Summary and reasons for choice of methods

In quantitative research social reality is seen as relatively constant across time and settings. One takes an objective stance towards participants and phenomenon in the study. Human behavior can be studied in natural or contrived surroundings. Data is collected in large numbers under certain restrictions to be able to generalize to a larger population. Preconceived concepts and theories are used to decide what kind of data to collect. Data is organized numerically and analyzed using statistical methods. This type of data is generally reported in an impersonal and objective manner, and a lot of information can be placed in a short space (Gall et al., 1996) . Questionnaires are typically used to gather this type of data. It is possible to use scales and/or questionnaires that have been applied before and documented to have been reliable and to give valid information. In this study I chose to use the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer, 2004) because it has been used previously to study teachers’ beliefs concerning efficacy.

Through qualitative research methods the aim is to study chosen issues in depth and detail. This gives a wide range of information and increases the understanding of what is being studied, but reduces generalizability. In this tradition the researcher is the instrument (Patton, 2002). Data can be collected through interviews, direct observation, and written documents, or through

combinations of the different elements (Patton, 2002). In general, qualitative data is presented through rich descriptions and focuses on depicting social reality from the participant’s perspective. In the present study, interviews were used as follow-up information on topics being researched. Interviews can be done in varying ways and Patton pointed to three basic approaches: the informal conversational interview; the general interview guide approach; and the standardized open-ended interview (p. 342). Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses. In the follow-up interviews I chose to use an interview guide because it provided a framework to help me obtain basically the same information from my interviewees and in a limited amount of time.

At the same time this approach is flexible in the sense that I was not restricted from using probes or spontaneous questions within the subject areas. The essence here is that each interviewee responds with his or her words to portray their personal perspectives. There are no predetermined phrases or categories supplied by the interviewer that the interviewees must use. The focus is on capturing the complexities of the individual participant’s perceptions and experiences (Patton, 2002). According to Patton (2002, p. 348) “the fundamental principle of qualitative interviewing is to provide a framework within which respondents can express their own understandings in their own terms”.

Through the Q-sorting process, individuals can display their subjective points of view on a sample of statements from a concourse concerning a theme.

Through the configurations of the statements their personal preferences come to light and are communicated. Through Q factor analysis, factors emerge on the background of respondents who categorize themselves. People with similar views, beliefs and preferences join together on the same factor, while those that differ will define another factor or factors. Each factor will have a distinct feeling running through it from the negative to the positive pole and this is the basis for our understanding of the factors that emerge (Stephenson, 1983a).

With these issues in mind it becomes quite clear that different traditions will necessarily give different types of information and hopefully a deeper understanding of the themes in this study. That is why I have chosen to use different procedures and methods in my endeavor to gain knowledge of teachers’ beliefs. A potential problem in combining methods is the huge

amount of data that has to be dealt with and results that need to be presented in a coherent and clear manner. Although there can be drawbacks in combining methods, there are also apparent advantages.

Using R-methodology with a large group of participants I can gain and compare information concerning quantitative demographic data and the participants’ responses to self-efficacy beliefs. Through interviews with a small group I can get qualitative aspects concerning themes in this study.

Using Q-methodology principles and Q-technique the subjects are put up front in the research process, and their subjective points of view will emerge from the data. Some indicate that Q-methodology combines the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research traditions, and in other circumstances it can provide a bridge between the two (S. R. Brown, 1996; Dennis &

Goldberg, 1996). This is in line with Ercikan and Roth’s (2006) suggestion of using multiple approaches and modes of inquiry to get different forms of knowledge, and with points made by Lund (2005), Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), that different traditions can be combined in the same study. Since life in general can be complex and complicated, and work in daycare and school is no exception, so, research should also be and study phenomenon from many angles (M. L. Smith, 2006). Opinions, values, beliefs are also complex entities, as has been noted several times before. Therefore, to answer my guiding research questions, I have chosen a main focus on using Q-methodology since its very essence is to combine rigorous statistical analyses with qualitative aspects such as subjective feelings, values, thoughts, beliefs and understandings. Data from questionnaires and interviews contribute to and expand the knowledge and perspectives that are illuminated through this total enterprise.

In the next section a presentation will be given of a group of teachers from the multifaceted world of daycare and school. They are the participants in this study, and they have given valuable contributions to a deeper understanding of teachers’ beliefs in this context.