View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Information-Seeking in Family Day Care: Access, Quality and Personal Cost

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Information-Seeking in Family Day Care: Access, Quality and Personal Cost
Language: English
Authors: Corr, L., Davis, E., Cook, K., Mackinnon, A., Sims, M., Herrman, H.
Source: European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2014 22(5):698-710.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2014
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Preschool Education
Early Childhood Education
Descriptors: Information Seeking, Child Care Centers, Child Care, Access to Education, Educational Quality, Costs, Child Welfare, Well Being, Focus Groups, Interviews, Information Sources, Caregiver Attitudes, Child Caregivers, Social Networks, Network Analysis, Internet, Caseworkers, Coordinators, Peer Groups, Preschool Education, Information Needs, User Needs (Information), User Satisfaction (Information), Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2014.969083
ISSN: 1350-293X
Abstract: Family day-care (FDC) educators work autonomously to provide care and education for children of mixed ages, backgrounds and abilities. To meet the demands and opportunities of their work and regulatory requirements, educators need access to context-relevant and high quality information. No previous research has examined how and where these workers access information. This study aimed to explore how and where FDC educators access information on children's social and emotional well-being. Data on information-seeking by educators was collected using focus groups and individual interviews. We found that educators use a range of networks to source information on children's social and emotional well-being. Information networks comprise other educators, FDC coordination staff, external health and childhood professionals, and the Internet. The availability, quality and personal costs associated with different sources have implications for educators and the collective capacity of FDC to respond to changing evidence and government requirements.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 27
Entry Date: 2014
Accession Number: EJ1046869
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEH7wCIlRaGWjLevzV1sulSAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFxTCHOcy56pwnHiygIBEICBmt42oFy9n2UL55CW3_PMJvnxXtsVO0868-U95QrV6Ze74MuLhULkZFaylxpwbwENLtzLnj6ovuSCLq1tqjDil3oAbJkWetYLSOJYl-sKgZlWbx3ketdlj1ZRQzKk6roQ5uVB20-dIAniR4kmigTrcvI1ZmCmEjwvW5tYyuxWIQjOu3mZnzc8ix_MQQ55xfAeox2LERhhSXUHG6w=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0099753987;h3h15dec.14;2019Feb27.13:59;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0099753987-1">Information-seeking in family day care: access, quality and personal cost. </title> <p>Family day-care (FDC) educators work autonomously to provide care and education for children of mixed ages, backgrounds and abilities. To meet the demands and opportunities of their work and regulatory requirements, educators need access to context-relevant and high quality information. No previous research has examined how and where these workers access information. This study aimed to explore how and where FDC educators access information on children's social and emotional well-being. Data on information-seeking by educators was collected using focus groups and individual interviews. We found that educators use a range of networks to source information on children's social and emotional well-being. Information networks comprise other educators, FDC coordination staff, external health and childhood professionals, and the Internet. The availability, quality and personal costs associated with different sources have implications for educators and the collective capacity of FDC to respond to changing evidence and government requirements.</p> <p>Les professionnelles de la garde familiale travaillent de manière autonome pour éduquer et prendre soin d'enfants de d'âge, milieux et capacités divers. Pour répondre aux besoins de leur travail et aux exigences de la réglementation, il leur faut des informations de grande qualité et spécifiques à leur contexte. Aucune étude antérieure ne s'est penchée sur la question de savoir comment et où elles accèdent à ces informations. Le but de cette étude était d'examiner comment et où elles accèdent à des informations concernant le bien-être émotionnel et social des enfants. Les données concernant la recherche d'informations par ces professionnelles ont été recueillies à l'aide d'entretiens individuels et collectifs. Nous avons constaté qu'elles ont recours à une diversité de réseaux pour s'informer sur le bien-être émotionnel et social des enfants. Ces réseaux comprennent d'autres professionnelles, du personnel de coordination de la garde familiale, des spécialistes de la santé et de l'enfance ainsi qu'Internet. La disponibilité, la qualité et les coûts personnels des différentes sources ont un impact au niveau des professionnelles et de la capacité collective des services de garde familiale pour répondre à des situations et à des exigences gouvernementales changeantes.</p> <p>Kindertagespflegepersonen (Tagesmütter und – väter) arbeiten autonom in der Betreuung und Erziehung von Kindern unterschiedlichen Alters sowie unterschiedlicher Hintergründe und Fähigkeiten. Um den Erfordernissen ihrer Arbeit und den gesetzlichen Rahmenbedingungen Rechnung zu tragen, benötigen sie Zugang zu kontextrelevanten und hochwertigen Informationen. Es gibt bislang keine wissenschaftliche Forschung darüber, wie und wo Personen in der Kindertagespflege auf diese Informationen zugreifen. Ziel dieser Studie war es herauszufinden, wie und wo Kindertagespflegepersonen an Informationen über das soziale und emotionale Wohlbefinden von Kindern gelangen. Die Daten über die Informationssuche der Erzieher(innen) wurden mittels Fokusgruppen und Einzelinterviews erhoben. Es stellte sich heraus, dass Erzieher(innen) eine Reihe von Netzwerken verwenden, um an Informationen über Themen der sozialen und emotionalen Gesundheit von Kindern zu gelangen. Diese Informationsnetzwerke beinhalten andere Erzieher(innen), Angestellte mit Koordinationsfunktion in der Kindertagespflege, externe Spezialisten für Gesundheit und Kinder sowie das Internet. Die Verfügbarkeit, die Qualität sowie die persönlichen Kosten der verschiedenen Quellen haben Folgen für die Erzieher(innen) und die kollektive Fähigkeit der Kindertagespflege, auf sich verändernde Erkenntnisse und gesetzliche Rahmenbedingungen zu reagieren.</p> <p>Los (cuidadores de los niños pequeños en el hogar familiar) educadores de cuidado de niños diurno en casas de familia (family day care) trabajan de forma autónoma para brindar atención y educación a niños de diversas edades, orígenes y aptitudes. Para cumplir con las exigencias de su trabajo y de los requisitos reglamentarios, los cuidadores (educadores) necesitan acceder a información de alta calidad pertinente al contexto. No hay investigaciones que hayan analizado cómo y dónde estos trabajadores acceden a la información. El objetivo de este estudio fue explorar cómo y dónde los educadores de cuidado de niños diurno en casas de familia acceden a la información sobre el bienestar social y emocional de los niños. Los datos sobre la información que buscan los educadores fueron recabados utilizando grupos de enfoque y entrevistas individuales. Hemos hallado que los cuidadores (educadores) utilizan una amplia gama de redes para buscar información sobre temas relacionados con el bienestar social y emocional de los niños. Las redes de información incluyen otros educadores, personal de coordinación de cuidado diurno de niños pequeños en el hogar familiar (de niños diurno en casas de familia cuidado de niños diurno en casas de familia), profesionales externos de la salud y de la niñez, e Internet. La disponibilidad, calidad y los costos personales asociados con las distintas fuentes tienen implicaciones (implicancias) para los educadores y para la capacidad colectiva del cuidado diurno de niños pequeños en el hogar familiar (de niños diurno en casas de familia) para responder a los requisitos de pruebas cambiantes y del gobierno.</p> <p>Keywords: childcare; professional development; knowledge exchange; mental; health; family day care (FDC)</p> <hd id="AN0099753987-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Family day care (FDC), sometimes known as family childcare and childminding, is an important form of childcare for families internationally (Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref1">8</reflink>]; Mooney and Statham [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref2">15</reflink>]). In Australia, FDC educators work alone in their own homes to supply regulated, paid childcare for a small group of children of mixed ages, backgrounds and abilities (Brennan [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]; Williamson et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref4">25</reflink>]). Australian educators are contracted to, or in the minority of cases employed by, coordination schemes. These schemes employ 'fieldworkers' who visit educators, on average monthly, to provide support and ensure they meet regulations and quality assurance standards. Fieldworkers support educators through information provision and general advice (Family Day Care Australia [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref5">10</reflink>]). In Australia, New Zealand and Europe there are ongoing moves to increase the regulation of and to professionalise early childhood education and care (Oberhuemer [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref6">17</reflink>]; Ortlipp, Arthur, and Woodrow [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref7">19</reflink>]; Osgood [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref8">20</reflink>]). One outcome for carers in Australia is that their roles are shifting to focus more explicitly on education (Cook et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref9">5</reflink>]; Ortlipp, Arthur, and Woodrow [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref10">19</reflink>]). This change is reflected by all childcare providers in Australia and New Zealand now being referred to as 'educators' (Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>FDC educators internationally have an ongoing, pressing need for accurate, relevant and practical information for two main reasons. Firstly, caring for children requires regularly learning new ways to promote children's physical, cognitive, social and emotional well-being, as well as appropriately responding to existing and emerging problems. Secondly, professionalisation of the sector and the new emphasis on education, continual learning and evidence-based practice (Ortlipp, Arthur, and Woodrow [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref12">19</reflink>]; Woodrow [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref13">27</reflink>]) has intensified expectations (Oberhuemer [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]) creating a demand for high quality, relevant information to meet these standards. Given that educators work alone day-to-day, they often need to gather information themselves.</p> <p>To date, there are no published studies examining how or where FDC educators source information for their work. This knowledge is relevant to government dissemination of information, to successful professional development in the sector and to supporting high quality early education and care. It is also essential for capacity building in FDC, that is for developing sustainable skills, organisational structures and resources (Hawe et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>]). There is an extensive body of international literature on the broad topic of information needs and information-seeking (for a review see Case [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>]). Local contextual differences mean, however, that studying the information-seeking of particular groups remains central to engaging with and understanding unique populations (Talja, Keso, and Pietiläinen [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref17">23</reflink>]). FDC represents an interesting combination of setting, occupation type and social role; characteristics that warrant separate investigations into information-seeking (Case [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>The relational view of information-seeking and learning in social networks is a useful model for examining information-seeking in FDC (Borgatti and Cross [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]). The model proposes that the likelihood of information-seeking from another person ' ...  is the function of (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>) knowing what that person knows; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>) valuing what that person knows; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>) being able to gain timely access to that person's thinking; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref23">4</reflink>) perceiving that seeking information from that person would not be too costly' (Borgatti and Cross [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>], 432). Access, perception of value and quality, and cost of information-seeking by family day-care educators is critical to individual and collective capacity building. Individual educators' perceptions about how available, costly and useable information is affects their collective ability to ' ...  identify and react to new issues or opportunities requiring coordinated effort or integration of disparate expertise' (Borgatti and Cross [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>], 433).</p> <p>The current study focuses on educators' information-seeking on the topic of positive mental health in children, also known as children's social and emotional well-being. Social and emotional well-being is defined as 'the achievement of expected developmental cognitive, social, and emotional milestones and by secure attachments, satisfying social relationships, and effective coping skills' (Office of the Surgeon General [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref26">18</reflink>], 123). Awareness of mental health and practice of mental health promotion is vital in the community (Mo and Mak [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref27">14</reflink>]), particularly in early education and care as social and emotional well-being is critical to child development, which has repercussions throughout life (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref28">16</reflink>]). The aim of this study was to examine where FDC educators find information about children's social and emotional well-being and their experience in using that information.</p> <hd id="AN0099753987-3">Materials and methods</hd> <p>This article reports on the second of two studies set in a FDC scheme in Melbourne, Victoria. Ethics approval was granted by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC No.1033215).</p> <p>The first study was a quantitative study conducted by telephone interview to assess the educators' motivation to change personal and organisational practices to promote children's social and emotional well-being. Telephone interview responses were used to categorise educators into different stages of readiness to promote children's social and emotional well-being (Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref29">8</reflink>]). The Transtheoretical or Stages of Change Model (Prochaska, Redding, and Evers [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref30">21</reflink>]) is commonly applied in health promotion and was used as a sampling strategy to bring together educators at similar stages for focused discussions. According to the model, an individual or organisation may be classified as being at the stage of pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance or relapse in responding to an issue. At the conclusion of the telephone interviews educators were asked if they would be interested in participating in a focus group to inform the design of a mental health promotion intervention in an FDC. Those who consented to further contact were invited to participate in this second study which consisted of either a focus group or individual interview determined by the number of educators in each 'stage of readiness' and the ability to convene a focus group at a mutually convenient time. This sampling strategy was used to encourage ease of conversation between similarly 'staged' educators and increase the productivity of the discussion of strategies to promote children's well-being. Focus group methodology was used to encourage a dynamic exploration of topics between participants and to reveal consensus and divergence of opinion (Kitzinger [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref31">12</reflink>]; Willis et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref32">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>For FDC educators in the action and maintenance stages (n=17), focus groups were conducted to explore information-seeking and learning preferences. All educators categorised as being in the action/maintenance stage of change were invited to participate in a separate focus group. Focus groups were held in the evening at the scheme office. Due to small numbers, educators who were categorised as pre-contemplation (n=1), contemplation (n=1) and relapse (n=3) were interviewed individually. Participants were given $30 gift vouchers in recognition of their time and contribution.</p> <p>Focus group and interview questions varied depending on the stage of readiness of the participant. During focus groups and interviews, educators were asked a range of questions including: how they seek information; their preferred learning methods; and where they collect information about promoting children's social and emotional well-being. Categories or topics identified a priori formed the structure of the interview guide.</p> <p>Interviews and focus groups were digitally recorded with permission and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed guided by content analysis whereby categories are identified and searched for within the data and their appearance recorded systematically (Ryan and Bernard [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref33">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0099753987-4">Sample characteristics</hd> <p>Of the 50 educators who agreed to be contacted about the initial telephone interview study, 23 participated in a focus group or individual interview (46%). With one exception, all educators who were categorised in the action/maintenance phase participated in interviews. Of the 27 educators who did not participate, 24 cited a lack of time or someone to take over their evening responsibilities. One educator who did not participate could not be contacted by researchers and two could not take part for personal reasons.</p> <p>Three focus groups and five individual interviews were conducted with educators. All participants were female. The average length of time working with the FDC scheme was 6.7 years (range: 0.1 years to 25 years) and in any FDC scheme was 9.6 years (0.4 months to 25 years). Educators looked after between two and 30 children weekly, on average 10 children per home. The youngest child cared for was 1 month old and the oldest was 16 years (average age 4.9 years), however the majority of children in care were preschool aged (less than 5-years-old).</p> <hd id="AN0099753987-5">Results</hd> <p>There were four principle sources of information used by educators: informal educator networks, scheme fieldworkers, external organisations and professionals, and the Internet.</p> <hd id="AN0099753987-6">Educator networks</hd> <p>Connection to other educators is a vital way to find, discuss and refine information to use in FDC work. Educator networks were characterised by trust and willingness to problem-solve and share insights. 'It's also good, when carers talk, with privacy and confidentiality, and it helps you find out a solution to a problem. And that's generally with me before I go to a fieldworker' (FG1 p24). As this quote illustrates these networks are often the first points of contact for educators seeking information or help in problem-solving.</p> <p>Educator networks provide information that is readily digestible and can be immediately applied to family day-care practice. Access to the source requires only a telephone rather than computers and the associated skills, 'I don't do computers and Internet. ... I'd probably liaise with other educators first' (IN1 p4). Information-seeking and sharing with other educators provides ongoing opportunities to discuss and plan use of information while gaining collegial support.</p> <p>Attending playgroups presents opportunities for educators to develop networks for learning, sharing and refining information with the added benefit of relieving isolation. Through conversation educators could digest theory and the latest developments and work out how to translate them into their practice.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> - Playgroup is the big chat time.</item> <p></p> <item> - Yeah.</item> <p></p> <item> - I think that's important because you can hear the theory of it all, but then by talking to other carers you find out how it works and practicalities of it all.</item> <p></p> <item> - And they tweak it, make it work. (FG4 p. 28)</item> </ulist> <p>The research process itself gave educators an unlikely chance to get together and discuss pertinent issues: 'But even a focus group, carers that have been doing it for a while can say "Well I've had this incident happen and this is how I handled it", or whatever' (FG1 p. 28)</p> <p>To access information from educator networks the providers need to be connected to colleagues and also to feel comfortable asking questions. 'You know someone well, then you can call' (FG1 p. 27). Given this, participants mentioned concern for new educators and their lack of connection with other educators. '[It's] just so hard when you start because you haven't got that network and you feel so out there on your own' (FG1 p. 26).</p> <p>Another participant described her own experience in starting at different schemes around Australia:</p> <p>I'd always have that same feeling as a new carer, you'd walk in there [to playgroup] and you could see straightaway who the groups are and it was very hard to get in ... if you don't get in you just got no one. (FG1 p31)</p> <p>Educators felt that establishing networks of support and knowledge exchange took some time, and during this time educators were isolated. Educators were introduced to each other during orientation however starting relationships was difficult:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> -  ...  you were given a number but it's how confident you are.</item> <p></p> <item> - Yeah it's a bit scary to call someone. (FG1 p. 27)When you're a new carer coming in I think it is a little bit hard to get those networks established (FG2 p. 4).</item> </ulist> <p>Many said they found that relationships needed time to develop and were best created organically ' ...  to be put in a group isn't the same as choosing a group' (IN1 p. 7).</p> <hd id="AN0099753987-7">Scheme coordination staff</hd> <p>Information obtained from fieldworkers was considered trustworthy by educators 'probably [I would seek information] through [the scheme]. On the Internet, I don't know what I'm looking at' (IN3 p. 1). Discussing issues with fieldworkers allows educators to make use of the worker's knowledge and discuss relevant contextual factors without breaching confidentiality. 'You see with your fieldworker you haven't got that privacy issue' (FG1 p. 21).</p> <p>Coordination staff members act as information brokers, knowing where to find and pass on information. 'To date, every time I've asked for an extra resource of a particular topic, they have done everything they can possibly do to point me in the right direction' (FG2 p. 17). Although the issue of them withholding information was also raised by one educator:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> - I think it depends on your fieldworker.</item> <p></p> <item> - Yeah. But like I said, everybody's different</item> <p></p> <item> - So some fieldworkers are quite happy to be there and they will give you the information that you need and it just depends on the situation. (FG2 p.19)</item> </ulist> <p>It was recognised that despite having some extra information, sources and skills than educators, coordination staff information depth and breadth had its limits.</p> <p>Like if I really feel that I need that extra assistance it is up to me to resource it, and they can give me the pointer in the right direction. But often they're just like me. They're only limited to so much resources as well. (FG2 p.17)</p> <p>Despite best efforts of fieldwork staff, their knowledge is not always valued by educators as being relevant to the FDC context or to their specific need.</p> <p>Sometimes I don't bring up things to my fieldworker because it's going to be not practical, the answer is not going to be what I want, I just have to find it, I have to find a solution by myself where I'm happy and the families are happy. (FG1 p.20)</p> <p>Sometimes I think I know more than the fieldworkers. So and I wouldn't be asking them for their advice, I would be asking another carer. (IN1 p.6)</p> <p>Coordination staff members may also be avoided as information sources if it was felt that asking for information could pose a risk to educator credibility. Staff perception of educator competence or knowledge of relevant documents could be threatened with repeated educator questioning. 'You can gather what they're saying to us all the time. "Well if you don't know get the policy manual out and read the policy manual and follow that"' (FG1 p. 20).</p> <hd id="AN0099753987-8">External professionals and organisations</hd> <p>In addition to gathering information from other educators and coordination staff, educators were resourceful in mining external sources for materials, information and advice. External sources make up another important part of the information network and include maternal and child health nurses; kindergarten (preschool) teachers, mothers' groups; perceptual motor programs; supermarkets and child libraries. For example, kindergarten teachers were frequently mentioned as being an accessible and helpful resource ' ...  the community kinder is great, kinder teachers are a great wealth of information' (IN4 p. 2). This type of information network also includes specialised organisations providing information and resources in areas such as autism spectrum disorders and asthma or conducting in-service training sessions.</p> <p>Engaging with external organisations/professionals ensures new information can be discussed and clarified, which is a preferred mode of learning and information-seeking for most educators.</p> <p>Probably face-to-face. I learn better that way. ...  If there's any questions that you need to ask, it's difficult if you're doing it online. If you're going somewhere and you're speaking to a teacher, it's a lot easier. (IN3 p.2)</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> -  ... even though I love the computer, I hate online training. I like to be in the class with other people ... </item> <p></p> <item> - Yeah. Face to face. Yeah.</item> <p></p> <item> - I love to listen to ideas from other people. (FG1 p. 29)</item> </ulist> <p>Information exchange during professional development sessions was often a useful opportunity for educators to gain feedback from colleagues and to ensure they fully understand the topics.</p> <p>Gathering information through sources external to FDC can inject new information into the network. In other words, specialised knowledge and information that is not known by fellow educators or coordination staff is fed into the knowledge network for educators.</p> <p>I love them because they do inspire you and as I said, you learn something new all the time, although you've done something for 100 years, something different, you know 'wow I never thought of that'. (IN4 p. 5)</p> <p>Professional development sessions provide new information however it often requires adaptation to be used in the FDC context. Differences between FDC and centre-based care can be overlooked, particularly regarding having only one educator and caring for children of mixed ages and abilities.</p> <p>The woman's (professional) saying 'Yes, well you do this and you do that', that's fine in one way but they always just focus on maybe the child with autism. They don't consider there's other children there as well. (FG4 p. 29)</p> <p> ... or able to be used in practice:</p> <p>I had a child with autism ... she's (the professional) giving me all these ideas on how to do it, and I say 'okay' and I put them into practice ... they don't work. (FG4 p. 28)</p> <hd id="AN0099753987-9">The Internet</hd> <p>The Internet, for those with a computer, an Internet connection and sufficient computing skills, is an accessible and frequently used information source. 'I'd probably Google that [information about children's social and emotional well-being] first' (IN2 p. 2). It is used by educators to search for specific items at times that are convenient for them and avoids having to hear or read about other irrelevant topics or make small talk. As described by one educator: 'Usually [I prefer] online because then I can just jump through what I don't need and find what I do' (IN5 p. 1). Though for educators who did not have adequate searching skills it was seen as overwhelming and labour intensive:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> - There's a huge amount.</item> <p></p> <item> - //</item> <p></p> <item> - You've got to have the time.</item> <p></p> <item> - You get lost in them all.</item> <p></p> <item> - It's the time. See that's why I don't use the computer that much.</item> <p></p> <item> - //</item> <p></p> <item> - Even using the right search terms.</item> <p></p> <item> - You have to know what you're looking for. (FG2 p. 31)</item> </ulist> <p>However, using the Internet or online resources often excludes the ability to discuss information or how it may be applied to the FDC context. Several educators raised concerns with online training about missing important information, interpreting content and practical issues regarding the availability and quality of Internet connection:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> - But if online training you just go 'oh well, that was my interpretation of it'</item> <p></p> <item> - It's just you. (FG4 p. 27)</item> </ulist> <p>When using search engines or accessing websites educators spoke of not knowing 'enough' websites (FG4 p. 32) and about not knowing which sources were reputable:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> - The one thing I thought could even be useful is just knowing the best websites as well</item> <p></p> <item> - Yeah that would be fantastic. (FG2 p. 31)</item> </ulist> <p>They agreed it was up to the individual to ascertain the quality of sites.</p> <hd id="AN0099753987-10">Discussion</hd> <p>This study demonstrates how and why educators use collegial networks, coordination staff, external professional organisations and the Internet to source information about children's social and emotional well-being. Educators' use of, and experience with information sources in terms of accessibility, relevance, cost and quality have implications for quality practice, government and research.</p> <hd id="AN0099753987-11">Educators as an information source</hd> <p>Individuals with dense social networks can benefit from access to and mobilisation of a wide range of information and resources (Thomas-Hunt, Ogden, and Neale [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref34">24</reflink>]). This study demonstrates that educators with a strong network of colleagues have access to important sources of information and problem-solving expertise and use these networks as a primary source. Information is tailored to the FDC context and delivered verbally by a colleague with shared experience, making the information valuable, accessible and user-friendly. The use of verbal information exchange with trusted colleagues over using documents or technology has been established in a variety of working populations (Levin and Cross [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref35">13</reflink>]). Though physical proximity is not the essential to information-seeking behaviour (Borgatti and Cross [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref36">2</reflink>]) it is dependent on geographically-isolated educators connecting with colleagues via telephone, Internet or get-togethers. Educators need to build relationships with other educators, to work out who holds valued information, who is open and accessible, and which interactions are not too personally costly (Borgatti and Cross [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>]). Working out these details requires time and testing, therefore new educators who have the highest information needs to support quality practice are likely to have the least access to these networks. Given that some FDC educators may have had limited training before they begin caring for children, these informal networks, like in other organisations, are often the way people 'learn how to do their work' (Abrams et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>], 64). It is imperative that coordinating schemes ensure there are multiple and regular ways to link educators and to facilitate educator interaction for information exchange, problem-solving and improving practice.</p> <p>One potential issue with utilising educator networks as a primary information source is the possibility of misinformation. Information from educators is likely to vary in terms of quality and the extent to which it is based on current evidence. This is especially problematic in terms of information on children's social and emotional well-being as it is an area subject to trends and vastly differing opinions. In this study there was no evidence of educators questioning the quality of knowledge their colleague may be sharing. Although this finding may have been influenced by the focus group context, this apparent lack of discernment is important to discuss and reflect upon with educators.</p> <hd id="AN0099753987-12">Fieldworkers as an information source</hd> <p>The seeking, use and perceived value of information held by fieldworkers varied between educators. This may, in part, be due to social ties between educators and fieldworkers of different strengths – from 'strong ties' (fieldworkers working closely and frequently with educators) to 'weak ties' (distanced or infrequent contact) (Levin and Cross [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref39">13</reflink>]). It is also likely to be due to the value educators place on fieldworker information and the belief that fieldworkers have relevant and specific information to pass on (Borgatti and Cross [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref40">2</reflink>]). Further, information-seeking through fieldworkers may have higher perceived or actual personal costs (Borgatti and Cross [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref41">2</reflink>]) than seeking information through colleagues as fieldworkers have a dual role of support and monitoring/performance appraisal. The focus on monitoring and performance is likely to be heightened given the new National Quality Framework and the associated National Quality Standards in Australia (Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref42">9</reflink>]). Hesitance to ask fieldworkers for necessary information or unsatisfactory information-seeking experiences, as described by some participants in this study, would limit these interactions, with serious implications for future information exchange and perhaps job satisfaction and workforce stability. Previous studies have found that lack of information sharing between colleagues reduces the likelihood that they will, as a collective, identify or act on emerging issues or respond with a coordinated effort (Borgatti and Cross [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref43">2</reflink>]). Acknowledging and working to improve poor connections between fieldworkers and educators is critical to the way new information is offered to educators and taken up by them. When aiming to share information or conduct professional development with educators, information needs to be delivered not only through schemes and fieldworkers but also directly to educators. Opportunities for discussions between educators, and integrating the new information into practice are important.</p> <hd id="AN0099753987-13">Other information sources</hd> <p>External experts and organisations connect with educators infrequently and work with them at some kind of distance, such as through group workshops or telephone hotline conversations. However, these 'weak' social ties are characterised by efficient information transfer and the introduction of novel information (Levin and Cross [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref44">13</reflink>]). In addition, these ties can be made regardless of the status of educator networks with colleagues or their relationship with scheme staff. Creating these weak ties facilitates the input of up-to-date and reputable information into the FDC system, though the information is not always tailored to be used in the FDC environment. Professional development sessions such as seminars and workshops, appear to be an effective way to disseminate evidence-based and relevant knowledge into FDC systems, particularly when they include opportunities for educators to learn, problem-solve and work through information together. However, as is often the case in FDC, cost, timing and location are likely barriers to these opportunities. Providing educators with a list of relevant organisations they can contact for specific information, for example, Autism Victoria is one way to ensure that educators who cannot attend professional development sessions can also gather new, quality information.</p> <p>Although educators appear to differentiate between how much they trust and how well they use information sources, discussion about how they discern information quality was largely absent. The Internet warrants focused attention regarding quality assessment. Educators indicated that although they do not trust the Internet completely, they use it widely and rely upon it as a source of information on children's social and emotional well-being. The Internet presents opportunities for resourced and skilled educators to source useful and high quality information. It is also likely to expose all users to vast quantities of poor quality information and advice. This is problematic, particularly in the area of children's social and emotional well-being. Introducing brief and clear guidelines about assessing the quality of website content is an essential tool to assist educators in judging the trustworthiness of information.</p> <hd id="AN0099753987-14">Implications for government, research and practice</hd> <p>These findings have several key implications for professional development, dissemination of information and capacity building interventions in an FDC. Broadly, information dissemination needs to be tailored to suit educators' commonly used methods of seeking and learning new information: primarily through face-to-face or personal interaction and with educator colleagues present. In Australia, children's social and emotional well-being is central to the Early Years Learning Framework and the National Quality Framework and Standards that are currently being introduced (Council of Australian Governments [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref45">6</reflink>]; Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref46">9</reflink>]). This reform agenda in early childhood education and care has created and highlighted a pressing need for quality, up-to-date and practical information to enhance practice. Parallel moves are occurring across Europe (Oberhuemer [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref47">17</reflink>]). In FDC there is often a reliance on fieldworkers to disseminate new information to educators in their scheme rather than educators receiving information directly. This may be problematic due to the varying value educators place on fieldworkers as information sources and the paucity of fieldworker time available for adequate dissemination. As only a small number of staff/educators from each scheme can attend the government information sessions on the new reforms, there is also strong reliance on the Internet for knowledge dissemination. Even for educators with the skills and resources to find and access the information, this results in them working in isolation. To enhance information uptake and integration into practice, opportunities need to be created for educators to work together to understand and work within new frameworks, with the support of experts, including but not limited to fieldworkers.</p> <hd id="AN0099753987-15">Conclusion</hd> <p>Promoting educator networks and quality knowledge exchange between fieldworkers and educators is essential to ensuring that educators have the necessary information to meet the increasing requirements of their roles; and the important opportunities inherent in them for promoting children's mental health and well-being. Current, high quality information is effectively provided to the FDC system through interactions with external organisations and professionals. These opportunities may be limited, however, by cost, time and access barriers. Regardless of the information source, educators should be encouraged and educated to be discerning about information quality. This is especially relevant to information available from the Internet. The development of international or local guidelines to information quality and trustworthiness may be beneficial. In all countries, high quality care depends upon reliable, accessible information. Attention is needed in many places to policy and practice that supports reliable and ready access to high quality information sources for early childhood education and care professionals.</p> <ref id="AN0099753987-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref20" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abrams, L. C., R. Cross, E. Lesser, and D. Z. Levin. 2003. "Nurturing Interpersonal Trust in Knowledge-sharing Networks." Academy of Management Executive 17 (4): 64–77. doi: 10.5465/AME.2003.11851845</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Borgatti, S. P., and R. Cross. 2003. "A Relational View of Information Seeking and Learning in Social Networks." Management Science 49 (4): 432–445. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.49.4.432.14428</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Brennan, D. 1998. The Politics of Australian Child Care: Revised Edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref16" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Case, D. O. 2002. Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs and Behavior. California: Academic Press: Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref9" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cook, K., E. Davis, L. Williamson, L. Harrison, and M. Sims. 2013. "Discourses of Professionalism in Family Day Care." Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 14 (2).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref45" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Council of Australian Governments. 2009. Being, Belonging, Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra: Australian Government. www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/.../Final%20EYLF%20Framework%20Report%20-%20WEB.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Davis, E., R. Freeman, G. Doherty, M. Karlsson, L. Everiss, J. Couch, et al. 2012. "An International Perspective on Family Day Care: Comparing Systems, Challenges and Opportunities." Australian Journal of Early Childhood 37 (4): 127–137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref1" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Davis, E., L. Williamson, K. Cook, M. Sims, and C. Ting. in press. "Developing an Organizational Capacity Building Program: Assessing Readiness for Change." Australasian Journal of Early Childhood.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref42" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations. 2011. National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education & Care. Accessed April 18, 2012. <ulink href="http://www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy%5fAgenda/Quality/Pages/home.aspx">http://www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy%5fAgenda/Quality/Pages/home.aspx</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Family Day Care Australia. 2012, unspecified. About Family Day Care Accessed January 20, 2012. <ulink href="http://www.fdca.com.au/index.php/main/About%20Family%20Day%20Care#M39">http://www.fdca.com.au/index.php/main/About%20Family%20Day%20Care#M39</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawe, P., L. King, M. Noort, C. Jordens, and B. Lloyd. 2000. Indicators to Help with Capacity Building in Health Promotion. Sydney: NSW Health Department.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kitzinger, J. 1994. "The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of Interaction between Research Participants." Sociology of Health and Illness 16 (1): 103–121. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levin, D. Z., and R. Cross. 2004. "The Strength of Weak Ties you can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer." Management Science, November 50 (11): 1477–1490.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mo, P. K. H., and W. W. S. Mak. 2008. "Application of the PRECEDE Model to Understanding Mental Health Promoting Behaviors in Hong Kong." Health Education and Behavior 35 (4): 574–587.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mooney, A., and J. Statham, eds. 2003. Family Day Care: International Perspectives on Policy, Practice and Quality. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. 2005. Children's Emotional Development is Built into the Architecture of their Brains. NSCDC Working Paper. Waltham, Massachusetts: National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Brandeis University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oberhuemer, P. 2011. "The Early Childhood Education Workforce in Europe between Divergencies and Emergencies?" International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy 5 (1): 55–63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of the Surgeon General. 1999. Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville: United States Department of Health and Human Services.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ortlipp, M., L. Arthur, and C. Woodrow. 2011. "Discourses of the Early Years Learning Framework: Constructing the Early Childhood Professional." Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 12 (1): 56–70. doi: 10.2304/ciec.2011.12.1.56</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osgood, J. 2006. "Deconstructing Professionalism in Early Childhood Education: Resisting the Regulatory Gaze." Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 7 (1): 5–14. doi: 10.2304/ciec.2006.7.1.5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prochaska, J. O., C. O. Redding, and K. E. Evers. 1997. "The Transtheoretical Model and Stages of Change." In Health Behaviour and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice Second Edition, edited by K. Glanz, F. M. Lewis, and B. K. Rimer. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, G. W., and H. R. Bernard. 2000. "Data Management and Analysis Methods." In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd Ed, edited by N. Denzin, and Y. Lincoln, 769–802. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Talja, S., H. Keso, and T. Pietiläinen. 1999. "The Production of 'Context' in Information Seeking Research: A Metatheoretical View." Information Processing & Management 35 (6): 751–763. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4573(99)00024-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas-Hunt, M. C., T. Y. Ogden, and M. A. Neale. 2003. "Who's Really Sharing? Effects of Social and Expert Status on Knowledge Exchange between Groups." Management Science 49 (4): 464–477. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.49.4.464.14425</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williamson, L., E. Davis, N. Priest, and L. Harrison. 2011. "Australian Family Day Care Providers: A Snap Shot of their Qualifications, Training and Perceived Support." Australian Journal of Early Childhood 36 (4): 63–68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willis, K., J. Green, L. Gibbs, L. Williamson, and M. Bandyopadhyay. 2009. "Perils and Possibilities: Achieving Best Evidence from Focus Groups in Public Health Research." Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 33 (2): 131–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2009.00358.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodrow, C. 2008. "Discourses of Professional Identity in Early Childhood: Movements in Australia." European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 16 (2): 269–280. doi: 10.1080/13502930802141675</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By L. Corr; E. Davis; K. Cook; A. Mackinnon; M. Sims and H. Herrman</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref35"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1046869
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Information-Seeking in Family Day Care: Access, Quality and Personal Cost
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Corr%2C+L%2E%22">Corr, L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Davis%2C+E%2E%22">Davis, E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cook%2C+K%2E%22">Cook, K.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mackinnon%2C+A%2E%22">Mackinnon, A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sims%2C+M%2E%22">Sims, M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Herrman%2C+H%2E%22">Herrman, H.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Early+Childhood+Education+Research+Journal%22"><i>European Early Childhood Education Research Journal</i></searchLink>. 2014 22(5):698-710.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Information+Seeking%22">Information Seeking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Care+Centers%22">Child Care Centers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Care%22">Child Care</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Quality%22">Educational Quality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Costs%22">Costs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Welfare%22">Child Welfare</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Focus+Groups%22">Focus Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviews%22">Interviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Information+Sources%22">Information Sources</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Caregiver+Attitudes%22">Caregiver Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Caregivers%22">Child Caregivers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Networks%22">Social Networks</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Network+Analysis%22">Network Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Internet%22">Internet</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Caseworkers%22">Caseworkers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coordinators%22">Coordinators</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Groups%22">Peer Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Information+Needs%22">Information Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22User+Needs+%28Information%29%22">User Needs (Information)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22User+Satisfaction+%28Information%29%22">User Satisfaction (Information)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1350293X.2014.969083
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1350-293X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Family day-care (FDC) educators work autonomously to provide care and education for children of mixed ages, backgrounds and abilities. To meet the demands and opportunities of their work and regulatory requirements, educators need access to context-relevant and high quality information. No previous research has examined how and where these workers access information. This study aimed to explore how and where FDC educators access information on children's social and emotional well-being. Data on information-seeking by educators was collected using focus groups and individual interviews. We found that educators use a range of networks to source information on children's social and emotional well-being. Information networks comprise other educators, FDC coordination staff, external health and childhood professionals, and the Internet. The availability, quality and personal costs associated with different sources have implications for educators and the collective capacity of FDC to respond to changing evidence and government requirements.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 27
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1046869
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1046869
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1350293X.2014.969083
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 698
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Information Seeking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Care Centers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Care
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Quality
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Costs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Welfare
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Focus Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Information Sources
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Caregiver Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Caregivers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Networks
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Network Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Internet
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Caseworkers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Coordinators
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Information Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: User Needs (Information)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: User Satisfaction (Information)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Information-Seeking in Family Day Care: Access, Quality and Personal Cost
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Corr, L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Davis, E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cook, K.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mackinnon, A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sims, M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Herrman, H.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2014
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1350-293X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 22
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1