Practitioner research is defined as systematic inquiry-based efforts directed towards creating and extending professional knowledge and associated understandings of professional practice. A review of ‘primary research' articles published in the Australian Journal of Early Childhood revealed that only a small number involved early childhood practitioners as researchers. However, changing social and theoretical constructs and a sense of low regard by the community for the profession require early childhood practitioners to be much more articulate about their practices. Collaborative inquiry processes provide opportunities for practitioners to deconstruct some of the taken-for- granted practices found within many early childhood services. One of the benefits of such inquiry is an increased sense of empowerment gained by practitioners through greater insights into their own professional knowledge, their increased capacity to work more effectively with children, and their increased ability to communicate more professionally and effectively with parents and other professionals.

Keywords: practitioner research, collaborative inquiry, early childhood practitioners

To undertake practitioner research is to engage in systematic and critical inquiry ( Macpherson, Brooker, Aspland & Cuskelly, 2004; McTaggart, 1989). It also involves meaning -making and a responsibility to make that meaning known (Fasoli & Ford, 2001). Practitioner research within teacher education is most often regarded as research undertaken by practising teachers who seek to improve practice through purposeful and critical examination of, and reflection on, their work. Such introspection is designed to increase awareness of the bases of professional actions, decisions, and judgements enabling these teachers to see their practices anew, and recognise and articulate the complexities of their work and the values that lie at the heart of professional practice (Cochran-Smith, 2005; Stremmel, 2002).

Systematic and critical inquiry by professionals of their practices requires what Fish describes as ‘a discerning eye' (Fish, 1999, p. 195) as well as the capacity to make judgements against theoretical underpinnings and norms of personal/professional practice. It is this intimate insider knowledge of practice (not readily available to outsider researchers) that provides ‘connoisseurship'—the art of appreciation, illumination, and then ‘criticism' as understandings gleaned through the process of critical inquiry are shared with others (Eisner, 1991; Fish, 1999; Scanlon, 2001).

Practitioner research enables practitioners to engage in inquiry that is directed towards creating and extending professional knowledge, illuminating and improving practice and influencing policies in an informed way (Macpherson et al., 2004; McTaggart, 1989; McWilliam, 2004). Such inquiry may encompass a variety of methodologies, including interviewing and the use of reflective journals, modelling and mapping, yarning (see Power, 2004), storying and narrative inquiry, phenomenological studies and the use of metaphor. The key features of practitioner research are that it is cooperative, collaborative, constructivist, action-oriented, evidence-based, authentic, participatory and often involves experiential inquiry (Macpherson et al., 2004; Reason, 1988; Russell, 2004).

The following discussion aims to place understandings about practitioner research within an early childhood context through an examination of primary research articles published in the Australian Journal of Early Childhood (AJEC) during the past five years. This journal was chosen because it ‘publishes research articles and articles of an academic nature'; encourages authors to ‘bridge the gap between theory and practices'; and its readership includes practitioners as well as ‘expert' researchers (Waniganayake, 2001, p. 5). It is also ‘local' in that most of the published articles are submitted by authors from Australia and New Zealand. A systematic review was undertaken of all journal articles published between 2000 and 2004. Following description of this review, the challenges and possibilities for practitioners are then considered through the identification of practitioner involvement in researching infants' learning. The concluding overview addresses the function and purpose of practitioner research.

Emergence and value of practitioner research

During the past 10 years in the United States, Zeichner (1995) and others (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Hiebert, Gallimore & Stigler, 2002) have raised concerns about the rarity of opportunities for teachers to be intellectually engaged with researchers both in the development of research projects and in the analysis and interpretation of the data. The context for such concerns has been the emergence of conceptual models that reflect an inquiry-oriented, rather than a transmission, mode of teacher education, social change and increased social consciousness. This inquiry-oriented focus has led to an interest in situated learning and the development of research or learning circles where a group of individuals meet regularly to discuss issues of common interest to them (for example, see O'Rourke & Harrison, 2004).

Within early childhood education there has been an associated movement from a positivist view of education and research towards what can be loosely identified as postmodern perspectives (Dahlberg, Moss & Pence, 1999; Fleer, 2003; Grieshaber & Cannella, 2001; Hughes, 2001). Indeed, Fleer (2003) challenges early childhood practitioners to be more proactive in questioning traditional thinking about the nature and purpose of their practices. She argues that there is a need for practitioners to reconsider many of their practices within the context of diverse understandings about children and families and the changing social context within which they live.

A major concern highlighted by Fleer (2003) was that many of the assumptions and values that support the approaches and traditions used in early childhood are drawn from a particular view of childhood and this view may not readily accommodate traditions found in other cultures. Another issue that strongly supports undertaking a more critical view of professional practices is that of power relationships between researcher and researched ( Russell, 2004). An associated issue is the need to address the interplay of context, biography and values that shape teaching practice and the relationship between research and teaching as well as that between theory and practice (Ryan, Ochsner & Genishi, 2001, p. 51).

Early childhood teachers who use child observation and interpretation of theory about children's learning as a basis for curriculum development are always observing, recording, analysing and acting. These strategies are indicative of action research cycles that support viewing, acting and then re-viewing situations in a cyclical way that support. Underpinning this approach are the individual assumptions and understandings about children and childhood. Issues surrounding these processes raise the question—to what extent do practitioners engage in collaborative undertakings that challenge the assumptions that underlie such practices?

Systematic review of early childhood research

• a search of the literature to establish search criteria;
• applying the criteria when sifting through the research studies in the journals;
• applying exclusion/inclusion criteria; and then
• critically appraising the studies that best met the criteria of practitioner research .

Research was defined, for the purposes of this systematic review, as planned and systematic investigation undertaken in order to gain new understandings and/or reflect on professionals' practices and, where information is sought from others, for the specific purpose of that investigation. It may include (but is not limited to) research involving collaborative processes where the researcher and participants work together in collecting, reviewing, reflecting upon, interpreting and reporting the research data.

Establishing the review criteria

• investigating professional practice;
• being critically informed;
• having as its goal the development of a deeper understanding of professional practice;
• positioning practitioners at the centre of the research activity;
• encouraging democratic participation through cooperative research with colleagues/ parents;
• authentic inquiry that is directed towards the ‘social good' of all participants; and
• having elements of reflective practice such as review, reconsideration, meaning-making and thoughtful/purposeful action (Macpherson et al., 2004; McTaggart, 1989; Stremmel, 2002; Wolfendale, 1999).

These characteristics were applied as when undertaking a search of AJEC journals for evidence of early childhood practitioner research articles.

Journal search for research articles

Relevance

Articles were classified into four categories. These were coded as R (where a researcher undertook the inquiry and those being researched were asked to respond); L (a review of the literature); P (where those being researched made a contribution that was more than a direct response to questions); and C (where the researcher and the researched engaged in a collaborative approach to the inquiry). The intention of each code was to reflect the extent to which practitioners were involved in the research reported in the article. A code was also assigned to articles that focused on a review of documents, including a review of the literature.

In most instances, the researcher's identification of methodological underpinnings was used as the code that was assigned to the article, and this was recorded. However, there was one instance where the researcher considered the research activity to be ‘ participatory' but, because of the extent of involvement of teachers in the study, it was recoded as ‘collaborative'. Once the pool of research articles that most reflected collaboration between researcher and researched was assembled then these were reviewed to ascertain the accuracy of interpretation and assignment of codes.

The database that was first used to enter the author and titles of primary research articles was also used to record the outsider activity, insider activity, and the researcher-identified methodological underpinnings. Such detail was listed for each of the 93 journal articles identified as ‘primary research articles'. From this information it was possible to code and tally the journal articles. Table 1 identifies the codes and shows the percentage of articles within each of the four codes.

Table 1. Number of articles coded within each of the four research inquiry codes
Code	Description	No. articles	% of articles
R	Respondent/informant (i.e. response to researcher-identified inquiry to provide information)	50	54
L	Review of literature or analysis of documents (i.e. no contact with informants)	12	13
P	Participant (i.e. being involved through reflection on experience or some kind of active participation or opportunity for reconsideration such as in focus groups)	24	26
C	Collaborator (i.e. involved in shared methodological decision-making)	7	7

Nature and extent of practitioner collaboration

Just over one quarter (26%) of those involved in providing research data were active participants who contributed data that may otherwise have not been considered by the researcher. That is, they contributed information that related to issues targeted by the researcher but were also given opportunities to add their perspectives on the issues through engaged discussion of a collaborative nature.

Only seven articles (7%) were identified as being representative of practitioner research (i.e. collaborative) and coded accordingly (see Appendix for details). While these articles reported on studies led by university staff, practitioners in each of the seven studies played a significant role in the decision-making about the study's methodology and/or data analysis and interpretation. There is one exception listed here: the study by Ingram (2000). While the researcher and initiator of the research identified as an early childhood teacher, it is possible that this teacher is also associated with a university. One of the issues that arises here is the extent to which practitioners may require the support of someone who has research expertise and who is available to guide them through the research process.

Key elements of practitioner research reported in AJEC

Second, the researchers identified a number of factors within their inquiry that were indicative of key elements of practitioner research referred to in the literature. These included ‘freedom to put forward and receive different viewpoints' (MacNaughton & Smith, 2001); purposefully meeting regularly as a group in ‘cluster meetings' and ‘research circles' (O'Rourke & Harrison, 2004); systematic inquiry (Potter, 2001); and recognition of the context-specific nature of their investigation and the limited nature of generalisations (Ford & Fasoli, 2001).

A third feature was the identification of constraints to such research activity. These included the need to have an ‘expert' or facilitator who could supply or provide access to information resources and readings (Ingram, 2000; Potter, 2001) and the difficulty practitioners felt they experienced in ‘articulating embedded knowledge' (Ford & Fasoli, 2001, p. 15). It also seemed important that the research practitioners were sufficiently motivated and had time available to participate in the research activity (Potter, 2001). The fourth feature was the salience of the outcomes for practitioners involved in the research. There was considerable recognition of the ‘sense of empowerment where practitioners were able to engage in the construction of meaning' (MacNaughton & Smith, 2001, p. 35). This meaningful involvement also meant that practitioners were more likely to make changes in their practices because they could see and understand the purposefulness of their work (deVries, 2004; Ingram, 2000). Being involved also meant that teachers developed the capacity to critically analyse their practices (Ingram, 2000). Practitioner research reported in these journal articles had a focus on enlightened knowing in that the practitioners, through involvement in meaning-making, became energised as they recognised their new-found knowledge and understandings. The research was personalised and yet had a community orientation through the collaborative efforts of the participants. Further to this, Cusick (2000) suggests that ‘a focus on participants' situations and experiences through participation in practitioner research offers increased credibility as a basis for enhanced personal status and job satisfaction' (p. 25). While such involvement and enlightenment motivated the practitioners to reconsider their practices and make changes accordingly, there was a bigger issue: the extent to which it was possible for practitioners to engage in inquiry of their professional practices and review the purposes of those practices.

Challenges

• the capacity of participants to reflect on interactions and practices (Ryan, Ochsner & Genishi, 2001);
• the lack of familiarity of participants with research processes and methodologies and uncertainty about how to translate research findings into everyday practices (McCrystal, 2000);
• the often-needed requirement to have someone with ‘research expertise' as a facilitator; and
• time and motivation on the part of participants.

The challenges need to be addressed when advocating and planning participatory and collaborative research activity, particularly within childcare contexts where staff have little time beyond meeting the requirements of their daily professional activities. One way to think about the possibilities of undertaking practitioner research in an early childhood context is to identify the roles that may need to be considered when undertaking this kind of investigation.

There are three clusters of research participant roles to be considered. These are research consultant, practitioner consultant and practitioners. The research consultant role is one that provides for the required research ‘expertise'. The practitioner consultant role represents a facilitator at the practitioner level who, as a participant, is also an informed practitioner. This may be a person from amongst the practitioners who is identified by practitioners as being a coordinator for the research undertaking and responsible for such things as calling regular meetings. Practitioners are those participants who are very familiar with the context within which the research is undertaken.

The three roles have been identified for the purpose of this discussion so that different levels of understanding and associated responsibilities can be realised (see Table 2 for a description). However, in practice, the role definition may not be so clear and there may be a merging of roles during the life of the investigation. That is, these roles may often be interdependent. An elaboration of each of the three roles is provided in the next section that draws from a research project undertaken within childcare centres under the auspice of a not-for-profit organisation.

Table 2. Research activities undertaken by research consultant, practitioner consultant and practitioners
Research Consultant	Practitioner Consultant	Practitioners
Provide: research expertise regarding procedures and processes resource information including journal articles and books on early development, and learning particularly in relation to findings from brain research Facilitate: a systematic approach to inquiry reflection on the processes through regular discussion of both strategies and ongoing findings Support: the development of the project through displaying interest and a sense of ‘worthiness' of the project development of strategies for documenting project findings and interpretation of those findings through the provision of feedback on the written report of the project	Undertake background reading in order to further understand and be able to identify areas for investigation Plan and organise the execution of the study in a systematic way and within a timeframe. This involves: seeking expressions of interest from potential participants negotiating to meet regularly with the participants for the purposes of identifying areas for investigation, gathering and sifting through the information and documenting work in progress consulting with the participants about interpretations of the findings reporting back to the practitioners on ‘findings'	Participate in the project through: discussion of the research questions planning for a systematised approach to inquiry undertaking research activities that provide experiential and other data searching information in order to make sense of what has been revealed through the research activity reflecting upon and making decisions about changes in professional practices and the rationale for such changes

The infant learning project

The topic for investigation in the project reported here was identified by the practitioner consultant who sought the support of the research consultant in undertaking the project. The practitioner consultant had been inspired to pursue this particular topic following attendance at an international conference, and identified what she described as her ‘passion' for working with and understanding infants. She wished to enable practitioners themselves to become aware of ‘infants' communication, learning, empathy and relationships' (Barns, 2005). She had carefully considered the focus for her investigation and the (research) tasks she would initially invite the practitioners to undertake in collaboration with her. Her aim was to involve practitioners in research so that they may discover ways in which infants engage in learning. The practitioner consultant had no prior experience in undertaking research of this nature. However, the practitioner consultant was well known to the practitioners and had previously developed a trusting relationship with them through her role in the organisation where she was employed. The organisation supported her research activity through the provision of a time allowance as well as recognition and encouragement through opportunities to present her project findings at staff forums.

It is not the intent of this article to report on the outcomes of the study, since the complete study is described elsewhere (see Barns, 2005). However, what is relevant are the processes engaged in by the research consultant, the practitioner consultant (an inexperienced ‘researcher') and the centre-based early childhood practitioners. The research consultant, a university academic, acted as resource/support person who was able to offer suggestions in relation to research strategies, provide practical and relevant literature resources and advice on documentation and analysis of the findings, and to assist with the writing up of the project outcomes. This was found to be a challenging and interesting role and different from that of a chief investigator in university-based research projects.

The role of research consultant required a degree of ‘humility' (Sumsion, 2003). The role of the practitioner consultant also required humility along with trust and other elements of a caring relationship such as respectfulness and reciprocity, as evidenced in her reflections on the project:

The approach is important. It needs to be friendly and respectful, not authoritarian … You need to be able to work alongside staff (practitioner consultant).

Processes

The research was undertaken within the regular activities of the childcare centres. When the practitioner consultant visited the childcare centres for the purposes of the research, she focused particularly on:

• working with the practitioners;
• posing questions around things to be ‘found out';
• identifying with the practitioner the activities that may be used in order to find out; and
• considering ways the practitioners would record their finding out.

A number of visits were made to each practitioner. Each visit involved the practitioners in reporting on what they found out, a discussion of the new questions to be addressed and the everyday activities that might be used in order to explore answers to the questions. In all, nine visits of between one and one-and-a-half hours duration were made to each of the practitioners over a seven-month period.

The timing of such visits was important in that the practitioner consultant was present in the playroom during times when practitioners were regularly involved in play activities with the children. The practitioner consultant saw the value in engaging with both the practitioners and the children during these visits so that observation, modelling and discussion could occur. The practitioner consultant subsequently recorded her reflections on the process:

Often there is no opportunity for these staff to look further into why they are doing what they are doing. This research provided that opportunity (practitioner consultant). The blending of the research work carried out by the caregivers within the general routine of the working day proved to have merit in creating an environment of learning for other caregivers and relief staff within the centre ... (practitioner consultant).

Over the duration of the project the research consultant met regularly with the practitioner consultant to discuss the progress of the project and how the data was being collected and recorded. We also considered how the data might be interpreted and reported in an ongoing and meaningful way.

Perceived benefits

The practitioner consultant reported on the increasing interest shown by the practitioners in what they were finding out about the infants for whom they were responsible. These new understandings empowered staff to share their insights with the infants' parents as well as with other staff. The value of having a facilitator in the role of the practitioner consultant fostered further cooperative explorations resulting in the meaningful identification of new knowledge and understandings:

Together we [the practitioner consultant and the practitioners] found the more we read and understood about the in-utero time and the very early newborn times of infant development, including brain development, the more interested and interesting we became with our interactions and communications with the infants, their parents and our colleagues (practitioner consultant).

The practitioner-oriented Infant Learning Project had a philosophical approach based on collaborative and authentic inquiry. It sought to position practitioners at the centre of the research activity and to enable them to gain a deeper understanding of professional practice. The practitioner consultant, in reflecting on the process, wrote:

Working in collaboration with the caregivers and the infants in their care has been a rewarding experience. Talking to other professionals about the process builds personal confidence. It challenges those involved in the study to want to find out more and, at the same time, engenders an interest in others to become involved in a similar project in the future (practitioner consultant).

The practitioner consultant recognised the benefits gained through the collaborative inquiry process for both her and the practitioners.

Personal professional knowledge enables one to think and act confidently and in an informed way. One of the project outcomes was a sense of practitioners gaining greater insights into infants' learning. Another was an increased capacity to look at their own learning with greater ‘appreciation' and a more ‘discerning eye' (reported earlier by Fish, 1999). This appeared to culminate in the practitioners' increased sense of empowerment:

You feel worthy and capable and needed by the very young infants and it makes you want to find out more about them. You feel genuinely valued and respected by the parents (practitioner).

The impact of the investigation moved beyond individual staff to other staff in the centres where those staff also benefited from the inquiry in terms of new understandings, insights into practices, and opportunities to engage differently with the infants.

Reflections—researching with/for whom?
Practitioner research is about people finding out together. The collaborative nature of inquiry-oriented practitioner research enables investigation of one's own practices as well as the shared experiences of others as co-researchers.

Practitioner partnerships in inquiry-oriented collaborative research can be undertaken with self as a reflective practitioner; other adults including university research staff, professional colleagues and community members; and/or children and their families. Undertaking collaborative investigations can also be of benefit to all those involved because of the opportunities provided to engage in shared meaning-making.

Perspectives on the nature and function of practitioner research with respect to its contribution to meaning-making can be explored by responding to two questions:

Who do early childhood practitioners undertake research with?
Who is practitioner research in early childhood for?

Responses to these questions (see Table 3) narrow the focus of practitioner research so that implications for practitioners can readily be considered. However, the nature of collaboration and how this can proceed in an informed way requires further clarification. As already indicated, research inquiry processes often require the support of an ‘expert' researcher who can both work collaboratively with the practitioners and sensitively step in and out of the research activity as is required. Where this support is underpinned by practices that are informed by both critical reflection and community-oriented processes, progress can be made in furthering examination of the often taken-for-granted assumptions and practices (Fleer, 2003; Fleet & Winter, 2004). The role of university staff who are researchers may be critical here in supporting and even initiating practitioner research, but it should be undertaken sensitively and with a degree of humility.

Table 3. Function and purpose of early childhood practitioner research
Who do early childhood practitioners undertake research with?	Who is practitioner research in early childhood for?
With self: Engagement in reflective activities; dialoguing through journal writing that includes experiential accounts	For me: Enables me (as practitioner) to gain an appreciation of and insight to my knowledge/skills and so contributes to my personal and professional knowledge—it is empowering and motivational
With children: Listening to and inquiring of children who have a role to play in interpreting their actions and/or products	For us: A cooperative undertaking that enables us as a collaborative group of practitioners to act more effectively as a result of increased understanding within contexts
With adults: Working collaboratively in joint decision-making with colleagues, other professionals, parents and/or community members	For them: Provides insight and information that adds to the pool of professional knowledge and understanding. As informed practitioners we are then better equipped to share our understandings with others in our professional community and in the broader social context

Conclusion

In drawing the roles of researched and practitioner together through practitioner research it is possible to address the concerns about the theory–practice gap (Heron & Reason, 2001) by emphasising professional judgement within a climate of collaborative endeavour. In the field of education and care, early childhood practitioner evidence-based research holds considerable promise at a number of levels within and beyond the contexts in which early childhood practitioners work. It also enables practitioners to develop a greater appreciation of their professional practice and provides an increased opportunity to review and challenge the assumptions and values that underpin such practices.

Acknowledgement

References

AJEC, Vol. 30 No. 4, December 2005, pp. 48-57.

Did you like this article? Share it with others online!  - What does this mean?               You can subscribe to ECA's Australian Journal of Early Childhood article index news feed here Learn more about RSS news feeds If you liked this article, you can 'social bookmark' it with others who might be searching for good content on early childhood. This means you can share your favourite webpages with others, or just keep an online list of your bookmarks so you can access them on any computer. Read more about social bookmarks More about digg>> More about del.icio.us>> More about google>>    More about yahoo>> More about stumbleupon>> More about reddit>> Close this window