Australian Research in Early Childhood Education and Care: Insights Into the Actual; Imagining the Possible

IF 2.4 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
S. Garvis, S. Phillipson, S. Phillipson
{"title":"Australian Research in Early Childhood Education and Care: Insights Into the Actual; Imagining the Possible","authors":"S. Garvis, S. Phillipson, S. Phillipson","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20985075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Early childhood education and care (ECEC) remains a priority area for public policy, internationally and in Australia. However, an analysis of empirical research published internationally up to 2008 has identified a bias toward positivist methodologies within a “scientific/psychological’ rather than educational perspective and with a focus on the interactions between preschoolers, family, and child care variables. For some researchers, this bias raises concerns that public policy in ECEC is based on limited research perspectives. This chapter examines research focusing on the Australian context and published between 2010 and 2014 to determine whether this bias exists in Australian research. We explore the quality of ECEC research to develop an overall understanding of the current situation of ECEC research in Australia. Our findings suggest that Australian research in ECEC is very dissimilar to research published internationally, especially in its reliance on qualitative paradigms and a focus on the educators (principals, teachers, and teacher aides). The strong qualitative focus may allow a diverse range of voices within the ECEC sector to be heard and identified, moving beyond traditional notions of historically marginalized individuals and communities that dominate other education research areas.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Research in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985075","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Early childhood education and care (ECEC) remains a priority area for public policy, internationally and in Australia. However, an analysis of empirical research published internationally up to 2008 has identified a bias toward positivist methodologies within a “scientific/psychological’ rather than educational perspective and with a focus on the interactions between preschoolers, family, and child care variables. For some researchers, this bias raises concerns that public policy in ECEC is based on limited research perspectives. This chapter examines research focusing on the Australian context and published between 2010 and 2014 to determine whether this bias exists in Australian research. We explore the quality of ECEC research to develop an overall understanding of the current situation of ECEC research in Australia. Our findings suggest that Australian research in ECEC is very dissimilar to research published internationally, especially in its reliance on qualitative paradigms and a focus on the educators (principals, teachers, and teacher aides). The strong qualitative focus may allow a diverse range of voices within the ECEC sector to be heard and identified, moving beyond traditional notions of historically marginalized individuals and communities that dominate other education research areas.
澳大利亚幼儿教育和护理研究:对实际情况的洞察;想象可能
幼儿教育和护理(ECEC)仍然是国际和澳大利亚公共政策的优先领域。然而,对2008年国际上发表的实证研究的分析发现,在“科学/心理学”而不是教育的角度上,实证主义方法存在偏见,并将重点放在学龄前儿童、家庭和儿童保育变量之间的相互作用上。对于一些研究人员来说,这种偏见引起了人们的担忧,即ECEC的公共政策是基于有限的研究视角。本章考察了2010年至2014年间发表的关于澳大利亚背景的研究,以确定澳大利亚研究中是否存在这种偏见。我们探讨了ECEC研究的质量,以全面了解澳大利亚ECEC研究的现状。我们的研究结果表明,澳大利亚在ECEC方面的研究与国际上发表的研究非常不同,特别是在对定性范式的依赖和对教育者(校长、教师和教师助理)的关注方面。强烈的定性关注可能会使ECEC部门内的各种声音得到倾听和识别,超越历史上边缘化的个人和社区的传统观念,这些观念主导着其他教育研究领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Review of Research in Education
Review of Research in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Review of Research in Education (RRE), published annually since 1973 (approximately 416 pp./volume year), provides an overview and descriptive analysis of selected topics of relevant research literature through critical and synthesizing essays. Articles are usually solicited for specific RRE issues. There may also be calls for papers. RRE promotes discussion and controversy about research problems in addition to pulling together and summarizing the work in a field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信