Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-2bg86 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2023-09-29T21:27:47.950Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Thinking about Practice in Integrated Children's Services: Considering Transdisciplinarity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2012

Abstract

Integrated service delivery in the early childhood education and care sector is burgeoning as a direct result of government agendas in Australia that privilege services for young children and families, especially those considered most vulnerable and at risk. In many cases this means reviewing and revising current practice to work more collaboratively with other professionals. This paper reports the findings of one aspect of a larger Australian study entitled: ‘Developing and sustaining pedagogical leadership in early childhood education and care professionals’. The focus of this paper is the understandings and practices of professionals in both Queensland and Victoria working in integrated Children's Services across the education, care, community and health sectors. The notion of transdisciplinary practice is also explored as a way to sustain practice. Qualitative data collection methods, including the ‘Circles of Change’ process, the ‘Significant Change’ method and semi-structured interviews were used. The findings indicate concerns around professional identity, feeling valued, role confusion and the boundaries imposed by funding regulations. Working in a transdisciplinary way was generally considered a useful way to move practice forward in these settings, although the ramifications for leadership that this approach brings requires further consideration.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anning, A., Cottrell, D., Frost, N., Green, J., & Robinson, M. (2006). Multi-professional teamwork for integrated children's services. Buckingham: Open University.Google Scholar
Aubrey, C. (2007). Leading and managing in the early years. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Australian Government Productivity Commission (2011). Early childhood development workforce: Productivity Commission research report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
Cheeseman, S. (2007). Pedagogical silences in early childhood social policy. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8 (7), 244–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Australian Governments (2009a). Investing in the early years: A national early childhood development strategy. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
Council of Australian Governments (2009b). Closing the gap: National partnership agreement on indigenous early childhood development. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
Council of Australian Governments (2009c). Investing in the early years: A national framework for protecting Australia's children. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
Davies, R., & Dart, J. (2005). The ‘most significant change’ (MSC) technique: A guide to its use. Retrieved from http://mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. (2011). Learning how to know who: professional learning for expansive practice between organizations. In Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Säljö, R. (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 1732). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Edwards, A., Daniels, H., Gallagher, T., Leadbetter, J., & Warmington, P. (2009). Improving inter-professional collaborations: Multi-agency working for children's wellbeing. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenech, M., Sumsion, J., & Shepherd, W. (2010). Promoting early childhood teacher professionalism in the Australian context. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11 (1), 89105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gherardi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2002). Learning in a constellation of interconnected practices: canon or dissonance? Journal of Management Studies, 39 (4), 419–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1999). Using situated learning and multimedia to investigate higher-order thinking. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8 (4), 401–21.Google Scholar
Lather, P. (1996). Methodology as subversive repetition: Practices toward a feminist double science, paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, New York City, 8–12 April.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, K. (2006). An analysis of parental engagement in contemporary Queensland schooling, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, K., Cartmel, J., & Nolan, A. (2010). Transdisciplinary practices in action: Rethinking the way forward. Symposium at the Early Childhood Australia Biennial Conference ‘Garla Bauondi’: Fuelling the fire. Adelaide, South Australia, 29 September – 2 October 2010.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, K., Cartmel, J., & Nolan, A. (2011). Developing and sustaining pedagogical leadership in early childhood education and care professionals: Final report. Australian Learning & Teaching Council – Leadership for Excellence.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, K., Nolan, A., & Cartmel, J. (2009). Transdisciplinary practice: The path to renewable energy in early childhood education and care in Australia. Paper presented at the nineteenth European Conference on the Quality of Early Childhood Education, Strasbourg, France, 26–29 August, 2009.Google Scholar
Marinova, D., & McGrath, N. (2004). A transdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning sustainability: A pedagogy for life. Retrieved from http://otl.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2004/marinova.html.Google Scholar
McWilliam, E., & Lee, A. (2006). The problem of ‘the problem with educational research’. Australian Educational Researcher, 33 (2), 4360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWilliam, E., Hearn, G., & Haseman, B. (2008). Transdisciplinarity for creative futures: what barriers and opportunities? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45 (3), 247253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Nicolescu, B. (2008). Transdisciplinarity: Theory and practice. New York: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Osmond, J., & O'Connor, I. (2004). Formalising the unformalised: Practitioners’ communication of knowledge in practice. British Journal of Social Work, 34, 677692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, K., Macfarlane, K., & Cartmel, J. (2005). Circles of change: Challenging orthodoxy in practitioner supervision. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson.Google Scholar
Press, F., & Woodrow, C. (2005). Commodification, corporatisation and children's spaces. Australian Journal of Education, 49 (3), 278291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitton, D., Sinclair, C., Barker, K., Nanlohy, P., & Mosworthy, M. (2009). Learning for teaching: Teaching for learning. Southbank, Melbourne: Thomson Social Science Press.Google Scholar