Using innovative methods in early years research beyond the conventional zeta brown, helen perkins, routledge, 2019 scan

Using Innovative Methods in Early Years Research Exploring a range of unconventional research methods and considering how these can be used effectively in practice, this accessible textbook encourages the use of innovative approaches to conduct research in early years contexts Using Innovative Methods in Early Years Research provides key information on a range of non-traditional research methods, and details the strengths, limitations and challenges involved in diverging from more standard research methods From researching with young children, practitioners and parents, to harnessing the arts, vignettes, identity boxes and narrative accounts, chapters draw on authors’ firsthand experiences to highlight the value of ‘thinking outside the box’ and developing innovative research methods that meet the needs and aims of the researcher, while also involving and empowering research participants Including detailed information on ethical concerns and the importance of reflexivity, individual and group tasks encourage students to take a critical and well-thought-out approach to conducting independent research This will be an invaluable and inspiring resource for high-level undergraduate and postgraduate students as they embark on research projects in the field of early years education and care Zeta Brown is Reader in Education for Social Justice at the University of Wolverhampton, UK Helen Perkins is Senior Lecturer in Childhood and Family Studies at the University of Wolverhampton, UK Using Innovative Methods in Early Years Research Beyond the Conventional Edited by Zeta Brown and Helen Perkins First published 2019 by Routledge Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business  2019 selection and editorial matter, Zeta Brown and Helen Perkins; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Zeta Brown and Helen Perkins to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Brown, Zeta, editor | Perkins, Helen (Helen Marie), 1957- editor Title: Using innovative methods in early years research : beyond the conventional / edited by Zeta Brown and Helen Perkins Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2019 | Includes bibliographical references and index Identifiers: LCCN 2019001902 (print) | LCCN 2019009883 (ebook) | ISBN 9780429423871 (eb) | ISBN 9781138389502 (hbk : alk paper) | ISBN 9781138389519 (pbk : alk paper) | ISBN 9780429423871 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Early childhood education—Research—Methodology Classification: LCC LB1139.225 (ebook) | LCC LB1139.225 U75 2019 (print) | DDC 372.21—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019001902 ISBN: 978-1-138-38950-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-38951-9 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-42387-1 (ebk) Typeset in Melior by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UK Zeta Brown For my amazing children: Mia, Damie and Fin And my very supportive parents: Sue and John Helen Perkins For my wonderfully supportive husband Rob and my children Fiona and James Contents List of abbreviations List of figures Notes on the contributors ix xi xiii Introduction Zeta Brown and Helen Perkins Part I – Research in early education   Reflexivity in educational research Jackie Musgrave   Ethical considerations in using innovative methods in early education research Kieran Hodgkin and Gary Beauchamp   Going beyond participatory ideology when doing research with young children: the case for ethical permeability and relatability Ioanna Palaiologou 19 31 Part II – Researching with children 47   Art as a method of research Elisabetta Biffi and Franca Zuccoli 49 vii viii Contents   The use of drawing methods with young children in research Helen Lyndon 63   Listening to young children in messy, playful research Laura Heads and Michael Jopling 77   Play-based interview techniques with young children Sarah Holmes 92   Using the mosaic approach as an ethnographic methodology 109 Zenna Kingdon   Using video to research outdoors with young children Gary Beauchamp, Chantelle Haughton, Cheryl Ellis, Siân Sarwar, Jacky Tyrie, Dylan Adams and Sandra Dumitrescu 124 10 The use of vignettes in research with young children Ioanna Palaiologou 138 Part III – Researching with practitioners and parents 153 11 The use of identity boxes as a research method Helen Perkins 155 12 Narrative inquiry: storying lived experiences with early childhood student-practitioners Lynn Richards 13 The use of observations in early childhood research Jackie Musgrave 14 Q-methodology: seeking communalities in perspectives of young children and practitioners Zeta Brown and Gavin Rhoades 174 188 202 Index 216 Abbreviations BA BEEL BERA BESA CATE CREC DfE ECE ECEC ECS EECERA Bachelor of Arts baby effective early learning British Education Research Association British Education Studies Association Collaborative Award for Teaching Excellence Centre for Research in Early Childhood Department for Education early childhood education early childhood education and care early childhood studies European Early Childhood Education Research Association EEL Effective Early Learning Project EYPP Early Years Pupil Premium FE further education GB Gigabyte GCSE General Certificate of Secondary Education GDPR General Data Protection Regulation HE higher education HEA Higher Education Academy ICT information and communications technology ITET Initial Teacher Education or Training LA local authority LOtC learning outside of the classroom PE physical education PVI Private, Voluntary and Independent ix 208  Zeta Brown and Gavin Rhoades Figure 14.1  Image of Q-sort and explain how it works, including the condition of instruction Participants are asked to place all the statements they agree with onto the right-hand side of the grid The process is then repeated for the two remaining groups First, those statements with which they disagree are placed on the left-hand side, and finally those they have no strong feelings about are used to ‘fill up’ the remaining spaces in the middle While it might be thought desirable to have a balanced Q-set that you believe contains equal numbers of ‘positive’ or negative’ statements, this is not necessary as each of your participants will have different perspectives, and it is not uncommon to have more statements in the agree group than the disagree group This is not a problem as it will be the relative positions of the statements on the grid that are important Once all the statements are on the grid, we ask some probing questions to check that the placement of the statements matches the participant’s intent For example, ‘I see you placed statement X in the +4 column and statement Y in the +3 column Does that mean you agreed more with statement X or more with statement Y?’ We also ask them to look at each statement and consider if it is the correct column or needs to be swapped with a neighbour Once the participant is happy, the Q-sort is complete and can be recorded Q-methodology  209 Early Years Pupil Premium study A recent study was completed by Zeta Brown that investigated practitioners’ perspectives on the Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP) in England (Brown, 2018) This demonstrates how it is possible to use Q within a tight timescale and with a large number of participants at the same time The research questions were: ■■ What are practitioners’ perspectives on the EYPP funding? ■■ Is EYPP effective according to practitioners’ perspectives, and does it ‘close the gap’ for disadvantaged children? The project investigated the perspectives of 20 owners and managers of 19 settings in one local authority The study sought to identify shared perspectives across the participants on this funding, including if they shared similar views on the EYPP’s application and eligibility criteria The interpretivist qualitative focus of the study was on the participants’ positions, acknowledging that these positions can alter over time and can be dependent on situational circumstances The concourse (set of statements) was derived from a focus group with the local authorities ‘Good to Outstanding’ group This generated a Q-set (34 statements in total) that was taken to the same group for respondent validation before being used in the project’s main data collection Example statements include: ■■ The funding is essential to support children’s development ■■ All children from low-income families need this funding ■■ Some looked-after children miss out because the adoptive parents don’t declare their status The Q-sort data collection was done during an LA Private, Voluntary and Independent (PVI) sector senior leadership update meeting Attendees were asked if they wanted to take part in the project and provided time (30 minutes) during this update to be part of the research There were approximately 50 attendees at the update (all owners/managers); 24 decided to take part in the study, and 20 successfully completed the card sort and were included in the analysis 210  Zeta Brown and Gavin Rhoades The project used the PQMethod software to analyse the data In this study, centroid analysis was used to extract factors for varimax rotation The study retained factors that had an eigenvalue (strength of that factor in relation to others) of 1.00 or higher In total, three factors were kept for interpretive analysis, and are briefly detailed below The factors in this study represent 19 of the 20 practitioners included in the analysis This is because one participant’s perspectives did not load on any one factor The numbers in brackets that appear throughout the following factor interpretations – e.g (12; −3) – indicate where a particular statement (number 12) was placed on the grid (column −3) by that particular factor Factor 1: ‘There are limitations to the EYPP funding; the application process has got to change’ The amount of variance accounted for is 35% and its eigenvalue is 6.9225 In total, eight practitioners held these communalities in their positions These practitioners held strong perspectives on the EYPP Their position was interestingly not influenced by government objectives (12; −3), but they focused on highlighting the limitations of the funding by its application process These practitioners state that it is not easy to access the funding (9; −4) They believe that it is a struggle to get parents to complete the online form (27; +4) They would prefer instead to apply for the funding on behalf of children in their care (28; +3) and would like more autonomy themselves to allocate the funding to children who really need it (4; +3) This group strongly stated that they get the funding too late in the academic year (7; +4) However, they state that they have children who are not eligible for this funding but would benefit from it (30; +3) Factor 2: ‘The EYPP funding is beneficial, but it is not accessible to all who need it’ The amount of variance accounted for is 6% and its eigenvalue is 1.2481 In total, seven participants held these communalities in their positions These participants worked mostly in nurseries; they are mostly managers at these settings, and all had over 10 years’ experience Q-methodology  211 Importantly, these participants declared that they had not been responsible for allocating this funding in their setting (26; −3) As with factor 1, they did not believe the funding could be better spent elsewhere (15; −3) and they highlighted difficulties in the application process They also believe that the funding would be better used if they could allocate it to children whom they feel really need it (4; +3) What appeared more important for these practitioners were the eligibility criteria They strongly agreed that they had children who were not eligible for this funding but would benefit from it (30; +4) They stated that they not always know how to use the funding for each child (3; −3) and they find it difficult to decide how to use the funding if the child has no developmental delay (33; +3) Factor 3: ‘The EYPP funding has application and eligibility issues, but it is essential funding – it can support “eligible” children’s development and others in the setting’ The amount of variance accounted for is 7% and its eigenvalue is 1.3709 In total, four practitioners held these communalities in their positions These participants mostly worked in nurseries, were managers and those who stated had over 12 years’ experience These practitioners strongly believe that the funding is essential to support children’s development (1; +3) and they strongly state that the funding could not be better spent elsewhere (15; −4) They also believe that the government gives clear guidance on how to use the funding (18; −3) Similarly to factors and 2, they strongly agree that they get the funding too late in the academic year (7; +4) They believe that it is a struggle to get parents to complete the online form (27; +3) and they disagree that parents and carers are involved in how they use the funding (2; −3) They would prefer to apply for the funding on behalf of children in their care (28; +4) In contrast to factor 1, they strongly disagree that they have children in their setting who are eligible for this funding but have not received it (29; −4) Importantly, they use the funding for group activities that benefit more than one child (6; +3) 212  Zeta Brown and Gavin Rhoades Conclusions from this study The findings showed that the EYPP funding is clearly not working for these participants There were consistent issues mentioned that included the application process and eligibility criteria The use of Q-methodology meant that the findings were able to show the complexities and communalities among the participants’ positions They did not produce one factor that represented all of their perspectives, even though they all hold leadership roles A strength of the project was that it accessed the perspectives of practitioners in 19 differing settings The time allocated for this data collection at the senior leadership meeting was limited to 30 minutes, and the use of Q-methodology meant that the project could gain detailed data from all who wanted to participate in this time frame However, there were difficulties in collecting the data in this way Sorting cards onto a forced distribution grid can be difficult, especially if it is not something that the participants have experienced before There were local authority staff supporting the data collection; however, some prospective participants decided not to participate, and there were some participants that had to be removed because they had completed the task incorrectly (e.g statements placed outside the confines of the distribution grid) It would have been advantageous to have been able to spend time with the individual participants to support the Q-sort and also ask additional interview questions Similarly, post-Q-sort interviews after data analysis would have increased the qualitative data in the study As with most education research, time was limited, but this study shows that Q-methodology can generate detailed qualitative data in short time frames Additional strengths of using Q-methodology ■■ The way Q-methodology is used often (in our experience) develops findings that we were not expecting In this study, the researcher was not expecting such strong perspectives on the use of the EYPP that consistently showed barriers in its practical implementation ■■ This study also used report sheets where participants were asked to briefly explain why they had placed statements in the most extreme Q-methodology  213 distribution columns This information further increased the qualitative data in the study, and these quotes were added to the factor interpretations in the study’s publication (Brown, 2018) ■■ In this study, the concourse (set of statements) was derived from a focus group with the local authorities ‘Good to Outstanding’ group This meant that practitioners developed the relevant statements on the EYPP These statements were then taken back to the same group and checked The group also completed the card sort as a pilot study to further support the validity of the study Further limitations of using Q-methodology ■■ Q-methodology focuses on investigating complexities and com- monalities across a sample of participants It is left to the researcher to decide whether they want to focus on collective perspectives If they want to also focus on individual perspectives, additional research methods (such as report sheets and interviews) need to be added to increase the qualitative data gained from each participant ■■ It takes time to understand how to analyse Q data There are some helpful resources available that have been cited in this chapter (e.g Watts and Stenner, 2012) However, readers thinking of using Q need to ensure that they dedicate time to understanding the factor analysis process Summary Q-methodology offers a full methodology for conducting research that can explore complex views Depending on their positionality, researchers can select various complementary tools, and there are different ways to interpret the wealth of data produced by a software tool such as PQMethod Q is suitable for use with young participants providing care is taken to consider the use of language and concepts being explored Q can be used to collect data from a number of participants within a short time frame 214  Zeta Brown and Gavin Rhoades Glossary Communality  The amount of variance that a completed Q-sort shares with other participants’ completed Q-sorts Typically, Q-sorts with a high communality will load on the same factor Eigenvalue  This number is calculated as the sum of the squared factor loadings for a factor Dividing the eigenvalue by the number of Q-sorts in the study and multiplying by 100 will produce the variance accounted for by the factor The eigenvalue is often used to decide whether a factor is significant to the study, with factors having eigenvalues of less than 1.00 typically being discarded Factor interpretation  A written description of a factor, based on the positions of statements for the factor This helps readers to understand the complexities of the participants’ perspectives, and what the factor ‘means’ Loading  Where one or more participants’ completed Q-sorts share similar configurations of statements that closely relate to a factor, they are said to ‘load’ on that factor Q-set  The complete set of statements to be sorted Collectively, these should be broadly representative of possible views on the topic being investigated so that participants can express their opinions Q-sort  The final configuration of the Q-set statements as produced by a participant who has completed sorting the cards onto the distribution grid Variance  The range of opinions found within the Q-sort data The amount of variance that a factor explains helps us to understand the significance of that factor (typically, the higher the variance explained, the more important the factor will be to the overall group of participants) Varimax rotation A computer algorithm designed to present the Q-sort data results in a way that maximises the amount of variance explained by the factors Recommended reading Brown, S (1994–1995) Q methodology as the foundation for a science of subjectivity Operant Subjectivity, 18: 1–16 Brown, S (1997) The History and Principles of Q Methodology in Psychology and the Social Sciences Available at: www.scribd.com/document/92246042/ History-and-Principles-of-Q-Steven-Brown (accessed 30 August 2018) Watts, S and Stenner, P (2012) Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation London: Sage Q-methodology  215 References Basit, T (2010) Conducting Research in Educational Contexts London: Continuum Block, J (1978) The Q-Sort Method in Personality Assessment and Psychiatric Research Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Brown, S (1991–1992) A Q Methodological Tutorial Available at: http://facstaff uww.edu/cottlec/QArchive/Primer1.html (accessed 30 August 2018) Brown, S (1994–1995) Q methodology as the foundation for a science of subjectivity Operant Subjectivity, 18: 1–16 Brown, S (1996) Q methodology and qualitative research Qualitative Health Research, 6(4): 561–567 Brown, S (1997) The History and Principles of Q Methodology in Psychology and the Social Sciences Available at: www.scribd.com/document/92246042/ History-and-Principles-of-Q-Steven-Brown (accessed 30 August 2018) Brown, Z (2018) Good in Theory, Bad in Practice: Practitioner’s Perspectives on the Early Years Pupil Premium in England, doi: 10.1080/03004430.2018.1536049 Brown, Z., Rhoades, G and Smith, M (2018) Aspiring to Higher Education? The Complex Views of Secondary Students Paper presented at British Education Studies Association Conference: Internationalisation and Collaboration – Values and Value in Globalised Education, 28–29 June 2018 Available at: https://educationstudies.org.uk/?p=9101 (accessed September 2018) Cohen, L., Manion, L and Morrison, K (2007) Research Methods in Education London: Routledge Eden, S., Donaldson, A and Walker, G (2005) Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography Area, 37(4): 413–422 Goldman, I (1999) Q methodology as process and context in interpretivism, communication and psychoanalytic psychotherapy research The Psychological Record, 49: 589–604 Lobinger, K and Brantner, C (2015) Likable, funny or ridiculous? A Q-sort study on audience perceptions of visual portrayals of politicians Visual Communication, 14: 15–40 Rhoades, G and Brown, Z (2019) Q-methodology: the science of subjectivity In M Lambert (ed.), Practical Research Methods in Education: An Early Researcher’s Critical Guide London: Routledge, pp 88–102 Stainton-Rogers, R and Stainton-Rogers, W (1990) What the Brits get out of Q – and why their work may not line up with the American way of getting into it! The Electronic Journal of Communication, 1(1): 1–11 Watts, S and Stenner, P (2012) Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation London: Sage Index accountability 37–38 Adams, Dylan 124–137 aesthetic experience 51 affect 80, 84; see also emotions after-school clubs 79–80, 86, 87–88, 89 agency 12, 31, 34–35, 37–38, 40, 41 Ainsworth, Mary 190–191 Albon, D 191 Alderson, P 20 Angrosino, M.V 193, 199 Anning, A 64 anonymity 16; identity boxes 162; narrative inquiry 184; observations 194, 196; play-based interviews 103; video research 26–27, 134 anti-positivism 112 aparallels 78–79, 87 Aristotle 112 art 32, 49–62; art-informed research 53; definition of 56; drawing methods 63–76; as research method 53–55; as research strategy 55–59; role in education 50 assent 3, 20, 21–23, 66–67; see also consent assumptions 15, 118 asthma 192, 193 auto-ethnography 159, 160–161 autobiographical lenses 13 Awan, F 160 Bailey, C 79 Barter, C 140 Beauchamp, Gary 19–30, 124–137 Bertram, T 191, 199 216 bias Biffi, Elisabetta 49–62 Birt, L 26, 133 Blaisdell, C 85, 87 Block, Jack 204 blocks/bricks 94–96, 97–98, 102, 104 Bloor, M 139 Bochner, A.P 174 body language 100–101 books 80, 89, 98 Bourke, R 22 British Education Research Association (BERA) 19, 20, 21–23 Bronfenbrenner, U 193 Brookfield, S 7, 12–13 Brooks, R 25, 27 Brown, Steve 203–204 Brown, Zeta 1–3, 202–215 Brydon-Miller, M 185 bubbles 98–99 Buckler, S 27 Budd, R 140, 143 Bunge, M.J 93 Cahnmann-Taylor, M 60 cameras: identity boxes 157; mosaic approach 110–111, 115, 119; video research 125–126, 127–129, 132, 134, 135; see also photographs Cannella, G.S 11–12 Carr, W 39 case study methodology 65–66 Casey, M 157 ‘Chatham House Rule’ 159 Index  217 children: consent/assent 3, 20–21, 22–23, 66–67; drawings 53–54, 56–57, 63–76; ethnographic research 113–114; listening to 77, 85–87; mosaic approach 110–111, 114–121; observations 189–201; participation of 31–46; play-based interviews 92–108; playful and messy research 77–91; as researchers 57; video research 124–137; vignettes 138–152 Christie, D 167 Clandinin, D.J 180, 184 Clark, A 70, 86, 109, 110–111, 115, 117, 199 Clark-Keefe, K 155, 160 clay 80, 81, 82–84, 85, 89 Coady, M.M 130 coding of data 65, 132–133; see also data analysis Cohen, L 113 collage 58–59 concentric circle drawings 71–74 conferencing 110, 111, 115–117, 120 confidentiality 16; identity boxes 159, 162, 165; narrative inquiry 184; observations 196; play-based interviews 103; video research 24 Connelly, F.M 180, 184 Conroy, H 119 consent 3, 19, 20–24, 66–67; identity boxes 157, 162; observations 196; play-based interviews 103; playful methodologies 87; video research 127, 135 Cowan, K 125 Coyne, I 20 craft activities 98–99, 157, 158 creativity 77, 81, 85, 94 critical reflection 12, 14, 117 critical theory 112, 113, 121 critical thinking 41, 156 cultural context 176, 184 Darwin, Charles 189 data analysis: art-based research 60; ethics 25; messy research 88; play-based interviews 101; Q-methodology 210, 213; reflexivity 9; video research 131–134; see also coding of data data collection: art-based research 53; drawing methods 67, 68; ethnographic research 113, 114; focus groups 157–158; identity boxes 156, 158, 159, 165, 169; mosaic approach 110, 115, 117, 120, 121; observations 195, 199–200; play-based interviews 92; Q-methodology 207, 209, 212, 213; video research 126, 127, 129 data storage 128 Davies, B 86 decision-making 37 Delamont, S 131 Deleuze, G 77, 78, 80, 87 Denscombe, M 7, Denzin, N 160 Derry, S.J 131 Dewey, John 50–51, 180 dialogue 59, 67, 72, 74, 125, 180 Dimitriadis, G 158 discourse analysis dissemination of research 26–27, 37, 134 Dockett, S 67 documentation 58, 67, 114 Donaldson, Margaret 165 drama 98 drawings 53–54, 63–76, 81; art as research strategy 56–57; mosaic approach 110, 115, 117, 120; playbased interviews 94–96; see also art Dumitrescu, Sandra 124–137 dyspraxia 39 Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP) funding 209–213 ecological system theory 193 eczema 11, 13–14, 192, 193 Eden, S 205 Effective Early Learning (EEL) Project 191, 195 Ehret, C 85 Einarsdottir, J 111 Eisner, Eliot 58 Eldén, S 71 Ellis, Cheryl 20–21, 124–137 Ely 12 emotions 15, 17, 147 empowerment 33, 35, 37–38, 42, 120, 149 Eperjesi, R 21 ethical praxis 32, 38, 39, 40 ethics 2–3, 19–30; art-based research 60; becoming an ethical researcher 218 Index 11–12; dissemination of research findings 26–27; drawing methods 66–67; identity boxes 159, 161–163, 170; informed consent/ assent 20–24; interpretation and validation of results 25–26; narrative inquiry 184; observations 190, 191, 194, 196, 200; participation 32, 33–34, 38–40, 41, 42; play-based interviews 100, 101, 103, 105; playful methodologies 87; reflexivity 17; video research 24, 26–27, 125, 127, 129–130, 135; vignettes 140, 143, 149 ethnography: auto-ethnography 159, 160–161; mosaic approach 109, 113–114, 115, 119, 121; observations 193, 199; visual 160 eupraxia 39 European Early Childhood Education Research Association (EECERA) 66 Evans, J 111 Explore University project 206 family relationships 69, 95, 96, 99–100, 102, 103 Fargas-Malet, M 192 Finch, J 139 Finnigan, T 183 Fletcher, G 181 Flewitt, R 194 flow 64 focus groups 139, 157–158, 171, 207 forced distribution 206, 212 Forest School 127, 130–131 Formaggio, Dino 50 Forster, C 21 Frankfurt School 112 free drawing 68–70 Gallacher, L 42 Gallagher, G 42 gatekeepers 22, 102 Gauntlett, D 81–82, 156, 160 Gee, J.P 182 genres 177–178 Gessell, Arnold 190, 199 Gilli, Gabriella 56 glasses cameras 125–126, 134 Golomb, Claire 56 Green, D 20 Guattari, F 77, 78, 80 Gubrium, J.F 175 Gylfe, P 132 Halfpenny, A.M 189 Harcourt, D 119, 120 harm 16, 21 Hart, R 35 Haughton, Chantelle 124–137 Hawxwell, L 124–125 Heads, Laura 77–91 Headstart Project 206 Hill, M 23, 139 Hodgkin, Kieran 19–30 Höller, Carsten 52 Holmes, Sarah 92–108 Holstein, J.A 175 Hughes, R 144, 149, 150 ‘hundred languages’ of children 54, 64 hybrid research 41 ‘Ideas Club’ 79–88 identity boxes 155–173 inclusion 11, 192 informed consent 19, 20–24, 66–67; identity boxes 157, 162; observations 196; play-based interviews 103; playful methodologies 87; video research 127, 135 inter-rater reliability 132–133 ‘interim texts’ 184 interpretivism: drawing methods 65; identity boxes 161; mosaic approach 112, 113, 121; observations 199; Q-methodology 203, 209; video research 132 interviews: conventional 93; lack of time for reflection 156; mosaic approach 114, 115, 117; playbased 92–108; Q-methodology 207; semi-structured 94, 110, 117, 200; video research 125; vignettes 139 iPads 96, 98, 102, 104 Isaacs, Susan 190, 199 Jackson, A.Y 88 Jenkins, N 140, 144 Johnson, M 184 Jopling, Michael 77–91 journal writing 16, 197 junk materials 80, 81, 82–84, 89 Index  219 Kamberelis, G 158 Kandemir, A 140, 143 Kara, H 63 Kemmis, S 39 Kendall, Alex 158, 163–165 Kingdon, Zenna 109–123 Kress, T.M 161 Kreuger, R 157 Labov, W 177 Lacković, N 131 Lakoff, G 184 Langsted, O 57 language: art-based methods 54; narrative inquiry 176; of participation 35; reflexivity 16; vignettes 143, 147 Law, J 88 Leander, K.M 85 learning 54–55; identity boxes 163–164; sensory 84–85 learning outside of the classroom (LOtC) 124–125 Lee, N 36–37 Lego 81, 82, 97–98, 158 lenses 12–13 life history 9–10, 12, 15, 16 Lincoln, Y.S 11–12, 160 listening 77, 85–87; identity boxes 165, 170; mosaic approach 110, 121; narrative inquiry 176, 178, 183; observations 199; see also voice Liu, C 24 lived experiences: mosaic approach 119, 121; narrative inquiry 176, 179; vignettes 147, 148, 149 Loveridge, J 22 Lyndon, Helen 63–76 Lyotard, J.F 159 MacLure, M 85 magazines 98 Malaguzzi, Loris 64 maps/map-making 70–71, 110, 111, 115, 117, 120 mark-making 64, 69 Mazzei, L.A 88 McDowall-Clark, R 193 McNiff, S 53 meaning-making 56, 180, 181, 184 medical conditions 11, 13–14, 140–143, 192–193 member checking 25–26, 133, 135, 159 messy research 77–91 metaphor-elicitation 180, 181, 183, 184 Mishler, E.G 176 modelling 94 Morrow, V 20 mosaic approach 32, 57, 77, 109–123, 199 Moss, P 42, 70, 109, 110–111, 115, 117, 199 Motzkau, J 36–37 Mukherji, P 191 multilingual contexts 54 multimodality 64, 131 multisensory listening 86 Musgrave, Jackie 7–18, 188–201 music 98–99 narrative inquiry 174–187 navel-gazing 7, 14, 15, 17 non-verbal communication 100–101, 102 Nutbrown, Cathy 163, 170 Oancea, A 129 Oates, J 8, objectivity 8, 25, 203 objects 96, 97–98, 156, 158, 170 observations 188–201; art 57; definition of 188–189; ethical considerations 191, 194, 196, 200; ethnographic research 113, 114; historical perspective 189–191; methods 191, 194–195; mosaic approach 110, 111, 114, 115, 117; as research tool 199; strengths and limitations 199–200 Oleson, V outdoor education 124–125 Palaiologou, Ioanna 31–46, 138–152 paradigms 65, 112, 121 parents: consent from 23–24, 66; conventional interviews with children 93; mosaic approach 110, 111, 117; multilingual contexts 54; narrative inquiry 178; play-based interviews 102–103; religious beliefs 104–105 Parreno, Philippe 52 participant observation 113 220 Index participation 31–46; consent 21, 23; drawing methods 72, 74; mosaic approach 120; paradoxes of 34–38; participatory ideology 31, 42, 143, 149; play-based interviews 94, 97; research on 33–34; video research 129; vignettes 138, 143, 149 Pascal, C 191, 199 pedagogical documentation 58 Percy-Smith, B 35, 39 Perkins, Helen 1–3, 155–173 permeability 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 42 personalisation 95, 105 Petrie, P 42 Pettersen, J 189 Philo, C 35–36 photographs: identity boxes 162; ‘mini-mes’ 81; mosaic approach 57, 110–111, 115, 117, 118, 119; photo-elicitation and narrative inquiry 180–181, 183, 184; vignettes 141, 144; see also cameras Piaget, Jean 93, 165, 189, 190, 199 picture books 80, 89 pictures 94–96, 98, 99, 102; see also drawings pilot interviews 102 Pink, S 160 play-based interviews 92–108 Play-Doh 94–95, 97–98 playful research 77–91 poetic stanzas 178, 182–183 positionality 15, 163, 207, 213 positivism 65, 112, 199, 203, 204 Possick, C 16 post-structuralism 77, 80–81, 84, 88 Powell, M.A 42 power: participatory research 40; play-based interviews 103; praxeology 65; research relationship 23, 162, 175; sharing 12; video research 129 PQMethod 206–207, 210, 213 praxeology 65 praxis 32, 38, 39, 40, 112 Prior, J 95 Prout, A 41 pseudonyms 162, 194 Punch, K.F 129 Punch, S 9, 143 puppets 81, 94–95, 98, 100, 104 purpose of research 67 Q-methodology 202–215 Q-sets 205, 206, 209, 214 Q-sorts 206, 207–208, 209, 212, 214 qualitative research 8, 84; drawing methods 63–64, 65; ethnography 113; identity boxes 160, 170; observations 199; Q-methodology 202, 203–204, 206, 207, 209, 212; reflexivity 16, 17; validation 133; vignettes 148; see also interpretivism quantitative research 8; drawing methods 63–64, 65; observations 199; Q-methodology 202; see also positivism Read, Herbert 50, 52, 56 reality boxes 98 reflection: art 55, 57; critical 12, 14, 117; identity boxes 160, 164, 169; observations 200; playful methodologies 81–82; video 132 reflexivity 7–18; definitions of 8–9; ethics 22, 25; identity boxes 155–156, 160, 161, 166; lenses 12–13; playful methodologies 81; strengths and limitations 14–15 relatability 38, 39, 40, 42 relationships 67, 69; see also family relationships reliability 132–133, 148 religious experience 104–105 Renold, E 140 ‘research interim texts’ 184 researcher role 130–131, 158, 162–163 resources 80; identity boxes 156–157, 170; play-based interviews 94–96, 97–98, 105 responsibility 37–38, 40, 42 rhizome 77, 78, 80 Rhoades, Gavin 202–215 Richards, Lynn 174–187 Riessman, C.K 175, 176, 177 rights 24, 31, 35–36, 119 Ring, K 64 risk assessment 127, 129–130 Rogers, S 111 role play 94–96, 98, 114, 115–119 Rowe, D.W 85 Index  221 Ruane, J.M 25 Rutanen, N 24 safeguarding 22, 103, 196 safety 129–130 Sarantakos, S 112 Sarwar, Siân 124–137 Saxena, N.C 35 scenarios: play-based interviews 98, 99; vignettes 138, 139–140, 141–143, 144, 147 scene boxes 96, 102, 104 school readiness 77, 79, 81, 86–87, 88 ‘science of subjectivity’ 203 self-awareness 8–9 self-reflection semi-structured interviews 94, 110, 117, 200 sensitive topics: identity boxes 170; play-based interviews 103, 105; vignettes 138, 140, 143, 149, 150 Shier, H 35 Silas, M.R 27 Siraj-Blatchford, I 113–114 Siraj-Blatchford, J 113–114 Smith, A 119 sociocultural research 65 Solvason, C 22 Stainton-Rogers, Wendy 204–205 stanzas 178, 182–183 Stenner, P 207 Stephenson, William 202–203, 204 Stern, Arno 50 stories: identity boxes 158, 159, 160, 165–166, 170, 171; narrative inquiry 174–176, 184–185; vignettes 139–140, 141–143, 144, 148, 149 ‘Strange Situation’ research 190–191 structural analysis 177, 178 subjectivity 148, 203, 204 Sullivan, Graeme 55–56 Sultana, F 14, 15, 16, 162 teachers: art-based research 54, 58–59; narrative inquiry 178; transition from practitioner to researcher role 130–131; video research 126–127 theory 112 Thomas, N 35, 39 tours 110, 111 transcription of data 101, 102, 177, 182; see also data analysis Tyrie, Jacky 124–137 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) 24, 34, 36, 119 validation 25–26, 133 validity 148, 199, 213 values 112–113, 138, 148 Van Es, E.A 132 video 110, 124–137; data analysis 131–134; dissemination of research findings 134; ethical challenges 24, 26–27, 129–130, 135; organisational challenges 128–129; play-based interviews 100, 101, 105; practitioner and researcher roles 130–131; strengths and limitations 135; technical challenges 127–128 vignettes 98, 138–152 Viner, R 167 visual ethnography 160 voice: conventional interviews with children 93; drawing methods 63, 65, 74; ethics 25, 28; mosaic approach 114, 118, 120, 121; narrative inquiry 174, 183, 184–185; observations 196, 199; participation 31, 34–35, 36–38, 40, 41, 138; video research 126; vignettes 147, 149; see also listening Vygotsky, L.S 65 Wales 24 Waletzky, J 177 Walliman, N 27 Watts, S 207 Wellington, J 8, 9–10 Whitfield, Patricia T 54–55 Winnicott, D.W 59 withdrawal, right of 26, 103, 162 Wood, F 139 writing 16 Zuccoli, Franca 49–62 ... Brown, Zeta, editor | Perkins, Helen (Helen Marie), 1957- editor Title: Using innovative methods in early years research : beyond the conventional / edited by Zeta Brown and Helen Perkins Description:... the use of innovative approaches to conduct research in early years contexts Using Innovative Methods in Early Years Research provides key information on a range of non-traditional research methods, ... Wolverhampton, UK Using Innovative Methods in Early Years Research Beyond the Conventional Edited by Zeta Brown and Helen Perkins First published 2019 by Routledge Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon