Lutzomyia robusta

Locating my study within a research paradigm has concerned me from the beginning. The term itself is open to interpretation, contesting definitions include a ‘basic set of beliefs that guides action’ or the more complex ‘net that contains the researcher’s epistemological, ontological and methodological premises’ (Guba, 1990, p.17). As Wellington (2000) cautions, to hold a binary view of an approach is a ‘dangerous tendency’ (p.199). I have heeded this advice and have used what I call a paradigmatic brew, combining qualitative and quantitative methods, suggesting that I am a ‘methodological pragmatist’ (Schatzman and Strauss, 1973) or a bricoleur, selecting an approach that ‘is practical and gets the job done’ (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011, p.3) borrowing from many different disciplines. I have used several approaches in order to explore the complex and messy nature of ECEC policy’s impact on the workforce and their qualifications (Wood and Bennet, 2000) and to foreground the student-practitioners’ voices (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011; Wellington, 2000) within that space and to obtain the maximum meaning from the data. This multi-method study draws mainly on qualitative data to show the student-practitioners’ developing understanding of their role as they progress through their qualification and in to employment. Quantitative data from the survey facilitated statistical analysis to identify common themes as the student-practitioners progressed through their qualification. By following this up with the qualitative data from the focus group and interviews, the gap in knowledge and skills between being a student and a practitioner was identified. By integrating quantitative and qualitative data I was able to establish a framework for analysing the three dimensions of the developing practitioner. The research design therefore employs a mixed methods approach (Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba, 2011).

52 Whilst a binary definition might seem to sit neatly with my research, it became clear that I was taking a political stance in this study (Clough and Nutbrown, 2012) as I am seeking to challenge the current policy by making a case for a qualified children’s workforce, at a time when the Government had dismissed this position (DfE, 2013). The notion of a single paradigm in research is contested by Clough and Nutbrown (2012) who argue that these fixed descriptions of paradigmatic approaches are ‘gross characterisations’ (2012, p.19) they suggest that ‘we come eventually to locate in continually related - rather than opposed - ways of constructing the world’ (ibid.). It is this continually evolving approach that I described as a paradigmatic brew. I will next explain how the study sits within each of these approaches.

The Study is Political

The political climate in 2016 was one in which ECEC was seen as the panacea to inequality and poverty. The Conservative Government of the day were funding early education for two-year olds to reduce the gap in attainment for the most disadvantaged children (DfE, 2015d). While early education is seen as a solution, there remained no will to legislate for a qualified children’s workforce. Regulations in the EYFS (DfE, 2014a) continued to allow unqualified staff to count in the adult to child staffing ratio. In chapter 3, I demonstrated the positive impact on outcomes for children where qualified practitioners were employed (Mathers and Smee, 2014; Gamabro, Stewart, and Waldfogel, 2013; DfE, 2013e; Sylva, et al., 2004). As James (1993) notes, Government often ignore evidence if it is inconsistent with their political agenda. The Government instead chose to keep the existing regulations for a minimum of one Level 3 practitioner with fifty percent of staff being qualified to Level 2 and the remainder unqualified (DfE, 2014a). It is this policy context that locates this study in a political paradigm. As Clough and Nutbrown (2012) argue,

... all social research takes place in policy contexts of one form or another, research itself must therefore be seen as inevitably political (p.14)

The purpose of this study was to provide evidence of the contribution and value of the Level 3 practitioners, demonstrating their knowledge, skills, attitudes and dispositions gained during their course of study. The study provides clear evidence of the benefit of pre-employment training and qualification which in turn improves outcomes the children.

The Study is Interpretivist

I have discussed previously my positionality, recognising how my multiple roles impact the focus of the study. While the data are reported in the student-practitioners’ own words, how I have chosen to use it is influenced by my values and beliefs in terms of how the student-

53 practitioners’ experiences are connected to policy and practice thus recognising the inter-

subjectivity of the findings (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011). The subject of the research, the data collection methods and the framework for analysing the data (discussed in chapter 5) are my choices, the findings are my interpretation of what the data revealed (Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba, 2011). It was important a to consider the ethics of my choices and how they might impact negatively on the participants (this is discussed in 4.6, p.67). This need to account for multiple persectives locates the study firmly in an interpretivist paradigm. By adopting a paradigmatic brew, this study constructed a theory to explain the experiences gained by Level 3 early years student-practitioners as they progressed through their course: The Three Dimensions of the Developing Practitioner, this is discussed in chapter 5.

I have discussed my approach to this study as being a paradigmatic brew, which in turn led me to use a variety of methods for collecting data. I will justify my choice of methods in the next section.