As a researcher with strong ties to early years practice, I believe there is a need for a reciprocal relationship between the two, but this can only be successful if we are pragmatic in such an approach. Conversations with practitioners help shape my perspective, as family members and beyond share their struggles with unrealistic expectations and poorly conceived policy in the early years. For them, time is an extremely precious resource. This means that having regular opportunities and capacity to engage deeply with research can feel impossible alongside daily responsibilities.
As an academic, I am committed to exploring the relevance and applicability of research across both the early years and education sectors. I believe I have a moral duty to my students to know about current policies and practices relating to early childhood education – not just in England or the UK but across Europe and the globe. This perspective means I have to balance the perceived relevance of all things deemed research in relation to the daily lives of children, families, practitioners and my students. After several years of continuously trying to keep up, I now feel like I have a steady pace and can attempt to articulate what this is and why it is important.
BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND NEWS REPORTING
While the distinction between research and news reporting may seem clear cut, the two forms of knowledge sharing are interconnected. Both serve essential purposes but differ significantly in audience, timeframe, style and focus. To explore this further, consider the table below.
News reporting often provides quick, accessible summaries of events, sparking interest, discussion and debate. It focuses on breadth, delivering information to a wide audience in a clear, immediate way. Research is slower. More time is taken and more processes are certified in terms of ethics, validity and robustness. While news reports offer headlines and general insights, research explores patterns, theories and insights of a specific time or over a period of time.
Educators, policy-makers and academics are all members of the general public and often engage with news in their daily lives. For many practitioners, news reports are accessed and shared in various ways. These can act as valuable starting points for reflection or enquiry. This knowledge can then lead to how broader trends and issues connect with the professional experiences of working with children and families in the early years and link to past, current or future research.
The accessibility challenge
At times, a research report or academic article can feel distant or disconnected from real-world practice. Lengthy articles, formal language and complex methodologies can make findings difficult to interpret and apply. This is especially true for practitioners stretched for time and an example of where headlines or news articles may be more accessible and time-friendly. On the other hand, when research is distilled in such a way, there is a risk of oversimplification. I recently had research on child-to-adult ratios reported on by the press via a pre-publication release. This was great to see as it helped communicate our findings with a wide-ranging audience, including practitioners and parents. The headlines reporting on our research favoured phrases such as ‘crowd control’, ‘harming staff wellbeing’ and ‘simply frightening’. While these phrases and concepts existed in our findings, so did aspects of resistance, professionalism and support. However, these later concepts were not as prevalent in the news articles. Since the interest in this research, though, we have been invited to deliver several presentations on it, where we have had the opportunity to further share and explore the depth and breadth of the findings.
| Differences between research and news | ||
|---|---|---|
| News reporting | Research | |
| Audience | General public (including parents) | Academics, practitioners, policy-makers |
| Timeframe | Fast-paced, quick turnover | Slow-paced, slow turnover |
| Style and language | Clear and accessible | Formal and often uses jargon |
| Focus | Breadth and current topics of interest | Depth, rigour and systematic analysis |
WHAT IS BIG ‘R’ RESEARCH?
Big ‘R’ research refers to large-scale, academic studies that explore child development, teaching and learning strategies, and the impact of early years provision. These studies are often conducted by universities or research organisations. They are typically funded and carefully designed to produce evidence that can influence national policies and inform practice in the early years.
Big ‘R’ research tends to focus on the bigger picture. It does this by collecting large amounts of data from many children, families or settings. This often takes months or even years, but ultimately aims to look at trends or patterns across the information collected in order to answer questions that the research is focused on. Two examples of this are the Study of Early Education and Development (SEED), which was completed in 2013-2018, and the Born in Bradford study (2007-ongoing). Both studies identify the positive impact that high-quality early years provision has on children's cognitive, social and emotional development, with the greatest benefits seen for disadvantaged children. It is this type of big ‘R’ research that helps strengthen and increase the visibility of the early years sector, the funding it needs and the impact it can have.
Why does big ‘R’ research matter to practitioners?
While big ‘R’ research can seem distant from day-to-day practice, its findings often influence the decisions that affect those who work in the sector. For example:
- Frameworks like the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) are built on research evidence.
- Research can highlight what effective provision looks like, offering practical guidance.
- It can provide an overview of how well children are being supported in their early years and what needs to be done to improve this further.
- It can provide evidence that can be used to advocate for increased government funding to demonstrate long-term benefits for children, families and wider society.
Importantly, being aware of big ‘R’ research can give practitioners confidence their work is grounded in evidence. While it may not provide all the answers, it can create opportunities for reflection, discussion and action.
WHAT IS LITTLE ‘R’ RESEARCH?
Little ‘r’ research refers to smaller-scale, practitioner-led and often informal enquiries. Unlike larger studies, it focuses on the day-to-day experiences of children, families and practitioners. Rooted in curiosity and observation, little ‘r’ research is practical, reflective and attuned to the context of where it is taking place. Practitioners often begin with a simple question or observation. For instance, a practitioner may notice children struggling to develop communication skills. Instead of waiting for external guidance, they decide to act by introducing more focused daily storytelling and singing sessions. Reflecting both individually and as a team, the impact of the sessions on children's listening, attention and verbal skills can be considered. These insights then provide knowledge and insight into what comes next.
What makes little ‘r’ research important is its immediacy and relevance. Practitioners do not need to wait for large studies – although these may be a source of inspiration. Practitioners can respond in real time, using what they observe to improve the quality of experience for their children. Furthermore, because little ‘r’ research happens within smaller and localised contexts, it can reflect and respond to the needs of the children, families and community.
I teach several courses where students study alongside working full-time in settings. I have the privilege of supervising their research projects. I see first hand how carrying out research in relation to their job role and context is empowering. Little ‘r’ research develops confidence and supports ownership while allowing practitioners to view themselves as active change-makers in their professional role. The skills developed through such research projects can be extended well beyond a student's studies and be applied to future practice and leadership opportunities.
PRACTICE-BASED EVIDENCE AND EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE
The terms ‘evidence-based practice’ and ‘practice-based evidence’ may use the same words, but they represent two distinct yet equally valuable approaches in the early years. Both link closely to the ideas of big ‘R’ and little ‘r’ research.
Evidence-based practice draws on big ‘R’ research that provides systematic and transparent findings. This type of research can provide practitioners with frameworks to guide their practice. For example, studies showing the impact of high-quality early education on children's social and cognitive outcomes (like the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education project in 2004) help shape national frameworks, such as the EYFS, and provide direction for daily practice.
Practice-based evidence, in contrast, aligns with little ‘r’ research. It emerges from real-world, practitioner-led reflections within specific settings and contexts. Educators observe, adapt and document what works for their children and often draw on previous experience and practice wisdom. Although I have experience of supervising this type of research as part of a practitioner's wider study, you do not have to be studying to undertake it. In fact, I would argue that reflective practice aligns well with small ‘r’ research.
Being aware of evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence should form a powerful partnership. Big ‘R’ research can provide external credibility, rigour and a foundation for action. Little ‘r’ research can ensure that local knowledge and experiences are valued in order to meet the unique needs of children, families and communities. This academic year, the Centre for Research in Early Childhood has run a CPD Pilot for settings to take part in called ‘Effective Early Learning (EEL) 10 Dimensions of Quality’. This is a good example of how knowledge of big ‘R’ research is encountering little ‘r’ research and vice versa. Practice-based evidence is seen as paramount to evidence-based practice.
CONCLUSION
Bridging the gap between research and practice in early years education requires an ongoing dialogue between practice and theory. While big ‘R’ research often provides the rigour and evidence needed to inform policies and frameworks, little ‘r’ research ensures that practitioners' observations and reflections remain central to improving day-to-day practice. This dual approach – where evidence-based practice meets practice-based evidence – should develop practitioners' confidence and professionalism when responding to the daily needs of children and families.
By acknowledging the value of both large-scale studies and localised experiences, we can enable an environment where research is accessible to those it should support. This means that it will serve as a tool for reflection, action and meaningful change. For academics, practitioners and policy-makers alike, this means working together to ensure that research – whether big or small – remains grounded, relevant and pragmatic.
