The pilot study and its results 68

The purpose of the pilot study was mainly to gain a sense of the range of themes that interviewees felt were relevant with regard to the topic of the study, which would facilitate the

construction of an initial analytical framework. Thus, the pilot study results were not meant to be generalizable to the respective population groups in France and Sweden, but were used to highlight the appropriateness of the proposed methods in light of the research aim and objectives, and to provide a basis on which to think of the theoretical orientation of the study. The empirical study was piloted in France and Sweden at different times; the former was undertaken in April-May 2010, and the latter in February 2012.27 It should be noted that the research focus and questions have differed between these two periods, and that, consequently, the interview guide used for the French and Swedish pilots differ from each other. As mentioned earlier, both semi-structured interviews and observation were used in both France and Sweden in the pilot study. The letters, interview guides and consent form used in the French and Swedish pilots are included in Appendices 1-4.

4.4.3.1.  Semi-­‐structured  interviews  

Convenience sampling, i.e. selecting the most accessible subjects, was used in the pilot study to identify teachers to interview and ECE settings or schools to observe. The interviews were conducted face-to-face, in their usual workplace. Except for two interviews in Sweden which had three interviewees or more at once, all were individual interviews. A total of 8 stakeholders (1 policymaker, 1 researcher/teacher educator, 1 école élémentaire principal, 2 école maternelle principals, 1 école élémentaire teacher, 2 école maternelle teachers) were interviewed in the French pilot. As for the Swedish pilot, 17 were interviewed (4 policymakers, 1 researcher/teacher educator, 1 assistant primary school principal, 1 preschool-primary school principal, 1 principal of a resource centre, 1 school psychologist, 2 primary school teachers, 3 preschool teachers, 1 teacher union representative, 2 representatives of a local authority association). The interview guides used for the French and Swedish pilots can be found in Appendices 1 and 3 respectively.

The method utilised to analyse the interview data of the pilot study was inspired by the ‘Framework’ (Ritchie and Spencer, 1994), an analytic approach developed for applied policy research by a specialised qualitative research unit based within an independent social research institute called Social and Community Planning Research. Some of the features of the ‘Framework’ are: grounded in, and driven by, the original accounts and observations; open to change, addition and amendment throughout the analytical process; permitting a full review of the material collected; and allowing comparisons between, and associations within, cases to be made (Ritchie and Spencer, 1994: 176). Its analytical process consists of distinct but interconnected stages, involving ‘sifting, charting and sorting material according to key

27 _{The long gap between the pilot studies was due to the fact that I interrputed my studies in the}

academic year 2010-2011 in order to recuperate from exhaustion from excessive workload in my employment.

issues and themes’ (Ritchie and Spencer, 1994: 177). It proposes five stages to qualitative data analysis as follows: familiarisation (to immerse oneself in the data); identifying a thematic framework (to gain an overview of the richness, depth and diversity of data and to identify recurrent themes, concepts and issues); indexing (to apply the thematic framework); charting (to devise and fill in charts, resulting in distilled summaries of respondents’ views and experiences); mapping and interpretation (in view of research questions: to review the charts and research notes; seek explanation, patterns and connections; weigh salience and dynamics of issues; search for a structure).

Taking the ‘Framework’ method as the main reference, I first immersed myself with the interview data. During this process, I listed key words identified from the immersion process that resonated with key concepts and themes that emerged from the literature review. These key words were then categorised into (1) key terms/concepts, (2) contextual factors relevant to the relationship between early childhood and primary education, (3) significant events/reforms relevant to the relationship, (4) description of relationship. Secondly, I re- organised and summarised the interview notes under the following headings: (a) interviewee’s position and background, (b) preschool/école maternelle past and present, (c) school/école élémentaire past and present, (d) the relationship between preschool/école maternelle and school/école élémentaire before, now and in the future, and (e) influences on the relationship.

4.4.3.2.  Observation  data    

As mentioned earlier, I collected observation data using a framework adapted from those developed by Spradly (1980), Whitehead (2006) and Ofsted (2003). In the observation, I attempted to record in terms of the following nine items: space, actors, objects, activities, time, acts, events, goals and emotions, and summarised them to identify main issues that are related to my research questions. During the observation, it was possible to take photographs as, at my request, the teachers had kindly obtained permission to do so prior to my visits. In France, the observation was conducted in one école maternelle classroom catering for 3- year-olds and one école élémentaire classroom for the first graders in Paris; and one école maternelle classroom catering for 4-year-olds located in a city adjacent to Paris. In Sweden, it was undertaken in one preschool group looking after children ages 1-4 and one preschool class group catering for 6-year-olds in a school located in a small town near to Stockholm.

4.4.3.3.  The  results  of  the  analyses  of  the  pilot  study  

The semi-structured interviews revealed recurrent concepts and themes (e.g. care, well- being, learning, education, child versus student, instruction, play, work, ECE having inferior status), similarities and differences between ECE and primary school which affected the relationship (e.g. governance, provision, curricula, training, inspection), types of relationship (e.g. separate relationship, mutual relationship, schoolification, ready school), and factors that affected the relationship (e.g. social inequality, international influences, national and international reputation of the French or Swedish ECE/school) from the interviewees’ perspectives. They served to confirm what I had expected as important concepts and themes; however, they also generated unexpected responses, such as the view that politics was a factor affecting the relationship and that political parties had different orientations regarding the purposes of and practices in ECE and education.

The pilot study confirmed that semi-structured interviews were useful for generating a range of views and experiences regarding the changes in the relationship as well as for creating possibilities to probe and extend questions and explanations when necessary. The topic of the thesis seemed new to many of the interviewees in both pilots. Some of the interview questions appeared too abstract to some, and care was taken to elaborate the meaning of the questions. The interviews also showed that space should be kept for interviewees to speak about what they see as of concern and relevance, and that it was important to retain a certain level of flexibility with regard to interview questions and themes to be covered. Furthermore, the relationship as perceived by interviewees was sometimes very complex, taking some time for them to describe. Some other responses from interviewees regarding what kind of relationship they saw were difficult to understand and did not give a clear-cut picture, and there was a need for posing additional questions to reach an appropriate understanding and clarity.

It was considered useful to try to include, in the French sample, teachers with experience in both the école maternelle and élémentaire sectors and those with experience in only one of the sectors, as it was expected that they might have different views about the relationship. However, the teachers who were suggested by the école maternelle and élémentaire directors all had experience working in both levels. The directors mentioned that they deliberately chose people with such experience because the questions were about the two sectors and the relationship between them, and that responses from these people would have more relevance to my thesis due to their first-hand experience in working in both levels. The same problem was not encountered in the Swedish study because preschool and school teachers are trained separately (except for between 2001 and 2011 when the initial teacher education for preschool and school teachers were integrated).

The observation was found useful for gaining a first-hand experience of ECE and primary school settings and practices – learning environment (including furniture, teaching and learning materials, class or group arrangement, outdoor space), teacher-child ratio, teacher- child interactions, and daily routine. The photographs taken during the observation became valuable visual information that illustrates the above-mentioned dimensions within ECE and primary school settings. The experience and information gained from the observation enriched appreciation of the results of policy and interview data analyses, and deepened insights in the theme of the relationship between early childhood and primary education. However, later, a decision was made not to include the observation component in the main fieldwork. The reason was that, during my upgrade examination, I was advised to make the study more focused on relevant dimensions of policy, and that observation was less critical to achieving the research objectives as set out in Chapter 1. At the same time, this decision made the question of sampling of ECE settings and schools irrelevant – what became important was to form a sample comprising a range of key stakeholders affecting, interpreting and implementing policy in equal or similar number for both countries. Consequently, based on the advice of the upgrade examiners and discussion with my supervisors, I considered it important that there were preschool and school teachers and directors, school psychologists, inspectors, researcher/teacher educators, trade union representatives and policymakers interviewed in equal or similar number in both France and Sweden. Judgment about whether the sufficient number of stakeholders has been interviewed would be made in view of whether the sample has attained a ‘theoretical and thematic saturation’ (Marshall, 2006: 524).

In sum, important decisions on the overall design of the thesis and empirical study that arose from the pilot experience were:

• the study should be a policy-focused comparative study, consisting of (1) policy analysis, and (2) empirical study based on interview analysis;

• semi-structured interviews were found to be a suitable method to use in the empirical study for its ability to address the research objective of understanding views and experiences of stakeholders regarding the relationship;

• sample of interviewees for each country would include an appropriate range of key stakeholders who were in a position to influence, interpret and implement policy; • the empirical study of the main fieldwork would no longer include observation;

however, the key insights gained from the observation data in the pilot study would be referred to in the findings of the study so as to reach a better understanding of the relationship between early childhood and primary education.