Approaching Trust and Control in Parental Relationships with Educational Institutions

Roč.22,č.2(2017)
Studia paedagogica: Trust and Control in Education

Annika Schweizer Sebastian Niedlich Judith Adamczyk Inka Bormann

https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2017-2-6

PDF (angličtina)
Abstrakt
Trust is a crucial factor in parent–teacher relationships. However, research on this subject to date has largely concentrated on a narrow range of theoretical perspectives and empirical methods. Most studies collect, analyze, and aggregate quantitative data on trust from a psychological or sociological perspective. The present paper starts by reflecting on previous research in brief and discussing its limitations with regard to a selected case: parents' relationships with educational institutions. On this basis, the paper aims to contribute to the scientific exploration of trust as a holistic phenomenon that encompasses explicit as well as implicit dimensions. In this context, we argue for a broader range of theoretical and empirical methods in research on the phenomenon of trust and its apparently tight entanglement with control in education settings. To this end, we focus on the one hand on the five distinctive facets of trust introduced by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001): benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty, and openness. On the other hand, we refer to Möllering's understanding of trust and control as a duality (2005) where trust and control can go hand-in-hand instead of being understood as inherently conflicting phenomena. Because of this assumed duality, efforts to explain the relationship between trust and control need to be able to account for the complex interplay between the two on different levels of interactions between parents and schools. To demonstrate this point, this paper presents three studies using different methodological approaches: study 1 analyzes relationships between parents and educators in childcare centers, focusing on the collective relevance accorded to trust by educators. Applying the qualitative, reconstructive documentary method to the analysis of group discussions among educators and video-recorded parent–educator meetings, the study places particular emphasis on reconstructing the implicit knowledge underlying educators' implicit orientations toward parents. Its result show that, in contrast to the common rhetoric of partnership between childcare centers and parents, educators perceive and enact their relationships with parents in very different ways. Study 2 aims to shed light on how trust is shaped differently in various settings of interactions between parents and schools. To this end, a survey is being conducted using a vignette design which provides descriptions of eight forms of parent–school interactions followed by a number of questions corresponding to each of the five facets of trust. The study, which is still in its pilot phase, will thus provide insight about which facets of trust are triggered by the different forms of interaction and, consequently, how the relationship between trust and control is affected by these interactions. Similarly to study 1, study 3 uses a qualitative approach to the analysis of trust. In contrast to study 1, however, the focus of the episodic interviews lies in exploring different elements that shape parental perceptions of teachers' trustworthiness in the transitional phase from primary to secondary school. Using qualitative content analysis, the study remains open to new and unexpected aspects of trust and is thus able to provide a deeper understanding of trust and trustworthiness in parent–school relationships. The results reinforce the notion that parents' educational backgrounds play an important role with regard to trust and control, with higher-educated parents placing less trust in teachers and exercising a higher degree of control in order to ensure their children's educational success. We conclude that qualitative and context-sensitive approaches focusing on the implicit and behavioral dimensions of trust seem particularly promising for developing a more accurate understanding which shows how trust and control simultaneously refer to and create each other while remaining mutually distinctive. Through this example, the paper aims to show how researchers can avoid a one-dimensional or fragmented view based solely on either trust or control.

Klíčová slova:
parent–teacher relationship; trust; control; methodologies
Reference

[1] Adamczyk, J., & Bormann, I. (2016). Eltern und ihr Vertrauen in die Schule – Hinweise auf Transintentionalität? In I. Bormann, T. Brüsemeister, & S. Niedlich (Eds.), Transintentionalität im Bildungswesen (pp. 101–128). Weinheim: Beltz.

[2] Adams, K. S., & Christenson, S. L. (1998). Differences in parent and teacher trust levels. Special Services in the Schools, 14(1–2), 1–22. | DOI 10.1300/J008v14n01_01

[3] Ball, S. J. (2015). Education, governance and the tyranny of numbers. Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 299-301. | DOI 10.1080/02680939.2015.1013271

[4] Baurmann, M. (2002). Vertrauen und Anerkennung. Wie weiche Anreize ein Vertrauen in Institutionen fördern können. In A. Maurer & M. Schmid (Eds.), Neuer Institutionalismus. Zur soziologischen Erklärung von Organisation, Moral und Vertrauen (pp. 107–132). Frankfurt.: Campus.

[5] Beerman, H. (2012). Hermeneutic methods in trust research. In F. Lyon, G. Möllering, & M. N. K. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of research methods on trust (pp. 149–161). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

[6] Berry, H., & Rogers, B. (2003). Trust and distress in three generations of rural Australians. Australasian Psychiatry, 11(1), 131–137. | DOI 10.1046/j.1038-5282.2003.02000.x

[7] Bertelsmann-Stiftung (2010). Vertrauen in Deutschland. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.

[8] Beugelsdijk, S. (2006). A note on the theory and measurement of trust in explaining differences in economic growth. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(3), 371–387. | DOI 10.1093/cje/bei064

[9] Beycioglu, K., Ozer, N., & Sahin, S. (2013). Parental trust and parent-school relationships in Turkey. Journal of School Public Relations, 34(3), 306–329.

[10] Bohnsack, R. (2014). Documentary method. In U. Flick, K. Methler, & W. Scott (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 217-233). Los Angeles, London: SAGE.

[11] Bohnsack, R., Pfaff, N., & Weller, W. (Eds.). (2010). Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research. Opladen: Budrich.

[12] Borgonovi, F. (2012). The relationship between education and levels of trust and tolerance in Europe. The British Journal of Sociology, 63(1), 146–167. | DOI 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2011.01397.x

[13] Bormann, I., & Adamczyk, J. (2016). Typen elterlichen Vertrauens gegenüber Schulen: Eine Fallstudie zu schulbezogenen Heuristiken. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 6(2), 169–183. | DOI 10.1007/s35834-016-0153-4

[14] Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools. A core resource for improvement. New York: SAGE.

[15] Busco, C., Riccaboni, A., & Scapens, R. W. (2006). Trust for accounting and accounting for trust. Management Accounting Research, 17(1), 11–41. | DOI 10.1016/j.mar.2005.08.001

[16] Carless, D. (2009). Trust, distrust and their impact on assessment reform. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 79–89. | DOI 10.1080/02602930801895786

[17] Cofta, P. (2007). Trust, complexity and control. Confidence in a convergent world. Chichester: Wiley.

[18] Cottle, M., & Alexander, E. (2014). Parent partnership and 'quality' early years services: Practitioners' perspectives. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22(5), 637–659. | DOI 10.1080/1350293X.2013.788314

[19] Dalferth, I., & Peng-Keller, S. (Eds.). (2012). Kommunikation des Vertrauens. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.

[20] Dülmer, H. (2007). Experimental plans in factorial surveys random or quota design? Sociological Methods & Research, 35(3), 382–409. | DOI 10.1177/0049124106292367

[21] Emisch, J., Gambetta, D., Laurie, H., Siedler, T., & Uhrig, S. C. N. (2007). Measuring people's trust. ISER working paper 2007-32. Essex: Institute for Social and Economic Research.

[22] Endreß, M. (2010). Vertrauen. Soziologische Perspektiven. In M. Maring (Ed.), Vertrauen – zwischen sozialem Kitt und der Senkung von Transaktionskosten (pp. 91–115). Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing.

[23] Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents' reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86(3), 277–294. | DOI 10.1086/461449

[24] Eurydice Network (2014). Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe. Eurydice and Eurostat Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

[25] Goodall, C. (2012). Working with difficult to reach groups: A 'building block' approach to researching trust in communities. In F. Lyon, G. Möllering, & M. N. K. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of research methods on trust (pp. 94–102). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

[26] Grossman, S. J., & Hart, O. D. (1986). The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of vertical and lateral integration. Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), 691–719. | DOI 10.1086/261404

[27] Guppy, N., & Davies, S. (1999). Understanding Canadian's declining confidence in public education. Canadian Journal of Education, 24(3), 265–280. | DOI 10.2307/1585875

[28] Hartmann, M. (2011). Die Praxis des Vertrauens. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

[29] Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., & Closson, K. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105–130. | DOI 10.1086/499194

[30] Hoy, W. K., & Tschennen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9(1), 184–208.

[31] Jagodzinski, W., & Manabe, K. (2004). How to measure interpersonal trust? A comparison of two different measures. ZA Information 55/Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialforschung, 55(1), 85–98.

[32] Janssen, M., Bakker, J. T. A., Bosman, A. M. T., Rosenber, K., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2012). Differential trust between parents and teachers of children from low-income and immigrant backgrounds. Educational Studies, 38(4), 383–396. | DOI 10.1080/03055698.2011.643103

[33] Khodyakov, D. (2007). Trust as a process: A three-dimensional approach. Sociology, 41(1), 115–132. | DOI 10.1177/0038038507072285

[34] Kuckartz, U. (2012). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Juventa.

[35] Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. J. (2012). The social dynamics of trust: Theoretical and empirical research, 1985–2012. Social Forces, 91(1), 25–31. | DOI 10.1093/sf/sos116

[36] Linggi, D. (2011). Vertrauen in China. Ein kritischer Beitrag zur kulturvergleichenden Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: VS.

[37] Luhmann, N. (1988). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 94–109). Oxford: University of Oxford.

[38] Luhmann, N. (2000). Vertrauen. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.

[39] Lyon, F. (2012). Access and non-probability sampling in qualitative research on trust. In F. Lyon, G. Möllering, & M. N. K. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of research methods on trust (pp. 85–94). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

[40] Maritzen, N. (2011). On the advantage and disadvantage of educational monitoring in a federal system. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14(1), 117–135. | DOI 10.1007/s11618-010-0150-7

[41] Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und techniken. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag.

[42] Miller, P. (1994). Accounting as social and institutional practice: An introduction. In P. Miller & A. G. Hopwood (Eds.), Accounting as social and institutional practice (pp. 1–39). Cambridge: University Press.

[43] Misztal, B. A. (2011). Trust: Acceptance of, precaution against and cause of vulnerability. Comparative Sociology, 10(3), 358–379. | DOI 10.1163/156913311X578190

[44] Mitchell, R. M., Forsyth, P. B., & Robinson, U. (2008). Parent trust, student trust and identification with school. Journal of Research in Education, 18(1), 116–124.

[45] Möllering, G. (2005). The trust/control duality. An integrative perspective on positive expectations of others. International Sociology, 20(3), 283–305. | DOI 10.1177/0268580905055478

[46] Naef, M., & Schupp, J. (2009). Measuring trust: Experiments and surveys in contrast and combination. Discussion Paper No. 4087. Bonn: Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit.

[47] Noteboom, B. (2006). Forms, sources and processes of trust. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaheer (Eds.), Handbook of trust research (pp. 247–264). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

[48] O'Neill, O. (2013). Intelligent accountability in education. Oxford Review of Education, 39(1), 4–16. | DOI 10.1080/03054985.2013.764761

[49] Petermann, F. (2013). Psychologie des Vertrauens. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

[50] Power, M. (1994). The audit society. In P. Miller & A. G. Hopwood (Eds.), Accounting as social and institutional practice (pp. 299–316). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[51] Sacher, W. (2006). Elternhaus und Schule: Bedingungsfaktoren ihres Verhältnisses, aufgezeigt an der bayerischen Studie vom Sommer 2004. Beiträge Bildung und Erziehung, 59(3), 303–322.

[52] Schweer, M. K. W. (1997). Eine differentielle Theorie interpersonalen Vertrauens. Überlegungen zur Vertrauensbeziehung zwischen Lehrenden und Lernenden. Psychologie in Unterricht und Erziehung, 44(1), 2–12.

[53] Schweer, M. K. W., & Thies, B. (2003). Vertrauen als Organisationsprinzip. Perspektiven für komplexe soziale Systeme. Bern: Hans Huber.

[54] Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354. | DOI 10.5465/AMR.2007.24348410

[55] Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. (2004). Vertrauen in Deutschland: Großes Misstrauen gegenüber Institutionen. Wochenbericht des DIW Berlin, 21(4), 311–313.

[56] Seligman, A. B. (1998). Trust and sociability: On the limits of confidence and role expectations. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 57(4), 391–404. | DOI 10.1111/j.1536-7150.1998.tb03372.x

[57] Seligman, A. B. (2011). Trust, tolerance and the challenge of difference. Comparative Sociology, 10(3), 337–357. | DOI 10.1163/156913311X578181

[58] Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2015). Principals, trust, and cultivating vibrant schools. Societies, 5(2), 256–276. | DOI 10.3390/soc5020256

[59] Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547–593. | DOI 10.3102/00346543070004547

Metriky

4

Crossref logo

6

356

Views

138

PDF (angličtina) views

Copyright © 2017 Studia paedagogica

PDF (angličtina)