ICT policy-praxis: Facilitating inclusive policymaking

This study set out to determine how Q-methodology presents a process of critical reflection and informed action, in an attempt to bridge the gap between policy formulation and praxis. The study proposes an inclusive approach in education policy development. How in our busy practice may we produce evidence that might be useful to include teachers in the process of policymaking? Teachers play an increasingly pervasive role in economic, social, cultural and political life. It seems only natural that we should seek decision-making means such a Q-methodology to improve policy implementation. Utilising Q-methodology as a strategy of inquiry this qualitative instrumental case study set out to explore how teachers, as a crucial but often neglected human resource, may be included in developing policy. Utilising a qualitative research design and a social constructivist metatheoretical lens, this case study approach investigates teachers’ experiences, beliefs and attitudes in policy making. A socia-constructivist researcher lens views knowledge as being socially constructed by individuals to make meaning of their experiences framed this study. The case is bounded by its particularity to teachers in public school. This qualitative instrumental case study (Stake 2005) attempts to provide insight into the “little understood” phenomenon of teachers as policymakers. The study was exploratory and thus may or may not be typical of other cases, as focus was on the peculiarity of the case and not intended to draw generalisation of the findings. In Q-methodology subjectivity is “regarded simply as a person’s point of view on any matter of personal and/or social importance” (McKeown & Thomas, 1988, p. 7). Q-methodology enables the participant to “model” a subjective view by systematically rank-ordering of a purposive set of statements (Q-sample) - a set of statements about a particular topic. The process through which a respondent models a subjective opinion (Q-sorting). Thus, Q-methodology as a mixed methods approach and provided that necessary data collection methods (P-sample, Q-sample, Q-sort) and analysis methods such as Factor Q-sort matrix, Normalised factor scores, Distinguishing characteristics, etc. Proudford’s (1998) emancipatory approach to educational change and Helsby’s (1995) ‘writerly’ interpretation of policy text provided the theoretical moorings to underpin this study. The emancipatory framework argues that teachers react to policy changes based on their professional confidence, interpretation of policy and professional consciousness. Helsby (1995) explains teachers’ varying interpretations of policy texts of curriculum reform may be either “readerly” in which the teacher has minimal scope for creativity and may opt to be unquestioning and accept policy text “as is” or “writerly” in which the teacher assumes an interpretative role by resisting, challenging or reinterpreting policy text. Findings were threefold and suggest that Q-method is a unique research approach to include teachers’ voices in policy development. First, the study suggest that Q-methodology offers opportunity for conversations in policy decision making. Second, that beliefs, attitudes, and professionalism of teachers to improve teaching and learning using ICT are integral to policy formulation. Third, teachers have unique beliefs about what statements should constitute a school’s information and communication (ICT) policy. This study concludes that teachers’ beliefs and experiences are an extremely valuable resource in policy implementation and should not be ignored in the policy formulation process. References • Helsby, G. (1995). Teachers' construction of professionalism in England in the 1990s. Journal of education for teaching, 21(3), 317-332. • Proudford, C. (1998). Implementing educational policy change: Implications for teacher professionalism and professional empowerment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 26(2), 139-150. • Seghezzo, L., Sneegas, G., Jepson, W., Brannstrom, C., Beckner, S., & Lee, K. (2024). The use and potential of Q method in environmental planning and management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 67(12), 2721-2747. • Lundberg, A., de Leeuw, R., & Aliani, R. (2020). Using Q methodology: Sorting out subjectivity in educational research. Educational research review, 31, 100361. • Younie, S., Leask, M., & Burden, K. (2015) Introduction. In: S. Younie, M.Leask & K. Burden (Eds.). Teaching and Learning with ICT in the Primary School. Routledge. • Levinson, B., Sutton, M. & Winstead, R. (2009). Education policy as a practice of power: Theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic option. Educational Policy, 23(6), 767––795. McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. B. (2013). Q methodology (Vol. 66). Sage publications.