parents expressing Conception 4 describe their role in
terms of a partnership, discuss shared responsibilities and look for ways to be
involved. Parental involvement is seen to support and enhance the quality of service
provision. It also provides reciprocal benefits in terms of access to information,
positive relationships with staff and increased opportunity to influence what happens
for their child in the service.
4.3.5
Category 5: Member of a service community conception
The role of parents is seen as working as a member of the service community for the
benefit of all concerned, which includes participating in service decision making.
Parents expressing Conception 5 identified similar role aspects to those in the
previous categories, namely selecting the best service for their child, knowing what’s
happening for their child, and monitoring service provision. In fact, there is
considerable similarity in how the role of parents is seen in Conceptions 4 and 5. As
in Conception 4, these parents also perceived they had a role in supporting their
chosen ECEC service, and that parents had the right to have a say in what happens for
their child at the service. What makes this conception distinctive, however, is that
these parents saw themselves as members of a service community and discussed their
role within this context. Parents expressing this conception talked about ‘working
together’ and the benefits of a ‘sense of community’ and ‘social connectedness’.
These parents delimited and organised their role as ‘working as a member of the
service community for the benefit of all concerned’. Thus, the relation between
parents and their role here may be described broadly in terms of being a member of a
service community and, thereby, sharing interest in and contributing to the successful
operation of that service. Within this category, parents looked for opportunities to be
involved, were proactive in seeking information and sharing their views and
161
expectations, and expected to be included in service decision making, particularly
where this was likely to impact on their child and family. Parental involvement was
seen to enhance the overall operation of the ECEC service, yielding dividends to all
concerned.
Taking the analysis a step further, it is possible to distinguish a number of key role
aspects that come together to constitute this conception of the role of parents. As
noted, this category builds on the earlier categories and thereby incorporates
previously discussed role aspects such as: selecting the best service for the child;
receiving, seeking and sharing information; monitoring service provision; raising any
issues and/or concerns; building relationships with staff; and supporting the selected
service. This said, the following key role aspects distinguish this particular way of
experiencing the role of parents in ECEC from all of the others.
•
Be involved in service decision making likely to impact on their child and
family. This role aspect is very similar to ‘having a say in what happens for their
child at the service’ discussed within Category 4. The shared view was that
parents have a right to have a say in service matters likely to impact on their child
and/or family. However, differentiating this role aspect and this conception was a
shift in focus from process to outcome. Whereas parents in the previous category
tended to emphasise their right to have a say, parents expressing Conception 5
concentrated on the outcome of their involvement, that is, decision making. The
clear expectation here was that parents were to be informed about possible
changes or developments within their service, consulted and involved in decision
making. A father explained his expectations:
I
Have you had any opportunity to have a say in how services run?
P
Again limited. I suppose the area I’ve been looking to have some degree of input into
is policies or new policies that are coming through. Whether it be a behaviour or
medical or health-related issue…to be included in that decision making and the
evolution of the internal policy. But also, definitely, looking at activities, and outside
service providers coming into the centre where the child is. Being informed, pre- the
activity, that there was going to be an additional service…So that we are given the
chance, as parents, to say, yes, my child participates or no, my child doesn’t
participate. So, probably two levels, one is if there’s a new issue or their renewing
their existing documentation, being included in that loop. But, also, being made aware
of activities that will involve my child and being allowed to make the decision
whether or not they participate.
162
I
What motivates you to participate and have a say?
P Well generally caring and wanting the best. But, it could also be that fear factor in the
society we live in now, where all the negative is force-fed to us. So, I think part of it
is trying to make a safe decision or a decision that guarantees safety.
(Father, 24: 71-86)
As in the previous category, these parents were most interested in taking part in
decision making that was likely to have a direct impact on their child and/or
family. This said, they were also motivated to contribute to broader discussion
where this related to an area of perceived professional expertise and/or personal
interest (even if this didn’t directly relate to their child in the service).
Reinforcing her expectation to be included in decision making, a mother
described an example of poor consultation, showing how parents worked together
to influence the final decision. The issue here is the installation of a video
surveillance system within the child care centre to be linked to the Internet:
o
When they were going to introduce the um, put the video cameras in, and getting
parents’ point of view… They sent you out a survey sheet. But, it actually didn’t give
you any opportunity to say whether you did or did not want it in the centre. You just
had to answer about how frequently you would use it. Which really annoyed some
parents, because we didn’t get the opportunity to say no, we didn’t want it. Anyway,
we then approached the staff. We approached all the staff and let them know. And
the director…and she wasn’t keen on having it either…And then we had a meeting
and then we filled out some information about why we were so opposed and what we
would really like. And then they had a meeting and put that to the people who owned
the centre…and said the parents did not want it in. And so they decided against it
(Mother, 8: 59, 60, 67-83).
While discussing their involvement in their ECEC service, these parents observed
that only a few parents take on this role and acknowledged the difficulty in
getting parents involved. This view was reflected in phrases such as ‘hardly any
parents ever turn up’, ‘there was only like myself and a few others’, and ‘there’s
that other end of the curve that will just not communicate’. Nevertheless, the
expectation remained that service processes would enable and even ‘empower’
‘parents who wanted to be involved’ to take part in service decision making.
•
Work together makes the service better for all concerned – children, staff,
families. The distinction between this conception and the previous one lies, above
all, in the prevailing view of parent as a member of a service community.
163
Stemming from this was the focus on parents and teachers ‘working together’ to
support the best outcomes for all concerned. As in the previous category, these
parents viewed quality service provision as a shared responsibility. However,
within this category, there was a broader view of the benefits of parent
involvement. In the previous category, the primary focus was the benefit of
involvement for children at the service. In this category parents identified related
benefits for both children and adults (i.e., staff, parents and other family
members). This broader perspective was linked by these parents to contemporary
changes in Australian family life, in particular the decline of the extended family
and the need for alternative approaches to family support. A mother talked about
the benefits of parent involvement and developing “a sense of community” within
ECEC services:
P
I believe that public schools can be just as good as private schools. It’s the amount of
interaction that parents have with those schools.
P
[And later talking about her school’s Parents’ and Citizens’ (P&C) Association] I
think a really good P&C makes a really good school, because it involves all the
parents and it provides a sense of community for people. And I think that community
then helps kids…. Like, back in the olden days, like you had your extended family.
But a lot of people don’t have extended family these days. They have to rely on nextdoor neighbours or friends they’ve met to provide that. And it helps to support. And
kids grow up with the sense of belonging. I think the kids that don’t have that then
find it a lot harder to fit in later on.
I
And you think that parents can provide that by working with schools?
P That’s right. Because it shows the kids that their parents are interested in school and
interested in what they’re doing. And that helps them to feel that going to school is
important. And, I think they’re more likely to, I don’t know, respect it more.
(Mother, 8: 103-105, 182-191)
As in the previous category, this broader view of the role of parents using ECEC
services was seen to be at odds with the concept of parent as consumer. While
acknowledging the technical accuracy of the term (i.e., they are paying for a
service), these parents viewed and experienced their role as more than a simple
service transaction:
164
P I suppose, consumer, as a word, I view it as cold, where as it’s a transaction. And
there is that component to it. But I’d also like to position myself in that mix of
developing trust and a relationship with the service provider, with the staff and the
people who are working there. Be available…For example, I’m helping one service
provider put in for a series of grants at the moment, which won’t have a direct benefit
to me, either professionally or in a monetary sense, but it’s just providing assistance
where possible. Other things that we’ve done is turn up for working bees and be part
of the social connectedness with having your Christmas parties and those sorts of
things. Not necessarily being up running the whole show, but just putting your hand
up when you can.
I
How important do you think it is that services try to engender that connectedness?
P I think it’s vital. With the amount of time that some children are spending away from
the family unit, I think that anything, that…not just in the child care area, but also the
schools, the clubs, your social settings. The more you can bring interaction from
outside the circle, and bring in all your linkages throughout the whole community,
you strengthen the community over time. It’s beneficial to us all. So, the providers of
child care and those services, to bring in other members of the community, including
parents, it’s huge. I think we’ve all got to be in there together somewhere.
(Father, 24: 157-179)
4.3.5.1 Category 5 summary
In Category 5, the role of parents is constituted as working as a member of the ECEC
service community for the benefit of all concerned (referential aspect). Focal in the
awareness of these parents is the sense of being a member of the service community.
This is the distinguishing feature of this conception. This focus contextualises how
these parents see and experience their role and is evident in the key structural aspects
which define this particular way of experiencing the role. For example, as members
of their service community, these parents expect to be involved in service decision
making, particularly where this is likely to impact on their child and family. In
contrast to Category 4, where the focus is ‘having a say’ in what happens for their
child at the service, these parents concentrate on the outcome of their involvement,
that is, decision making. These parents also express a broader view with respect to
the nature and benefits of parent involvement in ECEC, reflecting a shift in emphasis
from self (i.e., own child and family) to consider a wider social context. In previous
categories, the focus of parents has been the benefit of involvement for their own
child and family. In Category 4, this extended to include other children at the service
and staff. However, within this category, parent involvement is seen to contribute to a
sense of community and social connectedness which ultimately benefits everyone children, families, staff and the broader community. Within this category, the role of
165
parents is proactive and underpinned by a strong sense of community capacity
building.
These five categories of description reveal variation in the ways that parents constitute
their role using ECEC services. Each category describes a distinctly different way of
seeing and experiencing this role. As Bruce (1997) observed, these categories provide
pictures of “real people… in real situations” (p. 151). The conceptions reflect the
views and experiences of the parents in this study, as parents using ECEC services.
Table 4.1 provides a summary of the five categories of description, highlighting
similarities and differences in terms of the referential and structural elements of each
conception, and the underpinning structure of awareness.
Following the practice of a number of phenomenographers (e.g., Boulton-Lewis et al.,
2001; Marton et al., 1993), when the categories of description were stable, I applied
them to the data from which they emerged Table 4.2 shows the array of conceptions
according to Marton et al’s (1993) “priority rule”, identifying the ‘highest order’ (or
in this case most participatory) conception expressed by individual parents (p. 295).
Table 4.3 shows the full array of conceptions among parents in the study, illustrating
the hierarchical relationship between the conceptions.
4.4
The outcome space
Having discussed the categories of description characterising different conceptions of
the role of parents using ECEC services, the next task is to consider the relationships
between these conceptions and to present the outcome space for this part of the study.
As discussed previously, the outcome space draws together the complex of categories
of description to show the different ways of experiencing the phenomenon under
investigation and the relationships between them (Marton & Booth, 1997). In this
instance, the outcome space has been constructed by me, the researcher, to illustrate
the different ways parents in this study constituted their role using ECEC services,
and the relationships between these conceptions. Like the categories of description,
the outcome space is based on the collective experience of parents in this study, and
reflects the internal relation between parents and their role in using ECEC services.
166
Table 4.1: Categories of description denoting the role of parents in using ECEC services
1
Category
Label
Referential element
(What role is conceived as)
Structural elements
(How role is conceived)
Service user
conception
The role of parents is seen as selecting
and using the best service for their child.
•
•
•
•
2
Informed user
conception
•
•
The role of parents is seen as knowing
what’s happening for their child in the
service.
•
•
•
3
4
Consumer
conception
Partnership
conception
The role of parents is seen as paying for a
service, and, thereby, enacting certain
consumer rights.
•
Monitoring and raising any concerns
relating to their child in the service
(no other proactive input) (Subcategory A)
•
Monitoring, raising any concerns,
and having some say in what
happens for your child (e.g. tell
needs, make requests)
(Sub-category B)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The role of parents is seen as supporting
the service they have selected for their
child and having some say in what
happens for their child in the service.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5
Member of
service
community
conception
The role of parents is seen as working as
a member of the service community for
the benefit of all concerned, which
includes participating in service decision
making.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
167
Select best service
Take child to and from the
service
Receive information
If things fine – leave alone; If
problem – leave
Select best service
Take child to and from the
service
Receive information
Find out what’s happening for
child
Monitor service provision
Have input/ share information
as able (e.g., service initiates)
Select best service
Take child to and from the
service
Pay for the service
Receive information
Find out what’s happening
Have input/ share information
as able
Monitor to ensure the service
meets expectations
Identify and raise any
problems
(For some) Share information
and expectations
Select best service
Take child to and from the
service
Receive information
Find out what’s happening
Share information – keep
service up to date
Build relationship with service/
staff
Monitor
Investigate any concerns –
raise with service
Support the selected service
Have some say in what
happens for their child in the
service
Select best service
Take child to and from the
service
Receive information
Find out what’s happening
Share information
Build relationship with service/
staff
Monitor
Investigate any concerns –
raise with service
Be involved in decision
making that affects their child
Support service – working
together.
Sense of community, social
connectedness
Structure of awareness
(focus)
The focus on service use is the
distinguishing feature of this
conception. The role of parents is
delimited to selecting the best service
for their child and using it. There is no
other ongoing role.
The focus on information and
communication is the distinguishing
feature of this conception. The role of
parents is delimited to receiving
information from the service, as well
as implementing strategies to find out
what’s happening for their child at the
service. Parent input is limited to
responding to service initiatives (e.g.,
surveys)
The concept of parent as consumer is
the distinguishing feature of this
conception. The focal element is
purchasing a service for their child.
The role of parents is delimited to
paying for a service, and, thereby,
enacting certain consumer rights. In
sub-category A, this means having the
right to raise issues or concerns. In
sub-category B, this extends to having
some say in what happens for their
child at the service (e.g., initiating
input rather than responding to service
initiatives)
The focus on partnership and shared
responsibility for quality service
provision is the distinguishing feature
of this conception. The role of parents
is delimited to supporting their service
and having some say in what happens
for their child in the service.
Supporting the service involves
building relationships, two-way
communication and helping out as
able. This makes the service better for
their child and others. It also supports
other parent role aspects such as
monitoring, raising concerns, and,
having some say in what happens for
their child.
The importance of a sense of
community is the focus and
distinguishing feature of this
conception. The role of parents is
delimited to membership of a service
community, where members work
together for the benefit of all
concerned (i.e., children, staff and
families). Within this context,
emphasis is placed on two-way
communication. Parents, as members
of the service community, help out as
they are able and expect to have a say
in service matters, particularly where
decision making will affect their child.
Table 4.2: Most participatory conception of the role of parents in using ECEC services
Category
Service user
Informed
user
Consumer
Partnership
Member of
service
community
1
11, 20
2
02, 09,
21, 22
3
A
B
06,12,13,15,19
01, 05, 10, 14,
16, 17, 18, 25
4
03, 04, 07,
23, 26
5
08, 24
Table 4.3: Full array of conceptions of the role of parents in using ECEC services
Category
Service user
1
01 – 26
2
3
A
B
Informed
user
Consumer
Partnership
Member of
service
community
01, 02, 03, 04,
05, 06, 07, 08,
09, 10, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26
06,12,13,15,19
01, 03, 04, 05,
07, 08, 10,14,
16, 17, 18, 23,
24, 25, 26
4
03, 04, 07, 08,
23, 24, 26
5
08, 24
168
As discussed in the previous chapter, the construction of the outcome space is
underpinned by two key principles: (1) the belief that every phenomenon is
experienced in a limited number of qualitatively different ways; and (2) these
different ways of experiencing are logically related (i.e., as parts of a whole) (Marton,
1994).
Marton and Booth (1997) go one step further to suggest that, as a general rule, the
qualitatively different ways of experiencing a particular phenomenon form a
hierarchy, the structure of which can be defined in terms of increasing complexity. In
this study, analysis revealed that parents viewed and experienced their role using
ECEC services in five different ways, giving rise to five categories of description: (1)
parent as service user; (2) parent as informed user; (3) parent as consumer; (4) parent
as partner and (5) parent as member of an ECEC service community. Each category
of description denotes a distinctly different way of constituting this role, and, as
suggested by Marton and Booth (1997), the variation between these conceptions can
be hierarchically organised.
Before proceeding, it is important to clarify use of the term hierarchy in this thesis.
As discussed in chapter 3, variation in ways of experiencing a phenomenon can be
characterised in terms of the structure of awareness. Drawing on this framework,
Marton and Booth (1997) posited that more advanced ways of experiencing
something are more complex and more inclusive (i.e., reflect more simultaneously
experienced aspects of the phenomenon) than less advanced ways of experiencing the
same thing. This said, the categories of description and outcome space ultimately
reflect the researcher’s knowledge of the phenomenon, and value judgment as to what
constitutes the better experience or understanding of this. According to Marton and
Booth (1997), value judgments cannot be empirically grounded, but they can be
argued (p. 107).
Drawing on the research literature regarding parent participation in ECEC (see
chapter 2), the notion of a hierarchy here signifies expanding conceptions of the role
of parents using ECEC and increasing levels of parent participation in service matters,
including decision making. It is not a moral hierarchy nor is it an attempt to classify
individual parents, to compare groups of parents, or to judge the behaviour of parents
169
(Marton, 1981). It is also not a developmental hierarchy. It does not reflect
individual experience and there is no evidence to suggest that there is any sort of
incremental or linear progression through the various conceptions. Rather, the notion
of hierarchy here reflects contemporary views on parent participation in ECEC and,
ultimately, my value judgment as the researcher on what constitutes a narrow or
broader (i.e., ‘higher order’) perspective on the role of parents using ECEC services.
The outcome space denoting the phenomenon of the role of parents using ECEC
services is represented in Figure 4.1. As can be seen, the outcome space is presented
as a classic hierarchy, wherein the categories of description have been placed in order,
from the narrowest conception of the role of parents using ECEC services (Category
1) to the most expansive and inclusive conception (Category 5).
This ordering is based on the following considerations:
•
Each conception incorporates and expands on previous conceptions. For
example, in Category 1, parent as service user, focal in awareness is finding and
using the best service for their child. Within Category 1, the role of parents is
defined in narrow terms, ending at the point of enrolment. Parents expressing this
conception question the notion of any other formal or ongoing role. Now, in fact,
all of the parents in this study described themselves, in one way or another, as
service users, and expressed their desire to find the best or most suitable service
for their child. Consequently, this conception is seen to represent the base
conception and is both “prior and super ordinate to all the other conceptions”
(Marton et al., 1993, p. 284). In Category 2, parent as informed user, the role of
parents expands to include an ongoing, albeit retrospective monitoring role. Focal
in awareness is ‘knowing what’s happening for their child in the service’ and
parents implement a range of proactive strategies to this effect. While not evident
in Conception 1, this desire to ‘find out’ and ‘be informed’ is a feature of all
subsequent conceptions. And so it follows. The focal element of each conception
is present in subsequent and expanding conceptions of the role of parents using
ECEC services. Consequently, within Category 5, parent as member of the ECEC
service community, the role of parents expands to include all the focal elements of
the previous conceptions. For example, Category 5 includes: finding and using
170
Field Code Changed
Figure 4.1: Outcome space depicting conceptions of the role of parents in using
ECEC services
5. PARENT AS
MEMBER OF
SERVICE COMMUNITY
4. PARENT AS PARTNER
3. PARENT AS CONSUMER
2. PARENT AS INFORMED USER
1. PARENT AS SERVICE USER
171
the best service for their child; knowing what’s happening for their child at the
service; monitoring and raising any issues or concerns; and supporting the service
and having a say in what happens for their child at the service; plus working as a
member of the service community for the benefit of all concerned (the
distinguishing feature of this conception).
•
The role context broadens and becomes more participatory. Within Categories
1, 2 and 3, the role of parents is seen in terms of the individual using or consuming
an established service. These conceptions are characterised by an almost exclusive
focus on self, that is, the needs of their own child and family. In contrast, within
Categories 4 and 5, the role of parents is situated in a broader social context.
While the primary focus remains their own child and family, parental involvement
is seen to yield broader benefits for self and others. In Category 4, the role of
parents is seen in terms of a partnership, with parents and staff sharing
responsibility for the quality of service provision. Parent support and involvement
is perceived to make the service better for their own child, as well as other
children at the service. In Category 5, the role of parents is seen within the
context of membership of the ECEC service community. As such, members of
the community work together for the benefit of all concerned – children, families
and staff. Again, while the primary focus continues to be their own child and
family, there is also a strong sense of social support and community capacity
building.
•
The nature of the role of parents becomes more proactive and participatory.
Within the first two categories, the role of parents is seen to be passive and
reactive (e.g., using an established service, receiving information, responding to
requests for information). In these categories, emphasis is placed on the role of
the service provider who is seen to bear primary responsibility for information
sharing and full responsibility for the quality of service provision. Parents have
little say in what happens for their child at the service, and the role of parents is
ultimately limited to deciding whether or not to use a particular service. In
Category 3, parent as consumer, the role of parents is passive while all is going
well and reactive if a problem arises. Within this context, parent involvement is
172
prompted by a perceived issue or problem relating to their child in the service. In
category 3B, the role of parents becomes a little more proactive with the focus
shifting from one-way to two way communication and information sharing. The
focus on two-way communication is strengthened in Categories 4 and 5, and the
role of parents is best described as proactive. Within these categories, parents take
on a range of roles and responsibilities in support of their service and better
outcomes for their child and family, and other members of the ECEC community.
•
There is movement from one-way to two-way communication and increased
emphasis on parents having a say in what happens for their child at the service.
As the context shifts and the role of parents becomes more proactive, there is
growing emphasis on two-way communication and parents having a say in what
happens for their child at the service. Within the first two categories, the focus is
one-way communication. The service provider is seen to own and ‘control’ the
desired information and, thereby, bears primary responsibility for information
sharing. In Category 3 (sub-categories A and B), parents initiate contact with their
service provider to raise an issue or concern. In Category 3B, the role of parents
extends to making specific requests of the service provider and sharing views and
expectations of service provision. However, it is not until we reach the final two
categories (i.e., Categories 4 and 5) that the focus really shifts to two-way
communication and information sharing. In Category 4, the role of parents
includes sharing information, building relationships with staff and having some
say in what happens for the child at the service. In Category 5, there is a further
shift in emphasis from the process of parent consultation to the outcome, that is,
service decision making. While in the previous category, there is an expectation
that parents will have opportunity to have a say in service matters likely to impact
on their child and family, in category 5, the expectation is that parents will be
involved in decision making.
In the second part of this chapter, the focus becomes the role of parents shaping
ECEC public policy. The categories of description characterising the different ways
that parents constituted their role in relation to ECEC public policy are described, and
the outcome space denoting the role of parents shaping ECEC public policy is
presented.
173
4.5
Four conceptions of the role of parents in shaping ECEC public policy
The focus shifts now from the role of parents using ECEC services to the role of
parents shaping ECEC public policy, known hereafter as ‘shaping policy’. This
sequence reflects the general flow of interviews where discussion started around
concrete service experience and then moved to the more abstract concept of
participation in ECEC policy. The central research question here is: What are the
qualitatively different ways in which parents constitute their role in shaping ECEC
public policy?
In my interpretation, four qualitatively different conceptions of the role of parents
shaping policy emerged:
•
The no role conception – the role of parents is seen as: No role in shaping
policy (Category A) ;
•
The raising concerns conception – the role of parents is seen as being
informed about policy that affects their child and family, raising any concerns
and/or seeking a change to current or proposed policy (Category B);
•
The having some say conception – the role of parents is seen as being
informed and having some say in policy matters that directly affect their child
and family (Category C);
•
The participating in policy decision making conception – the role of parents
is seen as participating in policy decision making, particularly where this is
likely to affect their child and family (Category D).
Once again, each of these conceptions differs through the meaning parents assign to
the role of parents shaping policy (i.e., what they see their role to be or what’s focal in
the structure of their awareness), and through the structural aspects which frame and
delimit this role.
4.5.1
Category A: No role conception
The role of parents shaping ECEC public policy is seen as: No role in shaping policy.
The parents expressing Conception A perceived no role for themselves in shaping
policy. While suggesting that government should seek the views of parents as service
174
users, and that it’s good for ‘other parents’, generally, to have a say in public policy
that affects them, these parents saw no role for themselves in this area. Instead, the
focus for these parents remained on direct service use. Within this context, the role of
parents shaping policy was delimited to ‘looking after your own direct service needs’
and this is the distinguishing feature of this conception. Thus, the relation between
parents and their role shaping policy may be described in terms of perceiving no
personal role in this area.
This view was revealed through the use of phrases such as
‘I probably wouldn’t personally’ [share views on a proposed service like the prep
year] ‘maybe not for me’ and ‘I’m looking after my little space’. These parents said
they had no problem with their current service, and that if they wanted some sort of
input, they would have it directly with whoever’s ‘doing it’ and/or change their care
arrangements in some way. These parents also expressed some doubt as to whether
having their say was going to make any real difference to policy, perceiving that
government doesn’t listen to parents and that government decision making is more
about service viability.
Taking the analysis a step further, it is possible to distinguish a number of key role
aspects that come together to constitute this particular way of seeing and experiencing
the role of parents shaping ECEC public policy.
•
Focus on service use - No role shaping ECEC public policy. Parents expressing
Conception A remained singularly focused on direct service provision. Focal in
awareness for these parents was their need to use an ECEC service and their
personal experience of service provision. From this perspective, having a say in
ECEC policy appeared far removed from daily life, and, therefore, well in the
background for these parents. Notwithstanding personal priorities, these parents
perceived a role for ‘other parents’ shaping policy. They maintained that parents
could help to identify community needs and expectations regarding ECEC service
provision, and government should provide opportunity for parents ‘who want to’
or ‘feel strongly enough’ to have their say on policy matters. This said, this is not
a role they wanted to take on personally. In the following excerpt, while
reinforcing the need for government to consult parents as service users, a father
indicated that he is not personally interested in participating in this process:
175
I
[Talking about government policy] I’m wondering if you think parents have a role in
shaping some of that, having a say in the standards they would like or the kind of
service they need?
P I would say they’d be the first ones to ask about something like that, wouldn’t they?
I
Tell me why you think that.
P Well, it’s parents’ kids that the people are looking after. So really, they’re the ones
that set the guidelines to a certain extent, because it’s their kids. That’s why they’d be
the first ones to ask, I’d assume. There’s no point asking someone that’s not involved
in it parentally.
I
If your child was likely to use a new service or if a new policy was going to affect
your child, would you want to have a say?
P Um. Maybe. Or maybe not for me, but generally for others. Yeah.
(Father, 11: 81-89)
Later in the same interview, this father linked parents ‘having a say’ to problem
identification and resolution, suggesting that he hasn’t experienced any problems
in relation to his services, and, therefore, hasn’t needed to have input. Again, the
focus remained on direct service use:
I
[Reflecting on the policy excerpt] Do you think that’s true, that there are limited
ways for parents to have a say?
P Well, see, I’ve got no problem with any of the care that I’ve had, you know. And, if I
needed to have some sort of input, I can have it directly with whoever’s doing it. So,
I’m sort of reasonably happy with that. Any more than that, I don’t know.
I
So, having a say on policy isn’t as important as having a say in the service where
your child is?
P Yeah. As long as that’s covered, well, that’s fine.
(Father, 11: 106-111)
This focus on direct service provision was again reinforced later in the same
interview:
I
[Reflecting on the policy excerpt and suggested parent roles, e.g., involvement in
planning new services, setting and monitoring quality standards] Do you think parents
want to be involved in those things?
P I would say there would be a big bunch of parents out there that would, yeah. Not all
parents do. But there is a big percentage of parents that are really vocal about things
like that, yeah…
I
What about you? Are those things you’d like to be involved in?
176
P Probably not really, no.
I
Can I ask why not?
P Like I said, I’m looking after my little space and unless there’s a great problem with
that, I don’t see the need to do anything about it. I’m not one of these people who’d
be going out to…crusade is probably a bit of a strong word, but that kind of thing,
you know.
I
[And, later, summarizing his role shaping policy] How do you see yourself as a
parent shaping ECEC public policy and new services for children?
P That’s a tricky question. I suppose, using it.
(Father, 11: 112-122, 159-160)
•
Question whether parents having their say will make any difference to policy
decisions. Parents within this category expressed doubt as to whether having their
say would have any real impact on government policy. There was an overriding
sense that government ‘doesn’t listen’ and that parents can’t influence policy
decisions. Putting forward these arguments, a mother perceived participating in
parent consultations to be “a waste of time”:
I
[Discussing the role of parents in the prep year trial] You obviously have some
views on this. Do you think you’d want to share those views? If this research was
being conducted in your school, do you think you would have something to say?
P I probably wouldn’t personally.
I
Tell me why wouldn’t you?
P Cause I don’t like helping government (laughter).
P Because they don’t seem to listen. They just do whatever they want to anyway. And,
yeah, I think it would be a waste of my time, because they don’t seem to listen. That’s
probably why I wouldn’t do it.
(Mother, 20: 128 – 133)
Prompted to consider her ideal situation, the same mother suggested it was about
active listening on the part of government:
I
In an ideal world, would you want to share your views – in an ideal world?
P Quite possibly, yeah.
I
What would motivate you to participate?
P If they listened. Yeah. Basically if they listened to what I had to say. That’d be fair
enough. My child would benefit from what I did have to say.
(Mother, 20:134-137)
177
A father also perceived that what he had to say, as a parent, was unlikely to have
any real impact on service provision and that the key issue remained viability:
P I suppose at the end of the day, if it’s being used and it’s doing what it’s supposed to
be doing, that’s all that really matters. What I’ve got to say about it is probably not
really going to make a great deal of difference, I wouldn’t think. It’s got to be viable,
I suppose. That’s probably the word. How many thoughts about it that I had, even if I
was to send some questionnaire in, I don’t think it would have a great bearing on it.
I’d say viability would be at the top of the list, wouldn’t it?
(Father, 11: 148-156)
4.5.1.1
Category A summary
In Category A, the role of parents shaping policy is seen as a non-role. In this
category, the role of parents is delimited to looking after your own direct service
needs (referential aspect). These parents remain singularly focused on their own
service needs and their daily experience of service provision. The expression ‘looking
after my own little space’ encapsulates this conception. This view of the role of
parents is confirmed by the structural aspects of this conception. While promoting the
need for government to consult parents as service users, these parents are not
interested in extending their current role as service users, and perceive that parents
have little ability to influence policy decisions anyway. Within this category, the role
of parents may be viewed as passive, in terms of both service use and policy (i.e.,
using an established service; no role shaping ECEC public policy).
4.5.2
Category B: Raising concerns conception
The role of parents shaping policy is seen as being informed about policy that affects
their child and family, raising any concerns and/or seeking a change in current or
proposed policy.
In contrast to the previous category, parents expressing Conception B perceived that
they do have a role shaping policy. The focus for these parents was being informed
about public policy that affected their child and family, and having a say if unhappy
with what was being proposed or had been decided. The role of parents in relation to
ECEC public policy was delimited to raising personal concerns and/or seeking change
to public policy impacting on their child and family. This problem-orientation
178
towards the role of parents in policy is the distinguishing feature of this conception.
Parents expressing this conception indicated they were ‘happy to sit down and listen’
[to policy proposals] and would ‘have a say if they are not happy’ [with what was
proposed]. Thus, the relation between parents and their role here may be described in
terms of looking out for any problems or areas of personal concern/disagreement, and
bringing these concerns to the attention of government. These parents perceived that
it was the responsibility of government to give parents information about proposed
policy changes (such as the introduction of the Preparatory Year in Queensland), and
to provide easy opportunity for parents to have their say – if they wanted to respond.
This said, as in Category A, some of these parents also questioned whether parents
could influence government decision making or affect any change in policy.
Taking the analysis a step further, it is possible to discern a number of key role
aspects that come together to constitute this particular way of seeing and experiencing
the role of parents shaping ECEC public policy. The following role aspects
distinguish this conception from the previous one, and those that follow:
•
Focus on policy that affects their child and family. Within this category, the
focus was ‘relevant’ policy matters. Parents expressing this conception delimited
their area of interest to policy that was likely to have a direct impact on their child
and family, and this emphasis contextualised all other role aspects. These parents
indicated interest in being informed about, and possibly, having a say on policy
matters ‘that directly affected their child, family and or service’. In the following
excerpt, a mother clearly defined her personal area of interest:
I
Okay, with these broader government policies, do you think parents can have a role
shaping that kind of policy, at that level?
P If it affects you directly, I suppose. If it’s something that doesn’t affect you…I
suppose everyone’s got a right to have a say in anything. But, if it doesn’t really
affect me, I wouldn’t be so interested in having a say. Unless it directly affects me or
my children.
I
Do you think it’s good for parents to participate in that way? [Oh, definitely. Yes].
Why?
179
P Well, if it’s affecting your children directly, you want the best outcome for your
children, the best possible education. So, you’ve got to have a say. Otherwise, they
can just do what they want, without anyone having a say.
I
What if it’s an issue that isn’t relevant to you – something like the introduction of a
prep year when your child has already started school?
P No, I wouldn’t be interested. I mean, you should be, I suppose, because it’s other
children. But, no, I wouldn’t. Because it’s not affecting my children, or any more
children I’m going to have,, because I know I’m not having any more (laughs). So,
no, I wouldn’t have a say. I’d be happy to let those parents whose children were
involved to have their say. I’d be quite happy just to carry on and stay out of it.
(Mother, 19: 82-86, 154-158, 167-173)
This focus on ‘relevant’ policy matters was reinforced by other parents:
o
I suppose the main bit is that she [daughter] would be affected. Yes. I guess because
my children are still going through school. I’m not really thinking about other
people’s children, yet (Mother, 6: 94, 203-205).
o
[Summarising role] If it’s relevant to my son, yes. I’d like to have a say on issues that
affect my son, yeah. I suppose I should want to have a role in a lot of things, but,
yeah, mainly just things that involve him (Mother, 22: 217-220).
o
Oh I don’t think I need any motivation. Just knowing that it’s for your children
(Mother, 18: 286-287).
o
So, it’s [the prep year] going to affect everybody, so, I think, yeah, parents should
need to know and get the information to us somehow, and we’d be able to respond
(Mother, 23: 236-238).
Within the context of relevant policy, there appeared to be particular interest in
matters related to child health and safety. A key issue here was the size of groups
and number of adults caring for children. In the following excerpts, parents
expressed their interest in having a say in matters such as these:
P [Expressing happiness with her current service] I’m happy…like I wouldn’t want to
get into the rigmarole of it but. Cause where my eldest daughter is, the staff there are
really good. They’ve always got the right amount on, and it looks like they can handle
everything. To an extent I want my say, but, not right down to the nitty gritty.
I
What if the government was going to change, say group sizes? Say they thought
there could be more children in your daughter’s group.
P No, no. That’d be too much. Yes, they shouldn’t do that (laughs). I’d like a say in
that.
180
I
[And later] Are you interested in having a say in things like standards and the
development of new services in your area?
P
To an extent. Not fully, but, I don’t know. Like when it comes to class sizes, yes, I’d
like to have a say. Oh, I don’t know how to describe it. I don’t want a say in
everything, just in, I don’t know, in the health and well-being of my child.
(Mother, 10: 110-116, 189-192)
P1 I also think though, that when it comes to the numbers of children, cause it’s 26 isn’t
it, the group leader and one assistant and 26 children [25]. Yeah, well I think that’s a
lot of kids. And if you have to leave a room, and there’s only one person left, and
there’s that many children. And they all have their own special needs. I think that’s a
lot.
I
So that’s something you’d like to have a say about?
P1 Yeah
P2 Yes definitely
P1 Yeah I think there should be at least two assistants.
P2 If you’ve got one carer taking a little girl to the toilet and the other one’s fallen over
in the playground or fallen over and hurt themselves, and you’ve got another 24 kids
around just doing nothing. That can’t be safe.
(Mother and Father, 3/4: 399-411)
o
Well, I know with the babies, I think they can have four or five with one person, and
sometimes you need more than that, when they’re like out of control children. So, I
think some parents would want less children to the adult. So, they’d have their say
about that (Mother, 25: 43-47).
General child health issues were also of interest. In the following excerpt a
mother shared her views on the proposed prep year and the need for some young
children to rest during the day:
o
Yes [I would want a say on the prep year]. Like for example, the sleeps. Like
sometimes the kids, by the time they reach a certain age, they don’t want to sleep
anymore. But if they…because they do so much at school, a lot of kids are exhausted
by the time 4 o’clock comes around they fall asleep. So, things like that, yeah. I’d
want to have a say in that. Yeah, some sort of say (Mother, 3: 615-620)
Conversely, within this category, some parents were reluctant to share their views
on ‘educational matters’, perceiving a lack of personal expertise in this area:
o
I’d say no [to participating in the prep year trial], only because I’m not an expert in
educational matters. I’m not…I have no knowledge of what they’re implementing,
and I’m sure that…I’d probably just leave it up to the experts (Mother, 15: 146-149).
181
o
I would [like to have a say on policy]. I just don’t know if I know the whole….
Because obviously these people who are doing it, did or do have a love for it and can
think on a different level to what I think about why children do things or why they
built something out of a pile of dirt that I mightn’t be able to see. So, I don’t think it’s
really…I don’t have it all. I mean, I’ve had children, I haven’t had any other
experience. (Laughs) Do you know what I mean? (Mother, 18: 106, 110-117).
o
It depends on what the parent sees and understands about the whole thing (Mother,
12: 180-181).
For some, this was viewed as a barrier to parent involvement in ECEC policy.
•
Receive information – be informed. Information sharing was seen as integral to
parents having a say in policy. The general view was that parents are unable to
share their views on policy matters if they don’t know what’s going on.
Highlighting the need for timely information sharing, that is, prior to policy
implementation, these parents perceived that responsibility for information sharing
resided with government.
o
Well, I think information should be given to the parents. I already knew about this
quality assurance thing because I know that (hub staff member) was one of the
forerunners of that…. So I already had a bit of an understanding about what they
were, but a lot of parents wouldn’t. So, I think that information should be given to
parents…of the policies, and perhaps, in that information, there should be an
opportunity or a telephone number they can ring to voice their opinions or concerns
…and for the care providers as well. I think sometimes that they have these things
thrust upon them too, and I really don’t think the government consults widely enough
on most issues actually (Laughs) (Mother, 14: 124-137).
o
I think so. They [parents] need to know. Otherwise how can they have an opinion on
something, if they don’t know about it? (Mother, 22: 41-42).
o
I think prep needs to be explained (Mother, 21: 365).
While all parents stressed the need for ‘information in advance’ there was some
variation as to the amount of information required. Many parents talked about
the need for ‘quick and easy’ methods. However, some parents were clearly
seeking greater detail. The following excerpts illustrate this variation with regard
to parent needs and expectations of government information sharing:
o
A short letter would be the easiest. Then you can sit down and read it… .(Mother, 19:
128-129).
182
o
Might be nice to have a say in that [standards and new services]. As long as they
didn’t give you, it would have to be something that would be quick and easy to do.
Like you wouldn’t want to have to sit down and read a 500 page document and then
fill out 3 foolscap sheets of stuff. It’d have to be something that was quite easy,
because I just don’t have a lot of spare time. But, yeah. It’d be something that I’d like
to have a say in. I think most parents would (Mother, 21: 89-96).
o
Every single parent needs a blanket of information so they can make an informed
decision…We need to have all the information, up front, in advance, to make an
informed decision on whether the prep year, for example, is going to be a good thing,
a bad thing. What’s the positives? What’s the negatives? Obviously, if you’re
doing…you don’t want to hear all the negatives, but they’re obviously there. And, as
a parent, we need to know that. Yeah (Mother, 16: 241-248).
o
It’s hard, because I don’t like to see money wasted. Like some of the things we’ve
been sent in the mail by the government, these huge booklets, and, it’s like, I would
rather them send me $20 than send me that booklet, you know. Yeah. Maybe, I
guess if you wanted to participate you could be sent a very basic questionnaire. And,
if you were more interested in it, maybe then they could send you a more detailed
questionnaire. Instead of sending everyone all the information and the detailed
questionnaire (Mother, 6: 149-157).
While the emphasis here was on policy information, a number of parents also
identified the need for more process-oriented information (i.e., to let parents know
they have the right to comment, to seek change to policy, and how to go about
this). As revealed in the following excerpts, there was a sense that many parents
don’t know they are able to comment on and/or seek change in ECEC public
policy:
•
o
Talking about parents “wanting to change things”…They [parents] need to be given
the procedures to do so (Mother, 15: 272).
o
I think it’s important to share the information to parents and to invite parents to make
comment. So that would be the main thing. I don’t think people know that as parents
we can change things. And I think it’s more that type of information, you know, you
have a right to change things if you like or have your say and you’ll be heard. And
give feedback to them. That would be great (Mother, 12: 404-410).
Be given opportunity to have a say. In addition to the provision of information,
there was also an expectation that government would provide opportunity for
parents who ‘want to’ or ‘feel strongly enough’ to have input into policy
development or review.
There was a general feeling that parents should be given
opportunity to comment and, more specifically, to raise any issues or concerns
they have in relation to policy matters. This said, the role of parents within this
category was somewhat distanced from the policy development process, and
183
described more in terms of review or, as one father suggested, ‘checking in
afterwards’. Parents expressing this conception said they were not interested in
the ‘nitty gritty’ or in ‘coming up with policy’. Rather, they wanted to see what
was being proposed (or had been decided), and would have input if unhappy. As
in the area of information sharing, there continued to be a strong emphasis on
“quick and easy” methods of consultation:
o
Yes, it has to be really easy. Cause if it’s not necessarily difficult, but if it doesn’t
seem pretty straightforward, they’re probably a lot of people that wont be involved
(Mother, 12: 295-298).
o
Well, yes [I do want to have a say]. Not up close. But to be able to have some sort of
survey to fill out to see whether everybody wanted to do it or not. Yes… Yeah [it
would] just come home with the kids, like other things they have come home with
surveys. And, I guess, if you felt strongly enough, you’d return the survey. If you
weren’t worried, you wouldn’t return it (Mother, 6: 75-83).
In line with this perspective, many parents expressed their preference for sendhome written surveys and questionnaires:
o
Things that I can fill in. Tick boxes and things like that… I guess it’s quick. I
probably don’t have to think about it for a very long time. Like, you’ve got two
choices, yeah, I like that one and I don’t like that one, I suppose. It’s obviously quite
busy here and I’m trying to balance (Mother, 6: 128-131).
o
Written feedback… Then you can sit down and read it…. Maybe a survey attached to
the back, with comments. They were always good because you can sit down and read
things, and, then at your leisure you can think. You’re not there in a room going, “Oh,
I don’t know”. You can sit back and think about things and then write them down
(Mother, 19: 128-134).
o
I’d rather a survey…you’ve got time to think about it and just do it as you want to do
it. There’s meetings, but, sort of, I don’t really like talking in front of people (Mother,
25: 56-58, 64-65).
o
Well, I think parents should be consulted. I don’t think that parents have got time to
go and sit at a particular meeting. Whether it’s just done by survey, something like
that, a piece of paper that they can take home and fill in at their leisure. I don’t think
they’d have a huge attendance if they had some sort of meeting or something outside
of your normal work times (Mother, 14: 100-106).
o
They [parents] can do it at their leisure. They can pick up the information when they
pick up their kids. They can go yep, put that in the office. Yes, I’ve got a spare
moment. Yes, with nobody interrupting me, I can sit down and read it and have my
say, without any interruptions, without having a phone call or having to go to an
interview while you’ve got screaming children. You can say, right, I’ve got some
time not, I can take care of it (Mother, 9: 69, 106-113).
184
This said, a smaller number of parents indicated their preference for face-to-face
meetings. However, as is evident in the following excerpt, convenience remained
a prime consideration:
P
…Maybe a representative from the government office who is available to speak to
parents, either in a group or on a one on one basis. That sort of thing. Maybe visiting
schemes, such as this, so the parents don’t have to go to them…or day care centres,
same thing. And are open to questioning and answering, and listening to parent
queries, needs, that sort of thing.
I
What would happen at that meeting?
P
As a parent, if I was to ask something about a policy, you’d be able to answer that
question for me. I’d like you to take my views down and take them back to your boss,
so to speak, which would hopefully go on down the line to influence the policy.
(Father, 5: 85-87, 138-149)
As in the previous excerpt, many of these parents perceived that information could
best be distributed and collected through their ECEC service, however others
recognised the need for additional consultation approaches. It was noted that not
all families used ECEC services, and, a number of parents expressed concern
about the willingness of some child care centres, in particular private centres, to
share information and support parent participation in consultations.
o
Well, it would probably be a lot easier to do it through services, but that might not
work if… some of the services may not distribute it as much as they should (Mother,
14: 138-140).
I
[Reflecting on policy excerpt] Do you think there are limited ways for parents to have
a say on government policy?
P
Yeah, I don’t think there’s a lot of opportunity to talk with government about issues.
And with child care centres, especially the private ones, I don’t think they want parent
input. I think they like to do things their own way and sort all that stuff out
themselves.
I
Are there particular things that make you feel that way?
P
Just the fact that I don’t get a lot of information [from my centre]. They never talk
about policies and standards and those sorts of things.
(Mother, 22: 121-129)
Among these parents there was a strong expectation that any input would be
acknowledged and that information sharing would extend to the provision of
185
feedback and progress reports. I asked parents if they expected anything in return
for sharing their views with government, and the response was a resounding Yes!
•
o
I probably want a bit of feedback on how things are going. It’d be interesting to know
just how many parents have replied and sent letter away. And, the people you send
the letters to, I’d want something back so I’d know they’d received it, acknowledged
it. And maybe some feedback later on down the track (Mother, 22: 109-114).
o
Okay, well obviously the outcome isn’t going to suit everybody…If they, say for
example, the Department of Education came back and said, right, the prep year is
going to go ahead but we understand that there’s 50% of parents in this room that
believe its not done anything positive for their child. The reason we’re going to go
forward with it is this, and these are the new things we are going to put in place to
hopefully fix up the grey area with the 50% of kids. Like it may mean more nap time
or, depending on whatever the grey area is (Mother, 16: 91-205).
o
I would probably expect to be heard, to be noted on it and that someone follows up
with it. If it comes back that they’re not going to change it, well at least I’ve said
something…. I think everyone deserves a bit of feedback (Mother, 12: 231-233, 243244).
Respond if not happy with proposed policy. As noted earlier, a problem
orientation was the distinguishing feature of this conception. These parents said
they were happy for others (e.g., government, policymakerers) to develop the
policies, and would have input if they were not happy with what was being
proposed (or had been decided). Within this category, the role of parents shaping
policy may best be defined as a reaction to a perceived problem or issue. These
parents tended to confine themselves to dealing with ‘big issues’ or ‘something
drastic’ and described their role in terms of ‘having to action something’, ‘going
on the defence’ and having their say ‘if an issue comes up’. In short, as the
following excerpts show, an issue or personal concern provided the stimulus for
parent input and involvement in policy matters:
I
Can you think of ways that parents can influence government policy?
P
I did go to some of the earlier discussions on the regulations, and, as a parent, I had
some concerns initially. I thought they were going to move some of the need for
qualifications, and that, as a parent, does concern me. As a professional and a
parent, I’m quite concerned that people can qualify to be a group leader without being
qualified.
186
I
Was it that concern that motivated you to go to that meeting, or a broader
motivation?
P
Yes, that, and just a concern that they may change the staff children ratios. Cause I
know there is… because I’ve worked in the private sector, and I work in the
community-based sector now, I do , as a parent, do have major concerns.
(Mother, 7: 173-182)
o
Well, if you felt strongly enough about it, I’m sure you could have your say. But, as I
said before, unless something’s put in front of you, you probably won’t address it.
You just keep going, unless it’s a life and death thing. As long as it’s an okay
situation, you just keep going and you don’t worry about it (Mother, 6: 158-164).
o
I’d have to see what they’re offering. If I had a view on what they were…how
something could be altered or changed, I’d give my view. I’d prefer to see what
they’re proposing first, and then, make a point to go over it, and maybe see where
things should be changed or where this could be done. I’d put a view forward if I
thought that, yeah (Father, 5: 206-211).
o
[Talking about prep trials] I would be happy to sit down and listen to what they have
decided, and if I wasn’t happy with anything that was there, I would have a say. As
far as sitting down, from ground level up, that’s a bit much….But if someone had it
all out, and said, okay, this is what it is, are you happy or are you not, or what would
you like changed? That would be all right (Mother, 19: 117-122).
o
[And summarising her role] Do I want to have a say? I’m quite happy. I’m one of
these people quite happy for everyone else to have their say, and then to bring up any
issues that I’m not happy with after everyone’s had their say. That doesn’t sound
good, does it? I think that those who want to have their say, are quite willing to. But,
me, as a person, no, I’m quite happy to sit back (Mother, 19: 231-236).
As illustrated in the last excerpt, some parents expressed personal reservations
about a problem-based approach to parent involvement in policy, however,
explained this in terms of time constraints and the demands of modern family life.
Here some parents started to distinguish between working parents and those who
stayed at home, the assumption being that parents ‘who have the time’ will
participate and provide the parent perspective. There was also a prevailing sense
that the realities of family life, in particular, the need to balance work and family
demands, left little time for involvement in other areas such as policy. In the
following excerpt, a mother shared her perspective on this:
I
[Reflecting on the policy excerpt and proposed parent roles] Do you think that’s a fair
expectation of parents? Do you think it’s realistic?
P Not really, because once again, if parents are using the centre, they’re usually
working, often have other children…That all sounds (laughs) like a lot of work.
187
P [And later, talking about the prep year] I would think that my involvement, if that
were to happen, which I know it’s not, would be similar to what it is now (laughs),
which is fairly limited. But, they would still have the opportunity for other parents,
some of whom, I know, are quite comfortable that they’re the one’s sitting there,
because they’re stay-at-home mothers, and they’ve got the time and the inclination to
be involved in that sort of thing.
(Mother, 14: 167-168, 172, 237-243)
Reflecting on the same policy excerpt, a father argued that the proposed roles
were realistic for ‘other’ parents but probably not for his family:
I
Is it realistic to think parents will be involved in those sort of things?
P I think so, definitely.
I
Do you want to be involved in those sort of things?
P As an out of work type thing? [Perhaps]. Umm. With my life, probably no (laughs).
Yes, we lead a pretty full-on life. It’s hard with two kids and both parents working,
and other activities. It’s a lot…I mean, if a parent has got time though, they’re more
than happy to do it usually, yeah. Definitely.
I
Is it a good thing to have parents involved in that way?
P Yes. Yes. Well, you’re getting to your grassroots, so to speak. Letting them know
what you want, how you want it. You’re getting the parent views….
I
But, on the basis of your family experience, it might not be realistic to expect that all
parents will be involved in that way?
P No, no, not with the rush of society. You’re going to have to make some allowances.
(Father, 5: 173-184)
•
Question whether parents having their say will make any difference to policy
decisions. Parents expressing Conception B perceived that government should
seek parent views and argued that parents could support informed ECEC public
policy. Reflecting on the Preparing for schools trial (Queensland Government,
March 2002), parents argued that parent input could support relevant policy and
service provision and, importantly, ensure the best use of public monies. In the
following extracts, two parents discussed why parents should be consulted on the
proposed preparatory year:
o
Well, if the parents don’t want to send their children, it’s not going to work, is it?
Why go spend all that money, trying to organise it, if the parents aren’t going to send
their children? I think they need to find out first what the parents feel, cause they’re
the ones who it boils down to have to send their children. Unless they’re going to
make it compulsory. If they’re going to make it compulsory, well, the parents don’t
have any choice, do they? (Laughs) (Mother, 22:184-191).
188
Field Code Changed
o
Well, it’s going to cost them money to do the extra…. It’s going to cost them more
money to have more places. I don’t know. So that people are happy with
government, I guess. I don’t know. I don’t really get too interested in what
government does, to be honest. (Laughter). Well by having full-time preschool, they
would have to employ more people, wouldn’t they? [Yes]. So, that’s where, that’s the
more cost. The kids don’t all fit in. Well, getting our views, if we don’t really want it
and they do it, they’ve spent money they didn’t really need to (Mother, 6: 104-110,
116-121).
Nevertheless, while perceiving that parents had something to offer government,
some parents within this category questioned the relationship between parent
consultation and government decision making. As in the previous category, there
was a strong perception that government didn’t really listen to parents and that
policy was determined by government, often prior to parent consultation.
Discussing ways that parents could have a say on policy, a number of parents
expressed their concerns:
o
You could probably get a petition, but how many government bodies listen to it? No,
none that I know of (Father, 5: 131-132).
o
Yeah, well, I don’t think they should have a prep year. I think it should stay the way it
is…So, yeah, I guess, when…. That’s just going to happen, isn’t it? (Mother, 6: 6869, 72-73).
o
Talking about the role of parents in policy decision making - I think that those sort of
things are usually done, in your department actually (laughs) (Mother, 14: 190-191).
o
Talking about parent consultation - I don’t think it makes it anywhere near to the
policymakers (Mother, 14: 122-123).
Drawing on recent experience, another mother expressed doubt as to the purpose
of parent consultation and the influence of parent views on public policy:
I
In terms of that meeting, can you tell me a little about what happened?
P
I think it was seen as a consultation, and, I think the government, if they see parents
in an audience, and they acknowledge what parents say… But I think at the end of
the day, I think it’s a nonsense....
P
I think that the government, when they’re criticised for what they bring in, I think
they say, but we advertised meetings, parents were invited, we had parents there, we
listened to the parents. And, we’ve consulted with the service providers, and policy
makers, and everyone else, and we’ve made a decision based on all the evidence.
But I don’t believe that the evidence is from the parents. I think they consulted, but I
don’t think they really stop and listen to the parent. As a parent, I think they have a
view in their mind how they want a service to run, and it’s to do with budgets.
(Mother, 7: 213-226)
189
And, as might be expected, such concerns proved to be a disincentive to parent
participation in policy. Many of these parents conceded that this was ‘annoying’,
made them feel ‘why bother’ and merely fuelled public disengagement and
apathy. Expressing dissatisfaction with current processes, a number of parents
shared their thoughts on factors that would encourage and support parent
participation in policy consultation. Notably, the same themes appeared again:
Being given information about policy prior to implementation; user-friendly
response mechanisms; a sense that parent views were being taken on board; and
the provision of feedback. In the following excerpts, parents discussed factors
likely to facilitate increased parent participation:
o
If they [parents] thought their decisions were taken on board, and if there was a
response to the suggestions or comments made. If it just went into a black hole and
you never hear about it again, then parents aren’t going to want to do that. But, if
they feel as though their opnions matter, and are valued, and where possible, are
taken on board, then I think there would be a lot more involvement (Mother, 14: 107113).
o
I’d just want someone to read it. Yeah, just someone to read it….Just to know that if
I’ve taken the time [to complete a survey], I’d like somebody else, who says they
really want to know, to really read it (Mother, 18: 294-297).
o
Show they’re [government] listening to parent views…they’re our kids they’re
playing with…our kids lives that they’re shaping. So, if they’re going to sit down and
listen, it’s going to go back to them really. Shows they’re caring, they’re making the
effort to listen to parents and hopefully shape policy around some of the views of
parents. You can’t shape policy around all parents’ views, but around parents, in a
round about way, using some of the parent’s ideas to do that (Father, 5: 159-167).
This said, within this category, there appeared to be general acceptance that it is
not possible to engage all parents. Reinforcing problem identification as the key
impetus for parent involvement in policy, the following extracts revealed the
casting of parents into two broad groups: ‘those who like to be involved’ and
‘those who don’t get involved’
o
A lot of parents don’t care, if the kids are happy. A lot of parents don’t want to have
a say. If their kids are happy, and they come home happy, they don’t want to get
involved. I think a lot of it, their doing they’re job, and they don’t want to be bothered
with everything else. I mean, there are parents who want to get involved and
everything. But, then, there are the ones who just want to stay in the background, and
just, yeah, if they’re happy and their kids are happy, they’re right (Mother, 19: 175183).
190
o
[Reflecting on the policy excerpt and proposed parent roles]. Yes and no. Like you’d
have some parents who’d be right in there and want to be involved. And then you’d
have others that it’s easier to leave to somebody else to do. I don’t really see the need
for me to push my opinion or view to somebody that’s working in that situation,
unless a problem arose (Mother, 18: 319-324).
o
[Reflecting on the policy excerpt and proposed parent roles] I think they should [be
involved]. I think there’s a limit to them though. Because for every parents, for
every good parent, there’s two or three bad parents. Not every parent is…not every
parent has their child’s best interests at heart, unfortunately. So, obviously, those bad
eggs, they’re not going to come to…they’re not going to have much involvement in it
anyway (Mother, 16: 258-264).
However, for some, it was more about a sense of powerlessness and public apathy.
In the following linked extracts, one mother suggested that parents simply opted
out because they felt unable to effect any real change in policy:
P Because the majority of people out there, people just don’t care. They go to work
from 9 til 5, leave Johnny at school or leave Johnny at home day care or a day care
centre, and people just don’t really care. It doesn’t affect them personally. They don’t
see it affecting them right in their homes, so they don’t care.
I
If it directly affects your child, do you think that changes anything?
P Not so much in policy, no, no, I don’t. I could honestly say around here, people just
don’t care. If you spoke about any sort of legislation to them, they don’t care…Well,
the majority of people around here are low income workers. They work very hard to
pay their rates and they can only see things happening in their environment that
government won’t stop. So, they see themselves as being a little person and how are
they ever going to stop it. How are they going to change anything? How is one voice
going to change anything at all? And that’s how a lot of them are seeing it.
(Mother, 15: 164-177)
Reflecting a similar perspective, another mother concluded:
o
4.5.2.1
I think everybody would like to have a say. Firstly, sometimes, why even have a say
when no-ones going to hear your say? That’s what it comes down to. You get
hotheaded about issues and nothings going to get done about it and you just get left
feeling the same. So, it would be nice to have a say, but I don’t know if it’s totally
realistic (Mother, 18: 373-378).
Category B summary
In Category B, the role of parents in shaping policy is constituted as being informed
about policy that affects their child and family, raising any concerns and/or seeking a
change in current or proposed policy (referential aspect). Focal in the awareness of
these parents is the needs of their own child and family. In this category, the role of
191
parents is seen as reactive, and, most often, a response to a perceived negative issue
(i.e., seeing what government is offering and having a say if concerned). When not
reacting, the role of parents remains passive and dependent on others, as demonstrated
by the structural aspects of this conception (e.g., receiving information, being given
opportunity to have a say). Whether a contributing factor to, or a consequence of this
way of experiencing the role of parents, there is also considerable doubt as to whether
parents can really influence policy decision making.
4.5.3
Category C: Having some say conception
The role of parents shaping policy is seen as being informed and having some say in
policy matters that affect their child and family.
As in the previous category, the parents who expressed Conception 3 perceived a role
for parents shaping policy, reasoning that parents as service users should have
opportunity to input into government policy, ‘if they wish’. Parents expressing this
conception delimited and organised their role as ‘having some say on policy likely to
affect their child and family’. This view of the role of parents in relation to policy
was revealed through the use of phrases such as ‘parents should have a say’ [in
policy] or ‘have a voice in how it works’ and the expressed desire to ‘respond to
government proposals’ and ‘comment on drafts’ prior to their implementation.
Although there are considerable similarities in how the role of parents is seen in
Conceptions B and C, the present conception can be distinguished from the previous
one in that the role of parents extends beyond problem identification to broader input
(i.e., positive and negative feedback). As in the previous category, the focus was
‘policy affecting their child and family’ and the role of parents was underpinned by
the belief that parents can support relevant policy and the best use of public monies.
These parents also maintained that it was the role of government to provide
information about proposed policy changes, as well as opportunity for parents to voice
their opinion, if they wished. Within this context, policy development continued to be
seen as the province of government and the role of parents was delimited to
monitoring and review. Thus, the relation between parents and their role here may be
described in terms of responding to government policy likely to affect their child and
family. While expressing the view that parents do have a role to play, some parents in
192
this category perceived that this was simply not achievable, believing that their views
were not listened to or valued, and that government decided policy.
Taking the analysis a step further, it is possible to discern a number of key role
aspects that come together to constitute this particular way of seeing and experiencing
the role of parents shaping policy. To begin, this category builds on Category B, and,
thereby incorporates a number of previously discussed role aspects. As noted, focal in
awareness for these parents were the needs of their own child and family,
consequently, the area of interest remains policy likely to affect their child and family.
Within this context, emphasis continued to be placed on matters pertaining to child
health and safety. Other key role aspects included receiving information and being
given opportunity to have a say on relevant policy matters. Again, government was
expected to take the lead in facilitating parent input, and there was considerable
variation in parent preferences for particular approaches to information sharing and
parent consultation. Nevertheless, the need for ‘quick and easy’ methods continued to
be a strong theme amongst these parents, set against the fast pace of modern family
life. This said, the following key role aspects distinguish this conception from the
previous one.
•
Have some say on policy matters likely to affect their child and family. As in
Conception B, problem identification was recognised as a key impetus for parent
input into policy, and these parents confirmed they were more likely to share their
views if they perceived a problem or wanted to see some change in policy.
However, unlike the previous category, parents expressing Conception C also
talked about the need for general and positive feedback to let government know ‘if
you agree’ with a policy, ‘what’s good’ about a policy, and to share any further
ideas ‘for improvement’. In the following extracts, parents shed light on this
slightly expanded and more positive view of the role of parents shaping policy:
o
I think that in general, that’s when people will respond, if there’s a concern. If
there’s nothing. That’s why I said I fill out those surveys, even though I don’t have
any concerns…just so they know they’re doing a good job. But in general, you find,
that people don’t say, bother to write letters or do anything to say everything’s
working fine with this. It’s always, if there’s a concern or they want something
changed, then they’re more motivated to speak out. And, that’s just with things in
general (Mother, 23: 301-309).
193
o
But, even renewing policies, like what standards up this year, might not next year….
I think we should all have a say in that. What we agree with or what we don’t agree
with (Mother, 3: 642-646).
P [Summing up role] Well, I think it’s a major role. Yes, I’d like to feel free, not scared,
if I’ve got an opinion. If I feel there’s something wrong, just to be able to voice it.
I
What if nothing is wrong? What if they’re proposing a change to the service,
something different? Do you want to have a say in that also?
P Yep. If I feel like the service is good, or what’s happening is good, I’d like to give
positive feedback too. Let them know they’re doing a good job.
I
Why do you think government should bother to try to get your views as a parent?
P It’s the only way they’re going to get their quality assurance.
(Mother, 10: 207-213)
As can be seen in the last extract, these parents also perceived their input could
support informed policy and practice. Underpinning this view were two basic
tenets: Parents know their own children best, and, that governments and policymakers can be quite removed from the ‘real world’ experience of families and
child care.
I
Why do you want to have a say in policy?
P
Because they’re your children and you want the best for them.
I
And you think your say can help that?
P
Mmm. Because you know from experience what your children want and what they
need….
(Mother, 25: 49-52)
o
[Expressing her desire to have a say in ECEC policy] I think because there are
children involved, yes, I do [want a say]. Because, as the needs of children are just so
diverse, you can’t just label them as needing healthy food or a healthy environment.
It’s more than that. Their needs are just so diverse. And you can only get that input
from parents…. (Mother, 17: 355-359).
o
My other concern is a lot of the people making these issues [policy] are removed.
They may be a parent in their own life, but they are paid to do a job. They have
outcomes of the job they have to meet. If they don’t meet them, they don’t retain
their position. And I think that is more what controls policy (Mother 7: 463-468).
o
Well, it’s the same as anything, I mean, if you’re looking from out there, and you’re
not actually in the centre, with the kids there, if you’re not actually there, you don’t
know (Mother, 23: 202-204).
194
And putting forward an ideal approach to parent consultation:
o
Ideally, probably to have someone from the Accreditation Board or someone from the
Child Care Act or someone like that come and speak to parents. Because I feel as
though (laughs) all they do is sit in their office and listen to other people, and go,
okay, well then, this might work so we’ll do that. And even though I know they’re all
professionals that have been sent out to put those policies together, the people that
make the final decision, I think they need to get out there and speak to more parents
and stuff rather than it just being pen on paper. You know, it can be interpreted the
wrong way (Mother, 2: 196-206).
As in Conception B, these parents said they were not interested and/or able to take
on a role in terms of policy development, or, as one parent put it, ‘coming up with
the policies and stuff’. Rather, as can be seen in the following extracts, they saw
their role as responding to proposals and commenting on drafts:
o
I’d probably have a say after they’ve come to some conclusion, and they can lay the
conclusion on the table and say this is where it was, this is where we’re going, what
do you think? Rather than being in amongst it all when they’re trying to nut it out
and scream at each other and suggest things. I’d like to come in at the end, and say,
well, we don’t quite agree with that or we do agree with that, and you’ve done a really
good job (Mother, 9: 69, 91-98).
o
[Expressing her preference for surveys and questionnaires] Um, I’d be interested in
being up to date with it, but, on a time factor, I would not have the time, to take out of
my day, to go somewhere and sit down for a whole day and plan it. It’s not
something…I work five days a week, so, as a time factor, it wouldn’t be possible
(Mother, 1: 299-303).
As in Conception B, of key interest was policy pertaining to child health and
safety. These parents talked about the need for a safety network, and perceived
they had a role to play in ensuring this was in place. Again, within this context,
parents expressed particular interest in standards and regulations around group
size, adult:child ratios and staff qualifications. In the following excerpt a mother
made the link between staff training and child safety:
o
But, to know that they do have a couple of years qualifications, and they have been
drilled about the rights and wrongs of children, it makes you feel a lot safer. So, yeah,
they should definitely, parents should definitely have a say (Mother, 3: 270-273).
Another parent concluded:
o
Just, I guess, it all boils down to the safety and welfare of the child, and that’s what
child care is all about…. And we are leaving, especially the working parents who
have no choice, they’re leaving their child 7-10 hours a day, five days a week in some
cases. You want them to be safe and to have the best of everything (Mother, 2: 208214).
195
As in the previous category, a few parents continued to express concern regarding
their personal capacity to input into ‘technical’ matters (e.g., the curriculum).
However, distinguishing this aspect from the previous category, this tended to be
presented as a matter of fact rather than a barrier to having their say on relevant
policy matters. And, as can be seen in the following extract, personal concerns
were often countered by possible strategies (e.g., the provision of user-friendly
information and surveys clearly identifying the available choices) to support
parent participation at this level:
o
[Summarising her role shaping ECEC policy] Yeah, I’d like to. Perhaps I keep
harking back to the fact that I’m inexperienced and uneducated [with respect to
ECEC], so I’m not coming from your background. But, perhaps it would be nice to
be given a survey of alternatives, you know, do you want a, b, c or d, or write another
one. Yeah, it probably would be nice, and I think you’d get a cross-section of
responses. I guess, at the end of the day, it would be nice to be giving some input
(Mother, 13: 273-279).
While not wanting to be involved in the ‘nitty gritty’ of policy development, these
parents said they wanted to look at what was being put forward and would have
input as they desired and were able. However, among these parents, there was
also broad agreement that current opportunities for this were limited, and that
parents needed to be educated in this regard. Once again, responsibility for this
was seen to rest with government.
o
Well, if the parent wanted to comment on policies and everything, they wouldn’t
know where to start. They wouldn’t know who to contact or what to do about it. So,
yeah (Mother, 9: 69, 151-153).
o
Mmm, I would say there are limited opportunities. I haven’t been made available to
many opportunities to influence government policy, other than perhaps voting at
elections (laughs) (Mother, 17: 307-310).
o
I do think there’s limited ways for us to have our say, but, once again, I guess it’s all
they can do. Sending surveys out. It’s impossible to set one night and say I want
everyone to be there. You just can’t do that. And there’s no…I just can’t think of
any other way to do it, other than forms and surveys (Mother, 2: 226-231).
o
Whether they’re limited? Yes. Because I don’t think I’ve ever received anything from
the government asking me to comment on child care services (Mother, 21: 148-150).
Reinforcing this perspective, a mother perceived the need for the government to
be more proactive in seeking parent input into ECEC public policy:
196
o
But, I guess, it comes back to apathy doesn’t it. And unless. If the government is so
keen on getting a response, I think they need to take the mountain to Mohammad
rather than Mohammad to the mountain. To be shoving the surveys under people’s
faces or to be having little talks or seminars or workshops and inviting people. Be
more proactive in getting a response from parents, rather than sitting back waiting for
it to happen (Mother, 13: 229-236).
Finally, distinguishing this category from the previous one was the sense that the
role of parents shaping policy is, by necessity, a continuing role. Whereas parents
in Category B tended to see their involvement in policy as a ‘one-off’ episode,
linked to government’s decision to introduce a new policy or change existing
policy, within Category C a number of parents argued the need for regular policy
review and therefore ongoing parental involvement. This realisation, and the
related implications for the role of parents in policy, is evident in the following
extracts:
o
But, even renewing policies. Like what stands up this year might not next year. I
think we should all have a say in that. What we agree with or what we don’t agree
with (Mother, 3: 642-646).
P
[Summing up her role shaping ECEC policy] Um. Well, being involved in
regulations. Having input there. Obviously we don’t have the expertise to write
regulations or anything like that, but if we could be involved in reading and
communicating how we feel about them and ways we feel they might be improved or
how happy we are with them as well. Yeah. What was the question again?
I
How would you like to see yourself shaping government policy?
P
And that’s an ongoing process too. I don’t think you can write a regulation in 1999
and expect that it will continue in 2003, and be successful for that whole period. I
think it’s something that has to have input continuously.
I
And parents have a role to play in that?
P
Definitely. They definitely do. To be given an opportunity would be wonderful.
(Mother, 17: 311-314,364-375)
In the following extract, a mother promoted the benefits of parents knowing about
regulations, and sharing an ongoing role in monitoring compliance:
o
…it might work in the way that if parents know what centres should be doing. If they
know child to teacher ratios, and it’s not just stuck on the fridge in the staffroom
where parents don’t ever see it. If they were aware of all this stuff as well, parents
could pop in there at any time of the day and [count the number of children to adults]
and say, how come you’ve only got one staff? (Mother, 23: 461-466).
197
•
Participate in a democratic process. Underpinning this conception of the role of
parents shaping policy was a sense of democratic process. As discussed, there
was a general expectation that government would provide opportunity for those
involved or likely to be affected (e.g., service providers, staff, and parents using
the services) to share their views on proposed policy changes. Consequently,
these parents expected to be consulted on matters likely to impact on their family
yet tended to be reticent about involvement in matters outside this personal
framework. This was put down to family time constraints, and the idea that a
democratic system ensures that those likely to be affected by government decision
making have opportunity to comment on policy and policy changes. For example,
when discussing the preparatory year trial, a key theme was that government
needed to talk to parents whose children were going to be involved, rather than
those whose children were ‘already in the system’ (i.e., already in preschool or in
school). This view was illustrated in the following extract:
o
They really need to be talking to the people whose names are on the waiting list, not
the people who are already in the school. Because when you say that to me, I think,
well, I couldn’t care less now, because next year, I’m not having any more children
and he’ll be in first class. So that’s not my problem anymore. If you were to ask me
that a year or two ago, I would have liked to be very involved in pushing my school to
take that on (Mother, 14: 245-252).
As in the previous categories, the role of parents in shaping policy was seen to be
optional and very much a matter of free choice. Notwithstanding the suggested
barriers to participation (e.g., lack of information, lack of time, limited
opportunities, government doesn’t listen), the underpinning principle appeared to
be that parents should have the right to choose whether or not they participate.
o
I think it would be really, really good for parents to be involved [in shaping ECEC
policy], if they want to be. But you can’t go and say, right, three people from every
area, you have to come out and do this. When everybody’s busy and doing other
things (Mother, 9: 83-86).
o
Yes, I do [think parents should have a say in policy that might affect their family]. I
think you should always give that option to parents (Mother, 17: 282-283).
While focusing on their own child and family, these parents also recognised
different family needs and the potential for diverse family views on ECEC policy
issues.
198
o
I do believe that you’re not going to get everyone to agree on one thing, so, it’s
going…. Having 1100 inputs at [local school], it would be hard for them to say, okay,
this is what our curriculums going to be. Not everyone’s going to be happy.
Someone’s going to miss out. But I do think it gives them something to work around
(Mother, 2: 119-124).
o
[Having shared her view on the prep year] So, there are probably a lot of people with
the opposite view. But they’d certainly have their child’s well-being in mind…
[And later discussing the prep trial] You know, there’d be a whole heap of different
situations to come about. Everybody would have a different point of view (Mother, 1:
139-140, 167-169).
o
I think they [government] should encourage the service providers to ensure the views
of various minority groups are taken on board. So, perhaps, just asking one of the
single parents, one of the migrant people, if they would like to take part in this
valuable thing for their child (Mother, 14: 269-273).
In line with this, the expectation was that government would provide timely
information on policy, seek the views of different parents and/or stakeholders,
collate and bring together the various perspectives, and then, make a decision
based on majority view. In the following extracts, parents discussed their
expectations in this regard, revealing a strong sense of democratic process:
o
[Talking about the prep year trial] Just for them to look at what you’ve suggested and
take it into consideration. Think about them (the different views) and look at the
majority, I suppose. And analyse the kids, and ask the grade 1 teachers what they
think the students need. What they think the prep year should be like (Mother,
25: 123-128).
o
If it’s something like prep school, certainly [child] is going to be going in a couple of
years to preschool, so I’d like to know about it and what’s going to happen. And, if it
was a majority vote, okay, well this is going ahead, we just want to know what
parents think, I’d like to input…. I’d like to know that if I could say give my opinion,
it would be listened to (Mother, 1: 109-114,120-121).
Nevertheless, within this category, government was clearly perceived to be the
decision maker. These parents talked about ‘being consulted’, ‘having their say’
and having their ‘views taken into consideration’. However, it was suggested that
this information then went to government where a final decision was made,
depending on one’s perspective, with or without reference to parent views. This
notion of government as decision-maker was highlighted in the following extracts:
o
[Expressing the desire for government to provide feedback on parent consultations
and policy decisions] Probably a letter at the end of the day, going, we’ve taken
everybody’s views into consideration. Most people wanted this line, and this is how
we’ll be planning our days and this is what we’ll be trying to do for the children. Just
a conclusion as to what happened to all the information (Mother, 9: 69, 136-140).
199
o
•
What they do with that information then obviously is up to them [government]. I’d
imagine, if it was more in favour or more against, that information would be taken
into context. Cause I don’t think…If it was something like 80% of parents disagreed
with, I don’t think it’d be relevant or beneficial for someone to go ahead with
something. I don’t think it would be beneficial to go ahead, if the majority of people,
families, are against it. But, if there were more for it, I imagine they’d take that
information on board a little bit more seriously, and then maybe think about it a bit
more, with the answers they were given on the survey, do it in different formats
(Mother, 1:192-202).
Receive feedback. Building on the previous category, parents expressing
Conception C perceived that government should acknowledge their input and
provide feedback. The right to feedback was linked here to the previous role
aspect, that is, participation in a democratic process, and was also seen to be a
matter of common courtesy. I asked parents if they attended a meeting or filled
out a survey to share their views on proposed policy, would they expect anything
in return? The responses reinforced previous themes around government
listening to parents and taking parent views into consideration when determining
ECEC policy.
P Acknowledgement of our view. Proof that they have taken our views into
consideration.
I
What sort of proof?
P Maybe, like before going into the meeting, they take your name and address, and
then each person is individually written to and some feedback.
(Mother,10: 127-134)
•
I think when parents attend public meetings, I would like to see some written
information sent back to the parents, acknowledging their input. And if their input is
not taken on board, I’d like the government to actually be accountable for that
(Mother, 7: 457-461).
These extracts also illustrate how the provision of feedback was seen to support
and encourage parent involvement in policy. In the following excerpt, a mother
again talked about the need for government to ‘take on board’ the views of
parents using ECEC services, indicating that her involvement was influenced by
the way government received and used parent information. This is not to say that
she expected her ideas to be implemented, merely that she wanted her
contribution to be acknowledged and considered:
200
o
That the provision of child care is of good quality and that their opinions and
suggestions would actually be taken on board. I mean they might not always work,
but at least discussed and given some sort of feedback…. It [parent involvement]
depends on the issue and the response that you get. On the response from the centre,
or the government or what have you. I think that people would feel that their
opinions were valued, even if they weren’t taken onboard, to tell them why (Mother,
14: 145-148, 155-158).
These parents expressed their desire for some information about the outcomes of
consultation, the progress of policy development, and, in a few cases, subsequent
evaluation of the effectiveness of policy changes. As in previous role aspects
related to information sharing, there was considerable variation amongst these
parents regarding the nature and extent of feedback desired. For some parents,
the expectation was simply a letter of acknowledgement:
o
Um, some acknowledgement that they’ve received your request and if they’re going
to do something about it (Mother, 25: 62-63).
Other parents were seeking greater detail regarding progress and outcomes. Note
here again, the notion of democratic decision making and outcomes based on
majority view.
o
I guess it would be nice to get some response as to where the majority were.
Obviously, this would be a democratic decision, you would think, based on money
and funding. It would be good to get some response as to where the majority of
people were heading with their views on whatever (Mother, 13: 285-289).
o
I wouldn’t expect anything, but maybe a follow-up letter, even if it’s six months later.
Okay, this is what we’ve done, this is, even if the issue is still unresolved. It’s a
follow-up letter, an acknowledgement. Yeah a follow-up letter would be nice, to say,
okay, we’ve taken your information on board. We’re not deciding to resolve it before
2005, but, I don’t know, something. But a follow up letter would be nice. I’m sure
most families would feel the same. They fill in survey after survey after survey, and
you never know where it’s gone or what’s happened to it or whether it’s even been
read. So, if you get a follow-up letter, it’s at least acknowledgement. (Mother, 1: 203214).
And for other parents, the idea of feedback extended to progressive development
and implementation updates and/or evaluation information post implementation:
o
At least some sort of an update. I mean, if you’ve got an email address, how hard
would it be just to let you know what’s happening? (Mother, 23: 220-22).
o
Feedback. A little bit of communication. If they even sent out a newsletter to say this
is the results of so many parents, what they came up with at the end or if. Or did it
every 6 months…Just to let us know what they know (Mother, 3:438-442).
201
o
•
Just to be given. Well, they’re involving you in the decision making and keeping you
informed of the processes, I guess, in how decisions are being made, and what stages
things are at, and what’s influencing those decisions… Yeah, and I guess, is there any
studies to give feedback after the event. You know, how successful was the policy
that was implemented and the outcomes? That’d be good (Mother, 17: 289-295).
Question whether parents can influence ECEC public policy. As in the previous
category, while expressing the view that parents do have a role to play shaping
policy, some parents in this category perceived that, in reality, this was not
possible. This view was revealed in phrases such as ‘they [government] don’t
listen’, ‘our input isn’t valued’, and the suggestion that parent consultations were a
waste of time because, in the end, ‘government decides’. Thus, for some parents
in this category, the role of parents shaping policy was seen as unachievable
within the current context. In the following linked extracts, a mother shared her
concerns regarding the true value of parent consultation and the capacity of
parents to influence government decision making:
I
Do you think that parents can have say in those sorts of decisions?
P
I think it’s probably not. I think probably it’s a more complicated type arrangement.
The Government probably make it look like parents can have a say, and you certainly
can go to websites and surveys at school and things like that. But I think really they
make decisions, and it’s probably just, you know the individual parent, their say
wouldn’t count a lot toward the decisions that are being made. No. I don’t.
I
Have you had experiences that make you feel that way?
P
Well, the prep year and the hours that children are in care. They’re wanting to extend
the hours that children are in care. I mean they’ve sort of communicated that this is
what’s going to happen really, so they’ve already made the decision. But now they’re
actually asking for parent involvement. The decisions already been made, I believe.
So they’re sort of asking for our opinions after the event. I don’t see how that can
affect…I mean they’re trialing the preschool/prep year before they even
communicated in our school that it would involve parent communication.
(Mother, 17, 195-212)
Other parents expressed similar doubts:
o
Um, I’m going to say no [parents can’t have a say]. I know those policies are made
by people who come and assess, and they’ve probably been parents. The policies are
there for a reason, but sometimes the policies aren’t practical. And, therefore, it
makes me wonder if, if they do listen to the parents (Mother, 2: 151-155).
202
o
Yeah, I would [have a say]. But I don’t know how…. I have the attitude, and it’s
horrible, but I have the attitude of why say anything because nothing will get done.
But then I feel, that just for one, the staff ratio should be seriously looked at, because
I think that sometimes, like in a mixed age group, I really do think they need more
staff than they have (Mother, 2: 173-178).
Putting forward the view that parents shaping policy was an unachievable goal, a
number of parents reflected on what they saw as unsatisfactory experiences in this
area. In the following excerpt, a mother recounted involvement in a policy change
at her child’s preschool, where the service was looking at moving from a sessional
to full-day program:
P
…at our school, we had a similar situation where they went from half days every day,
to full days. So, I was very much involved in that. I actually thought it was a good
idea….
I
How were parents given an opportunity to have a say in that?
P
There were meetings held at the school where the principal attended and also a
departmental representative came to one meeting. There weren’t a lot of parents
there actually, which was a little disappointing…
I
Did you feel your views were taken on board then?
P
Oh, definitely. I definitely felt like they considered them during those meetings.
I
And how was the decision ultimately made, do you know?
P
With very little regard I think for parent’s input (laughs). I think it was whatever
suited the school curriculum at the time. Only because I knew how many people
were voicing their opinions at the time, and most people didn’t want to change.
I
And it did change?
P
And it did. And it’s still in place. But they actually have to vote it in, and as parents
we had input, we were able to vote. But, it actually went through anyway. So there
you are. How did that happen?
(Mother, 17: 248-250, 259-276)
Wanting to know whether this was a disincentive to future involvement in policy
matters, I asked this mother how this outcome made her feel?
P
It’s annoying, because I like to think we have choices with our own children. And I
believe that we do. So I sort of think well they can make their decisions, but
ultimately it’s our choice and decision what eventually happens with our children
(Mother, 17: 213-216).
203
Rejecting the presented policy excerpt, and the notion that government is
encouraging increased parent involvement in ECEC policy, another mother
reflected on her involvement in a recent Family Day Care campaign against
funding changes. In light of her concerns, I asked how this experience made her
feel about parent involvement in ECEC policy.
P
Just one comment. When you’re saying that the government wants feedback, wants
the parents to participate in different things. Well, when family day care, when they
found out our money was going to be cut, we were asked to email all of the
politicians and so on that we could think of with why family day care funding
shouldn’t be cut. So, I did that. I sent emails to heaps of them, and I know others did
too. And, I got one response back and that was it, and it was a generic, yes, thanks for
your letter, we’ll look into that. And (name of parent) down the road, she sent it to
roughly the same people I did, and she didn’t even get the generic response back .
I
So, how does that make you feel?
P
Pretty annoyed. I know a politician who works in one of the suburbs in Brisbane, so I
rang to see what she could find out for me. And she did more than the ones that were
out here that are supposed to look after our interests because they’re our members
and so on. But still all you hear is they’re looking into it, can’t give you much
feedback. And that was all I really got from her too.
I
So, does that influence how you see your role?
P
Well sort of. At the end, you think, why bother. Because they’re not going to listen to
us anyhow. They get to beat their own chests and say well we asked. But we’re not
going to listen to any of the feedback, anyhow, we’ll do what we want to do.
(Mother, 21: 167-191)
Prompted to consider their ideal situation, these parents reinforced the enabling
factors identified in Category B, including: being provided information in
advance; parent views being taken on board; parent opinions being sought and
valued; and the sense that their input might benefit their child and family (e.g,,
support enhanced service provision for their child). In the following extract, a
mother summed up her role shaping ECEC public policy, juxtaposing current and
ideal roles:
•
Well, at the moment, I think it would be very minimal, because you’re not given the
information to be able to respond to it…you’re told it after it’s happened. But, if we
were given the information prior, and given a phone number or a prior paid envelope
or something, and you’re views were taken on board…there was actually a
consultation process when these things came out…not just with service providers but
with service users, I think the people who really had something to say about it would
respond and perhaps the people who didn’t really care wouldn’t respond. But that’s
what always happens (Mother, Interview 14: 258-268).
204
Finally, within this category, a number of parents questioned the real impact of
parent involvement, not just on policy but on practice, particularly in relation to
the growing number of private ECEC services. This view was reflected in the use
of phrases such as ‘they [private child care centres] have a closed-door approach
to parents’, ‘they don’t want parent input’, ‘they like to do it themselves’ and
‘parents have no voice in those centres’. The general view among these parents
was that regardless of the inclusive nature of policy development, without proper
monitoring and enforcement, this may not translate into practice in some services.
Drawing on her own experience as a parent and child care worker, a mother
shared her concerns in this regard:
o
Well [the proposed parent roles] it’s realistic and I would like a role. But,
unfortunately, having worked in child care, that regardless what the policy says, it’s
not necessarily going to be occurring in that centre. There’s not enough checking of
things. I mean, I Things that I saw…Yeah, so it’s not going to really matter how
much parents say, have a say, if it’s not followed through. If there’s no checking.
Like, this is what the policy says but this is not what they’re really doing.
[And summarising her role] Well, I suppose, to be asked about different things before
they’re put in place. Asked for my opinion. But, I don’t know. See, it’s like I said, it
doesn’t really matter what role the parents have in shaping these policies if it’s not
actually going to occur in the centres. I think it’d probably be more frustrating for
parents. Well, I’ve been responsible for putting this in place and giving my opinions
about this, but they turn around and say, well, it hasn’t made any difference anyway.
So, yeah, I don’t know, It’s difficult to know (Mother, 23: 397-406).
4.5.3.1
Category C summary
In Category C, the role of parents is constituted as being informed and having some
say in ECEC public policy (referential aspect). In contrast to Category B, this extends
to the provision of positive feedback and ideas for improvement as well as raising
concerns and seeking change in policy. This is the distinguishing feature of this
conception. While continuing to focus on the needs of their own child and family, the
role of parents here is more proactive than in previous categories, as evidenced by the
structural aspects of this conception (e.g., having a say – which includes general
feedback and offering suggestions for improvement; participating in a democratic
process). Nevertheless, there is still a strong dependence on government to facilitate
parents having a say (e.g., government bears responsibility for information sharing).
Within this category, there are two distinct orientations to the role of parents having a
205
say in ECEC public policy. While viewed as an achievable goal by some, other
parents within this category considered this to be an unachievable goal.
4.5.4
Category D: Participating in policy decision making conception
The role of parents shaping policy is seen as participating in policy decision making,
in particular, where this is likely to affect their child and family.
As in categories B and C, the parents who expressed Conception D perceived a role
for parents shaping policy. However, within this category, there was a shift in focus
from having a say in policy matters to participating in policy decision making.
Parents who expressed Conception D delimited and organised their role in terms of
‘exercising their democratic right to participate in policy decision making likely to
affect their child and family’. These parents talked about being active and involved,
‘knowing what’s happening’, ‘being included in the loop’, and ‘looking for ways to
have a say’ on matters that affect their child and family (e.g., the prep year, child care
regulations). While maintaining this personal focus, unlike previous categories, these
parents indicated they may also comment on policy matters not directly related to
their child and family (e.g., where a policy topic relates to a personal interest, passion,
and/or area of professional expertise). As noted, these parents linked their role to the
wider democratic system, and their right as voting citizens and tax payers to share
their views on proposed policy generally, and, in particular, where this is likely to
affect their family. They expected to be ‘part of the change process’, and to be
‘included in decision making’. As in the previous categories, these parents perceived
that government holds primary responsibility to provide clear and timely information
about proposed policy changes, and to ‘empower parents’ as service users to
participate in policy decision making, at both service and government policy levels.
Thus, the relation between parents and their role here is seen as participating in policy
decision making. For some of the parents within this category, this was their ideal
role, yet to be fully experienced. Nevertheless, all parents expressing this conception
viewed this role as achievable, perceiving that there was growing pressure on
government to facilitate public consultation and engagement in policy decision
making.
206
Taking the analysis a step further, it is possible to distinguish a number of key role
aspects that come together to constitute this conception of the role of parents shaping
policy. As noted, this category builds on Categories B and C, and, thereby
incorporates a number of previously discussed role aspects. For example, the primary
focus for parents remained their own child and family, and, again, there was strong
interest in matters pertaining to child health and safety. Within this category, parents
described their role generally in terms of ‘caring and wanting the best’, with a strong
emphasis on safety and ‘safe decisions’. A father attributed this to the ‘fear factor in
the society we live in now’. As noted, other key role aspects include: receiving
information; raising any issues or concerns relating to policy, and receiving feedback.
This said, the following key role aspects distinguish this way of seeing the role of
parents from the previous conceptions.
•
Share views on policy matters that may not have a direct impact on their child
and family. While the needs of their own child and family remained focal in the
awareness, these parents indicated they may also comment on policy matters
which extended beyond this personal family framework. This slightly broader
focus distinguishes this conception of the role of parents shaping ECEC public
policy from the previous categories. In the following excerpt, a father described
himself as an advocate for his family, identifying family as his primary motivation
to participate in policy discussions. However, he then revealed he may extend
beyond this framework where the discussion related to his professional interest, in
this case, health.
o
We’d be looking to advocate on behalf of our kids, and, saying, as parents, if we’re
going to access this because of the way our culture is and our society is, this is our
lifestyle choice, we want to be able to ensure that the policy has got some minimum
standards, and then there’s a way of identifying if those standards are being achieved
– through licensing or whatever.
[And later] I wouldn’t be looking to have comment on every workplace health and
safety issue for example, because it’s not an area where I’ve got a lot of technical
expertise. But, on a lot of the, okay, on the health side, the activities. I’d be choosing
the areas that I’d offer comment in. And, again, a little bit self centred. If it was a
service or a policy that I couldn’t see had a direct bearing, and this is probably more a
time issue, but if it doesn’t have a direct, a payback to me, to my family, to my kids,
I’d consider what sort of time I’d put into having comment. So, it’s got to be
meaningful at the time (Father, 24: 277-301).
207
Earlier in the interview, this father provided an example of this:
o
For example, I’m helping one service provider put in for a series of grants at the
moment, which wont have a direct benefit to me or my family, either professionally
or in a monetary sense, but, it’s just providing assistance where possible (Father, 24:
161-165).
Another mother shared a similar perspective, talking about the need for broader
community interest in children. I asked what policy issues she was interested in:
P
Well, with children, that would be my thing. That’s why I’m doing this [interview].
Because it’s something that we should all look at. Because we’ve got to know where
our children are and what’s happening to them.
P
[And later, talking about the prep year] Just being involved. If my children were of
an age where they were going to participate in there, or there was a possibility they
would participate, that I knew what was happening. It wasn’t just something I was
going to be told was going to happen.
I
And, if we take your children back to where they are now, in middle primary?
P
I think I still would participate. I still have friends who have children in that age
group, and I know that sometimes because I have slightly older children, some of my
friends with younger children come and ask me what I think. And, in that respect, if
they were to say, oh, we’re having this at the school, and they’ve asked us to ask
friends and family to participate, would you do it? I would still do that.
(Mother, 26: 187-190, 309-320)
•
Seek information and look for ways to be involved. As in the previous
categories, parents expressing Conception D still expected government to take the
lead in information sharing and consultation. To this effect, they talked about
wanting to ‘know what’s happening’, ‘being informed’ and ‘being kept informed’.
These parents wanted ‘information in advance’ and ‘sufficient time to be
consulted and to provide feedback’. However, differentiating this category from
previous categories, these parents moved beyond personal preferences to promote
the need for a variety of communication methods to facilitate increased
participation. The underpinning premise was that different people have different
needs when it comes to information:
208
I
You spoke about parents having a direct route to government. Could we touch on
that again, and how that might work best?
P
I guess the way I was looking at it was, in the case where there was going to be a
review of policy or a new framework being developed for the provision of service in
this area, probably what I’d be looking for is some sort of promotional strategy, so
that people were aware that it was actually happening. And, then, provide different
communication channels, like have email and web-based stuff, but also have
meetings near. If there was a cluster of service providers, have a meeting there,
either during or after work, so that you can have someone facilitating a bit of a
workshop and say this is the objectives of the policy, this is the implementation
strategy and that sort of contact.
[And, reflecting on the prep year trial] I think it just needs to be a multi-level
communication strategy. One is the face-to-face facilitation in a public meeting. But
also a letter box drop, information sent home in children’s bags, whatever, so that
information is put out in the most number of formats and hopefully you get your
cross-section back.
(Father, 24: 95-106, 185-192)
These parents also wanted to know the purpose and limitations of any
consultation, that is, ‘being told up front, why it was…why we are being asked the
questions’.
Another distinguishing feature is that the role of parents in Category D is seen to
be more proactive than in previous categories. These parents perceived that being
informed extended beyond simply receiving information from government to
‘looking for ways to be involved’ and ‘asking questions’. Thus, in contrast to
previous categories, where government was seen to bear full responsibility for
information sharing, these parents perceived ‘finding out’ about policy changes to
be part of their role.
o
[Talking about the prep year trial] I’d be looking for a way to be involved. In, well
probably two ways. One is just being included in that information sharing and saying
okay this is what’s being proposed. But then, also looking at what’re the operational
issues? How’s it going to be managed? How’s it going to run? What’s the time
issues, the nuts and bolts. So that, before it hits the ground, there is that time to have
the input and get the consultation done. I suppose, again, it would be through school
communication and just through being included in the planning stage
[And later, summing up his role] And, like a point in question would be your OSH
[outside school hours care] centres with the potential legislative change in the next
12-18 months. Now, if I was to access an OSH centre, I’d like to know there was a
way that the public was being included in coming up with the standards and policy,
the monitoring. To know that the service is actually at a particular standard. That it’s
acceptable. (Father, 24: 122-130, 282-289).
209
o
If there was an issue… I’d obviously look on the Internet, or I’d ask at the
kindergarten, if there was a body that I can write to or whatever (Mother, 23: 181183).
Presenting a more proactive view of the role of parents, a mother queried the
policy notion that there are limited ways for parents to have a say on policy:
P
[Reflecting on the policy excerpt] I think it’s as limited as you want to make it. It
depends on your degree of involvement on how limited it is for you.
I
Can you talk to me more about that?
P
It depends on how much involvement you want to have. Some people will, as I said,
always sit back and say, oh, the child’s there. Other people will want to know what’s
going on and why it’s happening and they’re prepared to put that effort into it and
they’re going to be there. So, their limitations would be opening, because they’re
asking questions. Others would think, oh, I’d like to know this or I’d like to know
that, but where do I start? So, they’re limiting themselves from the beginning. There
is a lot of ways. It may not be the first ones that you think of. You may need to start
asking questions. So, that’s why I say, you’re as limited as you want to be, basically.
P
[And later, perceiving a link between service participation and public policy
Development] Well, just having a say. Getting people together and building on it.
The more people you have there working with you, the more you’re going to be
heard. And, that’s being active and knowing what’s happening. And if there’s
something there, and there’s something that you feel passionate about, or other
people feel passionate about and you want to support, your limitations just disappear
then.
(Mother, 26: 193-206, 208-214)
This said, this by no means lets government off the hook. While accepting some
shared responsibility in this respect, these parents talked about the need for
government to be proactive and to ‘empower parents’ to participate in public
policy development:
o
I think the centres and service providers can contribute back up, communicate back
up and manage upwards for change. But the parents, the users or the clients, should
also be empowered to communicate to the service provider. But, also, if they wish,
they should be given a pathway to communicate direct to the decision-makers. So,
there’s a link, but it also shouldn’t be an exclusive link, that all communication goes
through one channel (Father, 24: 56-63).
As can be seen, this father advocated a proactive approach to parent consultation,
suggesting that this ‘empowers’ parents to share their views on policy in a positive
way, rather than simply responding to perceived problems (i.e., Conception B):
210
o
So, I’d prefer to see it done in a proactive way rather than reacting to negative issues.
So, probably on the ground, grass-roots, are your interviews and your face to face
contact, and feedback, and all that sort of stuff. But also at the higher level, some
formal feedback process into government policy (Father, 24: 50-55).
Nevertheless, there continued to be acceptance that not all parents will want to be
involved:
o
Well, I used to think that we could get to everyone, and then there was that stark
realisation that there’s only a percentage that will attend. They will answer, they
will… any piece of paper they can write on they will write on. Then there’s that other
end of the curve that will just not communicate – whether it be government or nongovernment. (Father, 24: 180-185)
As in Category C, information sharing extended to the provision of feedback on
policy outcomes. Once again, there was a strong view that if parents took time to
share their views on policy matters, government had a responsibility to provide
feedback. Expecting their views to be heard and taken into consideration, these
parents wanted information about the nature of parent feedback, how and why
parent views have been incorporated or discarded, and if and how a policy has
changed. In the following excerpts, parents shared their expectations regarding
the provision of feedback:
•
o
You need to be kept up to date, on whether there is any change, and how that’s
progressing. I think it makes you feel good as a parent to know that you may have
helped make a difference to your child’s education (Mother, 26: 304-308).
o
For our views to be heard and then used. The things that you’ve said, and then,
maybe, for them to tell you. To later on come back to you to say, oh, we have done
this and we’ve put this process in to…so you know that what you’re saying is just not
going anywhere (Mother, 8, Lines 275-279).
Participate in ECEC public policy decision making. Distinguishing this category
from previous ones, there was also a subtle shift in focus from the process of
having a say to participating in policy decision making. These parents talked bout
being ‘part of the change process’, and ‘included in decision making’. In the
following excerpt, a father described his ideal role, moving beyond participation
in consultation to participation in ‘the decision making process’:
211
o
I suppose the ultimate, or the big picture stuff, is having direct feedback into the
government decision making process and policy setting. I haven’t. There’s probably
been opportunities but I haven’t come across them. There’s other areas that I’ve had
direct feedback into policy and government planning (Father, 24: 43-47).
These parents talked about shaping policy and services affecting their children.
For example, a mother perceived the need to be involved in the prep year trial
because she is keen for this service to be available for her child:
o
Yes, I would like to, because obviously I want to see the prep year come in because I
think it’s very important. [Interruption]. So, it’s going to affect everybody, so I think,
yeah, parents should need to know and get the information to us somehow, and we’ll
respond (Mother, 23: 231-233, 236-238).
Reinforcing this view, she found it inconceivable that government would set about
to develop this service without engaging parents:
o
But, they’d [government] have to [engage parents]. They couldn’t just have a trial.
They’d have to be getting responses from somewhere…. It would be pretty silly not
to have the responses of the parents (Mother, 23: 243-248).
Reflecting a similar perspective, another mother summarised her role shaping
ECEC public policy:
o
Like I said, I’m a parent and I’m trying to watch out for my kids, so I want to be able
to help shape their world and be able to have some say in what affects them (Mother,
8: 344-346).
As in previous categories, parent input was seen to support informed policy
decisions, relevant service provision, and the best use of public monies. Once
again there was a sense that government is removed from the day-to-day realities
of family life.
P
And they sit up in their offices, so they don’t really know what goes on day to day.
They lose touch with what’s actually needed and what’s not needed. So, it’s harder
for them to actually say what needs to be done, because how do they know?
I
You think parents can help with that?
P
That’s right. Because we’re involved in it everyday. So, we should have a say in what
happens.
(Mother, 8: 123-128)
212
Making a case for parent engagement in policy decision making, these parents
identified other benefits to government, including ‘happy voters’, ‘re-election’ and
an increased sense of public ownership of policies. Reflecting on a recent
experience, outside ECEC, a mother discussed the benefits of community
engagement in policy decision making:
o
It gives them [the community] a sense of ownership. It helps, as if they feel some
sense of ownership and belonging, they’re going to pay more attention to it. They’re
going to put more effort into it and they’re going to like the end result better. So, it’s
not just like, oh, bloody government again, they’ve done this (Mother, 24: 164-169).
As discussed, viewing themselves as participants in decision making, these
parents viewed the provision of feedback as a personal right or entitlement:
o
•
There needs to be that loop back… or at least some interim feedback. It’s that
balancing act I suppose. I don’t want to be receiving any more communication than is
necessary, but I do believe that if you take the time to give your information, you
would be entitled to be told further down the track how it’s been used or if it’s been
used. Because people have got to the point, with a number of companies who use the
telephone interview and those styles of marketing, in your face marketing for all sorts
of things in public places now, that there’s a lot of hesitation to be involved. And, I
think if we collect all that information, there’s got to be some way of feeding it
back…looking at a way where you give back the feedback, but in a format that the
person is happy with (Father, 24: 242-256, 261-263).
Exercise their democratic right to participate in decision making affecting their
child and family. As in Category C, this conception of the role of parents shaping
policy was underpinned by a sense of democratic process. However, parents
expressing Conception D moved beyond specific issues and consultation
approaches to link the role of parents shaping policy to the wider political system
and ideal of democratic governance. Expanding the focus from ‘parent as service
user’, to ‘parent as voting citizen and tax payer’, these parents argued their right to
have input on proposed public policy generally, and, in particular, where this was
likely to affect their family. This viewpoint was clearly illustrated in the
following excerpt:
P
Should parents have a say? Yes. Because it’s our taxpaying money that funds the
government. So, because it’s our money, we should be able to say where it’s
needed.
213
I
[And a little later] So, why should government spend money to get your views?
P
Because these kids are the next generation and how they are now. They’re the next
generation. They’re the one’s that are going to make the decisions in the future and
it’s going to be their world. And the government, we pay them. That’s why we put
them into power, to be able to, with the money they get, to be able to make these
decisions. So, we’re paying them. I can’t even think what I’m trying to say. We pay
them to listen to our opinions and to put them into process.
(Mother, 8: 120-122, 267-274)
Sharing a similar perspective, another mother likened parent participation in
ECEC public policy to voting. Discussing her broad interest in ECEC public
policy, I asked why she would participate in policy discussions of no direct
personal consequence (e.g., the prep year trial where there was no direct impact on
her family):
o
Why? Because it’s the same as voting. If you don’t have a say, you don’t participate.
[And later, summing up her role as a parent shaping ECEC public policy] I’d like to
see my role as. I’d just like to feel as though I have some self worth as a parent, from
their viewpoint. That they are listening to us, and they are taking us into
consideration as parents, that we know what our children need and want. Rather
than just being told by the government that this is what’s going to be enforced. Yes, I
just like having my say (Mother, 26: 321-322, 323-329).
Interestingly, while in previous categories some have expressed doubt about the
capacity of parents to influence (government) policy, parents within this category
appeared more optimistic. Although some were yet to fully experience their
desired role, all parents expressing Conception D perceived this was a realistic and
achievable role for parents. Underpinning this view was a sense of growing
community expectation that government would facilitate public engagement in
policy decision making. This perception was clearly illustrated in the following
extracts:
o
I think they’re [government] starting to listen more, because there’s more people who
aren’t allowing them not to (Mother, 26: 174-175).
o
Well, what’s going to happen otherwise? It will just be, government says this and
they’re not always right with everything. That’s why we have a democracy, I
suppose, so that we can have a say in what goes on. If we didn’t, well, why have a
response to anything? Why not just let the government do and say whatever, and
everyone just cops it? I don’t think we ever would just accept it (Mother, 23: 249256).
214
4.5.4.1
Category D summary
In Category D, the role of parents shaping policy is constituted as participating in
policy decision making (referential aspect). While the needs of their own child and
family remain focal in awareness, these parents may also participate in policy
discussions which have no direct impact on their family. This slightly broader area of
(potential) engagement, underscored by a democratic rights perspective, helps to
distinguish this conception from previous conceptions. A further distinction is the
subtle shift in focus from the process of having a say (evident in Categories B and C)
to participating in policy decision making. Within this category, the role of parents is
more positive and proactive, as demonstrated by the structural aspects of this
conception (e.g., sharing views on policy matters that may not have a direct impact on
their family; seeking information and looking for ways to be involved; participating in
policy decision making; and exercising their democratic right to participate in
decision making affecting their family). In contrast to previous categories, these
parents are also more optimistic about the capacity of parents to have their say and to
influence policy decision making. While still perceiving a leading role for
government, the role of parents shaping policy within this category is seen to be
realistic and achievable.
These four categories of description reveal variation in the ways that parents
participating in this study constituted their role in shaping policy, with each category
describing a distinctly different way of experiencing this role. Table 4.4 provides a
summary of the four categories of description, highlighting similarities and
differences in terms of the referential and structural elements of each conception, and
the underpinning structure of awareness. Once again, I applied the categories of
description to the original data. Table 4.5 shows the array of conceptions according to
the most participatory conception expressed by individual parents. Table 4.6 shows
the full array of conceptions among parents in this study.
4.6
The outcome space
In this final section, the outcome space illustrating the phenomenon of the role of
parents shaping policy is presented and described. Here, the outcome space shows
215
Table 4.4: Categories of description denoting the role of parents in shaping ECEC public policy
Category
Label
A
No role
conception
Referential element
(What role is
conceived as)
The role of parents is seen as:
No role shaping policy.
•
•
•
•
B
Raising
concerns
conception
The role of parents is seen as
being informed about policy
that affects their child and
family, raising concerns
and/or seeking a change to
current or proposed policy.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
C
Having some
say conception
The role of parents is seen as
being informed and having
some say in policy matters
that directly affect their child
and family.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
D
Participating
in policy
decision
making
conception
The role of parents is seen as
participating in policy
decision making, in particular
where this is likely to affect
their child and family.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Structural elements
(How role is conceived)
Structure of awareness
(focus)
Select and use service
No role in shaping ECEC public policy
Good for other parents (service users) to
have their say
Question whether parents having a say
would make any difference – question
whether government listens to parents
The continuing focus on direct
service use is the distinguishing
feature of this conception. The role of
parents in shaping policy is delimited
to ‘looking after their direct service
needs’, and there is no personal role
in shaping ECEC public policy.
Parents also questioned whether they
could influence government policy.
Focus on policy that affects their child and
family
Receive information – be informed
Be consulted - given opportunity to have a
say
See what is being proposed and respond if
unhappy (i.e., perceive problems, disagree or
want to change something)
Parents can support informed policy (e.g., if
don’t want a service, save public money)
Want to be heard –views acknowledged
Receive feedback
Question whether parents having their say
will make any difference to policy decisions
The focus on raising concerns and/or
seeking change in policy affecting
their child and family is the
distinguishing feature of this
conception. The role of parents is
delimited to receiving information
about relevant policy, seeing what is
proposed and responding if unhappy.
Conversely, if parents are happy with
what is being proposed, they are less
likely to be involved in policy
consultation (e.g., respond to surveys
etc.). Some parents also questioned
whether they could influence
government policy.
The focus on having some say on
policy likely to affect their child and
family is the distinguishing feature of
this conception. The role of parents
is delimited to being informed, being
consulted (as a parent and service
user), and responding to government
policy likely to affect their child and
family, if they wish. Having a say
encompasses the identification of
problems, as well as positive
feedback, with the aim of supporting
informed and relevant policy. For
some parents, this was seen to be an
unachievable goal.
Focus on policy that affects their child and
family
Receive information – be informed
Be consulted – given opportunity to have a
say.
Have a say on policy matters likely to affect
their child and family, if they wish
(including raising concerns, positive
feedback, ideas for improvement).
Participate in a democratic process
Parents can support informed policy (e.g.,
relevant services, save public money)
Want to be heard – input acknowledged,
views taken on board
Receive feedback
Some question whether parents can influence
ECEC public policy
Focus on policy that affects their child and
family - although may share views on other
matters of professional or personal interest
(i.e., outside own family framework)
Receive information – be informed
Seek information and look for ways to be
involved
Participate in ECEC policy decision-making
Exercise their democratic right to participate
in decision making affecting their child and
family
Expect feedback on outcomes
216
The focus on participating in policy
decision making is the distinguishing
feature of this conception. While
their own family remains the primary
focus, parents may also be involved
in other policy matters (outside their
own family framework). The role of
parents is delimited to being
informed, looking for ways to be
involved and being included in policy
decision making, particularly where
this affects their child and family.
The right to be included in decision
making is linked to the wider
democratic system.
Table 4.5: Most participatory conception of the role of parents in shaping ECEC
policy
Category
No role
A
11, 20
B
Raise concerns/
seek change
Have some say
Participate in
policy decisionmaking
05, 06, 12, 14, 15,
16, 18, 19, 22
C
01, 02, 03, 04, 07,
09, 10, 13, 17, 21,
23, 25
D
08, 24, 26
Table 4.6: Full array of conceptions of the role of parents in shaping ECEC policy
Category
No role
A
11, 20
B
Raise concerns
Have some say
Participate
in policy
decision making
01, 02, 03, 04, 05,
06, 07, 08, 09, 10,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26
C
01, 02, 03, 04, 07,
08, 09, 10, 13, 14,
17, 21, 23, 24, 25,
26
D
08, 24, 26
217
variation in the ways parents constitute their role as shapers of ECEC public policy,
and the logical relationships between the different ways of seeing and experiencing
this role.
As shown, analysis revealed that the parents in this study understood and experienced
this role in four different ways, giving rise to four categories of description: (1) The
role of parents as…no role in ECEC policy; (2) the role of parents as raising concerns
in relation to policy; (3) the role of parents as having some say in policy; and (4) the
role of parents as participating in policy decision making. Each of these categories of
description denotes a distinctly different way of constituting this role, and, once again,
these can be arranged hierarchically.
As in the first part of this study, the notion of hierarchy here is used to signify
expanding conceptions of the role of parents shaping policy, and increasing levels of
parent participation in policy decision making. The final ordering of the categories of
description reflects my professional knowledge of the phenomenon, and value
judgment as to what constitutes more complex and more inclusive ways of
experiencing this role (Marton & Booth, 1997).
The outcome space denoting the phenomenon of the role of parents shaping ECEC
public policy is represented in Figure 4.2. Unlike the previous outcome space, this is
not a classic hierarchy. In fact, Category A, the no role conception, is deliberately set
apart from the others. This said, the remaining Categories (i.e., B, C and D) each
build on and incorporate the previous categories of description. The arrangement of
the outcome space is based on the following facts:
•
Some parents perceive no personal role shaping ECEC public policy. As can be
seen, within the outcome space, Category A is detached from the remaining
categories of description. This is because parents within this category perceive no
role for themselves in relation to policy, whereas, in all subsequent categories,
parents perceive they have a role to play. Now, this aspect of the relationship
between the categories may be viewed in two different ways. On one hand,
recognising the role of parents shaping policy to be a matter of individual choice,
it follows that parents have the right to choose not to participate. Thus, it might be
218
Figure 4.2: Outcome space depicting parent conceptions of the role of parents in
shaping ECEC public policy
D. ROLE OF PARENT
AS PARTICIPATING IN
POLICY DECISION MAKING
C. ROLE OF PARENT AS
HAVING SOME SAY IN POLICY
B. ROLE OF PARENT AS RAISING CONCERNS
ABOUT POLICY
A. ROLE OF PARENT AS … NO ROLE IN POLICY
219
argued that the no role conception represents the narrowest way of seeing this
role, and provides the basis for all succeeding categories. Following this
argument, the outcome space may be presented as a classic hierarchy, in much the
same way as the outcome space for the first part of this study. On the other hand,
looking at structure of awareness, it may be argued that there is a distinct
difference between what is focal for parents in Category A (i.e., direct service
provision) and what is focal for parents in Categories B, C and D (i.e., having
some say in policy likely to affect their family). In constructing this outcome
space, the latter perspective has been adopted. Here the singular focus on direct
service provision, and the absence of any personal role in relation to policy is seen
to set Category A apart from the others.
•
Excluding Conception A, each of the remaining conceptions incorporates and
expands on previous conceptions. While Category A, the no role conception, is
set apart, Categories B, C and D build on each other, incorporating referential and
key structural elements of those categories preceding them. For example, in
Category B, focal in awareness for parents is being informed about policy that
affects their child and family, and having a say if they are not unhappy. In line
with this, the role of parents is delimited to raising personal concerns and/or
seeking change to policy impacting on their child and family. Key role aspects
include receiving information, being given opportunity to have a say, and
responding if not happy with a proposed policy. Within Category C, the role of
parents extends beyond problem identification to having some say in policy
matters affecting their child and family. Nevertheless, the area of interest remains
policy affecting their child and family, and raising personal concerns is still seen
to be part of the role of parents and a key impetus for parent involvement in
policy. Thus, Category C incorporates the previously identified role aspects, but
can be differentiated from Category B on the basis of the following (additional)
key role aspects: having some say in policy (e.g., sharing general views, positive
as well as negative feedback, and offering suggestions for improvement);
participating in a democratic process; and receiving feedback from government.
And so it follows. Within Category D, the role of parents incorporates and
expands upon the previously identified key role aspects. Here the focus shifts
from having a say in public policy to the outcome of this, that is, policy decision
220
making. Building on the previous categories, this conception may be
distinguished from Categories B and C on the basis of the following key role
aspects: sharing views on policy matters that may not have a direct impact on their
family; seeking information and looking for ways to be involved, participating in
policy decision making and exercising their democratic right to participate in
decision making affecting their family.
•
The policy context broadens. The needs of their own child and family remain
focal in awareness for all parents across categories. However, there is a slight
broadening in the designated area of interest as the categories progress. For
example, within Category A, parents remain focused on their need to use an
ECEC service and their personal experience of service provision, and, this
excluded any further role in relation to policy. Within Categories B and C,
parents do perceive a role shaping policy, however, the area of interest is
delimited to policy likely to affect their child, family and/or ECEC service. This
area of interest is most clearly defined by parents within Category B who indicate
they are not interested in policy that sits outside of this personal framework. In a
similar sense, parents within Category C focus on ‘relevant’ policy issues (i.e.,
policy likely to impact on their family). In contrast, while keeping the needs of
their own child and family in the forefront, parents within Category D express
interest in policy outside their personal family framework. These parents indicate
they may participate in policy discussions that relate to a personal or professional
interest and/or passion, even where this has no relevance to their own child and
family. Here there is a growing sense of public or community engagement in
policy decision making, particularly where this relates to children in general. This
said, these parents recognise the constraints of modern family life often result in a
narrower and more individual focus when it comes to participation in ECEC
policy.
•
The nature of the role of parents in relation to ECEC policy becomes more
proactive and participatory. Within the first category, parents see no role for
themselves in relation to policy and are generally quite skeptical about the
capacity of parents to influence policy decision making. Rather, this is seen to be
221
the almost sole province of government. In Category B, the role of parents
shaping policy is generally passive (e.g., parents receive information from
government, given opportunity to have a say, if they wish), but becomes reactive
if a problem arises. Within this context, parents become involved in policy
discussions if they are not happy with what is being proposed or has been decided
by government (e.g., they perceive a negative impact on their child or family).
Once again, emphasis is placed on the role of government in policy decision
making, and the role of parents is confined to reviewing policy and raising any
personal issues or concerns in relation to this. As in the first category, there is
also some doubt as to whether parents can really influence government policy
decision making.
In Category C, the role of parents becomes more proactive and positive. While
continuing to raise personal issues and concerns, these parents see their role as
providing positive feedback as well as suggestions for improvement. As in
previous categories, the role of parents is conceived in terms of responding to
government policy affecting their child and family, and is distanced from the
policy development process (i.e., parents want opportunity to comment on
proposed policy prior to implementation; parents say they do not have the time,
inclination and/or capacity to be involved in developing policy from scratch).
The role of parents shaping policy here is underpinned by a sense of democratic
process and consideration of majority view. Nevertheless, while making a case
for parents having a say on policy affecting their family, some parents continue to
see this as unachievable within the current context.
In contrast, within Category D, the role of parents may be described as more
positive and participatory. In this category, parents perceive themselves to be
participants in ECEC policy decision making, linking their role to general policy
decision making and the wider democratic system. While expecting government
to take the lead in information sharing and public consultation, these parents are
proactive in their role, seeking information and looking for ways to be involved in
policy discussion. Moreover, they expect to be part of any change process and to
be included in policy decision making, particularly but not exclusively, where this
relates to their child and family. Significantly, these parents are more optimistic
222
than those in previous categories about the capacity of parents to influence policy
decision making, perceiving that mounting public pressure is requiring
government to listen to parents and to take account of their views and experiences.
4.7
Chapter summary
This chapter presents the outcomes of the study in the form of categories of
description and an outcome space. The first set of categories of description and
outcome space denotes the role of parents in using an ECEC service. The second set
of categories of description and outcome space denotes the broader role of parents in
shaping ECEC public policy. Findings reveal that each of these roles may be viewed
and experienced by parents in a limited number of qualitatively different ways, and
highlight the critical differences between different ways of experiencing these roles.
Findings also identify factors perceived by parents to influence their participation at
both levels. In the next chapter, I discuss these outcomes and their implications for
future ECEC policy and practice.
223
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
5.1
Introduction
This chapter discusses the outcomes of the study, that is, the categories of description
and outcome spaces presented in chapter 4, and looks at how these contribute to our
understanding of the role of parents in ECEC. To begin, the chapter provides a
summary of the categories of description, denoting the different ways in which the
role of parents in ECEC was constituted within this group of parents. These
conceptions are then considered in relation to some pre-existing (first-order)
perspectives on the role of parents in education generally, identified in chapter 2 of
this thesis. In light of this discussion, questions are raised regarding the future place
of terms and concepts such as consumer and participant in ECEC public policy. This
is followed by a discussion of factors identified by parents as influencing their
participation at various levels and implications for both policy and practice. Finally,
the chapter reviews the strengths and limitations of the study, and offers
recommendations for further research.
5.2
Different conceptions of the role of parents in ECEC
In line with the original research aim, this study provided a picture of the role of
parents in ECEC, as viewed and experienced by a group of parents with current
experience in Australian ECEC. Employing a phenomenographic approach, the study
elicited parent conceptions of their role in using ECEC services and in shaping ECEC
public policy. Offering what Marton (1981) referred to as a “second-order
perspective” (p. 177) on the role of parents, the study also identified significant
variation in how these roles were experienced among this group of parents.
Reflecting general phenomenographic principles, the study found that, within this
group of parents, these particular roles were experienced in a limited number of
qualitatively different ways.
224
In this section, I revisit the parents’ conceptions of their role in ECEC, and then
consider these in relation to “pre-existing authorized conceptions” (Marton, 1981, p.
185), in this instance, current views on the role of parents in education generally. Of
particular interest here are two recent typologies of parental involvement in schools
proposed by educational researchers in the United States (Epstein, 1990; Epstein et
al., 1997) and the United Kingdom (Vincent, 1996; 2000). The parents’ conceptions
are also compared to current Australian policy perspectives on the role of parents in
ECEC, where parents are positioned as consumers of ECEC, as participants in ECEC,
and, occasionally, as both.
5.2.1
Parent conceptions of their role in ECEC
The study comprised two parts, looking at two particular areas of parent participation
in ECEC. To begin, the study investigated parent conceptions of their role in using
ECEC services to reveal the varying ways that this role may be viewed and
experienced by parents. This involved the construction of five categories of
description, denoting five distinctly different ways of viewing and experiencing this
role:
•
The service user conception – the role of parents is seen as selecting and using the
best service for their child (Category 1);
•
The informed user conception – the role of parents is seen as knowing what’s
happening for their child in the service (Category 2);
•
The consumer conception – the role of parents is seen as paying for a service,
and, thereby, enacting certain consumer rights (Category 3);
•
The partnership conception – the role of parents is seen as supporting the service
they have selected for their child and having some say in what happens for their
child in the service (Category 4); and
•
The member of a service community conception – the role of parents is seen as
working as a member of the service community for the benefit of all concerned,
which includes participating in service decision making (Category 5).
Taking a broader perspective, the second part of the study investigated parent
conceptions of their role in shaping ECEC public policy. The findings, again,
225
revealed variation in how this role was experienced, leading to the construction of
four categories of description:
•
The no role conception – the role of parents is seen as: No role in shaping policy
(Category A);
•
The raising concerns conception – the role of parents is seen as being informed
about policy that affects their child and family, raising any concerns and/or
seeking a change to current or proposed policy (Category B);
•
The having some say conception – the role of parents is seen as being informed
and having some say in policy matters that directly affect their child and family
(Category C); and
•
The participating in policy decision making conception – the role of parents is
seen as participating in policy decision making, particularly where this is likely to
affect their child and family (Category D).
These ways of experiencing are based on the collective experience of this group of
parents. As such, they thematise the complex of possible ways of viewing and
experiencing the role of parents in ECEC (Marton, 1981). As Bruce (1997) pointed
out, this is not to say that some of these parents experience this role in one way and
others experience it another way. It is accepted that differences in conceptions can be
found both between and within individuals (Marton, 1981). This was borne out in the
present study, in that many of the parents interviewed expressed more than one
conception of their role in ECEC. In addition, the outcome space is seen to reflect a
snapshot in time, and there is evidence to suggest that individual parents may move
between categories at different times and under different circumstances.
Nevertheless, the identified categories of experience have been constructed to
describe the totality of ways in which these parents experienced their role in ECEC.
To this end, and in the pursuit of scholarly rigor, nothing in the collective experience
of these parents, as revealed in the interviews, has been left “unspoken” (Marton &
Booth, 1997, p. 125).
While focusing on different aspects of the role of parents in ECEC, there are notable
similarities between the two emerging sets of categories of description. For example,
in each set of categories, the base conceptions – Category 1, the service user
226
conception and Category A, the no role conception - are characterised by a
concentrated focus on individual needs and direct service use. In a similar sense,
Category 3, the consumer conception and Category B, the raising concerns
conception each maintain an individual focus and are characterised by a problemoriented approach to parent participation. In each of these, parent participation is
motivated by, and restricted to, identifying and raising problems (i.e., in relation to
service provision or ECEC policy). Parallels also exist between the higher order (i.e.,
more participatory) categories in each set which are distinguished by an increasing
sense of shared responsibility, emphasis on two-way communication and a more
proactive role for parents. This is most evident when comparing Category 5, the
member of a service community conception and Category D, the participating in
policy decision making conception. In each of these, while parent participation is
most often motivated by individual concerns (i.e., your child in the service), it is seen
to benefit everyone (i.e., children, staff, families). As such, these parents look for
ways to be involved and expect to take part in related decision making, at both service
and policy levels. Offering further clarification, Table 5.1 compares the two sets of
categories of description arising from this study.
Similar features distinguished the different ways parents constituted their role in each
set of categories of description. Critical differences were related to:
•
whether parents perceived a role (for themselves);
•
the motivation for and/or focus of parent participation (i.e., individualistic benefits to own child, collective - benefits to own child as well as other
children and families);
•
the nature of the role of parents (i.e., passive, reactive, proactive);
•
perceptions of personal responsibility and the responsibilities of others (i.e.,
individual responsibilities, shared responsibilities);
•
the nature of communication and information sharing (i.e., one-way, twoway); and
•
perceptions as to what constitutes parent participation (e.g., receiving
information, ‘knowing what’s happening for your child’, raising concerns,
sharing information and expertise, taking on particular support roles, and/or
taking part in decision making).
227
Table 5.1: A comparison of the two sets of categories of description
The role of parents in using ECEC
services
1. The service user conception - the role of
parents is seen as selecting and using the
best service for their child.
The role of parents in shaping
ECEC policy
A. The no role conception - the role of
parents shaping policy is seen as: No role in
shaping policy.
-
-
Select the best service for their child
Take their child to and from the service
Receive information
If a problem arises - leave
-
Focus on service use – no role in shaping
policy
Question whether parents having their say
will make any difference to policy
decisions
2. The informed user conception - the role of
parents is seen as knowing what’s happening
for their child in the service.
-
Find out what’s happening for their child
Monitor service provision
Have input/share information when
invited
3. The consumer conception - the role of
parents is seen as paying for a service, and,
thereby, enacting certain consumer rights.
-
Pay for the service
Monitor service provision to ensure it
meets family expectations
Identify and raise any problems
-
Share information and expectations
B. Raising concerns, seeking change
conception - the role of parents is seen as
being informed about policy that affects their
child and family, raising any concerns and/or
seeking a change to current/proposed policy.
-
Focus on policy that affects their child and
family
- Receive information – be informed
- Be given opportunity to have a say
- Respond if not happy with proposed policy
- Question whether parents having their say
will make any difference to policy
C. Having some say conception - the role of
parents is seen as being informed and having
some say in policy matters that directly affect
their child and family.
4. The partnership conception - the role of
parents is seen as supporting the service
selected for the child.
-
Share information
Build relationships
Support the service they have selected for
their child
Have some say in what happens
5. The member of a service community
conception - the role of parents is seen as
working as a member of the service
community for the benefit of all concerned.
-
Be involved in service decision making
likely to impact on their child and family
Work together to make the service better
for all concerned – children, staff, families
-
Have some say on policy matters likely to
affect their child and family
- Participate in a democratic process
- Receive feedback
- Question whether parents can influence
policy
D. Participating in policy decision making
conception - the role of parents is seen as
participating in policy decision making,
particularly where this is likely to affect their
child and family.
-
228
Share views on policy matters that may
not have a direct impact on their child and
family
Seek information and look for ways to be
involved
Participate in policy decision making
Exercise their democratic right to
participate in decision making affecting
their child and family
5.2.2 Comparing parent conceptions with other typologies of the role of parents
in education
According to Marton (1981), emerging conceptions may bear some resemblance to
“pre-existing authorised conceptions” (p. 185), in this instance, other documented
views of the role of parents in ECEC. Looking at the present study outcomes, there
are notable similarities between the parents’ conceptions of their role, in particular
their role in using services, and other established typologies of parental involvement
as proposed by educational researchers such as Vincent (1996; 2000) and Epstein et
al., (1991; 1997). Although these studies were situated in the school context and
offered a “first-order perspective” (i.e., making statements about the role of parents as
opposed to describing the experience of parents), they also highlight diversity in how
the role of parents may be interpreted and enacted. This section provides a brief
overview of these ‘other views’ to highlight similarities and differences in
perspectives. They are not used to confirm the parents’ views or to suggest any
‘misconceptions’.
Examining parental involvement in the state education system in Britain, Vincent
(2000) posited four parent “subject positions”, that is, different understandings of
“appropriate parental behaviour and relationships” (p. 1) in school contexts. In
Vincent’s (2000) typology, the first subject position is parent as independent, typified
by little home-school communication and a minimal relationship with the school.
Drawing attention to recent educational reforms and the quasi-marketisation of
education in Britain, Vincent’s second subject position is parent as consumer, where
the main function of parents is to encourage school accountability and high standards.
The third subject position is parent as supporter/learner (conceptualised as
partnership), where the role of parents is to undertake particular activities and
practices suggested by the school, both in support of the school and their child’s
education. The fourth subject position is parent as participant (conceptualised as
citizenship), where the role of parents is to be involved in the governance of the
school as well as the education of their own child.
Moving beyond the clear similarities in terminology, it is possible to draw some
parallels between Vincent’s (2000) typology and the emerging categories of
229
description in this study, in particular conceptions of the role of parents using
services. For example, Vincent’s construct of parent as independent is similar to the
service user conception. Each of these is characterised by a singular focus on the
individual child, and an emphasis on one-way communication and interaction (i.e.,
there is little home-service communication and interaction). Vincent’s construct
parent as consumer is also similar to the study’s consumer conception. The focus
remains primarily on individual child attainment, and key parental tasks such as
choosing the “right” service and receiving information from the service (as required
by government). In the case of unsatisfactory service provision, the primary
mechanisms open to parents are those of the general consumer, that is, exit and/or
individual lobbying (i.e., individual voice). It is noted in the present study, that
parents expressing the service user conception identified the exit option as their main
course of redress for unsatisfactory service provision. Parents expressing the
consumer conception talked about their right to raise individual concerns and expect
these will be addressed given they were paying for a service. Vincent’s construct
parent as supporter/learner bears strong resemblance to the partnership conception,
where parental involvement is seen to support individual child attainment as well as to
benefit other children and families. Key parental tasks include curriculum support,
attending events and meetings and organising/supporting fund-raising. And, finally,
Vincent’s construct of parent as participant, more recently conceived as a citizenship
model, is comparable to the member of a service community conception expressed by
parents in this study. Here we see a broadened parent focus that includes the
individual child, the whole service, and, potentially, local and national child and
family issues.
The key difference between the two typologies is that parents in the current study
identified a fifth way of experiencing the role of parents using ECEC services – the
informed user conception where involvement equates to knowing what is happening
for their child in the service . In her analysis, Vincent (1996; 2000) promoted parent
as participant as the most powerful role for parents. However, she also argued that
current policy and practice are failing to support citizen participation within the
British education system. As a result, she perceived that parent as participant was less
common, with parents more likely to take on the role of independent or consumer. In
the present study, using Marton et al’s (1993) priority rule, more parents expressed the
230
consumer conception than the member of a service community conception. However,
as noted, the term consumer was rejected by many parents (including some expressing
this conception), an issue that will be discussed further in the next section.
Looking at parent involvement programs and practices in North American schools,
Epstein et al. (1991; 1997) identified six major types of parent involvement in
elementary, middle and high schools. The purpose of their research was to create a
framework for educators to enhance parent involvement by drawing together the three
major contexts in which children are believed to learn and grow: the family, the
school, and the community. The first type of parent involvement, simply labeled
parenting seeks to help all families establish a supportive home environment. Type 2
is labeled communicating, the focus being the design of effective forms of school-tohome and home-to-school communication about school programs and child progress.
Type 3 is volunteering, the aim being to recruit and organise parent help and support.
Type 4, learning at home promotes the provision of information and ideas to families
about how to help their children at home with activities such as homework. Type 5 is
labeled decision making, and focuses on ways that schools include parents in decision
making. Type 6, collaborating with the community promotes the benefits of an
integrated approach to service delivery, and encourages schools to draw on
community resources to strengthen school programs, family practices, and child
learning and development.
Once again, there are similarities between the parent conceptions of their role in using
ECEC services and the typology of six types of parent involvement developed by
Epstein et al. In particular, themes common to both studies include: communication
and information sharing, parents and teachers working together, and the involvement
of parents in service decisions. Such similarities are, perhaps, not surprising, given
the focus of both studies. Epstein et al. investigated what schools were doing to
support parent involvement. It is well recognised that school policies and practices,
(incorporating government policy requirements) are instrumental in determining the
nature and extent of parent involvement (Crozier, 2000; Epstein et al., 1997; Vincent,
2000). Thus, it may be suggested that the conceptions expressed by parents in the
present study have most likely been influenced and shaped by similar policies and
practices here in Australia, as evidenced in chapter 2 (e.g., legislative provisions
231
ensuring parental access to information). Table 5.2 highlights the similarities and
differences between the present study’s findings, and the typologies proposed by
Vincent (1996; 2000) and Epstein et al. (1997).
Table 5.2: Similarities and differences between parent conceptions and ‘other views’
of the role of parents
THE PRESENT STUDY
Role of parents
Role of parents
in using ECEC
in shaping
services
ECEC public
policy
Service user
No role
conception
conception
Informed user
conception
Consumer
Raising concerns
conception
conception
Partnership
Having some say
conception
conception
Member of a
service
community
conception
-
Participating in
policy decision
making
conception
Australian
ECEC policy
Parent as
consumer
Parent as
participant
-
-
‘OTHER VIEWS’
Vincent (2000)
parent ‘subject
positions’
Parent as
independent
Parent as
consumer
Parent as
supporter/learner
Parent as
participant
-
Epstein (1997)
Six types of
parental
involvement
Communicating
Parenting
Volunteering
Learning at home
Decision making
Collaborating
with community
5.2.3 Comparing parent conceptions with current policy perspectives on the
role of parents in ECEC
As discussed in chapter 2, this study was set in a policy context where Australian
parents are currently positioned as consumers and participants in ECEC. Providing
particular impetus for this study was the notion that these roles had been constructed
by governments and policymakers for parents, with little reference to parent views and
experiences in ECEC. Addressing this gap in the professional knowledge base, this
study investigated the qualitatively different ways that parents constituted their role in
using ECEC services and in shaping ECEC policy. The main finding is that parents
experience these roles in a limited number of qualitatively different ways, which
include the basic notions of consumer and participant. This said, the study also
provides further insight on these “two dominant common-sense understandings”
(Vincent, 2000, p. 2) of the role of parents in ECEC, and, the inherent contradictions
between them. This next section examines more closely the roles of parent as
232
consumer and parent as participant, and how these particular roles were experienced
by parents in this study. This, in turn, raises questions about the future of the terms
consumer and participant in ECEC policy.
5.2.3.1 Parent as consumer
The study identified a consumer conception with regard to both using an ECEC
service and shaping ECEC policy (i.e. Category 3, the consumer conception and
Category B, the raising concerns conception). With respect to service use, the role of
parent as consumer was seen as paying for a service, and, thereby, enacting certain
consumer rights (i.e., monitoring service provision and raising any issues or concerns
relating to their child in the service). In a similar sense, the equivalent role in shaping
policy was seen as being informed about policy that affects their child and family, and
raising any concerns and/or seeking change to a current or proposed policy. Further
analysis of how parents viewed and experienced the role of parent as consumer
highlights three key themes: (a) while some parents saw themselves as consumers,
others rejected this classification; (b) not all parents perceived real choice in selecting
their service; and (c) perceived limitations stemming from the use of individual
strategies relating to exit and voice (Hirschman, 1970).
•
The classification – parent as consumer. While some parents identified with the
notion of parent as consumer, using terminology such as “consumer”, “customer”
and “client” to describe their role, others expressed discomfort with this notion.
Parents who viewed themselves as consumers most often linked this to paying for
a service (i.e., child care), as evidenced in the following extracts:
o
Consumer. Well, I’m paying for it, so I suppose I am a consumer (Mother, 12:322323).
o
I see a consumer as anyone who pays for a service (Mother, 16: 280).
o
Well, I have children that need care, because I’m not able to provide that because I go
to work. They’re offering a service which we are utilizing and we’re paying for
(Mother, 13: 253-255).
While not necessarily using this terminology, other parents perceived the term
consumer to be ‘technically correct’. However, a number of parents, across the
233
categories of description, said they did not like being called a consumer,
perceiving this detracted from their important role as parents.
o
… it’s like one of the cows in the paddock. It’s not personal. I don’t know, it’s like
you’re at the shops or you’re buying something. I think when it’s your children or
your family, it tends to be a lot different than just a straight down the line consumer
(Mother. 18: 361-366).
o
No, I see myself as a parent of that service, not as a consumer. Because that sounds
as though I’m just one of many. A consumer (laughs). It sounds shocking …. It
makes me feel as though, you know, I’m not important. You’re just there to bring
your child there so that you can pay your fees and we get our money. When I hear
consumer, that’s what you think of. It’s like shopping and stuff like that. Like you’re
nothing (Mother, 2: 258-260, 263-267).
Dissatisfaction with the term consumer increased as the categories of description
broadened and became more participatory. Parents in the higher order categories
rejected this view of their role, arguing that it was too narrow and failed to capture
the inter-reliance and give and take of their relationship with their ECEC service.
I
Do you think of yourselves as consumers of these services?
P1 Not really. I feel like we pay their wage. We’re more like their bosses, because we
keep them working and we pretty much tell them how we want things done.
I
Can you think of another word that would better describe your role?
P2 Parent will do…. Well, we are parents. We’re not employees, we’re not employers,
we’re not consumers. We are parents…. We don’t just drop the kids off at kindy and
go out and do something…. We, like we’ve said to you, we try to be involved with
what’s happening so that we know what’s going on. So, we’re not just in and out.
P1 A consumer doesn’t know anything about, doesn’t know the nitty gritty about
things… they just use.
(Mother and Father, 3 & 4: 557-580)
o
I suppose, consumer as a word, I view it as cold, where as it’s a transaction. And,
there is that component to it, but, I’d also like to position myself in that mix of
developing trust and a relationship with the service provider, with the staff and the
people who are working there (Father, 24: 157-161).
o
I feel more of a partnership, rather than a consumer. It would be more of a
partnership…. [Why?] Well, in a partnership, it’s equal. You’re both sharing views
and you’re willing to participate, together…with a consumer, you’re consuming
something, using something, so you’re a consumer (Mother, 26: 243-250).
234
Some parents differentiated between the idea of ‘parent as consumer’ and ‘parent
as participant’ or ‘parent with voice’.
o
To be a consumer is somebody that is taking and taking, where a parent is just
participating (Mother, 9: 165-167).
o
I suppose a consumer’s role is, maybe, they just rock up and drop the kids off and
pick them up and go home. A parent’s role may get involved just a little bit more
(Father, 5: 191-193).
o
In one way we are a consumer, because we’re using a service. But to make ourselves
different from that, we’d have to have a voice (Mother, 1: 344-347).
These are interesting distinctions worthy of further consideration by service
providers, policymakers and governments. Many parents in this study rejected the
term consumer, perceiving that it not only failed to capture the reality of their role,
but served to diminish their important role. This finding is supported by the work
of others. For example, focusing on secondary education in Britain, Crozier
(2000) observed that parents tend not to describe themselves as consumers. The
key reason for this is that “the provision of education cannot be easily equated to
the purchase and consumption of a product, like a car or a television set” (p. 4).
Parents within this study also grappled with this problem, distinguishing between
‘shopping’ and using an ECEC service:
o
Children aren’t products, they’re children, who, their needs and their feelings need to
be looked after. It’s not like you’re just buying something you can just throw on the
shelf at home. You’ve got, you know, little people (Mother, 19: 220-228).
o
I don’t know. Like it’s different when you go to Bilo to do the shopping. You’re a
customer there. But you sort of, you are, because you’re paying for the service. But
you also want to have your say, because it’s more than groceries you’re buying. It’s
children that they’re looking after. Yeah (Mother, 25: 74-79).
Moreover, there is a sense that the notion of a consumer using a service, is at odds
with contemporary ideals of parent participation, that is, ‘being involved’ in a
variety of ways.
•
Parental choice – rhetoric or reality? A key component of the ECEC quasimarket is the notion of parental choice, that is, parents have the right to choose the
service that best meets their child and family needs. Hallgarten (2000) identified
three theoretical justifications supporting parental choice of schools: (a) parents
235
should have the right to decide how, and, therefore where, their children are
educated; (b) there should be equity of choice amongst families; and (c) within a
competitive market, parental choice will enhance efficiency and improve school
performance. However, the imperfections of choice theory, in practice, have been
well documented over recent years (Crozier, 1997; 2000; Levin, 1990; Marginson,
1997c; Vincent, 2000; 2001). Some parents in this study also questioned their
capacity to exercise “real choice” in an ECEC system where demand for places in
most areas currently outstrips supply. Several parents reflected on difficulties
they had experienced in finding a child care place. The growth of private forprofit ECEC services and ECEC corporates was also seen to be reducing parental
choice. It was noted that, within the study area, one particular chain owned six
services, operating from similar purpose-built facilities and providing the same
programs and services. A number of parents within the study, particularly those
seeking a service within walking distance of home, perceived that this
development had left them with “no choice”. Choice was also perceived to be
limited in rural and remote areas.
o
I do select the service that I want. I think, as a consumer, that I should have the
right to select a service that I think meets my child’s needs, and I don’t think
parents have that. Because of the limited amount of community-based child care,
the child care is run as a business. And, there are limited places in family day
care, and now the lack of funding for those services. I don’t think that, as a
consumer, I now have the freedom to choose the services that I think would be
safe for my child, that are regulated, that are controlled (Mother, 7: 361-369).
o
When I lived out at (rural town), I didn’t have much of a choice cause they only
had the one [service] (Mother, 22:2-3).
The perceived benefits of choice are clearly compromised when demand outstrips
available places, forcing parents to settle for services that may not meet their
family needs and expectations. This, in turn, negates the capacity of parent choice
to influence service quality and responsiveness, a fact that Hirschman (1970) also
concedes.
•
Perceived limitations stemming from the use of individual strategies relating to
exit and voice. As noted, parental choice constitutes one key component of the
ECEC quasi-market. The second and related component is the capacity of parents
to choose to exit from a selected service. This is what Hirschman (1970) labeled
236
the “exit option” (p. 21), a market mechanism perceived to enhance consumer
sovereignty and empower parents as consumers of services, such as ECEC. As
discussed in chapter 2, the underpinning principle is simple: consumer exit inflicts
revenue losses on delinquent management, encouraging a change in behaviour
(Hirschman, 1970). Levin (1990) provided further insight:
‘Exit’ refers to the act of shifting from one provider to another. When one is
dissatisfied with one product and replaces it with another, or shifts purchases
from one supplier to another, one is using the exit option. These impersonal
shifts signal to producers important patterns of demand that must be responded
to if the suppliers are to survive (p. 261).
While promoted as a powerful tool, the true influence of consumer exit has been
questioned by a number of researchers, particularly in relation to education
(Crozier, 2000; Hallgarten, 2000; Levin, 1990; Marginson, 1997c; Vincent, 2000).
Parents in this study also identified some significant flaws in the application of the
exit option within ECEC. To begin, a number of parents indicated that they had
employed the exit option, withdrawing their child from an unsatisfactory service.
This said, the reasons for exit were notably serious, and some of these parents
admitted they had put up with inadequate programs and questionable practice
because they needed care and it was so difficult to find a place.
o
There was one centre he went to, because I was so really in need of care, but it just
didn’t work out….There were a few incidents. He got hit in the head with a wooden
block, and he had to have a butterfly clip put onto it. And then he got bitten, and that
was it, yeah (Mother, 25: 22-28).
o
I guess that ultimately we have the right to take our child out of that service, however,
a lot of child care centres have lengthy waiting periods, and when I did have that bad
experience that I mentioned, I was able to book my child into another centre, but he
was put on a waiting list. So, then I had the dilemma that I knew he wasn’t being
looked after properly, according to my expectations at the centre. It was only, not
even a month, but I felt very bad about leaving him there…. I had to go to work
(Mother, 14: 89-99).
These findings are in line with those of Hallgarten (2000) who concluded that,
once a choice had been made in terms of English schooling, switching due to
general dissatisfaction is rare. Rather, as suggested by the current study, it seems
237
that concerns need to be of a more serious nature for parents to resort to the exit
option.
Furthermore, the majority of parents who had employed this option said they had
not raised their concern with the service provider prior to their exit, and only some
had followed up afterwards. Within this context, parents talked about being
frightened of raising an issue, being perceived as troublemakers, the potential after
effect on their child (if they remained at the service), and the generally limited
capacity of parents to effect any real change within a service. Discussing a very
serious incident concerning one service’s approach to managing her son’s
behaviour, a mother talked about ‘pulling her child out’ of the service and then
deciding to take action against the service:
o
At first, I was scared. I didn’t want to do it [tell anyone about the incident]. I told my
family about it and told my husband’s family about it, and they all said to me that I
should do something about it. But I was too scared to do anything. I thought I was
going to be made out to be the bad one and my son the bad one. And, it wasn’t. A
person from the hub heard about it as well and she sort of spoke to me and together
we went to Family Services [State Government department]. But I was really scared,
so scared. …I probably didn’t tell them everything. But I tried as best as I could
(Mother, 10: 55-62; 89-90).
Clearly, the effectiveness of the exit option in bringing about changes in practice
and quality is reliant upon service providers being made aware of the reasons for
consumer exit. Furthermore, pressure to change behaviour is most likely to stem
from collective exit, rather than individual exit, particularly where the demand for
places outweighs supply, and it is relatively easy to fill vacancies.
And, herein lie the key weaknesses of the concept of parent as consumer. This
concept promotes individual interest above all else – the right of individual
parents to choose the best service for their child and family, and to exit from an
unsatisfactory service. Within this study, the consumer conception also included
the right to raise concerns and issues with regard to service provision and policy
affecting their child and family. However, as can be seen, the consumer model
tends to limit parents to individual action (e.g., individual exit, individual
lobbying) while marginalizing collective action (i.e., parents working together to
enhance service provision) (Crozier, 2000; Vincent, 1996; 2000). In the context
238
of British schools, Vincent (2000) suggested the success of individual action is
determined by two key factors: “the differential possession and employment of
individual parents’ social, cultural and material resources, and the school’s view
of aspects of their children’s education with which parents should be concerned”
(p. 4). As a consequence, it is recognised that not all parents “consume from an
equal position” (Crozier, 2000, p. 4).
Reflecting on choice and exit within British education, Hallgarten (2000) argued
that parental choice policies in education have not increased parental involvement
in decision making nor their influence over the nature and content of schools.
With reference to Hirschman (1970), he concluded that the power of exit is
proving a poor substitute for the power of voice. In the following section, I look
at the concept of parent as participant and the perceived power of voice.
5.2.3.2 Parent as participant
The study also identified a participatory conception with regard to both using an
ECEC service and shaping ECEC policy. Within the context of service use, the
partnership conception and the member of a service community conception reflect the
general idea of parent as participant, with the latter representing the highest order and
thereby most participatory conception. Within this category, the role of parent was
seen as working as a member of the service community for the benefit of all
concerned. Key parent role aspects included being informed, supporting their chosen
service and taking part in service decision making, particularly where this was likely
to impact on their child and family. In a similar sense, in the participating in policy
decision making conception, the role of parents was seen as participating in ECEC
policy decision making, particularly where this was likely to affect their child and
family. Further analysis of how parents viewed and experienced the role of parent as
participant highlights three key themes: (a) the existence of quite different views on
what constitutes parental involvement in ECEC; (b) the division and overlap between
particular and collective parental interest and involvement; and (c) the limitations of
parental voice in ECEC.
239
•
Different views on what constitutes parental involvement in ECEC. Parental
involvement in education is often presented as a unified concept (Crozier, 2000).
However, as discussed earlier in this chapter, researchers have identified
considerable diversity in practice and interpretation, leading to the development of
typologies of parent involvement (Epstein et al., 1997; Epstein & Dauber, 1991;
Vincent, 1996; 2000). Supporting variation in the way parent involvement may be
seen and experienced, this study reveals something of a continuum of parental
involvement in ECEC. Conceptions of parental involvement ranged from
‘knowing what’s happening for their child in the service’ to ‘supporting the
service they have selected for their child’ to ‘taking part in decision making’.
o
…they tell you when you go to pick him up, what they’d done for the day, and we
got, they took pictures of what the kids had done…So I thought that was good. You
were still involved in it (Mother, 21: 23-25; 32-33).
o
To be part of it, to be part of your child’s day. Be it just dropping them off and
picking them up, and just talking to somebody and dropping in some old cotton reels
and looking at the drawings on the wall. It’s all participating at the end of the day to
a small degree as much as you can (Mother, 9: 170-174).
o
Keeping them [the service] informed, as well as making sure that I’m informed of
what’s happening in the centre. Helping out. Normally you’re working when you
have children in that sort of service, so you can’t, you haven’t got a lot of time to
offer them. But, I think you still have to show them support too, because your
children are with them all the time…. Because you still have to be part of your
children’s lives, whether they’re with you or whether they’re in care (Mother, 26: 29).
o
I’d also like to position myself in that mix of developing trust and a relationship with
the service provider, with the staff and the people who are working there. Be
available….turn up for working bees and be apart of the social connectedness with
having your Christmas parties and those sorts of things. Not necessarily being up
running the whole show, but just putting your hand up when you can (Father, 24:
158-169).
All of these parents equated their actions to ‘being involved’. Yet, as Vincent
(2000) observed, such typologies of parental involvement are at odds with recent
educational policy which tends to harmogenise the role of parents in schools. This
often leads to the promotion of a “right” way to behave and the separation of
“good” and “bad” parents in terms of accepted patterns of behaviour.
Interestingly, a number of parents in this study appeared to draw on this basis to
distinguish between good parents and bad parents:
240
o
…you’d have some parents who’d be right in there and want to be involved. And
then you’d have others that it’s easier to leave it to somebody else to do (Mother, 18:
319-321).
o
…for every good parent there’s two or three bad parents. Not every parent is, not
every parent has their child’s best interests at heart, unfortunately. So obviously those
bad eggs, they’re not going to come. They’re not going to have much involvement in
it anyway (Mother, 16: 260-265).
It would appear that, among these parents, the distinction between a good and bad
parent rests on the visibility of parental involvement (i.e., time spent at the service,
attendance at meetings, participation in fund-raising). The underlying assumption
is that parents who are not seen to be involved are not interested in their children.
Contesting this view, Crozier (2000) drew attention to the impact of family
characteristics on the way parents relate to their children’s school. Focusing on
social class, she argued “that middle-class parents are much more visible than
working-class parents in their relationships with the school” (p. 29). However,
she concluded that this tended to be more a matter of different family expectations
and practices, as opposed to indifference. The current study findings support this
view, highlighting that the vast majority of parents want the best for their children
and want to be informed about matters affecting their child and family. Instead of
seeking to normalise parent involvement and promoting a particular role (i.e.,
parent as consumer or parent as participant), the study suggests there is greater
merit in identifying and supporting involvement in various ways and at various
levels.
•
Particular versus collective parental interest and involvement. The study
revealed the primary motivation to be involved, at both service and policy level,
stemmed from particular individualistic concerns, namely concern for the safety
and wellbeing of one’s own child and family. This is starkly evident in the lowerorder categories of description, where the sole focus was individual need and
service use.
o
I’m looking after my own little space… I’m not one of these people who’d be going
out to, crusade is probably a bit of a strong word, but that kind of thing, you know?
(Father, 11: 118-122)
o
If it [the issue] affects you directly, I suppose…I suppose everyone’s got a right to
have a say in anything. But, if it doesn’t really affect me, I wouldn’t be so interested
in having a say. Unless it directly affects me or my children (Mother, 19: 82-86).
241
However, it was also clearly the key to participation in the higher order categories
as well. While perceiving shared responsibilities and collective benefits, parents
in these categories were direct in identifying their individual child and family
focus.
o
I’d like to see my role as, I’d just like to feel as though I have some self worth as a
parent, from their [government’s] view point. That they are listening to us, and they
are taking us into consideration as parents, that we know what our children want
(Mother, 26: 323-329).
o
Like I said, I’m a parent and I’m trying to watch out for my kids, so I want to be able
to help shape their world and be able to have some say in what affects them (Mother,
8:344-346).
o
I suppose to summarise, you can almost put it down to being an advocate. (For?) For
what my family is looking for… We’d be looking to advocate on behalf of our kids.
[And later] And, again, a little bit self-centred. If it was a service or policy that I
couldn’t see had a direct bearing, and this is probably more a time issue, but if it
doesn’t have a direct, a payback to me, to my family, to my kids, I’d consider what
sort of time I’d put into having comment. So, it’s got to be meaningful at the time
(Father, 24: 267-268; 276-277; 295-301).
Examining parent-centered organisations (PCOs) in Britain, Vincent (2000)
perceived similar trends, and discussed the influence of “particular parents” (p.
133). She suggested that motivation to be involved in such groups most often
stems from particular individual concerns, namely “safeguarding or improving
circumstances for one’s own children and family” (p. 133). Vincent noted that in
some cases this concern was able to be generalised to all children, whereas in
other cases, the focus remained on the individual child. In light of this, she raised
concern about the general makeup of such parent organisations, and their potential
to consolidate advantage. Hallgarten (2000) noted the same concerns (i.e., parents
prioritising their own child’s needs over others, and the middle class composition
of most parent groups) but countered the view that parents were unable to move
beyond their own personal frame of reference:
Research has shown that parents who do enter a school’s decision making
sphere… can be relatively neutral, and be involved in deliberations about
wider systems and policy issues (p. 94).
242
And, while concerned about the middle-class composition of many parent groups,
he suggested that this is true of all democratic structures, and is not in itself a
reason to prevent voice. Importantly, both Vincent and Hallgarten agree that any
attempt to suppress particularity would most likely result in reduced parent
participation.
•
Limitations of parental voice in ECEC. As has been shown, growing emphasis is
being placed on the idea of parent voice in education and ECEC (Crozier, 2000;
Hallgarten, 2000; Levin, 1990; Marginson, 1997c; Vincent, 1996; 2000). At the
level of rhetoric, the policy documents examined in chapter 2 provide further
evidence of the desire to increase parental involvement in decision making at all
levels in Australia. Yet, the perception remains there are “limited mechanisms
for families have a say, and to influence the provision of care and education
services for their children” (Queensland Government, 1999, p. 7), a perception
shared by some parents in this study. Parents discussed this concern in relation to
both service and policy decision making.
o
Definitely, that’s true. There are limited ways. As I said with the centre, I don’t
really have much input. I know, because I read the information, so I know what’s
going on day to day. But, I think if I said, I don’t want this to happen, I’d rather you
do this, I don’t think it would be listened to (Mother, 1:286-290).
o
Um, I don’t feel that [I can have a say at the centre]. I think that the guidelines of the
Education Department, the state schools, the preschools, they’re set criteria. I don’t
think you can have a lot of say in how, the P&C committees can’t have a lot to say
(Mother, 26: 53-56).
o
No, I’d say that’s probably true. And that is one of the main reasons that I’ve chosen
or decided that none of my children will ever be going to a private centre again,
because there is absolutely no way that you can influence their policy. They have a
very closed door approach. However, having said that, even though it is available in
the community-based child care, it’s still fairly limited (Mother, 14:159-165).
o
Mmm. I would say there are limited opportunities. I haven’t been made available to
many opportunities to influence government policy, other than voting at elections
(laughs) (Mother, 17:307-310).
o
Yes [I think they’re limited]. Because I don’t think that I’ve ever received anything
from the government asking me to comment on child care services (Mother, 21: 148150).
243
This said, not all parents perceived this to be a problem. Some parents described
positive experiences where they felt their views had influenced outcomes for their
children. Notably, these positive experiences were mainly confined to service
level interaction.
o
It was just a matter of talking to the teacher, and that’s about as far as you need to go.
They’re very open to whatever you say…. It’s not just shrugged off (Mother, 3: 132134, 139).
o
Yes, I have had the opportunity [to have a say in how the service is provided]…. I
guess here they give you newsletters and they’re always asking for feedback and
inviting feedback, and offering seminars and stuff like that. So there’s always very
much an open invitation to make comment (Mother, 13: 35-38).
o
They send you out a questionnaire when you first join. We had a questionnaire. What
do you expect from us? What would you like to see done? What do your children
like doing? What do they like eating? How do they like playing? And then, probably
every three months, they send out another form going please rate us. How do you
think we’re going? Got any new suggestions…. Do you want to come up…. So
they’re always very very open. I could walk in there tomorrow and say I’ve got this
really cool idea…and they could go, yes, that sounds good, come and do it. So it’s
very open that way (Mother, 9: 42-56).
Parents tended to relate situations where they had raised issues as individuals.
Only a few examples of collective parental voice were cited, notably with varying
outcomes according to the parents involved. In the following excerpts, parents
emphasised the strength and success of parents working together:
P
…they sent you out a survey sheet. But it actually didn’t give you any opportunity to
say whether you did or did not want it [a video link to the Internet] in the
centre….which really annoyed some parents, because we didn’t get an opportunity to
say, no, we didn’t want it. Anyway, we approached the staff. We approached all the
staff, and let them know…. And, then we had a meeting and then we filled out some
information about why we were so opposed and what we would really like. And then
they had a meeting the next night and put that to the people who owned the centre….
And said why parents did not want it in. And so then they decided against it.
I
Did the parents group together?
P
Yeah. No-one wanted it at all. So everyone was really happy.
(Mother, 8: 67-83)
o
In the centre, if there was an issue that I thought was pretty major, I’d go to the
director first…If it was something that was major, I’d try to contact other parents of
the scheme…to get a bit of support together. To see that I’m not just crazy (laughs)
To see if it’s something that does bother other people. If it does bother other people,
then I would take it as far as I could (Mother, 16: 135-142).
244
o
Well, just having a say. Getting people together and building on it. The more people
you have there working with you, the more you’re going to be heard (Mother, 26:
208-210).
However, another parent described a less than satisfactory experience of parent
participation in service decision making:
P
[Describing a parent consultation regarding a proposed change from sessional to full
day preschool] There were meetings held at the school where the principal attended
and also a departmental representative came to one meeting….
I
Did you feel your views were being taken on board then?
P
Oh, definitely. I definitely felt like they considered them during those meetings.
I
And how was the decision ultimately made, do you know?
P
With very little regard I think for parent input (laughs). I think it was whatever suited
the school curriculum at the time. Only because I know how many people were
voicing their opinions at the time, and most people didn’t want it to change.
I
And it did change?
P
And it did. And it’s still in place. But they actually have to vote it in, and, as parents
we had input, we were able to vote. But it actually went through anyway. So there
you are. How did that happen?
(Mother, 17: 259-276)
The perception of controlled agendas and outcomes, and inability of parents to
influence decision making, was reinforced by many parents in relation to
government policy decision making.
Looking across the two sets of categories of description, the majority of parents
believed that they had important information to share. Parents argued that they
knew their children best, with some parents also noting the youth and lack of
parenting experience of many child care workers. This issue is related to current
problems in attracting and retaining qualified and experienced staff in child care,
noted in chapter 2. Many also perceived that parent views and experiences could
support relevant and responsive policy and service provision, and the best use of
public monies. This said, not all parents felt able to exercise voice, identifying a
number of barriers to their participation. Focusing on service level interaction,
these included the idea that the program was set by teachers or an external agency,
245
and the perception that some services simply didn’t want parent input. With
respect to policy decision making, some parents were of the view that government
doesn’t listen and that parents were unable to influence decision making.
Throughout the interviews, considerable emphasis was also placed on the role of
service providers and government in providing information and opportunity for
parents to have their say. Drawing on the collective experience of parents in this
study, I look more closely at factors supporting parent participation in section 5.3.
5.2.3.3 Implications for the future place of these concepts in ECEC public policy
In summary, in light of the study findings, the continued use of marketing concepts
and language, in particular, the notion of parent as consumer, in ECEC public policy
must be questioned. As discussed, many parents in this study rejected this
terminology, feeling at best that it failed to capture the complexity of their role, and at
worst, that it denigrated the important role of parents in ECEC. Such views were
particularly evident within the higher order categories of description where parents
perceived that consumers had no voice and were not involved in the provision of a
service. In short, the concept of parent as consumer was seen to be at odds with the
ideal of parent as participant. As suggested by research (Hallgarten, 2000;
Marginson, 1997c; Vincent, 1996; 2000), there is also some evidence to suggest that
the focus on individual consumers marginalises collective parental action. While the
study findings do not directly deal with this issue, they do highlight the dominance of
individual parent action (i.e., via exit or individual lobbying) in ECEC.
Thus, while acknowledging the ‘consumer rights’ of parents using ECEC services, it
is argued that policy encouraging parent participation in ECEC needs to promote the
important role of parents as parents and to help parents to think about their individual
and collective role in ECEC. Furthermore, in light of the study findings, parent
participation (involvement or engagement) needs to be defined in the broadest of
terms, reflecting the diversity of interpretation and practise among families, and,
thereby, encouraging individual and collective participation in various ways. To this
effect, the next section reviews factors identified by parents as influencing their
participation in ECEC.
246
5.3
Factors identified by parents as influencing their participation in ECEC
As discussed in chapter 3, this study fits within Bowden’s (2000b) concept of
developmental phenomenography. The purpose of the study was to enhance
understanding of parent views and experiences in ECEC with a view to optimising
parent participation in ECEC. With this purpose in mind, it is appropriate to revisit
factors identified by parents as influencing their participation at both service and
policy levels. While the study identified variation in the ways that parents
experienced their role in using a service and in shaping ECEC policy, there was
considerable agreement regarding the factors that supported parent participation.
Building on the study outcomes, I applied a process of content analysis to further
illuminate these perceived ‘enabling factors’.
Factors identified by parents as influencing their participation included: (1) access to
information; (2) mechanisms in place to enable parents to have a say; (3) the
provision of feedback and progress updates; (4) the sense that parent views were
being listened to and taken on board (i.e., parents perceived a link between parent
consultation and decision making); and (5) other family characteristics, including
parental employment and young children in the family. With the exception of family
characteristics, parents emphasised the role of the service provider and/or government
in facilitating each of these factors (e.g., providing information, seeking and taking
account of parent views). While most clearly delineated in the higher order categories
of description, these factors are reinforced in other categories, sometimes in the
negative. For example, the need for a variety of approaches to information sharing
was discussed by parents expressing Conception D, Participating in policy decision
making. The need for information was also identified in Categories B, Raising
concerns, and C, Having some say, with some parents identifying lack of information
as a barrier to their participation.
•
Access to information. Parents perceived access to information to be the key to
parental participation at both levels. They highlighted their need for information
to select the best service for their child, to monitor their child’s safety, happiness
and progress at the service, and to have a say and influence the provision of ECEC
247
for their children (e.g., service activities, policy changes). As noted, considerable
emphasis was placed on the role of service providers and government in providing
timely access to information. Nonetheless, there was considerable diversity with
respect to preferred approaches to information sharing (i.e., formal or informal
mechanism; oral or written; individual ‘face-to-face’ or group meeting) as well as
the type and amount of information provided. While reinforcing the importance
of clarity, some parents discussed the need for brevity while others were clearly
seeking more detailed information. Notably, despite current regulatory and
quality assurance requirements, not all parents perceived their service provided
sufficient information. In short, information was seen to facilitate participation
and lack of access to information was seen to impede participation.
•
Mechanisms in place to enable parents to have a say. Closely linked to
information was the provision of opportunities for parents to share their views on
various matters. The majority of parents argued the need for service providers and
governments to seek parent feedback, although generally reinforced their right to
choose whether to participate in consultations. Some parents were completely
reliant on service initiatives, perceiving that they were only able to make comment
if and when invited to do so. Again, parents varied with regard to their preferred
means of consultation, with some promoting the benefits of ‘quick and easy’
surveys and questionnaires while others liked local meetings where they could get
more information. Regardless of personal preferences, the need for ‘user-friendly’
approaches was reinforced, and some parents identified the need for a variety of
approaches to suit different parent needs. And, while some parents described
positive consultation experiences, particularly at service level (e.g., regular parent
surveys, parent representatives, openness to parent suggestions, participation in
quality assurance processes), others perceived they had ‘no input’. Lack of
opportunity to have input was also identified as an issue in relation to policy.
•
The provision of feedback and progress updates. Sharing their expectations of
consultation, parents indicated the need for feedback (i.e., information about the
outcomes of consultation, decisions and plans to implement changes). The
general view was that if parents invested time and effort in completing surveys or
248
attending public meetings, that they were entitled to feedback. There were
varying views on how feedback might be provided, ranging from individual letters
and emails to collective feedback through service newsletters and the public media
(depending on the issue). While there were differences in the information sought,
areas of interest included: the number of people who had responded; key issues
raised; areas of agreement, disagreement and those requiring further
consideration; and outcomes (i.e., decisions) and the reasons underpinning these.
While providing an information ‘update’, feedback was also seen to be a form of
acknowledgement, suggesting that parent views were valued and being taken into
account. Several parents indicated that the provision of feedback motivated them
to have a say and/or to participate in consultations.
•
The sense that parent views are being listened to and taken onboard. Parents
identified the importance of feeling that they were being listened to, that their
opinions were valued and would be considered in relation to decision making.
This was seen to be a critical factor in terms of parent motivation to participate in
consultation activities at both service and policy levels. As noted, the provision of
feedback was seen as one means of acknowledgement, however the link between
consultation and decision making was also emphasised. This is not to say that
parents expected their views to be implemented, but considered alongside the
views of other parents and stakeholders (e.g., staff/teachers, service providers,
researchers). In line with this, some parents wanted feedback outlining different
views and the reasons underpinning decision making. Yet again, parents reported
varying experiences in relation to this. Some parents described instances when
they felt their input had made a positive difference to service provision, while
others perceived that their service wasn’t interested in parent input. Notably
these feelings were amplified in relation to policy, with a substantial number of
parents perceiving that government decides policy and that parents cannot
influence decision making. This, in turn, led to feelings of ‘why bother’.
•
Family characteristics. Perhaps, not surprisingly, a number of parents identified
lack of time as a barrier to their participation in service and/or policy activities.
Time pressure was most often linked to parents working as well as to current
family circumstances, for example, the birth of a baby or having several young
249
children at home. While some parents attributed lack of participation to the pace
of modern family life (particularly where parents are working) and overall lack of
time and energy, others noted inconvenient meeting times to be the main problem
(e.g., meetings were scheduled during the day when parents were working).
Notably, there is also some evidence to suggest that parent participation may
increase as family circumstances change. For example, mothers with very young
babies indicated that while they felt unable to participate at present, they hoped to
be ‘more involved’ in the future.
Table 5.3 draws on parents’ own words to further illustrate the factors identified by
parents in this study as influencing their participation at both service and policy
levels. While many of the points offered are considered relevant to each of these
areas, I have noted the general context within which particular points have been made
(i.e., S denotes discussing service interactions; P denotes discussing policy
interactions). In addition, in the spirit of phenomenography, I have sought to
illustrate differences in parent views and experiences (e.g., positive and negative
experiences) in relation to each factor. However, again it is noted, that while these
factors build on the phenomenographic outcomes of this study, they have been
identified through content analysis.
5.4
Implications for ECEC policy and practice
The results of this study provide new insights on the role of parents in using ECEC
services and shaping public policy. The main finding is that parents constituted each
of these roles in a limited number of qualitatively different ways, inclusive of the
basic notions of consumer and participant. Probing further, the study shed light on the
critical differences between different ways of viewing and experiencing these roles,
and identified factors perceived by parents as influencing their participation. These
findings suggest a number of implications for ECEC public policy and practice. Five
implications are considered now, in order: (1) variation in parent views and
experiences necessitates a range of approaches to support parent participation in
ECEC; (2) factors identified by parents as influencing their participation; (3) future
use of the terminology and concepts of consumer and participant in ECEC policy and
250
Table 5.3: Factors identified by parents as influencing their participation
CONSULTATION MECHANISMS
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Factors
Parent comments
The communication should be there more…Like you’ve got to pull it out of them…it was
like pulling teeth…(18, S).
They [parents] need to know. Otherwise, how can they have an opinion on something, if
they don’t know about it?(22, S)
We need to have all the information, up front, in advance, to make an informed
decision…What’s the positives? What’s the negatives?…they’re obviously there. As a
parent we need to know that (16, P).
At the moment I think it would be very minimal, because you’re not given the information
to be able to respond…you’re told it after it’s happened. But, if we were given the
information prior, and given a phone number or a prior paid envelope or something, and
your views were taken on board, there was actually a consultation process when these
things came out, not just with service providers but with service users, I think that the
people who really had something to say would respond (14, P).
I don’t think parents know that as parents we can change things. I think it’s more that
type of information, you know, you have a right to change things if you like or have your
say and you’ll be heard (12, P).
Provide different communication channels, like having email and web-based stuff, but
also have meetings near... focus groups… questionnaires…It needs to be a multi-level
communication strategy (24, P).
No-ones ever said, “How would you like this centre to be run?” (19, S).
With child care centres, especially the private ones, I don’t think they want parent input
(22, S).
They send out a questionnaire when you first join…what do you expect from us? What
would you like to see done? What do your children like doing? …and, then, probably
every 3 months, they send out another form going please rate us. How do you think
we’re going? (9, S).
They send out a lot of surveys and ask for parent input… and they have parent
representatives, this scheme, that go to meetings (22, S).
The only time that I can really say that parents have been involved in the planning of
services and policy and standards, are within individual centres, and it’s been to do with
accreditation (7, S).
I think they have in their heads what they want to do, and that’s what they’ll do type thing.
I don’t know if we really have much input (18, S).
Face to face would be better. People can write one thing and mean another (20, S).
I’d prefer to see it done in a proactive way rather than reacting to negative issues…the
parents, the users or the clients, should also be empowered to communicate to the
service provider. But, also, if they wish, they should be given a pathway to communicate
direct to the decision-makers (24, P).
Well, if the parent wanted to comment on policies and everything, they wouldn’t know
where to start (9, P).
It would have to be something that would be quick and easy to do…because I don’t have
a lot of spare time (21, P).
I don’t think there’s a lot of opportunity for parents to talk with government about issues
(22, P).
I think they need to take the mountain to Mohammed rather than Mohammed to the
mountain. To be shoving the surveys under people’s faces or to be having little talks,
seminars or workshops and inviting people. Be more proactive in getting a response
from parents. Rather than sitting back waiting for it to happen (13, P).
I haven’t been made available to many opportunities to influence government policy,
other than voting at elections (laughs) (17, P).
I would like to see positions offered to parents…on consultative boards…at the top
levels…. I think they should have parent representatives and I think they should pay
them (7, P).
I thought there was a lot [of information on the prep year]. Like through the newspapers
and it’s been on the telly and through the schools, they have it in their newsletters. I
don’t know whether it’s just me, but I tend to read it all and take it all in. How I get the
time I don’t know (10, P).
251
CHARACTERISTICS
FAMILY
BEING LISTENED TO
FEEDBACK
Factors
Parent comments
I probably want a bit of feedback on how things are going. It’d be interesting to know…
(22, S).
I would expect at least a response, through the newsletter, to say how many had been
returned and what the verdict was (6, S).
I wouldn’t expect anything, but maybe a follow-up letter, even if it’s 6 months later. Okay,
this is what we’ve done…even if the issue is still unresolved. It’s a follow-up letter, an
acknowledgement (1, P).
At least some sort of an update. I mean, if you’ve got an email address, how hard would
it be just to let you know what’s happening. And that’s what we get at the kindergarten
(23, P).
I’d like to be kept updated, through the centre. If they’re going to take the time to send a
survey out, and ask us what we want or what our views are, it’s up to them to give us
some feedback on how that went (23, P).
Well, obviously the outcome isn’t going to suit everybody…If they…the Department of
Education came back and said, right, the prep year is going to go ahead but we
understand that there’s 50% of parents in this room that believe that it’s not done
anything positive for their child. The reason that we’re going to go forward with it is this,
and these are the new things we are going to put in place to hopefully fix up the grey
area with the 50% of kids. It may mean more time (16, P).
I think if they’re going to do that [consult] they have to be open to what parents have to
say. Just from what I’ve had experience with…a lot of them are set in their ways and
have been doing it for like 20 years and they’re sort of just not listening to you...when I
say open to it, see it from the parent’s side of it. I don’t mean necessarily put it into
action…just be open, to maybe hear a little criticism if it’s coming your way (18, S).
You’re not having a conversation with them, and they’re saying yes, yes, no worries.
And, then when you leave, they go and have their coffee and that’s it. They actually do
something (4, S).
On the response from the centre, or the government…I think then people would feel that
their opinions were valued, even if they weren’t taken on board. To tell them why (14, S).
If they thought their decisions were taken on board, and if there was a response to the
suggestions or comments made. If it just went into a black hole and you never hear
about it again, then parents aren’t going to want to do that. But if they feel as though
their opinions matter, are valued, and where possible taken on board, then I think there
would be a lot more involvement (14, P).
…hopefully shape policy around some of the views of parents. You can’t shape policy
around all parents views, but around parents, in a round about way, using some of the
parent’s ideas to do that (5, P).
Government probably make it look like parents can have a say, and you can certainly
probably go to websites and surveys at school…but I think they make the decisions…and
the individual parent, their say wouldn’t count a lot toward the decisions that are being
made…Well, the prep year…I mean they sort of communicated that this is what’s going
to happen really, so they’ve already made the decision. But now they’re asking for
parent involvement (17, P).
At the end, you think why bother? Because they’re [government] not going to listen to us
anyhow. They get to beat their own chest and say, well, we asked. But we’re not going
to listen to any of the feed back, anyhow, we’ll do what we want to do (21, P).
I’d just like to feel as though I have some self worth as a parent, from their viewpoint.
That they are listening to us, and they are taking us into consideration, as parents, that
we know what our children want. Rather than just being told by the government that this
is what’s going to be enforced (26, P).
I suppose it was just time restraints (19, S).
I think it depends on my time, really. And, if there’s a special interest…but definitely
time...the time is something that’s very hard when you’re a working family (12, S).
I’ve only been to a couple [of meetings], because most of the time they’re at night-time,
and that’s when I’ve got the kids, cooking dinner and bed (10, S).
I can’t get to those [meetings] because they have them during the day and I work (21, S).
In the future I would be [interested in being more involved]. At the moment I’m just too
tired. (laughter) But in the future, hopefully, I’ll have some more energy and I would (9,
Mother of twin babies, S).
I personally don’t have the ability to go and do that [get up to the school during the day].
So, I think my role… is rather limited, unfortunately. Might be different by the time (new
baby) gets to school (21, S).
I’d be interested in being up to date…but on a time factor…I work 5 days a week (10, P).
252
practice; (4) promoting individual and collective parental participation; and (5) the
benefits of a phenomenographic approach in public policy research.
•
Variation in parent views and experiences necessitates a range of approaches to
support parent participation in ECEC. As discussed, contemporary policy tends
to promote a rather narrow and singular view of the role of parents in ECEC. In
the early 1990s, parents were seen to be consumers of ECEC services. Toward
the end of the decade, the focus had become parents as participants in ECEC.
Each of these perspectives promotes a particular way of fulfilling the role of
parents in ECEC. However, as discussed, these roles have been constructed for
parents by governments and policymakers, and, both fail to take account of
variation in the ways parents view and experience this role. In light of the
outcomes of this study, I argue that any one-size-fits-all approach to parent
participation in ECEC is destined to fail. Rather than promoting one ‘right’ way
for parents to act, the findings of this study indicate the need for a broad and
multi-layered approach to parent participation in ECEC. Such an approach would
recognise and respond to the different ways that parents view and experience their
role, and would seek to optimise parent participation in a range of ways at all
levels. It would also be based on the evidence here that most parents care about
their children (i.e., want the best for them), are interested in ‘knowing what is
happening’ for them, and perceive they have information to share about their
children. Such an approach is supported by Epstein et al. (1997) who identified
six types of parent involvement, ranging from information sharing to taking part in
decision making. Recognising different parent views and experiences in ECEC,
the focus becomes respecting and working with difference while seeking to
optimise parent participation.
•
Looking at the factors identified by parents as influencing their participation.
With a view to optimising parent participation, the study identifies factors
perceived by parents as influencing their participation in ECEC. These included:
(1) access to information; (2) mechanisms in place to enable parents to have a say;
(3) the provision of feedback and progress updates; (4) the sense that parent views
were being listened to and taken on board (i.e., parents perceived a link between
253
parent consultation and decision making); and (5) family characteristics, including
parental employment and young children in the family. With the exception of
family characteristics, parents emphasised the role of the service provider and/or
government in facilitating each of these factors (e.g., providing information and
feedback, seeking and taking account of parent views). These factors serve to
reinforce the importance of current strategies to share information and consult
with parents on various matters of policy and practice. However, in light of the
variation of experiences documented, they also highlight aspects of policy and
practice requiring further attention. For example, while some parents reflected on
positive experiences of involvement in service planning and decision making,
primarily through accreditation processes, others perceived they had no input in
service matters. The identified factors also offer new insights on strategies to
support participation, for example, the emphasis placed by parents on the
provision of feedback following consultation. The identified ‘enabling factors’
are further reinforced by a recent OECD report (2001a) promoting citizen
engagement in public policymaking. Targeting key areas for action, the report
identified the need for government to: (1) disseminate information on its policymaking; (2) ask for and receive citizen’s feedback on policy-making; and (3)
promote active participation where citizens actively engage in decision making
and policy-making. This study provides insight on how well service providers
and government are doing with respect to these factors and offers ideas for
improvement.
•
The future of the terminology and concepts of parent as consumer and /or
participant in ECEC policy and practice. As discussed earlier in this chapter,
this study highlights a number of problems relating to current policy perspectives
promoting parents as consumers and participants in ECEC (see section 5.2.3). Of
particular note, is that many parents in this study rejected the term consumer,
perceiving this not only failed to capture the reality of their role, but served to
diminish the important role played by parents. Moreover, many of these parents
perceived the notion of a consumer using a service to be at odds with their view of
parent participation, that is, ‘being involved’ in a variety of ways. This finding
reinforces concerns raised earlier in the literature review in chapter 2 regarding the
inherent tensions and contradictions between the concepts of parent as consumer
254
and parent as participant. Of particular note here is the individual focus of the
consumer and reliance on choice and exit strategies within a market context, all of
which are seen to be in conflict with more contemporary policy ideals promoting
partnership, working together and collective decision making. Supporting a shift
away from consumer terminology, and a market view of participation, the study
findings reinforce the need for a broad view (and definition) of parent
participation in ECEC that encourages individual and collective participation in
various ways. Within this context, the focus should be on the role of parents as
parents, reinforcing the sometimes different but equally important roles played by
parents in ECEC.
•
Promoting individual and collective parental participation. The desirability of
“collective civic engagement” (i.e., collective parental participation) (Hallgarten,
2000, p. 117) was raised in the literature review in chapter 2, supported by a
growing number of educational researchers (Crozier, 1997; 2000; Hallgarten,
2000; Levin, 1990; Marginson, 1997b; Vincent, 1993; 1996; Vincent & Martin,
2000). While not directly dealing with this issue, the study findings highlight the
dominance of individual parent interactions within ECEC (either through
individual exit and/or individual lobbying). This is further supported by the
overriding focus of parents on the safety and wellbeing of their own children.
Now, while individual interventions are clearly important, and should be
supported in policy and practice, there is growing conviction that collective
parental agency further empowers parents as participants, and, therefore, also
needs to be nurtured. Interestingly, parents expressing the higher order (i.e., most
participatory) conceptions of their role tended to promote the benefits of collective
parental agency. Yet, the research literature, supported by evidence from this
study, suggests that, with the exception of current accreditation processes, there
are limited opportunities for parents to think about and influence ECEC policy and
practice with collective agency. It is suggested that current policy and practice be
reviewed with a view to identifying and experimenting with new ways to support
collective parental participation and agency within ECEC in Australia.
255
•
The benefits of a phenomenographic approach in public policy research.
Finally, the study demonstrates the successful application of a phenomenographic
research approach within the new area of public policy. On the basis of the study
experience and outcomes, it is argued that phenomenography provides
governments and policymakers with a useful and pragmatic research approach
suited to investigating a broad range of public policy matters. This implication is
discussed further under Recommendations for further research (see section 5.5).
5.5 Strengths and limitations of the study
This study has addressed an identified gap in the ECEC knowledge base, providing
new insights on the role of parents in ECEC. Investigating two key areas of parent
participation in ECEC, the study reveals variation in how parents view and experience
their role in using services and in shaping public policy. The distinctly different ways
of constituting each of these roles are presented in the form of categories of
description and an outcome space. Together, these provide a “relational model”
(Bruce, 1997, p. 178) of the role of parents in ECEC which can be used as a basis for
the development of new, and perhaps better, approaches to support parent
participation in ECEC.
This outcome has been facilitated by employing a phenomenographic research
approach. The perceived strengths of phenomenography and reasons underpinning
the use of this approach in the present study were outlined in chapter 3. Use of a
phenomenographic approach has facilitated a second order perspective on the role of
parents in ECEC, describing the role of parents as constituted by parents. In addition,
this approach has supported a focus on the collective experience of parents, discerning
variation in ways of experiencing the role of parents in ECEC, and critical differences
between different ways of experiencing this role.
This said, a review of the research design and processes suggest a number of possible
limitations which require discussion. These relate to: (1) the size of the research
sample; (2) the general representativeness of the research sample; (3) the situated
context in which the study was undertaken; (4) the singular focus on identifying and
256
understanding variation as opposed to explaining variation; and (5) the problem of
researcher subjectivity in interpretative research.
•
The size of the research sample. The first possible limitation relates to the size of
the research sample. Phenomenographic analysis, as does most qualitative
research, always derives its descriptions from a smallish number of people chosen
from a particular population (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 178). In general, the
target ranges between 15 to 30 participants (Dunkin, 2000; Franz, 1994; Trigwell,
2000), although studies have been undertaken with fewer participants (e.g.,
McMahon & Bruce, 2002) as well as a larger number of participants (Bruce, 1996;
1997). The research sample in this study comprised 26 parents, selected on the
basis of their appropriateness to the purpose of this research (Bowden, 2000b).
While acknowledging this to be a relatively small sample group, it fits well within
the cited range for phenomenographic studies. Most importantly, based on a
process of purposive sampling, this number of parents proved sufficient in
providing variation in parent views and experiences while remaining small enough
to facilitate in-depth investigation of conceptions and a manageable data set. To
this extent the sample size supported the purpose and aim of this research.
•
The representativeness of the research sample. The second possible limitation of
the study relates to how representative the research sample was of parents using
ECEC service. Seeking to maximize variation in the research sample, I publicised
the study widely (distributing 300 parent letters and information sheets), invited
both mothers and fathers to take part, and sought assistance from site staff to
encourage parents with different backgrounds to participate in the study. Analysis
of demographic data pertaining to parents in the study supports the success of
these strategies, revealing variation in a range of areas, including gender, family
structure, size, cultural background, age of children, parental education, family
employment and experience using different ECEC services. However, the
question remains, how representative is this group of the wider population? In
considering this, it needs to be acknowledged that it was initially quite difficult to
recruit parents to participate in this study. On this basis, it is suggested that
parents in this sample may be predisposed to a more participatory role in ECEC.
257
The final spread of individuals across both sets of categories of description (i.e.,
based on the most participatory conception expressed by parents) supports this
view, with a surprisingly small number of parents expressing the base conceptions
(i.e., minimal interaction with their service, no role in shaping policy).
Nevertheless, the number (i.e., frequency) of individuals expressing a particular
conception is of little importance in a phenomenographic study where the focus is
identifying variation in the “collective mind” (Bowden & Marton, 1998, p. 5) of a
group. The identified range of conceptions (including the base conceptions) and
construction of outcome spaces are seen to support the general representativeness
of this group of parents, supporting application of the findings to other similar
groups of parents. This said, the research sample for this study included limited
cultural variation (with only 1 parent from a non-English speaking background
and no Indigenous parents). For this reason, it would be interesting to undertake
a similar study with a more culturally diverse group of parents to see if the range
of categories remains stable (refer Section 5.6 concerning further research).
•
The situated context in which the study was undertaken. A third potential
limitation associated with interpretative research approaches such as
phenomenography relates to the generalisability of the research outcomes. The
present study was situated in a particular context and the identified conceptions
have emerged within that context. First and foremost, the categories of
description provide a snapshot of the varying ways in which the role of parents in
ECEC was viewed and experienced among this group of parents at this particular
point in time. So, can these outcomes be applied elsewhere? The answer to this
clearly depends on the representativeness of the research sample to the wider
population. However, as highlighted, in phenomenography, this is gauged in
terms of the heterogeneity of participants and variation in views and experiences
rather than representativeness in terms of distribution along other demographic
lines (Akerlind, 2002). As a result, it is argued “to the extent that the group
represents the variation of individuals in a wider population…the categories of
description can also be said to apply to that wider population” (Marton & Booth,
1997, p. 124). Application to other similar settings is further supported by the
original focus on the collective pool of views and experiences within the research
sample. In the present study, the general representativeness of the research
258
sample is supported by the initial selection process and the range of conceptions
identified and their internal logic. Consequently, I perceive the presented
categories of description have application to other similar settings and groupings
of parents, and thereby enhance understanding of the role of parents in Australian
ECEC generally. This said, given limited coverage of different family cultural
backgrounds in this study, further research should be undertaken, engaging
parents of different cultural backgrounds, to test the broader application of the
emerging categories of description.
•
The singular focus on identifying and understanding variation as opposed to
explaining variation. A fourth possible limitation relates to the quite singular
focus on identifying variation in ways of viewing and experiencing phenomena in
the surrounding world. Within this context, the study has successfully fulfilled its
aim, uncovering the role of parents in using ECEC services and shaping public
policy, as constituted by a group of parents. The resulting categories of
description describe the qualitatively different ways in which these parents viewed
and experienced these roles. The two outcome spaces further enhance
understandings of the role of parents in ECEC, showing the logical relationship
between the varying ways parents constitute these roles. This said, the study does
not seek to explain variation in parent views and experiences. This is typical of
this type of research, where the focus is on understanding variation in views and
experiencing, rather than seeking to explain this. As Säljö (1988) pointed out,
phenomenographers are not concerned with the sources of the variations which
they discover (p. 37). In line with this, the study makes visible variation in parent
views and experiences, but there is no attempt to explain this variation. This may
be a focus for future research, using other methodologies.
•
The problem of researcher subjectivity. Finally, as in all research, potential
limitations associated with researcher subjectivity or bias need to be recognised
and addressed. As a parent, teacher and policymaker, I have personal and
professional views and experiences relating to the research topic. From the outset,
I was very conscious of the need for proactive strategies to recognise and keep
these in check, and to support the faithful representation of the views and
259
experiences of parents participating in this study.
Deciding against a measure of
interjudge reliability toward the conclusion of the study (Saljo, 1988), I saw
validity and reliability in terms of defensible knowledge claims (Kvale, 1989) and
adopted the phenomenological principle “to the things themselves” (Husserl,
1962/1931; Sandberg, 1994). To this effect, I have implemented a range of
strategies throughout the research process to support the validity and reliability of
the study outcomes. The application of these strategies within the study is
discussed in chapter 3 (section 3.4.7), which also provides a detailed description
of the research design and processes underpinning the study outcomes.
5.6 Recommendations for further research
The successful completion of this study and identification of the varying ways in
which parents constitute their role in ECEC, raise a number of possible research
directions relating to parents in ECEC. Furthermore, the study demonstrates the
conceptual appropriateness and pragmatic value of a phenomenographic approach
within the broad area of public policy research, highlighting the potential contribution
of this research approach within this new area. On the basis of the study findings, the
following areas of further research are indicated:
•
Applying the study outcomes to other groups of parents in other settings. The
study provides a relational model of the role of parents in using ECEC services
and in shaping public policy. As discussed in the previous section, the study
results are seen to have application to similar groupings of parents in similar
settings, and are thereby able to shed light on the role of parents in ECEC
generally. Nevertheless, the emerging categories of description and our
understanding of the role of parents in ECEC may be strengthened and refined by
repeating the study with other parents using ECEC services, in particular, parents
of different cultural backgrounds, including Indigenous parents. Such studies
would assist in determining the stability of the emerging categories of description
across different groups of parents. Also of interest is the application of the study
in an international context, in order to identify and compare variation in the ways
parents in different countries constitute their role in ECEC. This may lead to the
construction of what Marton and Booth (1997) label a “supracultural outcome
260
space” (p. 124), shedding light on cultural variation in parent roles and potentially
highlighting new and different ways of supporting parent participation in ECEC.
•
Applying the study outcomes to review current approaches and inform the
development of new approaches to parent participation in Australian ECEC.
On the basis of the study findings, it is argued that a broad and multi-layered
approach to parent participation in ECEC is needed. To this effect, the study
findings provide a relational model which can be used to both review current
approaches and inform the development of new, and, perhaps, better approaches
to parent participation in ECEC. Further areas of research within this context
might include the development and trialing of a pedagogical framework, based on
the critical differences between the different ways of experiencing the role of
parents in ECEC. The focus here would be to look at ways of opening dimensions
of variation for all stakeholders (i.e., governments, policymakers, service
providers, staff and parents), making visible new, and perhaps better approaches
to parent participation. A further area of research could be the review of current
regulatory and quality assurance processes in light of the study findings. Within
this context, particular consideration should be given to the different ways of
experiencing the role of parents in ECEC and the factors identified by parents as
influencing their participation in ECEC. Similarly, these categories of description
and ‘enabling factors’ could be further developed as a tool to review and enhance
parent participation strategies within ECEC services (perhaps as part of the
accreditation process, engaging service operators, staff, parents and children).
Tracking the success of new strategies would further contribute to the expanding
knowledge base concerning parents in ECEC.
•
Investigating teachers’ and/or children’s conceptions of the role of parents in
ECEC. This study provides new insights on the different ways that parents view
and experience their role in using ECEC services and in shaping ECEC public
policy. Similar studies could be undertaken to investigate the related views and
experiences of other stakeholders, for example, teachers and/or children in ECEC.
The focus of such research would be to identify teacher and/or child conceptions
of the role of parents in ECEC (e.g., ways of experiencing parent participation in
261
ECEC). Such research would provide further insight on how the role of parents is
viewed and experienced in ECEC and would reveal the level of congruence
between stakeholder conceptions. This, in turn, may reveal gaps in policy and
practice, and thereby, help to inform the development of new and better
approaches to support parent participation in ECEC.
•
Broader use of phenomenography within public policy research. The present
study extends the general area of phenomenographic interest, highlighting the
conceptual appropriateness and pragmatic value of a phenomenographic approach
within public policy research in a diverse society. On the basis of this study,
phenomenography is seen to give ‘voice’ to citizens and offers governments and
policymakers a rigorous empirical approach to identifying and considering
different citizen views and experiences with regard to a wide range of policy
issues. It is argued that this approach, with its focus on variation in people’s ways
of viewing and experiencing particular phenomena, fits well with the current
international emphasis on citizen engagement in public policy. In addition, it is
seen to complement other established means of public consultation and
deliberation. To this effect, the research design and processes outlined in this
study could be reviewed and refined for application in other areas of public policy
research (e.g., health, education, child protection).
5.7 Chapter summary
This chapter has discussed how the results of this study (i.e., categories of description
and outcome spaces) contribute to understanding of the role of parents in ECEC.
Similarities between the parent conceptions of their role and some other pre-existing
policy and research perspectives on the role of parents in ECEC and education
generally have been noted. This said, key differences, primarily between the parent
conceptions and contemporary policy perspectives have also been highlighted, in
particular the range of meanings that parents assigned to their role in ECEC. To this
effect, the chapter has revisited the policy concepts of parent as consumer and parent
as participant and raised questions about their future in ECEC policy and practice.
Building on the study outcomes, the chapter also identified factors perceived by
parents as influencing their participation in ECEC, and has suggested implications for
262
both policy and practice. Finally, the chapter has revisited the strengths and
limitations of the study, and offered recommendations for future research. The thesis
now concludes with a summary of the study conclusions.
263
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
6.1
Introduction
This study was undertaken to enhance understandings of parent views and experiences
of their role in Australian ECEC. To this effect, the study focused on two key aspects
of parent participation: (1) the role of parents in using ECEC services; and (2) the role
of parents in shaping ECEC public policy. In light of the predominance of first-order
(from-the-outside) perspectives on the role of parents in education and ECEC, and
emphasis on the role parents should play, the focus of this research was to reveal
parents’ ways of seeing and experiencing their role. Recognising the diversity of
Australian families, and the influence of different life experiences on human
perception and action, a phenomenographic approach was used to describe the role of
parents, as viewed and experienced by parents, and to reveal and describe the
variation therein (Marton & Booth, 1997). The research sample comprised 26 parents
with recent experience using ECEC services, with data gathered via semi-structured
individual interviews, and analysed in order to focus on the “collective mind”
(Marton, 1981, p. 196) of this group of parents.
The central research question of this study was:
What are the qualitatively different ways in which parents in Australian ECEC
services constitute their role in using ECEC services and in shaping ECEC
public policy?
By way of summary, this final chapter presents the conclusions of the study in light of
the four guiding research questions outlined in chapter 1.
6.2
Study conclusions
1. What are the different ways that parents view and experience their role in using
ECEC services and in shaping ECEC public policy? Investigating two different
264
aspects of parent participation in ECEC, the study involved the construction of
two discrete sets of categories of description and outcome spaces. Each outcome
space identifies the full range of ways of seeing and experiencing the role of
parents among this group of parents, at this point in time, and confirms variation
in how these roles may be constituted by parents.
Analysis of the data revealed five different ways of constituting the role of parents
in using ECEC services. The five categories of description, denoting five
qualitatively different conceptions of the role of parents using ECEC services
were:
•
Category 1: the service user conception;
•
Category 2: the informed user conception;
•
Category 3: the consumer conception;
•
Category 4: the partnership conception; and
•
Category 5: the member of a service community conception.
Shifting focus from direct service use to the more abstract realm of public policy,
analysis revealed that parents constituted their role as shapers of policy in four
distinctly different ways. The four categories of description, denoting four
qualitatively different conceptions of the role of parents shaping ECEC public
policy were:
•
Category A: the no role conception;
•
Category B: the raising concerns conception;
•
Category C: the having some say conception; and
•
Category D: the participating in policy decision making conception.
Thus, the study reveals different ways of viewing and experiencing each of these
roles. Given the representativeness of the research sample, it is suggested that the
range of ways of viewing and experiencing the role of parents uncovered in this
study is likely to be common to other groups of parents with a similar spread of
characteristics and experience using ECEC services (Akerlind, 2002; Marton &
Booth, 1997).
265
2. What are the critical differences between the different ways of viewing and
experiencing these roles? Reflecting recent developments within
phenomenography, the study moves beyond the identification of different ways of
experiencing the role of parents in ECEC to look at differences between different
ways of experiencing this role (Marton & Pang, 1999; Marton et al., 2004; Pang,
2003; Pang & Marton, 2003). Such analysis is based on the premise that a
particular way of experiencing a phenomenon “can be understood in terms of…
the dimensions of variation that are discerned and simultaneously focused upon”
(Pang, 2003, p. 14). Thus, within this study, I sought to discern and make visible
the critical differences between the varying conceptions of the role of parents in
ECEC.
Although focusing on two different aspects of the role of parents in ECEC, there
are notable similarities between the two sets of categories of description and
outcome spaces, each of which are seen to be hierarchical in nature. In light of
these similarities, it is perhaps not surprising that similar features also
distinguished the different ways parents constituted their role in using services and
in shaping policy. Critical differences related to:
•
whether parents perceived a role (for themselves);
•
the motivation and/or focus of parent participation (i.e., particularistic or
individual interests; collective interests);
•
the nature of the role of parents (i.e., passive, reactive, proactive);
•
perceptions of personal responsibility and the responsibilities of others (i.e.,
individual responsibilities, shared responsibilities);
•
the nature of communication and information sharing (i.e., one-way, twoway); and
•
perceptions as to what constitutes parent participation (e.g., receiving
information, knowing what’s happening for your child, raising concerns,
sharing information and expertise, taking on particular support roles, and/or
taking part in decision making).
By making visible these differences, and, in particular, identifying the critical
features discerned by parents expressing higher order conceptions of their role, the
266
study offers important insights on parent participation in ECEC, as well as areas
that need to be addressed to optimise participation.
3. How do parent views and experiences compare with current research and policy
assumptions about parents and their role in ECEC, as identified in the
international literature search? The main finding of the study is that the role of
parents in ECEC can be constituted in a limited number of qualitatively different
ways. While incorporating consumer and participant conceptions, prevalent in
contemporary Australian ECEC policy and research, the findings identify a broad
range of ways of seeing and experiencing the role of parents in ECEC.
Furthermore, with an emphasis on rich descriptive detail and understanding
different ways of experiencing the role of parents, the study offers new insights on
the popular concepts of parent as consumer and parent as participant. Of
particular note here is the fact that many parents in this study rejected the concept
and terminology of consumer, feeling at best that it failed to capture the
complexity of their role, and, at worst, that it denigrated the important role of
parents in ECEC. On the basis of such arguments, the idea of consumer was seen
by parents to be at odds with their ideal of parent participation, raising questions
about the future place of this concept and terminology in ECEC policy and
practice. Also of note is the degree of diversity that exists in the ways parents
constitute their role and involvement in ECEC, a finding reinforced by recent
research undertaken within the school sector in the United Kingdom (Vincent,
2000) and the United States (Epstein et al., 1997).
Highlighting the need to move away from narrow and restrictive role definitions,
this study argues the need for a broad view (and definition) of parent participation
in ECEC. This would take into account the different ways that parents view and
experience their role in ECEC and would underpin the development of a range of
strategies to support parent participation in various ways.
267
4. What are the implications of the ways parents view and experience these
particular roles for future ECEC policy and practice? The study findings
suggest a number of implications for both policy and practice. Firstly, it is argued
that variation in parent views and experiences necessitates a range of approaches
to support parent participation in service provision and public policy. Whereas
contemporary policy tends to promote a rather narrow and singular view of the
role of parents in ECEC (e.g., parent as consumer, parent as participant), the study
findings indicate the need for a broad and multi-layered approach to parent
participation in ECEC. Taking account of qualitative differences in how parents
view and experience their role, the focus becomes respecting and working with
difference while seeking to optimise parent participation.
Secondly, the study identifies a range of factors perceived by parents as
influencing their participation. These include: access to information; mechanisms
in place to enable parents to have a say; the provision of feedback and progress
updates; the sense that parent views are being listened to and taken on board (i.e.,
there is a link between parent consultation and decision making); and family
characteristics, including parental employment and young children in the family.
Leaving aside family characteristics, parents emphasised the critical role of
service providers and government in facilitating these ‘enabling factors’. These
factors (which bear strong resemblance to the key elements of a recent OECD
framework (2001a; 2001b) to promote citizen engagement in public policy
making) provide a basis for the review of current strategies and the development
of new and improved approaches to support parent participation at all levels.
Thirdly, as noted, the study findings suggest the need to shift away from consumer
concepts and a market view of participation, to promote a broader inclusive view
of the role of parents and a more democratic view of participation. Investigating
the policy constructs of consumer and participant, the study also raises a number
of related issues for further consideration. These include parental perceptions of
limited choice of services, the ineffectiveness of individual strategies relating to
exit and voice, and, limited opportunity for collective parental voice.
268
Fourthly, while promoting the benefits of collective parental participation, as
revealed in the higher order conceptions, the study also highlights the
predominance of individual parent interactions within ECEC. Given the focus on
social connectedness and working together in the higher order categories of
description, it is suggested that service providers and governments experiment
with new ways to support collective parental participation and agency within
ECEC in Australia.
6.3
Contribution of the study to phenomenography
Finally, this study contributes to the expanding corpus of phenomenographic research,
demonstrating the conceptual appropriateness and pragmatic value of a
phenomenographic approach to public policy research in a diverse society. In light of
this study, it is argued that four particular features of phenomenography make it well
suited to contemporary public policy research at this time. In short,
phenomenography offers governments and policymakers:
•
access to citizen views and experiences;
•
a pragmatic approach to make visible variation in citizen views and experiences of
various phenomena, and, thereby, to generate more possible options for action;
•
a sound basis to effect change and improvement; and
•
a rigorous, empirical research approach.
While advocating further use of phenomenography within public policy research, it is
not my intention to promote exclusive application within this context. As Marton
(1981) maintained, phenomenographic research is complementary to other kinds of
research. And, as with all research approaches, there are limitations to
phenomenography. Most notably, within the context of public policy research, these
include: a relatively small sample size, the general reliance on face-to-face interviews
to collect data and time-consuming nature of interpretative data analysis. Rather,
phenomenography is presented as another useful approach to public policy research,
with the potential to enhance understanding of different citizen views on a broad
269
range of public policy issues, and, thereby, to support more flexible and responsive
policy and practice.
Returning to the present study, it is anticipated that making visible different ways of
seeing and experiencing the role of parents may help others (e.g., service providers,
staff, policymakers and governments) to develop their own ways of seeing the role of
parents, and, thereby, may inform the development of a range of approaches to
support parent participation in ECEC. In a similar sense, new approaches to support
parent participation should assist parents to see different, and perhaps better, ways of
experiencing their role in ECEC.
270
REFERENCES
Akerlind, G. S. (2002, November). Principles and practice in phenomenographic
research. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Current Issues in
Phenomenography, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Ashby, G., Kennedy, A., & Mellor, E. (2002). Early childhood services in Australia:
Recent Commonwealth and State Initiatives. In L. K. S. Chan & E. Mellor
(Eds.), International developments in early childhood services (pp. 7-28). New
York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Ashton, J., & Cairney, T. (2001). Understanding the discourses of partnership: An
examination of one school's attempts at parent involvement. The Australian
Journal of Language and Literacy, 24(2), 145-156.
Ashworth, P., & Lucas, U. (1998). What is the 'world' of phenomenography?
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 415-427.
Ashworth, P., & Lucas, U. (2000). Achieving empathy and engagement: A practical
approach to the design, conduct and reporting of phenomenographic research.
Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 295-308.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2001). 2001 Census. Retrieved 29 September, 2003,
from www.abs.gov.au
Australian Government. (2000). Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 20002004. Canberra: Australian Government.
Australian Government. (2003). Australian Government Report on the April 2003
Child Care Workforce Think Tank. Canberra: Department of Family and
Community Services.
Australian Government. (2004). Stronger Families and Communities Strategy.
Canberra, ACT: Australian Government.
Australian Government Task Force on Child Development Health & Wellbeing.
(2003a). Towards a national agenda for early childhood - What you told us.
(Feedback from the consultation paper 'Towards the development of a national
agenda for early childhood'). Canberra: Australian Government.
Australian Government Task Force on Child Development Health & Wellbeing.
(2003b). Towards the development of a national agenda for early childhood
(Consultation paper). Canberra: Australian Government.
Ball, S. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in policy
sociology. London: Routledge.
Ball, S. (1994a). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Ball, S. (1994b). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. In J. Marshall &
M. Peters (Eds.), Education policy (pp. 3-18). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd.
Ballantyne, R., Thompson, R., & Taylor, P. (1994). Principals' conceptions of
competent beginning teachers. In R. Ballantyne & C. Bruce (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Phenomenography: Philosophy and Practice Conference.
(pp. 23-45). Brisbane, Australia: QUT.
Berthelsen, D. (1997). An ecology of centre-based child care. Unpublished PhD,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld., Australia.
Berthelsen, D. (2000, January). Parental reflections on the use of centre-based child
care. Paper presented at the 8th National Conference of Australian Research in
Early Childhood Education (ARECE), Canberra, Australia.
271
Bittman, M. (1995). Recent trends in unpaid work. Canberra: Australian Government
Publishing Office.
Blackmore, J. (1995). Participating parents. In B. Limerick & H. Neilsen (Eds.),
School and community relations: Participation, policy and practice (pp. 5368). Marrickville, NSW: Harcourt Brace.
Booth, S., & Hulten, M. (2003). Opening dimensions of variation: Am empirical
study of learning in a web-based discussion. Instructional Science, 31(1-2),
65-86.
Boulton-Lewis, G., Marton, F., Lewis, D., & Wilss, L. (2004). A longitudinal study of
learning for a group of Indigenous Australian university students: Dissonant
conceptions and strategies. Higher Education, 47, 91-112.
Boulton-Lewis, G., Smith, D., McCrindle, A., Burnett, P., & Campbell, K. (2001).
Secondary teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning. Learning and
Instruction, 11, 35-51.
Bowden, J., Dall'Alba, G., Martin, E., Laurillard, D., Marton, F., Masters, G. N.,
Ramsden, P., Stephanou, A., & Walsh, E. (1992). Displacement, velocity, and
frames of reference: Phenomenographic studies of students' understanding and
some implications for teaching and assessment. American Journal of Physics,
60(3), 262-269.
Bowden, J. A. (2000a). Experience of phenomenographic research: A personal
account. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 47-61).
Melbourne, Australia: RMIT.
Bowden, J. A. (2000b). The nature of phenomenographic research. In J. A. Bowden &
E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 1-18). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT.
Bowden, J. A., & Marton, F. (1998). The university of learning. London, UK: Kogan
Page Ltd.
Bowden, J. A., & Walsh, E. (Eds.). (2000). Phenomenography. Melbourne, Australia:
RMIT.
Bowes, J. M., & Watson, J. (2004). Families as a context for children. In J. M. Bowes
(Ed.), Children, families and communities: Contexts and consequences
(second ed., pp. 91-115). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
Brennan, D. (1998). The politics of Australian child care: Philanthropy to feminism
and beyond. Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
Brennan, D. (1999). Children and Australian social policy. In J. M. Bowes & A.
Hayes (Eds.), Children, families and communities: Contexts and consequences
(pp. 175-192). Melbourne: Victoria.
Bruce, C. (1992). Research students' conceptions of a literature review. Unpublished
M.Ed., Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Bruce, C. (1994). Reflections on the experience of the phenomenographic interview.
In R. Ballantyne & C. Bruce (Eds.), Proceedings of the Phenomenography:
Philosophy and Practice Conference (pp. 47-55). Brisbane, Australia: QUT.
Bruce, C. (1996). Information literacy: a phenomenography. Unpublished PhD,
University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Bruce, C. (1997). The seven faces of information literacy. Adelaide, Australia: Auslib
Press.
Bruce, C. (2004 May). Phenomenographic analysis: Postgraduate student seminar.
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Budget Speech 1996-97, Parliament of Australia, HR(1996).
272
Carlson, H. L., & Stenmalm-Sjöblom, L. (1989). A cross-cultural study of parents'
perceptions of early childhood programs. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 4, 505-522.
Child Care Act 1991, Queensland Legislative Assembly.
Child Care Act 2002, Queensland Legislative Assembly.
COAG Child Care Working Group. (1995). Discussion on a proposed national
framework for children's services in Australia. Canberra, Australia: Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Codd, J. A. (1988). The construction and deconstruction of educational policy
documents. In J. Marshall & M. Peters (Eds.), Education policy (pp. 19-31).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Council of Australian Governments Child Care Working Group. (1995). Discussion
on a proposed national framework for children's services in Australia.
Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Crozier, G. (1997). Empowering the powerful: A discussion of the interrelation of
government policies and consumerism. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 18(2), 187-201.
Crozier, G. (2000). Parents and schools: Partners or protagonists? Stoke on Trent,
UK: Trentham Books Limited.
Cullen, J. (1998). Influences on young children's knowledge: The case of road safety
education. International Journal of Early Years Education, 6(1), 36-48.
Dahlgren, L. O., & Fallsberg, M. (1991). Phenomenography as a qualitative research
approach in social pharmacy research. Journal of Social and Administrative
Pharmacy, 8(4), 150-156.
Dall'Alba, G. (2000). Reflections on some faces of phenomenography. In J. A.
Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 83-101). Melbourne,
Australia: RMIT.
Dall'Alba, G., & Hasselgren, B. (1996). Reflections on phenomenography : Toward a
methodology? Goteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Dean, G. (1994). A phenomenographical investigation of policing by consent. In R.
Ballantyne & C. Bruce (Eds.), Proceedings of the Phenomenography:
Philosophy and Practice Conference (pp. 111-127). Brisbane, Australia: QUT.
Dempster, N., Freakley, M., & Parry, L. (2001). The ethical climate of public
schooling under new public management. International Journal of Leadership
in Education, 4(1), 1-12.
Department of Community Services. (2000). Insights into Research. Sydney: Office
of Child Care, Department of Community Services.
Department of Families. (2000). Child Care and Family Support Hub Strategy
(Discussion Paper). Brisbane: Department of Families.
Department of Families. (2002a). Child Care and Family Support Hub Strategy.
Retrieved 22 January, 2002, from
http://www.families.qld.gov.au/childcare/hub/strategy.html
Department of Families. (2002b). Queensland Child Care Industry Plan, 2002-2005.
Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Government.
Department of Housing. (2001a). The challenge to lead and the opportunity to learn
through community renewal (Occasional Paper, No. 6). Brisbane, Australia:
Department of Housing.
Department of Housing. (2001b). Community renewal information paper. Brisbane,
Australia: Department of Housing.
273
Dunkin, R. (2000). Using phenomenography to study organisational change. In J. A.
Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 137-152). Melbourne,
Australia: RMIT.
Economic Planning Advisory Commission. (1996). Future child care provision in
Australia. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Elliott, R. (2003a). Families and QIAS: How much do they know? Journal of
Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 10(1), 30-40.
Elliott, R. (2003b). Sharing care and education: Parents' perspectives. Australian
Journal of Early Childhood, 28(4), 14-21.
EPAC. (1996). Future child care provision in Australia. Canberra, Australia:
Australian Government Publishing Service.
Epstein, J. (1990). Social and family connections: Theory, research and implications
for integrating sociologies of education and family. In D. G. Unger & M. B.
Sussman (Eds.), Families in community settings: Interdisciplinary
perspectives (pp. 99-126). New York: Haworth Press.
Epstein, J. L., Coates, L., Salinas, K. C., Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. S. (1997).
School, family, and community partnerships : Your handbook for action.
Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of
parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The
Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 289-305.
Evans, P., & Fuller, M. (1998). The purposes of nursery education in the UK: Parent
and child perspectives. European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 6(2), 35-53.
Farquhar, S. E. (1990). Defining quality in the evaluation of early childhood
programs. Australian Journal of Early Childhood., 15(4), 16-23.
Farrell, M. A. (2001). Policy research. In G. MacNaughton, S.A. Rolfe & I. SirajBlatchford (Eds.), Doing early childhood research: International perspectives
on theory and practice (pp. 240-253). Crows Nest, NSW, Australia: Allen and
Unwin.
Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., & Pettigrew, A. (1996). The New Public Management in
action. Oxford, UK: University Press.
Francis, H. (1993). Advancing phenomenography:Questions of method. In G.
Dall'Alba & B. Hasselgren (Eds.), Reflections of phenomenography: Toward a
methodology (pp. 35-47). Goteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis
Gothoburgensis.
Frank, M. (1992). On Foucault's concept of discourse. In T. J. Armstrong (Ed.),
Michael Foucault Philosopher (pp. 99-116). Exeter, Great Britain: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Franz, J. (1994). Managing intricacy in phenomenographic inquiry. In R. Ballantyne
& C. Bruce (Eds.), Proceedings of the Phenomenography: Philosophy and
Practice Conference (pp. 175-182). Brisbane, Australia: QUT.
Fuqua, R. W., & Labensohn, D. (1986). Parents as consumers of child care. Family
Relations, 35, 295-303.
Galinsky, E., Shinn, M., Phillips, D., Howes, C., & Whitebook, M. (1990).
Parent/teacher relationships. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Gammage, P. (1999). Childhood: the apocalyptic vision? In J. Howes (Ed.), Early
childhood, family and society in Australia: A reassessment (pp. x-xvii).
Katoomba, NSW, Australia: Social Science Press.
274
Geddes, S. (1993). Diversity in the delivery of child care services: Choosing an
appropriate service model to meet the needs of existing and potential service
users. (A Report for the Department of Human Services and Health).
Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Gerber, R., & Bruce, C. (1995). Qualitative research: Phenomenography: Theory and
applications [video-recording]. Brisbane: QUT.
Gestiwicki, C. (2000). Home, school and community relations: A guide to working
with families (4th ed.). New York: Delmar.
Gewirtz, S., Ball, S., & Bowe, R. (1995). Markets, choice and equity in education.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Giorgi, A. (1988). Validity and reliability from a phenomenological perspective. In
W. J. Baker, L. P. Mos, H. V. Rappard & H. J. Stam (Eds.), Recent trends in
theoretical psychology (pp. 167-176). New York: Springer Verlag.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. London, UK:
Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Grandin, R. (1994). Applying the phenomenographic method to children's experience
of learning in the context of an 'alternative school'. In R. Ballantyne & C.
Bruce (Eds.), Proceedings of the Phenomenography: Philosophy and Practice
Conference (pp. 203-217). Brisbane, Australia: QUT.
Greenblat, E., & Ochiltree, G. (1993). Use and Choice of Child Care. Melbourne,
Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2004). Competing paradigms in qualitative research:
Theories and issues. In S. Nagy Hesse-Biber & P. Leavey (Eds.), Approaches
to qualitative research: A reader on theory and practice (pp. 17-38). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Gurwitsch, A. (1964). The field of consciousness. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University
Press.
Hallgarten, J. (2000). Parents exist, ok? Issues and visions for parent-school
relationships. London, UK: The Institute for Public Policy Research.
Hanafin, J., & Lynch, A. (2002). Peripheral voices: Parental involvement, social class
and educational disadvantage. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
23(1), 35-49.
Hard, L. (1997). Rural parents' perceptions and values and how they may contribute to
a more contextually based early childhood program. Education in Rural
Australia, 7(1), 27-35.
Hasselgren, B., & Beach, D. (1997). Phenomenography - a "good-for-nothing
brother" of phenomenology? Higher Education Research and Development,
16(2), 191-202.
Hayden, J. (2000). Policy development and change on the Australian landscape: A
historical perspective. In J. Hayden (Ed.), Landscapes in early childhood
education: Cross-national perspectives on empowerment - A guide for the new
millennium (pp. 49-68). New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Hayden, J. D. (1994). Half full or half empty? Child care policy and the missing bits.
In E. J. Mellor & K. M. Coombe (Eds.), Issues in early childhood services:
Australian perspectives (pp. 11-24). Dubuque, Iowa: WCB Publishers
International Inc.
Hayes, A., Neilsen-Hewett, C., & Warton, P. (1999). From home to the world beyond:
The interconnections among family, care and educational contexts. In J. M.
Bowes & A. Hayes (Eds.), Children, families and communities: Contexts and
consequences (pp. 94-114). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
275
Haynes, B. (1997). Australian Education Policy. Wentworth Falls, NSW, Australia:
Social Science Press.
Henry, M. (1996). Young children, parents and professionals: Enhancing the links in
early childhood. London, UK: Routledge.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms,
organisations and states. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press.
Hofferth, S. L., Brayfield, A., Deich, S., & Holcomb, P. (1991). National child care
survey 1990. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Hughes, P., & MacNaughton, G. (2002). Preparing early childhood professionals to
work with parents: The challenges of diversity and dissensus. Australian
Journal of Early Childhood, 28(2), 14-20.
Husserl, E. (1962/1931). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology (W. R.
Boyce-Gibson, Trans.). London, UK: Collier Macmillan.
Idhe, D. (1977). Experimental phenomenology. Canada: Longman.
Incerti, M. (1990). Reflections: A country mother's view on experiences for her
preschool children. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 15(4), 3-5.
Irvine, S. (2002, November). Parent conceptions of their role in early childhood
education and care public policy and service development. Paper presented at
the International Symposium on Current Issues in Phenomenography,
Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Irvine, S., Tayler, C., & Farrell, M. (2001). Effective early childhood education and
care services: A proposal for identifying parent expectations and perceptions
using phenomenographic research. In P. Singh & E. McWilliam (Eds.),
Designing educational research: Theories, methods and practices. (pp. 249261). Flaxton,Qld: Post Pressed.
Irvine, S., Tayler, C., & Farrell, M. (2004). Lenses and lessons in phenomenographic
research for public policy in early childhood education and care. In E.
McWilliam, J. Knight & S. Danby (Eds.), Performing educational research:
Theories, methods and practices (pp. 287-302). Flaxton,Qld., Australia: Post
Pressed.
Johansson, B., Marton, F., & Svensson, L. (1985). An approach to describing learning
as change between qualitatively different conceptions. In L. West & A. Pines
(Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change. Orlando: Academic Press
Inc.
Kenway, J., Bigum, C., & Fitzclarence, L. (1993). Marketing education in the 1990s:
an introductory essay. Australian Universities Review, 36(2), 2-6.
Kontos, S. J. (1991). Child care quality, family background, and children's
development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 249-262.
Kvale, S. (1989). Issues of validity in qualitative research. Lund: Studentlitteratur
Chartwell-Bratt.
Lauder, H., Hughes, D., Waslander, S., Thrupp, M., McGlinn, J., Newton, S., &
Dupius, A. (1994). The creation of market competence for education in New
Zealand: First report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Victoria
University.
Levin, H. (1990). The theory of choice applied to education. In W. H. Clune & J. F.
Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education: The theory of choice
and control in American education. (pp. 247-284). Basingstoke, UK: The
Falmer Press.
276
Limerick, B. (1995). Busybodies, antibodies, nobodies - or somebodies? The rhetoric
and the realities of volunteering. In B. Limerick & H. Neilsen (Eds.), School
and community relations: Participation, policy and practice (pp. 35-52).
Marrickville, NSW, Australia: Harcourt Brace.
Limerick, B., & Nielsen, H. (1995). School and community relations: Participation,
policy and practice. Marrickville, NSW, Australia: Harcourt Brace.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, California:
Sage Publications.
Linder, C., & Marshall, D. (2003). Reflection and phenomenography: Towards
theoretical and educational development possibilities. Learning and
Instruction, 13, 271-284.
Lingard, B., Knight, J., & Porter, P. (1995). Restructuring Australian schooling:
Changing conceptions of top-down and bottom-up reforms. In B. Limerick &
H. Nielsen (Eds.), School and community relations: Participation, policy and
practice (pp. 81-99). Sydney, Australia: Harcourt Brace.
Lybeck, L., Marton, F., Stromdahl, H., & , & Tullberg, A. (1988). The
phenomenography of the 'mole concept' in chemistry. In P. Ramsden (Ed.),
Improving learning: New perspectives (pp. 81-108). London, UK: Kogan Page
Ltd.
Marginson, S. (1997a). Competition and contestability in Australian higher education.
The Australian Universities Review, 1, 5-14.
Marginson, S. (1997b). Educating Australia: Government, economy and citizen since
1960. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Marginson, S. (1997c). Markets in education. St Leonards, NSW, Australia: Allen and
Unwin.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around
us. Instructional Science, 10, 177-200.
Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different
understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28-49.
Marton, F. (1988a). Describing and improving learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.),
Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 53-82). New York: Plenum Press.
Marton, F. (1988b). Phenomenography: Exploring different conceptions of reality. In
D. M. Fetterman (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education:
The silent scientific revolution (pp. 176-205). New York: Praeger.
Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. Husèn & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The
international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 8, pp. 4424-4429).
Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Marton, F. (2000). The structure of awareness. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.),
Phenomenography (pp. 102-116). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marton, F., Dahlgren, L. O., Svensson, L., & Saljo, R. (1977). Inlarning och
omvarldsuppfattning (Learning and conception of the world around).
Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.
Marton, F., Dall'Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. Journal of
Educational Research, 19, 277-299.
Marton, F., Hounsell, D., & Entwistle, N. J. (1984). The Experience of learning.
Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
277
Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (1999, August). Two faces of variation. Paper presented at
the 8th European Conference for Learning and Instruction, Goteberg
University, Sweden.
Marton, F., Runesson, U., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). The space of learning. In F.
Marton & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of
learning (pp. 3-40). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marton, F., & Svensson, L. (1979). Conceptions of research in student learning.
Higher Education, 8, 471-486.
McCain, M., & Mustard, J. F. (1999). Reversing the real brain drain. Early Years
Study. Final Report. Retrieved 9 April, 2001, from
http://www.earlychilddevelopment.ca/ey/home.nsf/info/eyreport!opendocume
nt
McCosker, H. (1994). Phenomenographic interview applied to women and domestic
violence: Potential conflict of interest. In R. Ballantyne & C. Bruce (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Phenomenography: Philosophy and Practice Conference
(pp. 299-305). Brisbane, Australia: QUT.
McGrath, D. J., & Kuriloff, P. J. (1999). "They're going to tear the doors off this
place": Upper-middle-class parent school involvement and the educational
opportunities of other people's children. Educational Policy, 13(5), 603-629.
McMahon, C., & Bruce, C. (2002). Information literacy needs of local staff in crosscultural development projects. Journal of International Development, 14, 113127.
Moss, P. (2003). Getting beyond childcare: Reflections on recent policy and future
possibilities. In J. Brannen & P. Moss (Eds.), Rethinking children's care (pp.
25-43). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Munn, P. (2001). Parental influences on school policy: Some evidence from research
(pp. 1-9): Education-line, University of Leeds.
NCAC. (2002). Help for parents. Retrieved 10 April, 2002, from
http://www.ncac.gov.au/Homepage/HelpParents/choosing.htm#roleofparents
OECD. (2001a). Citizens as partners: Information, consultation and public
participation in policymaking. Paris, France: OECD Publications Service.
OECD. (2001b). Citizens as partners: OECD handbook on information, consultation
and public participation in policymaking. Paris, France: OECD Publications
Service.
OECD. (2001c). Starting strong: Early childhood education and care. Paris, France:
OECD Publications Service.
OECD. (2003). Public government and management. Retrieved 14 October, 2003,
from
http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,2686,en_2649_34275_1_1_1_1_37405,00.html
Pang, M. F. (2003). Two faces of variation: On continuity in the phenomenographic
movement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 145-156.
Pang, M. F., & Marton, F. (2003). Beyond "lesson study": Comparing two ways of
facilitating the grasp of some economic concepts. Instructional Science, 31,
175-194.
Patrick, K. (2000). Exploring conceptions: Phenomenography and the object of study.
In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 117-136).
Melbourne, Australia: RMIT.
Pence, A. R., & Goelman, H. (1987). Silent partners: Parents of children in three types
of day care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2, 103-118.
278
Powell, D. R. (1989). Families and early childhood programs. Washington DC:
NAEYC.
Powell, D. R. (1998). Reweaving parents into early chldhood education programs.
Young Children, 53, 60-67.
Pramling, I. (1995). Phenomenography and Practice. New Zealand Journal of
Educational Studies, 30(2), 135-148.
Pramling, I. (Ed.). (1996). Understanding and empowering the child as a learner.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Press, F. (1999). The demise of community-owned long day care centres and the rise
of the mythical consumer. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(1), 2025.
Press, F., & Hayes, A. (2000). OECD thematic review of early childhood education
and care policy: Australian background report. Canberra, Australia: J.S.
McMillan Printing Group.
Prosser, M. (2000). Using phenomenographic research methodology in the context of
research in teaching and learning. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.),
Phenomenography (pp. 34-46). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Pugh, G. (1985). Parent-professional partnership in preschool services: Issues and
implications. Early Childhood Development and Care, 19, 219-235.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Queensland Government. (1999). Queensland Child Care Strategic Plan 2000-2005.
Brisbane, Australia: Department of Families.
Queensland Government. (March 2002). Queensland the Smart State: Education and
Training Reforms for the Future. Brisbane, Australia: Department of the
Premier and Cabinet.
QUT Collaborative Research Group. (2003). The Access Study of Child and Family
Services in Rural and Disadvantaged Communities. Brisbane, Australia: QUT.
Reeve, P. (1993). Issues in parent participation. The Australian Administrator,
14(4&5), 1-11.
Richardson, J. T. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research.
Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 53-82.
Rizvi, F. (1995). Discourses of participation. In B. Limerick & H. Nielsen (Eds.),
School and community relations: Participation, policy and practice.
Marrickville, NSW, Australia: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Rodd, J., & Milikan, J. (1994). Parental perceptions of early childhood services for
pre-primary children in Australia. Early Child Development and Care, 101,
89-100.
Runesson, U. (1999, August). Teaching as constituting a space of variation. Paper
presented at the The 8th EARLI conference, Goteborg, Sweden.
Saljo, R. (1979). Learning in the learner's perspective (No. 76). Goteborg: University
of Goteborg, Department of Education.
Saljo, R. (1988). Learning in educational settings: Methods of inquiry. In P. Ramsden
(Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives (pp. 32-48). London, UK: Kogan
Page Ltd.
Saljo, R. (1994). Minding action: Conceiving of the action versus participating in
cultural practices. Nordisk Pedagogok, 2, 71-80.
Saljo, R. (1997). Talk as data and practice: A critical look at phenomenographic
inquiry and the apeal to experience. Higher Education Research and
Development, 16(2), 173-190.
279
Sandberg, J. (1994). Human competence at work: An interpretative approach.
Goteborg University, Sweden: Bas.
Sandberg, J. (1997). Are phenomenographic results reliable? Higher Education
Research and Development, 16(2), 203-212.
SCRCSSP. (2002). Report of Government Services 2002. Melbourne: Productivity
Commission.
SCRCSSP. (2004). Report of Government Services 2004. Melbourne: Productivity
Commission.
Second reading of the Child Care Bill (No. 79), Queensland Legislative
Assembly(1991).
Second Reading Speech on introduction into the Australian Parliament of the
Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No 1),
H.R.(1990).
SEETRC. (1996). Childhood matters: The report on the inquiry into early childhood
education. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Senate Employment Education and Training Reference Committee. (1996).
Childhood matters: The report on the inquiry into early childhood education.
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Smith, B. (1993). Educational consumerism: Family values or the meanest of
motives? In D. Meredyth & D. Tyler (Eds.), Child and citizen: Genealogies of
schooling and subjectivity (pp. 181-206). Brisbane, Australia: Institute for
Cultural Policy Studies, Griffith University.
Smrekar, C., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2001). The voices of parents: Rethinking the
intersection of family and school. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 75100.
Soliman, I. K. (1991). State control and parent participation: Analysis of recent
reports. Australian Educational Researcher, 18(1), 53-73.
Soliman, I. K. (1995). From involvement to participation: Six levels of schoolcommunity interaction. In B. Limerick & H. Nielsen (Eds.), School and
community relations: Participation, policy and practice (pp. 159-173).
Marrickville, NSW, Australia: Harcourt Brace.
Stambach, A. (2001). Consumerism and gender in an era of school choice: A look at
U.S. charter schools. Gender and Education, 13(2), 199-217.
Stonehouse, A., & Gonzalez-Mena, J. (2004). Making links: A collaborative approach
to planning and practice in early childhood services. Castle Hill, NSW:
Pademelon Press.
Svensson, L. (1989). The conceptualization of cases of physical motion. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 4(4), 529-545.
Svensson, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. Higher Education
Research and Development, 16(2), 159-171.
Tayler, C., Farrell, M. A., Gahan, D., & Irvine, S. (2001, July). The Kelvin Grove
ACCESS Project. Paper presented at the Biennial AECA Conference, Sydney.
Tayler, C., & Irvine, S. (2000, August). The Queensland ACCESS Project: Enhanced
well-being and community capacity through integration of early childhood
and family services. Paper presented at the European Early Childhood
Research Association 10th Conference, Complexity, Diversity and Multiple
Perspectives in Early Childhood, London, UK.
Tayler, C., Tennent, L., Farrell, M. A., & Gahan, D. (2002). Use and integration of
early childhood services: Insights from an inner city community. Journal of
Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 9(1), 113-124.
280
Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, B., & Henry, M. (1997). Educational policy and the
politics of change. London: Routledge.
Theman, J. (1983). Conceptions of political power, (Goteborg Studies in Educational
Sciences, 45). Goteborg, Sweden: University of Goteborg.
Thomson, P. (2001). Learnings from Alberta? Choice, equity, difference and diversity
in public education. Curriculum Perspectives, 21(3), 39-49.
Timpane, P. M. (1996). The uncertain progress of educational reform 1983-1994. In
E. F. Zigler, S. L. Kagan & N. W. Hall (Eds.), Children, families and
government: Preparing for the twenty-first century (pp. 77-93). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Trigwell, K. (2000). A phenomenographic interview on phenomenography. In J. A.
Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 62-82). Melbourne:
RMIT.
Uljens, M. (1992). Phenomenological features of phenomenography (No. 03).
Goteborg: University of Goteborg, Department of Education and Educational
Research.
Uljens, M. (1996). On the philosophical foundations of phenomenography. In G.
Dall'Alba & B. Hasselgren (Eds.), Reflections on phenomenography : Toward
a methodology? (pp. 103-128). Goteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis
Gothoburgensis.
Vincent, C. (1993). Community participation? The establishment of City's Parents'
Centre. British Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 227-242.
Vincent, C. (1996). Parents and teachers: Power and participation. London, UK:
Falmer Press.
Vincent, C. (2000). Including parents? Education, citizenship and parental agency.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Vincent, C. (2001). Social class and parental agency. Journal of Educational Policy,
16(4), 347-364.
Vincent, C., & Ball, S. J. (2004). Choice and provision in local pre-school childcare
markets: Final report (unpublished). London, UK: London Institute of
Education.
Vincent, C., & Martin, J. (2000). School-based parents' groups: A politics of voice
and representation? Journal of Educational Policy, 15(5), 459-480.
Vining, L. (1994). Customer focussed child care. Every Child, 1(2, Summer), 16-17.
Walker, K. (2004). For all our children: National preschool education inquiry report.
Melbourne, Australia: Australian Education Union.
Walsh, E. (2000). Phenomenographic analysis of interview transcripts. In J. A.
Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne,
Australia: RMIT.
Wangmann, J. (1995). Towards integration and quality assurance in children's
services. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Williams, G., & Ainley, M. (1994). Participant perceptions of quality child care.
Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 19(2), 43-47.
Yeatman, A. (1987). The concept of public management and the Australian state in
the 1980s. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 46(4), 339-353.
281
282
APPENDIX 1
ETHICAL CLEARANCE
•
LETTER TO UNIVERSITY HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS
COMMITTEE - SEEKING ETHICAL CLEARANCE
•
COPY OF ETHICAL CLEARANCE
283
Mr Gary Allen
Secretariat
University Human Research Ethics Committee
Queensland University of Technology
Gardens Point Campus
GPO Box 2434
BRISBANE QLD 4001
Dear Gary
Re: Minor amendment to Ethical Clearance, Reference No. 2037/1H
As discussed (refer telephone conversation 17/03/03), I am seeking a minor amendment to my
ethical clearance (Reference No. 2037/1H).
I am currently listed as an Associate Investigator on the Kelvin Grove ACCESS project, which
was exempted from full ethical clearance in 2000. (The Chief Investigator for this study is
Professor Collette Tayler). On the basis of this research, I have developed my PhD study, the
focus of which continues to be parents in early childhood education and care. This study, to be
known as the Parent Conceptions Study, represents a natural evolution of the previous
ACCESS study. Having reviewed the earlier completed Checklist for Researchers, I note the
following minor changes with respect to my study:
•
I am the Chief Investigator for the Parent Conceptions Study. Professor Collette Tayler
and Dr Ann Farrell are my PhD supervisors.
•
The subject pool will be approximately 20 parents using early childhood services; the
research site(s) will be 1 – 2 Child Care and Family Support Hubs (a new funding initiative
of the Queensland Government).
•
Data collection will be based on semi-structured interviews with individual parents.
Interviews will take approximately one hour, be conducted in the parent’s preferred
location (i.e., the parent’s home or at the hub), and audio-recorded. All participants will be
assigned pseudonyms to ensure anonymity.
•
Informed consent will be obtained from the research site(s) and parents agreeing to
participate in the study. To begin, a letter and information about the study will be sent to
the licensee of the proposed research site, inviting the Hub to participate in the study.
Pending the response, a letter to parents will be distributed, through the Hub, outlining the
purpose of the study, the planned approach to data collection, and inviting parents to
participate. Written consent will be sought from all parents who agree to participate in the
study. Prior to commencing interviews, parents will be reminded that they may choose not
to answer some questions or to end the interview at any time.
284
Having reviewed the Checklist for Researchers (completed for the earlier ACCESS study), I
believe that the proposed Parent Conceptions Study is also exempt from ethical clearance by
the university. The answers to Questions 1-14 in Section 3 of the Checklist remain the same,
the subject pool is similar, as is the design of the research. Consequently, I am seeking a minor
amendment to ethical clearance (Ref. No. 2037/1H) and seek a letter from the Committee
confirming exemption from ethical clearance for the Parent Conceptions Study.
Yours sincerely,
Susan Irvine
Postgraduate Student
Centre for Innovation in Education
Queensland University of Technology
Telephone: 0413 140 526
Email: s.irvine@qut.edu.au
Prof. Collette Tayler
Head
School of Early Childhood
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
Telephone: 3864 3158
Email: c.tayler@qut.edu.au
285
Date: Tues, 15 Apr 2003 12:08:24
To: Susan Irvine s.irvine@qut.edu.au
From: Gary Allen gx.allen@qut.edu.au
Subject: Minor change – 2037/1H
Cc: c.tayler@qut.edu.au
Dear Susan
I write further to your correspondence in relation to minor changes to the project, “The Kelvin Grove
ACCESS Project (QUT Ref no 2037H) Phases 2 and 3” (QUT Ref no 2037/1H).
The Chairperson of the University Human Research Ethics Committee has considered your
correspondence and asked that I contact you on her behalf.
The Chairperson notes that:
•
•
this project was granted confirmation of exemption from full ethical clearance;
University policy (as articulated in Booklet 29 of the University Human Research Ethics Manual)
specifies that modifications to projects that have been confirmed exempt do not require formal
approval unless the changes would alter the responses to questions 1-14 in section 3 of the
Checklist for Researchers; and
•
in your letter you indicate that the changes would not alter your responses to questions 1-14 in
section 3 of the Checklist for Researchers.
As such, this change does not require formal approval and the revised project can be immediately
commenced. However, it is considered good practice to ensure such changes are recorded in the file
for the completion of the record. As such, your correspondence has been placed on the file for
2037/1H. In future, please forward any changes with a clear indication that, as the modification would
not alter the responses to questions 1-14 in section 3 of the Checklist for Researchers, you are
submitting the changes for file, not approval.
Regards
Gary Allen
Secretary, UHREC
X2902
286
APPENDIX 2
WRITTEN INFORMATION FOR PARENTS
•
LETTER TO PARENTS INVITING EXPRESSION OF INTEREST IN
PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY
•
PARENT INFORMATION SHEET – PROVIDING DETAILS OF THE STUDY
•
THANK YOU LETTER TO PARENTS – ACCOMPANYING COPY OF
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT AND INVITING COMMENT ON TRANSCRIPT
287
Dear Parent,
My name is Sue Irvine and I’m looking at how parents see their role in using early childhood
services and shaping government early childhood policy. I’m interested in how you, as a parent,
view this role. For example, do you want to “have a say” in early childhood policy and the
development of new services for children, such as the proposed prep year in schools? This is an
important issue yet little is known about parent views and expectations.
My research will involve talking with parents about their role in using services and shaping
government policy for children. Would you like to share your views and experiences? I will be
talking with parents over a cup of coffee and cake at the [hub] in June 2003. It will only take about
an hour and can be arranged at a time suitable for you.
This is an important study, supported by the Queensland University of Technology and Lady
Gowrie Queensland. If you would like to have your say and join me for a conversation over coffee
and cake, please complete the form below and place in the box marked “Parent Study” in the [hub].
While the findings will be shared with relevant government agencies, the names of participating
parents will remain strictly confidential. I have included a brief overview of my research, but if you
require any further information, please call me on 0413 140 526, email s.irvine@qut.edu.au or
leave a message at the community space.
Yours sincerely,
Sue Irvine
Postgraduate Student
Centre for Innovation in Education, QUT
Having a say
I am interested in participating in this study.
NAME:
CONTACT DETAILS:
BEST DAYS TO MEET: Monday ‫ ٱ‬Tuesday ‫ ٱ‬Wednesday
BEST TIMES TO MEET: Morning ‫ ٱ‬Afternoon ‫ ٱ‬Evening
OTHER COMMENTS:
288
‫ٱ‬
Thursday
‫ٱ‬
‫ٱ‬
Friday
‫ٱ‬
Having a say in early childhood policy
The Researcher: Sue Irvine, PhD Student, Centre for Innovation in Education, QUT
Aim of the Study:
To identify the different ways that parents view and experience their role in using early childhood
services and shaping early childhood policy.
Who can participate?
I would like to talk with parents who have used at least one early childhood service prior to their
child starting school. Services might include a child care centre, family day care, kindergarten
and/or preschool.
What’s involved?
Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you agree to participate, it is simply a matter
of deciding on a suitable time to meet at the [hub] for coffee, cake and a chat. I will be asking for
your thoughts on the role of parents in shaping early childhood policy and new services for children.
I am interested in how you view this role. It will only take about an hour and you are free to end our
discussion at any time without any comment or question.
Confidentiality
This study has ethical clearance from QUT and is supported by Lady Gowrie Queensland. The
identity of parents participating in this study will remain strictly confidential. Individuals will
not be identified by name. Interview tapes and transcripts will be accessible to the research
team only, kept in a secure area, and destroyed when no longer required for this study. If you
have any concerns about the ethical conduct of the study, please contact the Secretary of the
University Human Research Ethics Committee on 07 3864 2902.
Why is this important?
While government is encouraging parent involvement in early childhood services and the
development of new policies and services for children, little is known about parent views and
expectations. Findings will be shared with relevant government agencies to assist in
developing better ways for parents to have their say on matters that concern them.
This study is based on my experience as an early childhood teacher, children’s services policy officer, and
parent using early childhood services. I think that parents have a valuable view to offer with respect to new
policy and services for children, and that this view should be sought and taken into account.
Further information:
If you have any questions regarding this study, or would like further information,
please call me on 0413 140 526, email at s.irvine@qut.edu.au, or leave a message at
the [hub] and I will contact you. Alternatively, you may wish to contact my
research supervisors, Professor Collette Tayler on 3864 3158, email
c.tayler@qut.edu.au or Dr Ann Farrell on 3864 3603, email a.farrell@qut.edu.au.
I look forward to talking with you.
289
Dear (Name of Parent),
Thank you for participating in my study looking at the role of parents in using early childhood
services and shaping public policy. I am very pleased to let you know that I have finished
conducting and transcribing all of the interviews and have terrific information for my study. Please
find enclosed a copy of our conversation for your own family records. As discussed, this is
primarily for your own interest, however, also provides opportunity for you to make any changes,
and/or to add further information to the interview if you wish. For example, if you feel that
something is incorrect or unclear, I am happy to amend the transcript. There are several ways that
you can do this: You can phone me on 0413 140 526, or email s.irvine@qut.edu.au or write to me
c/ School of Early Childhood, QUT, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059. As I am
preparing to start the next phase of this study, I would appreciate your comments by Friday 19
December 2003. This said, please note that unless you wish to make changes to the transcript, it
is not necessary for you to do anything further.
Over the next few months I will begin to analyse the interviews to look at the different ways that
parents view and experience their role in shaping government early childhood policy. I hope that
the study findings will support the development of better ways for government to share information
and to “talk with” parents about early childhood policy and services, and, ultimately benefit parents
like you.
As the study progresses, I will be sharing my findings with staff at [the hub], but would also be very
pleased to provide you individual feedback. If you would like any further information about the
outcomes of this study, please contact me via telephone or email, or simply return the form below
to QUT. Please note, that you will not be identified in the study and that the names of participating
parents will remain strictly confidential.
In closing, I have enjoyed meeting you and truly appreciate your time and assistance with this
study. I wish you and your family well.
Yours sincerely,
Sue Irvine
Postgraduate Student
Centre for Innovation in Education, QUT
Having a say
Yes, I would like to receive further information about the outcomes of this study.
NAME:
CONTACT DETAILS:
Please return to Susan Irvine, C/ School of Early Childhood, QUT
Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059
290
APPENDIX 3
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONAIRE
291
YOUR FAMILY
1. How many children, of each of the following ages, live in this household?
Under 1 year
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
Over 8 years
2. Which of the following early childhood services have you used and for how long has
your family used each service? (e.g. 2 children at preschool = 2 years)
Type of Service
Child care centre
Family day care
Community kindergarten/ preschool (eg. C&K)
State preschool
Outside school hours care
Vacation care
Other services
(please indicate type of service)
Indicate 9
3. Do both parents live in this household?
Length of use across family (years)
Yes
No
4. Work details
Mother
Father
What is your occupation?
Is this work full-time, part-time or
casual?
5. Parent Education (please tick 9 the highest level of education completed)
Mother
Father
Year 10 secondary
(Junior Certificate)
Year 10 secondary
(Junior Certificate)
Year 12 secondary
(Senior Certificate)
Year 12 secondary
(Senior Certificate)
Vocational education
(eg. TAFE course)
Vocational education
(eg. TAFE course)
University degree
University degree
6. Does your family identify with any one or more of the following groups? (please tick 9)
Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Islander
English as a second
language
Adult with a disability
Child with a disability
7. In which area do you live?
……………………………………………
THANK YOU
292
APPENDIX 4
GROUP DISCUSSION – INFORMATION FOR PARTICIPANTS
•
AGENDA FOR GROUP DISCUSSION 1
•
INFORMATION PROVIDED TO PARTICIPANTS
PRIOR TO GROUP DISCUSSION 1
•
AGENDA FOR GROUP DISCUSSION 2
•
INFORMATION PROVIFDED TO PARTICIPANTS
PRIOR TO GROUP DISCUSSION 2
•
Participants were also given a summary table of the emerging
conceptions (see Chapter 4, Figures 4.1 and 4.4)
293
The role of parents in using ECEC services
Group Discussion
Tuesday, 1 June 2004, Room B 402, 4 – 5 pm
PROPOSED AGENDA
4.00 – 4.05
Welcome
Purpose of meeting and proposed process
4.05 – 4.20
Background to study and introduction to the 5 developing categories
of description
4.20 – 4.50
Group discussion
Points for consideration include:
•
•
•
•
Are the labels clear – do they immediately tell you something about
how parents in this group are experiencing their role using ECEC
services?
Are the developing categories of description clear and sufficiently
detailed – do they capture the referential and structural elements of
the conception (i.e., the “what” and “how” of the role of parents in
ECEC)? Do they show how each conception is distinctive from the
others?
Is there evidence to support the proposed categories of description –
Can you see how I have arrived at these categories, do you agree?
How do you see the logical relationship between the categories of
description?
4.50 – 5.00
Summary and close
Next meeting:
Focus:
Friday, 18 June 2004, 4 – 5pm in B 426
How do parents constitute their role in shaping ECEC public policy?
294
The role of parents using ECEC services
Susan Irvine, Centre for Learning and Innovation, QUT
For group discussion
Tuesday, 1 June 2004, Room B 405, 4-5pm
BACKGROUND
Title of study: Parent conceptions of their role in early childhood education and care (ECEC) public
policy.
Aim: To uncover the role of parents in shaping ECEC public policy, as constituted by a group of
Australian parents, and to reveal the variation therein.
Central research questions:
o
o
What are the qualitatively different ways in which parents constitute their role using ECEC
services?
What are the qualitatively different ways in which parents constitute their role in shaping ECEC
public policy?
Methodology:
A phenomenographic research approach was employed to identify and describe variation in the ways
that parents view and experience these roles.
The research site was a recently developed child care and family support hub, situated in a coastal
region north of Brisbane. Twenty-six parents (mothers and fathers) participated in the study. The
selection of these parents was based on two key criteria: the age of their children (i.e., birth to 8 years)
and (recent) experience in the use an ECEC service.
Data was collected by individual semi-structured interviews, lasting between 45 and 60 minutes. The
purpose of the interviews was to access parents’ conceptions of their role, firstly, as parents using
ECEC services, and secondly, as parents shaping ECEC public policy. All interviews were tape
recorded and transcribed, and verified by the participating parents.
The interview transcripts are currently being analysed using a phenomenographic approach broadly
based on Patrick’s (2000) six steps of analysis, with the added step of group discussion (Bowden,
2000). This is an iterative process, involving:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
formulating the phenomenon of interest and immersion in the transcripts;
searching for responses that describe perceptions of the phenomenon under investigation (e.g., the
role of parents using ECEC services, and shaping ECEC public policy);
sorting responses in terms of the focus and frame of reference they evince in relation to this
phenomenon;
comparing responses to identify similarities and differences between them;
developing a draft description of these groupings, highlighting the critical differences between the
different ways of experiencing the phenomenon.
a group discussion process – testing and refining the preliminary groupings; and
considering the relation between groupings and establishing the outcome space.
Purpose of the group discussion: To bring together a small group of researchers, with a mix of content
and phenomenographic expertise, to test and probe the developing categories of descriptions (i.e., the
distinctly different conceptions of the role of parents) to support validity and the best possible
descriptions.
295
296
Five conceptions of the role of parents using ECEC services
In my interpretation, five qualitatively different conceptions of the role of parents using
ECEC services emerge among the parents participating in this study:
o
o
o
o
o
The service user conception - the role of parents is seen as selecting and using the best
service for your child;
The informed user conception – the role of parents is seen as knowing what’s
happening for your child in the service;
The consumer with rights conception – the role of parents is seen as paying for a
service, and, thereby, enacting certain consumer rights;
The supporting parent conception – the role of parents is seen as supporting the service
you have selected for your child;
The member of a service community conception – the role of parents is seen as
working as a member of the service community for the benefit of all concerned.
The parents expressing Conception 1 delimit and organise the role of parents as selecting the
best service for their child, based on a range of differing criteria, and then using that
service. These parents question the notion of any formal role, beyond making a choice in
terms of service use. They express reliance on the service to provide information, in
particular if ‘something happens’ or there is a problem. Monitoring tends to be a
retrospective activity – after the fact. In the case of a problem arising, these parents said they
would be more likely to change services than to raise the problem with the service provider.
Example
Okay, you’ve used a few services –FDC and OSHC. What is your role as a parent using those
services?
What do you mean, my role?
Well, what do you do? You’ve selected these services. Can you start by talking to me about that?
Yeah, I’m just trying to remember how I actually got on to FDC in the first place. Someone did
mention it to me, anyhow. It was like that, and I always had a bit of a thing with child care centres.
I’m not real keen on them. So, it just seemed a better alternative at the time, and it seems to have
worked out.
So you selected FDC and made a choice in terms of that. Do you have an ongoing role?
Um. Oh, not really. I just pick him up and drop him off and say how are you going to whoever it is
and that’s probably really the end of it.
Do you want to know anything about what happens during the day?
Oh, yeah. Well, if something happens, the lady who runs it down there would tell me anyway. So,
if I don’t hear anything, I assume everything is okay.
----Discussing why parent does not complete service surveys - Can I ask why not?
Like I said, I’m looking after my little space and unless there’s a great problem with that, I don’t
see the need to do anything about it. I’m not one of these people who’d be going out to (pause)
crusade is probably a bit strong of a word, but that kind of thing, you know?
If it was a great problem, something you didn’t like or felt wasn’t going to be good for your child?
297
I’d probably be inclined to just change his care in some way, more than do something like that. I
sort of deal with things more directly.
Discussing OSHC trial…So you’d be prepared to complete a survey in those circumstances?
Yeah, if I needed it (the service).
Would there be any other role that you might have?
No, not that I can think of, no.
Would you have a role to play in any trial?
Yeah, I’d use it (laughs).
Would you have any other role to play?
I don’t know what else I could do, I really don’t.
(Father, Interview 11)
As in the previous group, parents expressing Conception 2 also see their role as being to
select the best service for their child, but, in contrast to the previous group, they identify an
ongoing monitoring role. The focus for these parents is ‘knowing what’s happening’ for
their child in the service. These parents still perceive that their service has primary
responsibility to provide them with this information, and to facilitate communication, but also
identify a number of proactive strategies they use to gain insight on service activities and their
child’s progress and development. These include: talking with their child, chatting with staff,
reading noticeboards and newsletters, and visiting the service. Nevertheless, the service
provider tends to be seen as having control of ‘the’ information, and has the capacity to assist
or hinder parents in their monitoring role. In a similar sense, while putting forward the view
that parents know their children, and therefore have information which may assist the service,
these parents perceive it is a service responsibility to seek this information (e.g., through
surveys etc) and to provide opportunity for parent input. In the case where this doesn’t
happen, having any sort of parent input is viewed as difficult, if not impossible.
What is your role as a parent using ECEC services?
Make sure I find the best one. The cleanest one. One that will be the most for my son. When we
lived out at (rural town) I didn’t have much of a choice because they only had the one…
And once you’ve selected the service, you’ve gone through that process, have you any other
ongoing role?
Um. No, not really. I have a chat with them and make sure everything’s okay. Make sure he’s
behaving himself.
(Mother, Interview 22)
You selected this centre for your children. Can you talk to me about how you went about that?
Word of mouth. I went to my sister and said, now you live in the area, which is the best one to go
to? And then I had a quick look myself…the one that I chose had the nicest reputation.
Mother talks about centre activites…Sounds like you keep in touch with what they’re doing?
I like to know what’s going on. I like to be part of it.
So, you selected a service that you had heard was a good service. And, you’re obviously keeping
tabs on things. Do you have any other role in terms of the child care centre?
298
Not role. I just go and drop my kids off, and make sure that everybody’s fed and happy, and their
nappies get changed and everybody’s taking their sleeps and I bring them home again.
So, how do you do that? How do you monitor all those things?
They have a book or a chart on the wall and if you can get a quick talk to somebody in their ear.
Normally they’ll come up to you if your child hasn’t had a sleep and say (child’s) really grumpy
today. So, they are. Like the first class (child) was in down there, the staff were very very good
and came up and talked to me every time I picked him up. But, this new class, the staff are a bit
different. They’re more standoffish. A bit like, oh, your mum’s here. Bye.
Mother indicates that the centre sends out questionnaires…and that she completes these. What do
you think about that? Do you like that?
I think it’s great. That way you can have a huge input in what your children do.
Later – discussing why she wants to be involved
To be part of it. To be part of your child’s day. Be it just dropping them off and picking them up,
and just talking to somebody and dropping in some old cotton reels and looking at the drawings on
the wall. It’s all participating at the end of the day to a small degree, as much as you can.
(Mother, Interview 9)
So, you used that service for roughly 12 months. Did you have an ongoing role as a parent in that
child care centre?
Yeah, because they tell you when you go to pick him up, what they’d done for the day, and we
got…They took pictures of what the kids had done. So, at 6 months, and at the end of the year, you
got like a little photo album of what the kids had been up to, which I thought was good. And then,
all around the rooms and laminated to the table, they put the kids photos and what the kids had
been up to, and on the walls, the art work and that sort of stuff. And at the end of the week, you got
a folder with all of the things that they’d been making. So, I thought that was good. You were still
involved in it.
I’m wondering if you can just summarise how you see your role as a parent using early childhood
services?
I don’t know. I’m a parent. I just want for him to get a decent education, and go up and check with
the teachers and check that he’s behaving.
Do you have any other role? You said you wanted him to get a good education. Do you have any
role in that?
Not really, because I can’t be there to see that it’s happening. Other parents go up and they can
help with the reading and any of the activities and stuff, but I personally don’t have the ability to
go and do that. So, I think my role in that situation is rather limited, unfortunately. Might be
different by the time (new baby) gets to school.
(Mother, Interview 21)
The parents who express Conception 3 see themselves very much as consumers, paying for
a service, enacting certain consumer rights. As in the previous two groups, these parents
set out to find the best service for their child. As in Conception 2, these parents also perceive
an ongoing monitoring role and seek information about what’s happening for their child, and
how they are developing. However, distinguishing this conception from the previous ones is
the focus on ‘parent-as- consumer’ of the service. Seeing themselves as consumers or
customers, paying for a service (either directly or indirectly as tax payers), these parents
perceive they have certain consumer rights, in particular, the right to raise issues or concerns
relating to their child in the service, and to expect that these will be addressed.
299
Within this category, varying orientations to the role of parent-as-consumer gives rise to two
sub-categories:
o
o
Monitoring, and raising any issues or concerns relating to your child in the service (no
other proactive input) (Sub-category A), and
Monitoring, raising any issues or concerns, and having some say in what happens for your
child in the service (e.g., tell needs, make specific requests, offer suggestions for service
improvement) (Sub-category B)
Sub-category A
Have you as a parent ever had opportunity to have a say in how things were done, in how the
services were provided?
At times parents are so busy, as long as their kids are happy, and your fees are paid, then off you
go type thing. And the only time parents do (have a say) is when there’s a problem. And by then
it’s too late. Other than that, I’ve never been involved in any of them (the services). I mean, I’m
involved with FDC, because I work here now. But before, as a parent, and when I was a student,
you sort of take the rules and policies as they come and you just follow them. …well, myself, I
don’t even get involved with our school P&C because I just don’t have the time. And, I suppose
until you’re disgruntled with the school, you don’t say anything, because everything’s going on
hunky dory. Once things go wrong, that’s when you go up, I suppose.
Reflecting on policy excerpt …Do you see yourself as a consumer?
Well, I’m paying for it, so I suppose I am a consumer. And early childhood centres are offering a
service which is quality care. So, yeah, I suppose consumer could be the word to use for parents.
And, as a consumer, if we’re not happy, we say so. You have a right to say so. Yeah.
(Mother, Interview 12)
Can you talk to me more about how you can have a say, as a parent, in these services?
Well, I think a lot of it comes down to because I’m paying for it. If I’m not happy with something,
I feel I have probably more of a way of expressing it, because I’m paying for it. I look into where
they go, in the sense if I’m not happy with something, I’m going to let them know, and I expect
something to be dealt with or some options to come up. I don’t know why I feel that, cause I pay
for it, I should have more of a say. I don’t know where my logic is in that thinking. But I sort of
figure, if I’m not happy with it I’m going to let you know.
(Mother, Interview 18)
Sub-category B
What is your role as a parent using ECEC services?
Um. You basically tell them the needs of your child, and I try to find out how their day was and
what was going on, and then try to tell them what was going on at home, problems and things. But,
I didn’t know I had any other major role.
So, sharing information? Can you tell me why you think that’s important?
It helps them look after the child better, because they know their needs and like what
circumstances are going on in their life at the time.
Later – picking up on mother’s use of the word consumer – So, what’s your role as a consumer?
To pay for the service and let them know if there’s anything they can do to make that service any
better. Let them know what they can do, so you do get what you’re paying for.
(Mother, Interview 25)
300
As in the previous conceptions, the parents who express Conception 4 see finding the best
service for their child as a key aspect of their role, and also describe an ongoing monitoring
role, which includes raising any concerns about the level of service received. However, these
parents also perceive a need to build a relationship and support the service they have
selected for their child. These parents talk about jobs that need to be done, and helping out as
they are able. These parents perceive they have something to offer the service (i.e., particular
skills, time, an extra pair of hands) and that their contribution makes the service better for
their own child, as well as for other children (including future attendees). In addition, these
parents all perceive that their involvement, in various ways, provides enhanced access to
information and service staff, and, thereby, helps them to monitor their child’s progress and to
look out for any problems. In addition, the enhanced relationship with service staff makes it
easier to raise issues or offer suggestions.
How would you describe your role as a parent using early childhood services?
As a parent, I’ve probably been fairly selective…in how I’ve chosen the services for my
daughter…. And that was the other thing. I really wanted to know about her day…and I also made
it clear… things that I didn’t want staff to do with her. I didn’t want her in time-out. I didn’t want
her removed from the room.
Once you’ve actually selected the service, do you have any ongoing role?
Yes, those community-based centres, I went on the parent management committee. Yes, I also
volunteered any extra work. If they needed sewing, if they wanted things made…I also provided
resources. If I came across things that I thought would be really creative for the children, I would
take those. When she went to preschool I volunteered time.
Why would you do that?
I think it’s.. I wanted to see what they were doing. ..And I just felt that I had something to offer the
room as well. And, I know myself, as a teacher, it’s great when you get an offer of support.
…And I thought it was important for (child) to see me in that role as another parent helping the
children. That…it was important for her to see that I was also caring about where she was.
I think it also gave me a good relationship with the staff, because in some way the management
committee is their employer. But also, there’s that mutual respect, I think, that they know that
you’re working for them
(Mother, Interview 7)
Now, you’ve had four children and quite a lot of experience using early childhood services. How
do you see your role as a parent using early childhood services?
Mmmm. Make sure they’re notified if the children aren’t coming in, is a role, or my responsibility.
Keeping them informed, as well as making sure that I’m being informed of what’s happening in
the centre. Helping out. Normally, you’re working when you have children in that sort of service,
so you can’t – you haven’t got a lot of time to offer to them , but I think you still have to show
them support too, because your children are with them all the time.
Tell me a little more about the support role… Why do you see that as necessary?
Because you’ve still got to be part of your children’s lives, whether they’re with you or whether
they’re in care. Working with…Showing support toward the service that you’re getting from
them, is still showing that you’re interested in what your children are doing. So, you’ve got to be
supportive towards your children and also towards the centre, I suppose. That’s my view. So,
helping out if you can. This week, I’ve been involved with preschool. I’ve been on the
management committee, and, so, just put time into it.
301
Reflecting on role at preschool…
Because the parents also have a responsibility to the teachers, as much…not as much. But, the
teachers have responsibility to inform the parents and let them know what’s happening with their
children, and how they’re growing and how they’re learning. But the parents also have a
responsibility to the children and to the teachers. I feel…it’s just communication. That way, there’s
nothing – you don’t know what’s going on.
You’ve played some major roles on those committees. Can you talk to me about why you put in
that extra time when you’re obviously working as well?
I like to know what’s happening with my children …Being involved, I can see the teachers more
than just when I’m dropping the children off (DW)
Talking about parents as consumers of services …
I feel more of a partnership than a consumer – in a partnership it’s equal. You’re both sharing
views and you’re willing to participate – together. We work in a partnership, because without
them, we wouldn’t be able to go to work and without us going to work, they wouldn’t exist.
(Mother, Interview 26)
What is your role?
I have a very active role, as far as helping out…so anything that needs to be done… It’s very
important to me and I don’t think the kindy could do without the support of parents. The kids as a
whole would miss out..it’s just not going to be done and the kindy’s not going to run as well…
Discussing the idea of parent as consumer…
Probably, (describe self as) client. Because that sort of gives you, cause a consumer is like a person
at the end. You don’t have any say. Whereas, if you’ve got a service, you’ve got clients. It says a
bit more about give and take. I’m their client, so they need to work for me, not I’m the consumer
and I’m just what happens at the end.
(Mother, Interview 23)
Parents expressing Conception 5 identify similar role aspects to those in the previous groups,
namely selecting the best service for their child, knowing what’s happening for their child,
and monitoring their child’s safety and well-being. As in Conception 4, these parents also
perceive that they have a role in supporting the service they have selected for their child.
What makes this conception distinctive, however, is that these parents see themselves as
members of a service community and talk about working together for the benefit of all
concerned (i.e., their child, other children, parents and staff). A strong sense of community
or social connectedness is seen to make a better service for children and families. Within this
context, these parents look for opportunities to be involved and expect to have a say and to be
included in service decision-making that relates to their child.
Let’s start with selecting the service. How did you go about that?
…And, so, I chose one that I thought would provide the best care, like the best experiences for
him, and he’s in the optimal learning experience…Yeah. Like mostly, wherever I’ve gone, it
seems I become good friends. Like I get to know them (staff) really well, and sit down and talk to
them.
In the services that you’ve used, have you ever had opportunity to have a say on how the service
operated.
Yes.
Can you tell me about some of those opportunities?
302
When they were going to introduce the um, put the video cameras in, and getting parent’s point of
view. And we went to meetings, because we did not want it in… They sent you out a survey sheet.
But, it actually didn’t give you any opportunity to say whether you did or did not want it in the
centre. You just had to answer about how frequently you would use it. Which really annoyed
some parents, because we didn’t get the opportunity to say no, we didn’t want it. Anyway, we
then approached the staff. We approached all the staff and let them know. And the director…and
she wasn’t keen on having it either…And then we had a meeting and then we filled out some
information about why we were so opposed and what we would really like. And then they had a
meeting and put that to the people who owned the centre…and said the parents did not want it in.
And so they decided against it.
…And I’ve also attended, they used to have parent nights and also like, P&C meeting type things,
and I’ve also gone to those. But hardly any parents ever turn up.
Why did you go to those meetings?
Because I like to know what’s happening, and I like to be involved. Because, I think if you’re
involved, you have some sort of say in how your kids…what’s happening to them. And, if there
are problems with your kid, then, I don’t know. They’re more likely to treat your children
differently if you’re involved, than a parent that never comes along, and I don’t know, just drops
her kid off and picks them up.
And on parent involvement…
To know that they’re getting the best quality possible education. I believe that public schools can
be just as good as private schools. It’s the amount of interaction that parents have with those
schools …I think a really good P&C makes a really good school, because it involves all the parents
and it provides a sense of community for people. And I think that community then helps kids.
How? Like, back in the olden days, like you had your extended family. But a lot of people don’t
have extended family these days. They have to rely on next-door neighbours or friends they’ve met
to provide that. And it helps to support. And kids grow up with the sense of belonging. I think the
kids that don’t have that then find it a lot harder to fit in later on.
And you think that parents can provide that by working with schools?
That’s right. Because it shows to the kids that their parents are interested in school and interested
in what they’re doing. And that helps them to feel that going to school is important. And I think
they’re more likely then, to, I don’t know, respect it more.
Summing up…Like I said, I’m a parent and I’m trying to watch out for my kids, so I want to be
able to shape their world and be able to have some say in what affects them
(Mother, Interview 8)
Reflecting on parent as consumer…
I suppose, consumer, as a word, I view it as cold, where as it’s a transaction. And there is that
component to it. But I’d also like to position myself in that mix of developing trust and a
relationship with the service provider, with the staff and the people who are working there. Be
available…For example, I’m helping one service provider put in for a series of grants at the
moment, which won’t have a direct benefit to me, either professionally or in a monetary sense, but
it’s just providing assistance where possible. Other things that we’ve done is turn up for working
bees and be part of the social connectedness with having your Christmas parties and those sorts of
things. Not necessarily being up running the whole show, but just putting your hand up when you
can.
303
How important do you think it is that services try to engender that connectedness?
I think it’s vital. With the amount of time that some children are spending away from the family
unit, I think that anything, that…not just in the child care area, but also the schools, the clubs, your
social settings. The more you can bring interaction from outside the circle, and bring in all your
linkages throughout the whole community, you strengthen the community over time. It’s beneficial
to us all. So, the providers of child care and those services, to bring in other members of the
community, including parents, it’s huge. I think we’ve all got to be in there together somewhere.
(Father, Interview 24)
304
The role of parents shaping ECEC public policy
Group Discussion
Friday, 18 June 2004, Room B 426, 4 – 5 pm
PROPOSED AGENDA
4.00 – 4.05
Welcome
Purpose of meeting and proposed process
4.05 – 4.20
Overview of 4 developing categories of description
4.20 – 4.50
Group discussion
Points for consideration include:
•
•
•
•
Are the labels clear – do they immediately tell you
something about how parents in this group see their role
shaping ECEC public policy?
Are the developing categories of description clear and
sufficiently detailed – do they capture the referential and
structural elements of the conception (i.e., the “what” and
“how” of the role of parents in ECEC)? Do they show how
each conception is distinctive from the others?
Is there evidence to support the proposed categories of
description – Can you see how I have arrived at these
categories, do you agree?
How do you see the logical relationship between the
categories of description?
o Parents expressing Conception 1 - no role in shaping policy
- seem to sit apart from the other categories.
o For the purpose of the outcome space, should Conception 3
– having some say in public policy - be considered as one
category, or two separate sub-categories? If it is viewed as
one category, there appears to be a hierarchical relationship
between conceptions 2, 3 and 4. However, if it is viewed as
two sub-categories, parents expressing conception 3B –
having some say is an unachievable goal – may also sit
apart from the other conceptions. `
4.50 – 5.00
Summary and close
305
Four conceptions of the role of parents shaping ECEC public policy
Susan Irvine, Centre for Learning and Innovation, QUT
For group discussion, Friday 18 June, 2004, Room B 426, 4 – 5pm
In my interpretation, four qualitatively different conceptions of the role of parents shaping
early childhood education and care (ECEC) public policy emerge among the parents
participating in this study:
1
2
3
4
Category Label
No role
Raising concerns and/or
seeking change
Having some say / input
(Consumer with voice)
Participating in government
policy decision-making
Description
The role of parents is seen as…no role.
The role of parents is seen as being informed and raising
concerns and/or seeking change.
The role of parents is seen as having some say in policy
matters that directly affect your child and family.
The role of parents is seen as participating in government
policy decision-making.
Each conception differs through the meaning parents assign to the role of parents shaping
public policy (i.e., what they see their role to be or what’s focal in the structure of awareness),
and through the structural aspects which frame and delimit this role.
The parents expressing Conception 1 perceive no role (for them) in shaping ECEC public
policy. While suggesting that government should seek the views of parents, as service users,
and that it’s good for other parents, generally, to have a say in public policy that affects them,
these parents express the view that this role is not for them. Instead, the focus for these
parents remains on direct service use and their role is delimited to using their chosen service.
These parents say they have no problem with their current service, and that if they wanted
some sort of input, they would have it directly with whoever’s ‘doing it’ and/or change their
care arrangements in some way. These parents also express some doubt as to whether having
their say is going to make any real difference to policy, perceiving that government doesn’t
listen to parents and that government decision-making is more about service viability.
Examples
Discussing the role of parents in the prep year trial… So, you obviously have some views on this.
Do you think you’d want to share those views? If this research was being conducted in your
child’s school, do you think you would have something to say?
I probably wouldn’t personally.
Tell me why wouldn’t you?
Cause I don’t like helping government (laughter).
Fair enough…
Because they don’t seem to listen. They just do whatever they want to anyway. And, yeah, I think
it would be a waste of my time, because they don’t seem to listen. That’s probably why I wouldn’t
do it.
(Mother, Interview 20)
306
Talking about government policy - funding services and setting standards… I’m wondering if you
think parents have a role in shaping some of that, having a say in the standards they would like or
the kind of service they need?
I would say they’d be the first ones to ask about something like that, wouldn’t they?
Tell me why you think that.
Well, it’s parents’ kids that the people are looking after. So really, they’re the ones that set the
guidelines to a certain extent, because it’s their kids. That’s why they’d be the first ones to ask, I’d
assume. There’s no point asking someone that’s not involved in it parentally.
If your child was likely to use a new service or if new policy was going to affect your child, would
you want to have a say?
Um. Maybe. Or maybe not for me, but generally for others. Yeah.
Later…
Well, see, I’ve got no problem with any of the care that I’ve had, you know. And, if I needed to
have some sort of input, I can have it directly with whoever’s doing it. So, I’m sort of reasonably
happy with that. Any more than that, I don’t know.
Looking at government’s suggested roles for parents…Do you think parents want to be involved in
those things?
I would say there would be a big bunch of parents out there that would, yeah. Not all parents do.
But there is a big percentage of parents that are really vocal about things like that, yeah…
What about you? Are those things you’d like to be involved in?
Probably not really, no.
Can I ask why not?
Like I said, I’m looking after my little space and unless there’s a great problem with that, I don’t
see the need to do anything about it. I’m not one of these people who’d be going out to…crusade
is probably a bit of a strong word, but that kind of thing, you know.
Why should government try to find out what parents think about these things? What value is that
information to them [government]?
I suppose at the end of the day, if it’s being used and it’s doing what it’s supposed to be doing,
that’s all that really matters. What I’ve got to say about it is probably not really going to make a
great deal of difference, I wouldn’t think. It’s got to be viable, I suppose. That’s probably the
word. How many thoughts about it that I had, even if I was to send some questionnaire in, I don’t
think it would have a great bearing on it. I’d say viability would be at the top of the list, wouldn’t
it?
(Father, Interview 11)
In contrast to the previous group, parents expressing Conception 2 perceive that parents do
have a role shaping ECEC public policy. The focus for these parents is being informed
about public policy that affects your child and family, and having a say if you are not
happy with what is being proposed (or has been decided). The role of parents is delimited
to raising personal concerns and/or seeking change to current and proposed public policy
impacting on your child and family. These parents perceive that it is the responsibility of
government to give parents information about proposed policy changes (such as the Prep
year), and to provide easy opportunity for parents to have their say – if they want to respond.
In this sense, the role of parents is seen as reactive, and, most often, a response to a perceived
307
negative issue (i.e., seeing what government is offering and having a say if you have a
concern or would like something changed). This said, like the previous group, some of these
parents also question whether one person can have an impact or change anything.
Okay, with these broader government policies, do you think parents can have a role shaping that
kind of policy, at that level?
If it affects you directly, I suppose. If it’s something that doesn’t affect you…I suppose
everyone’s got a right to have a say in anything. But, if it doesn’t really affect me, I wouldn’t be
so interested in having a say. Unless it directly affects me or my children.
Have you ever had any opportunity to have a say in anything like that – in the development of new
services or quality standards - something broader?
I don’t think so. No-ones ever said “How would you like this centre to be run?”, “How would you
like this policy to be carried out”? No-ones ever said that. When you enroll at a preschool or a
kindergarten, normally the policies are already there. And, that’s it.
Would you like to have a say in some of those things?
Um, if I wasn’t happy with it
Talking about prep trials…
I would be happy to sit down and listen to what they have decided, and if I wasn’t happy with
anything that was there, I would have a say. As far as sitting down, from ground level up, that’s a
bit much….But if someone had it all out, and said, okay, this is what it is, are you happy or are you
not, or what would you like changed? That would be all right. But surely, if it’s in the school
anyway, it’s going to be the same policy as for school, for grade 1 and grade 2?
Do you think it’s good for parents to participate in that way?
Oh definitely, yes.
Why?
Well, if it’s affecting your children directly, you want the best outcome for your children, the best
possible education, so, you’ve got to have a say. Otherwise, they can just do what they want,
without anyone having a say.
So, do you think there are limited ways to have a say…
If everyone wanted to have a say, they’d probably be able to have a say. There are limited ways,
but, if people want to have a say, they can have a say. Regardless of what ways there are. But a
lot of parents don’t want to have a say. I admit, I’m probably one of them. My child’s happy and
I’m happy with the service she’s getting, so I’m quite happy to stay back and not have a say. But
then, if an issue came up. It’s like here, if an issue came up, parents would soon let you know.
(Mother, Interview 19)
Looking at prep year trial – Would you want to have a say in that?
I’d say no, only because I’m not an expert in educational matters. I’m not…I have no knowledge
of what they’re implementing, and, I’m sure that…I’d probably just leave it up to the experts.
Do you think other parents may want to have a say in that?
Oh, probably. People who have tried it before, maybe, people who have come from NSW and
stuff.
308
What do you think would motivate parents to want to have a say in that?
If parents thought it was too constricting or binding, or the days were too long, or hours were too
long for the children, the class sizes were too big.
So personal matters that perhaps might be of concern?
Yes.
Later – talking about public apathy…Because the majority of people out there, people just don’t
care. They go to work from 9 til 5, leave Johnny at school or leave Johnny at home day care or a
day care centre, and people just don’t really care. It doesn’t affect them personally. They don’t see
it affecting them right in their homes, so they don’t care.
If it directly affects your child, do you think that changes anything?
Not so much in policy, no, no, I don’t. I could honestly say around here, people just don’t care. If
you spoke about any sort of legislation to them, they don’t care…Well, the majority of people
around here are low income workers. They work very hard to pay their rates and they can only see
things happening in their environment that government won’t stop. So, they see themselves as
being a little person and how are they ever going to stop it. How are they going to change
anything? How is one voice going to change anything at all? And that’s how a lot of them are
seeing it.
Summarising role
Just making them [government] aware of it, I’d say. Making them aware that things haven’t
changed from yesteryear.
And if parents wanted to change things?
They need to be given the procedures to do so.
(Mother, Interview 15)
Can you think of ways that parents can influence government policy?
I did go to some of the earlier discussions on the regulations, and, as a parent, I had some concerns
initially. I thought they were going to move some of the need for qualifications, and that, as a
parent, does concern me. As a professional and a parent, I’m quite concerned that people can
qualify to be a group leader without being qualified.
Was it that concern that motivated you to go to that meeting, or a broader motivation?
Yes, that, and just a concern that they may change the staff children ratios. Cause I know there
is… because I’ve worked in the private sector, and I work in the community-based sector now, I
do as a parent do have major concerns.
In terms of that meeting you were talking about, can you tell me a little of what happened and your
view of the meeting. Was it targeting parents?
I think it was seen as a consultation, and, I think the government, if they see parents in an
audience, and they acknowledge what parents say, but I think at the end of the day, I think it’s a
nonsense. (In what way?) I think that the government, when they’re criticised for what they bring
in, I think they say, but we advertised meetings, parents were invited, we had parents there, we
listened to the parents. And, we’ve consulted with the service providers, and policy makers, and
everyone else, and we’ve made a decision based on all the evidence. But I don’t believe that the
evidence is from the parents. I think they consulted, but I don’t think they really stop and listen to
the parent. As a parent, I think they have a view in their mind how they want a service to run, and
it’s to do with budgets.
(Mother, Interview 7)
309
Like the parents in the previous group, the parents who express Conception 3 perceive a role
for parents in shaping ECEC public policy, arguing that parents should be given opportunity
to have some say on ECEC public policy. It is the general view of these parents that
government should consult with parents, as service users or consumers, to inform ECEC
public policy decision-making. There is a strong view that parents know their own children
better than others, and this knowledge can support relevant policy and the best use of public
monies. As in Conception 2, these parents believe it is the role of government to provide
information about proposals to change policy, prior to decision-making, and to provide easy
opportunity for parents to voice their opinion, if they wish. As in the previous group, these
parents express interest in having a say on policy that affects their child and family. While
seeking to provide both positive and negative feedback, as opposed to identifying only
problems, these parents delimit their role to responding to government policy – commenting
on drafts as opposed to ‘coming up with the stuff’ or ‘getting into the rig moral of it all’.
Within this category, varying orientations to the role of parents gives rise to two subcategories:
o
o
Having some say on government policy - an achievable goal (Sub-category A)
Having some say on government policy – an unachievable goal (Sub-category B)
While expressing the view that parents do have a role to play, some parents in this group
perceive that this is simply not achievable, believing that their views are not listened to or
valued, and that government decides policy. Prompted to consider their ideal situation, these
parents said that they would be motivated to be involved if they thought their views were
being taken on board, that their opinion was valued, and their input may benefit their child.
An achievable goal - Sub-category A
Referring to government policy and views on the role of parents - Are they the kind of things that
you’re interested in. Are you interested in having a say when new services are being developed
that you might use?
To an extent. Not fully, but, I don’t know. Like when it comes to class sizes, yes, I’d like to have a
say. Oh, I don’t know how to describe it. I don’t want a say in everything, just in, I don’t know, in
the health and well-being of my child.
So, things that are going to directly impact on the health and well-being of your children?
Yes.
Summing up role…
Well, I think it’s a major role. Yes, I’d like to feel free, not scared, if I’ve got an opinion. If I feel
there’s something wrong, just to be able to voice it.
What about if nothing is wrong. What if there are proposing a change to the service, something
different. Do you want to have a say in that also?
Yep. If I feel like the service is good, or what’s happening is good, I’d like to give positive
feedback too. Let them know they’re doing a good job.
Why do you think government should bother to try to get your views as a parent?
It’s the only way they’re going to get their quality assurance.
(Mother, Interview 10)
310
On the prep year trial- Would you want to have a say?
M: Yeah. I think that would be good.
G: It goes back to what we’ve being saying about the kindy. It’s very similar, saying what…
M: We like to be involved.
And you’d have a view on that that you’d like to share during a trial?
M: Yeah, Yeah I would.
G: Love to.
M: I’d want to see their stipulations – what they say first?
You’d want information about what’s being proposed?
M: Yes. Like, for example, the sleeps. Like sometimes kids, by the time they reach a certain age,
they don’t want a sleep anymore. But if they…because they do so much at school, a lot of kids are
exhausted by the time 4 o’clock comes around they fall asleep. So, things like that, yeah, I’d want
to have a say in that. Yeah, some sort of say.
G: Not too much, because if it gets too much, it could be…(M: overkill) monotonous. You know
what I mean? And I don’t really want to see myself as being the parent who goes to these parent
meetings once a month and all we do is sit down and have a cup of coffee and talk about other kids
or whatever else. It’s got to be not the same old issues all of the time. It’d have to be something
different being brought up. So, you’d obviously have to have someone employed, to do, I don’t
know, what you’re doing, doing surveys. To find out what’s going on around different schools,
different states, different areas. To see what could or couldn’t happen. What’s better or worse.
So the issues are of relevance to you?
G: Yeah. So you don’t just have this, like…
M: But even renewing policies, like what stands up this year might not next year. (G: yeah, that’s
right). I think we should all have a say in that. What we agree with or what we don’t agree with.
(Mother and Father, Interviews 3 & 4)
An unachievable goal – Sub-category B
Summing up - How do you see your role?
Well, at the moment, I think it would be very minimal, because you’re not given the information to
be able to respond to it…you’re told it after it’s happened. But, if we were given the information
prior, and given a phone number or a prior paid envelope or something, and you’re views were
taken on board…there was actually a consultation process when these things came out…not just
with service providers but with service users, I think the people who really had something to say
about it would respond and perhaps the people who didn’t really care wouldn’t respond. But that’s
what always happens.
(Mother, Interview 14)
Do you think that parents can have say in those sorts of decisions?
I think it’s probably not. I think probably it’s a more complicated type arrangement. The
Government probably make it look like parents can have a say, and you certainly can probably to
websites and surveys at school and things like that. But I think really they make decisions, and it’s
probably just, you know the individual parent, their say wouldn’t count a lot toward the decisions
that are being made. No. I don’t.
311
Have you had experiences that make you feel that way?
Well, the prep year and the hours that children are in care. They’re wanting to extend the hours
that children are in care. I mean they’ve sort of communicated that this is what’s going to happen
really, so they’ve already made the decision. But now they’re actually asking for parent
involvement. The decisions already been made, I believe. So they’re sort of asking for our
opinions after the event. I don’t see how that can affect…I mean they’re trialing the
preschool/prep year before they even communicated in our school that it would involve parent
communication.
So how does that make you feel in terms of wanting to have input?
It’s annoying, because I like to think we have choices with our own children. And I believe that
we do. So I sort of think well they can make their decisions, but ultimately it’s our choice and
decision what eventually happens with our children.
Talking about involvement in prep year trial- What would motivate you to do that?
It’s my children. I’ve always got time for these guys. I mean, at our school, we had a similar
situation where they went from half days every day, to full days. So, I was very much involved in
that.
How were parents given an opportunity to have a say in that?
There were meetings held at the school where the principal attended and also a departmental
representative came to one meeting. There weren’t a lot of parents there actually, which was a
little disappointing. But, it was good actually, because I wasn’t just voicing the opinion of my
family, but also FDC, how it would affect FDC as well, cause there were implications there. So I
saw the child care side as well and was able to input.
Did you feel your views were taken on board then?
Oh, definitely. I definitely felt like they considered them during those meetings.
And how was the decision ultimately made, do you know?
With very little regard I think for parent’s input (laughs). I think it was whatever suited the school
curriculum at the time. Only because I knew how many people were voicing their opinions at the
time, and most people didn’t want to change.
And it did change?
And it did. And it’s still in place. But they actually have to vote it in, and as parents we had input,
we were able to vote. But, it actually went through anyway. So there you are. How did that
happen?
(Mother, Interview 17)
The ideal…
Do you think in an ideal world it’s a good thing for parents who want to to have a say on
government policy that might affect them and their family?
Yes. I do. I think you should always give that option to parents.
…Mmm. I would say there are limited opportunities. I haven’t been made available to many
opportunities to influence government policy, other than perhaps voting at elections. (Laughs)
312
Are you interested in being involved in those areas?
Oh definitely. Definitely. If we were given that opportunity to be involved in the centres,
definitely, I would love to be.
What would motivate you? Why would you want to be involved?
Oh, just the quality of care that our children would be receiving.
Summing up - How would you like to see your role, as a parent, influencing government policy?
Um. Well, being involved in regulations. Having input there. Obviously we don’t have the
expertise to write regulations or anything like that, but if we could be involved in reading and
communicating how we feel about them and ways we feel they might be improved or how happy
we are with them as well. Yeah. What was the question again?
And that’s an ongoing process too. I don’t think you can write a regulation in 1999 and expect that
it will continue in 2003, and be successful for that whole period. I think it’s something that has to
have input continuously.
And parents have a role to play in that?
Definitely. They definitely do. To be given an opportunity would be wonderful.
(Mother, Interview 17)
Parents who express Conception 4 see themselves as participants in the policy decisionmaking process, exercising their democratic right to have a say on matters likely to have an
impact on their child and family. These parents view their role as advocating for their
family, and talk about being active and involved – knowing what’s happening and looking for
ways to have a say on matters that affect you and your family (e.g., the Prep year, child care
regulations). While maintaining this personal focus, these parents may also comment on
policy matters not directly related to their child and family, where the topic relates to a
personal interest (or passion) and/or their area of professional expertise. Within this context,
the role of parents is seen as proactive and participatory, as opposed to reacting to negative
issues and/or having a say only when invited to do so. Instead, these parents link their role to
the democratic process, and their right as voting citizens and tax payers to share their views
on proposed public policy generally, and, in particular, where this is likely to affect them and
their family. These parents perceive that government is listening to the views of the public
more, because more people are expecting this and won’t allow them not to. They expect to be
part of the change process, and to be included in decision-making. Like the previous groups,
these parents perceive that government holds primary responsibility to provide clear
information about proposed policy changes, and to empower parents, as service users, to
communicate with their service provider, as well as directly with government policy decisionmakers. To this effect these parents say they want to know why they are being consulted
upfront, time to consider the issues, and opportunity to have input prior to decision-making.
For some of these parents, this was their ideal role, achievable but yet to be experienced.
When the government is thinking about spending money, making new rules or developing new
services, do you think parents can have a say in those sort of decisions?
Yes. I think they could. I think when they’re introducing something new to an area, like any other
government department, they have to put out some sort of notice to the public. And, I don’t feel
though, that just because it maybe child care or day care, that they shouldn’t do that as well. If
there’s a need in the area, they can find out what the needs are. And when they’re building the
facility, they can best meet those needs. And, if there isn’t a need, well, they can find that out to.
There might be half a dozen spaces in one location where there may be, say in another area, there
isn’t. So, at least that way they can find out then whether there is a need for it.
313
So why is it good for people in the community to participate that way, in the project you were just
talking about?
It gives them a sense of ownership. It helps, as if they feel some sense of ownership and
belonging, they’re going to pay more attention to it…they’re going to put more effort into it and
they’re going to like the end result better. So, it’s not just like Oh, bloody government again,
they’ve done this and done that. What we hear all the time now…you’re having a say.
So, do you think government is really listening to what’s coming back in or is it more about getting
the information out?
I think their starting to listen more, because there’s more people who aren’t allowing them not to.
So…
What do you think about that?
I think it’s a good thing, yes. Not that I’d go and do it personally, like some of them do. But no, I
think it’s a good idea because we are the people who put them there, and we, as the people, have
the right to be heard as much as they do (laughter).
What would motivate you to participate in that particular situation? [The prep year trial]
Just, being involved. If my children were of an age, where they were going to participate in there,
or there was a possibility that they would participate, that I knew what was happening. It wasn’t
just something I was going to be told was going to happen.
Why?
Why? Because it’s the same as voting. If you don’t have a say, you don’t participate.
All right, you’ll be pleased to know that I’m at the end. Can I ask just one more question? (Yes)
In terms of all of our discussion, how would you sum up your role as a parent shaping government
policy?
I’d like to see my role as…I’d just like to feel as though I have some self worth as a parent, from
their view point. That they are listening to us, and they are taking us into consideration as parents,
that we know what our children want. Rather that just being told by the government that this is
what’s going to be enforced.
Having opportunity to have a say makes you feel valued as a parent?
Yes. I just like having my say.
(Mother, Interview 26)
Can you think of other ways that parents can have a say in how services run?
I suppose the ultimate, or the big picture stuff, is having direct feedback into the government
decision-making process and policy setting. I haven’t. There’s probably been opportunities but I
haven’t come across them. There’s other areas that I’ve had direct feedback into policy and
government planning. I suppose, one way would be to openly advertise whenever there’s policy
change or change at whole of government level, and get parents to input that way. So, I’d prefer to
see it done in a proactive way rather than reacting to negative issues. So, probably on the ground,
grass-roots, are your interviews and your face to face contact, and feedback, and all that sort of
stuff. But also at the higher level, some formal feedback process into government policy.
314
I think the centres and service providers can contribute back up, communicate back up and manage
upwards for change. But the parents, the users or the clients, should also be empowered to
communicate to the service provider. But, also, if they wish, they should be given a pathway to
communicate direct to the decision-makers. So, there’s a link, but it also shouldn’t be an exclusive
link – that all communication goes through one channel.
On the prep year trial
I’d be looking for a way to be involved. In, well probably two ways…One is just being included
in that information sharing and saying okay this is what’s being proposed. But then, also looking
at what’s the operational issues…How’s it going to be managed, how’s it going to run, what’s the
time issues, the nuts and bolts. So that, before it hits the ground, there is that time to have the
input and get the consultation done. I suppose, again, it would be through school communication
and just through being included in the planning stage.
Summing up…
So, I suppose, we determine what we’re looking for, as a group – predominantly myself and my
wife, and as far as looking at the policy,,,where the opportunity is there, we’d be looking to
advocate on behalf of kids, and, saying, as parents, if we’re going to access this because of the way
our culture is and our society is, this is our lifestyle choice, we want to be able to ensure that the
policy has got some minimum standards and then there’s a way of identifying if those standards
are being achieved – through your licensing or whatever. And, like, a point in question would be
your OSH centres with the potential legislative change in the next 12-18 months…Now, if I was to
access an OSH centre, I’d like to know there was a way that the public was being included in
coming up with the standards and policy, the monitoring. To know that the service is actually at a
particular standard – that it’s acceptable. So, I suppose, to summarise, I’m looking to be an
advocate.
(Father, Interview 24)
Talking about the prep year - Would you want a role as a parent in shaping that?
Well, I think, yes. I would like to because obviously I want to see the prep year come in because I
think it’s very important. (Interruption). So, it’s going to affect everybody, so, I think, yeah,
parents should need to know and get the information to us somehow, and we’d be able to respond.
And you think parents should be a part of those responses?
Yeah, well I would imagine that they would be. It would be pretty silly to do it and not have the
response of parents.
That takes a bit of extra resources, a bit of extra planning. Why do you think government should
bother getting the views of parents?
Well, what’s going to happen otherwise? It will just be, government says this and they’re not
always right with everything. That’s why we have a democracy, I suppose, so that we can have a
say in what goes on. If we didn’t, well, why have a response to anything? Why not just let the
government do and say whatever, and everyone just cops it? I don’t think we ever would just
accept it.
Summing up…
Role I would like. Mmmm. Well, I suppose, to be asked about different things before they’re in
place. Asked for my opinion. But, I don’t know. See, it’s like I said, it doesn’t really matter what
role the parents have in shaping these policies if it’s not actually going to occur in the centres. I
think it’d probably be more frustrating for parents. Well, I’ve been responsible for putting this in
place and giving my opinions about this but then they turn around and say, well it
hasn’t made a difference anyway. So, yeah, I don’t know. It’s difficult to know.
(Mother, Interview 23)
315
I’m wondering if you think parents should have a say in those sorts of decisions? Where
government is making decisions about things that might affect you and your family?
Should parents have a say? Yes. Because it’s our taxpaying money that funds the government.
So, because it’s our money, we should then be able to say where it’s needed. And they sit up in
their offices, so they don’t really know what goes on day to day. They lose touch what’s actually
needed and what’s not needed. So, it’s harder for them to actually say what needs to be done,
because how do they know?
So, you think parents can help them with that?
That’s right. Because we’re involved in it everyday. So, we should have a say in what happens.
Have you had any opportunities to have a say in things like that?
No, but I’d like to. (laughs)
What would motivate you to do that?
Because I want my son to do really well at school. And, because he’s really bright, I want him to
be able, I’m not pushing him, but be able to reach his full potential.
And what can you contribute? How can you help them in their decision-making?
About how I think my son is doing, and what are his strong points and what are his weak points.
And so, if he’s got weak points, they can then think, okay. And if they get a whole lot of people
saying, oh yeah, my child’s struggling at that. Then they have to reassess. If all these kids are
struggling with that, then we have to try and help them in that area and spend more time in that
area.
So, why should government spend money to get your views?
Because these kids are the next generation and how they are now. They’re the next generation.
They’re the one’s that are going to make the decisions in the future and it’s going to be their world.
And the government, we pay them. That’s why we put them into power, to be able to, with the
money they get, to be able to make these decisions. So, we’re paying them…I can’t even think
what I’m trying to say. We pay them to listen to our opinions and to put them into process.
Summing up –
Like I said, I’m a parent and I’m trying to watch out for my kids, so I want to be able to help shape
their world and be able to have some say in what affects them.
(Mother, Interview 8)
316