缺什么?采用多种方法更全面地了解早期保育和教育的决策情况

IF 3.2 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Early Childhood Research Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-11-16 DOI:10.1016/j.ecresq.2024.11.002
Kyle DeMeo Cook , Kevin Ferreira van Leer , Jill Gandhi , Lisa Kuh
{"title":"缺什么?采用多种方法更全面地了解早期保育和教育的决策情况","authors":"Kyle DeMeo Cook ,&nbsp;Kevin Ferreira van Leer ,&nbsp;Jill Gandhi ,&nbsp;Lisa Kuh","doi":"10.1016/j.ecresq.2024.11.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In the absence of large-scale investments of public resources, families in many communities are faced with making early care and education (ECE) decisions within a set of limited options. There is a need to better understand how families make decisions in these environments, the factors that influence their decisions, the information they need and how specific program or community characteristics may play a role in their decisions. This study used a mixed methods approach, integrating administrative, survey and qualitative interview data to provide an in-depth look at family decision-making and access to ECE within one community. We found that families were using multiple types of ECE arrangements for their children. Families considered many factors and engaged in multiple activities. These factors and activities included informal networks and formal local resources, often used simultaneously to garner access to the ECE situations needed. Complicating the decision-making context is that decisions about care change over time, and across children in families with more than one child. In addition, families found accessing information to make their decisions challenging, time consuming, and that universal information was limited. These findings have implications for policy and practice as well as for how the field continues to study ECE access and decision-making. We found that all three data sources alone provided insights, each with their own benefits and limitations. However, deep understanding of a family's ECE decision-making over time and across the family was only gained through multiple data sources and with important insights gleaned through in-depth qualitative interviews. Future research can consider different combinations of methods to use to study ECE decision-making while weighing what is gained and lost when different methods are used.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48348,"journal":{"name":"Early Childhood Research Quarterly","volume":"70 ","pages":"Pages 367-380"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What's missing? A multi-method approach to gaining a fuller understanding of early care and education decision-making\",\"authors\":\"Kyle DeMeo Cook ,&nbsp;Kevin Ferreira van Leer ,&nbsp;Jill Gandhi ,&nbsp;Lisa Kuh\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecresq.2024.11.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>In the absence of large-scale investments of public resources, families in many communities are faced with making early care and education (ECE) decisions within a set of limited options. There is a need to better understand how families make decisions in these environments, the factors that influence their decisions, the information they need and how specific program or community characteristics may play a role in their decisions. This study used a mixed methods approach, integrating administrative, survey and qualitative interview data to provide an in-depth look at family decision-making and access to ECE within one community. We found that families were using multiple types of ECE arrangements for their children. Families considered many factors and engaged in multiple activities. These factors and activities included informal networks and formal local resources, often used simultaneously to garner access to the ECE situations needed. Complicating the decision-making context is that decisions about care change over time, and across children in families with more than one child. In addition, families found accessing information to make their decisions challenging, time consuming, and that universal information was limited. These findings have implications for policy and practice as well as for how the field continues to study ECE access and decision-making. We found that all three data sources alone provided insights, each with their own benefits and limitations. However, deep understanding of a family's ECE decision-making over time and across the family was only gained through multiple data sources and with important insights gleaned through in-depth qualitative interviews. Future research can consider different combinations of methods to use to study ECE decision-making while weighing what is gained and lost when different methods are used.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Early Childhood Research Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"70 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 367-380\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Early Childhood Research Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200624001522\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Early Childhood Research Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200624001522","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

摘要

在缺乏大规模公共资源投入的情况下,许多社区的家庭面临着在有限的选择范围内做出早期保育和教育(ECE)决定的问题。我们需要更好地了解家庭在这些环境中是如何做出决定的、影响他们做出决定的因素、他们所需要的信息以及特定项目或社区特征在他们的决定中是如何发挥作用的。本研究采用了混合方法,综合了行政、调查和定性访谈数据,以深入了解一个社区的家庭决策和获得幼儿教育的情况。我们发现,家庭为其子女使用多种类型的幼教安排。家庭考虑了许多因素并参与了多种活动。这些因素和活动包括非正式网络和正式的当地资源,通常同时使用,以获得所需的幼儿教育情况。使决策环境更加复杂的是,有关保育的决定会随着时间的推移而改变,而且在有多个孩子的家庭中,不同孩子的情况也会发生变化。此外,家庭还发现,获取信息以做出决定具有挑战性,耗费时间,而且通用信息有限。这些发现对政策和实践以及该领域如何继续研究幼儿教育的获取和决策都有影响。我们发现,这三种数据来源都能提供见解,各有各的好处和局限性。然而,只有通过多种数据来源,并通过深入的定性访谈获得重要见解,才能深入了解一个家庭在不同时期和不同家庭中的幼教决策。未来的研究可以考虑使用不同的方法组合来研究幼教决策,同时权衡使用不同方法时的得失。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What's missing? A multi-method approach to gaining a fuller understanding of early care and education decision-making
In the absence of large-scale investments of public resources, families in many communities are faced with making early care and education (ECE) decisions within a set of limited options. There is a need to better understand how families make decisions in these environments, the factors that influence their decisions, the information they need and how specific program or community characteristics may play a role in their decisions. This study used a mixed methods approach, integrating administrative, survey and qualitative interview data to provide an in-depth look at family decision-making and access to ECE within one community. We found that families were using multiple types of ECE arrangements for their children. Families considered many factors and engaged in multiple activities. These factors and activities included informal networks and formal local resources, often used simultaneously to garner access to the ECE situations needed. Complicating the decision-making context is that decisions about care change over time, and across children in families with more than one child. In addition, families found accessing information to make their decisions challenging, time consuming, and that universal information was limited. These findings have implications for policy and practice as well as for how the field continues to study ECE access and decision-making. We found that all three data sources alone provided insights, each with their own benefits and limitations. However, deep understanding of a family's ECE decision-making over time and across the family was only gained through multiple data sources and with important insights gleaned through in-depth qualitative interviews. Future research can consider different combinations of methods to use to study ECE decision-making while weighing what is gained and lost when different methods are used.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
8.10%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: For over twenty years, Early Childhood Research Quarterly (ECRQ) has influenced the field of early childhood education and development through the publication of empirical research that meets the highest standards of scholarly and practical significance. ECRQ publishes predominantly empirical research (quantitative or qualitative methods) on issues of interest to early childhood development, theory, and educational practice (Birth through 8 years of age). The journal also occasionally publishes practitioner and/or policy perspectives, book reviews, and significant reviews of research. As an applied journal, we are interested in work that has social, policy, and educational relevance and implications and work that strengthens links between research and practice.
期刊最新文献
Consultative roles of early childhood special education teachers: A modeler, an advisor, and a spontaneous practitioner What's missing? A multi-method approach to gaining a fuller understanding of early care and education decision-making Measuring resilience in young children: The Child and Youth Resilience Measure- Early Childhood (CYRM-EC) Pandemic-related threats and well-being: A longitudinal study of preschool teachers in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic Parenting programs in the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) region: A multilevel meta-analysis
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1