Katy 

Smart

Parenting Programmes: What the

Parents Say
A Case Study in Mixed Methods Social Science
Research
1st ed. 2020
Katy Smart
School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-59501-2 e-ISBN 978-3-030-59502-9

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive

license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively
licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in
any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks,

service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the
absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general
use.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the
advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate
at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© John Rawsterne/patternhead.com
This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company
Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham,
Switzerland
I would like to dedicate this book to my husband Chris who has always
believed in me and encouraged me to follow my passion to try and make a
difference to the lives of children, young people and their families.
I am so grateful for all the hours Chris has patiently listened to me as I
have talked about every other aspect surrounding my Ph.D. research and
then this book. I am so appreciative for all the time he has given up to
spend with me over the years as I have worked on my research. When you
undertake a Ph.D. and then decide to write a book about it, it is all
encompassing and permeates most aspects of your life.
It is especially thanks to Chris’ constant support, love and encouragement
that I am now in a position to share my research with you.
Acknowledgements
There are so many people that I want to thank for helping me complete
the research that has led to this book
Firstly, I must thank the participants, the parents, all of whom were
so generous with their time completing questionnaires and taking part
in the interviews; without them there would have been no research.
Although I do not discuss the data from the trainers, they do deserve a
thank you for the time they gave me. This provided triangulation of data
sources and promoted the trustworthiness of the data.
I must also thank the local authorities, children’s centres and
schools who acted as gatekeepers and gave me permission to invite
their parents to take part in my research. Without their support I would
not have been so successful in recruiting so many parents.
I would also like to thank my supervisors at the University of
Bristol, Professor Anthony Feiler and Dr. Sara Meadows, for their
ongoing support and encouragement throughout my Ph.D. The time
and guidance they gave me was invaluable.
Although sadly no longer with us I would like to thank Professor
Roy Bhaskar for encouraging me to attend his fortnightly reading group
sessions, annual conference and webinars at the Institute of Education
in London, to help me better understand his multi-faceted philosophy
of Critical Realism. He very sadly passed away on the 19 November
2014 however his philosophy lives on.
Finally, I must thank my family, my husband Chris and children
Nathan, Francis and Eleanor, for all their love and continual support
throughout my research and the writing of this book. When you take on
a Ph.D. so does your family and for this I am most grateful.
I thank you all.
About This Book
This book captures the key findings from my Ph.D. research at the
University of Bristol looking at parenting programmes.
The first two chapters address the reasons why I considered it
necessary to undertake this research and highlight some key elements
of my methodology. Chapter 2 also introduces the parents who took
part in the study, in particular the eight interviewed parents.
The following five chapters are each framed around one of the five
key themes that developed from my analysis of the parents’
questionnaire and interview data. I make extensive use of direct
quotations so that the parents’ voices can be heard.
The final chapter summarises my key findings regarding the
parents’ perspectives of the parenting programmes. It further
demonstrates how parenting programmes are a real-world example of
the Transplant model of parent-professional practice in action. Finally, I
discuss how elements of my methodological approach might be more
widely applicable within social science research.
Abbreviations
1M First Moment in DCR
2E Second Edge in DCR
3L Third Level in DCR
4D Fourth Dimension in DCR
ALSPAC Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children
ASD Autistic Spectrum Disorder
BPP Better Parenting Programme
CR Critical Realism
DCR Dialectical Critical Realism
DCSF Department for Children, Schools and Families
DfES Department for Education and Skills
EYFS Early Years Foundation Stage
LA Local Authority
NICE National Institute for Clinical Excellence
PALS Parents Altogether Lending Support
PEEP Peers Early Education Partnership
PEIP Parenting Early Intervention Programme
PRU Pupil Referral Unit
PSA Parent Support Advisor
SES Socio-Economic Status
Contents
1 Introduction
Introduction to Key Terms
Parents
Parenting Styles
Parenting Skills
Parental Involvement and Parental Engagement
Introduction to Parenting Programmes
Research Aims
A Critical Realist Research Approach
Summary
References
2 The Parents
Targeted Groups
Fathers and Parenting Programmes
Teenage Mothers and Parenting Programmes
Poverty and Parenting
Research Design
The Parents for Interview
The Interviews
Summary
References
3 The Importance of Learning and Using Parenting Strategies
Theory of Good Parenting
Developing Parenting Skills
The Importance of Parental Confidence
 The Parenting Programmes in This Research
Triple-P
Webster Stratton’s The Incredible Years
PEEP
What the Parents Say
What This Tells Us
References
4 The Value of Spending Quality Time with Their Child
The Impact of Attachment on Parenting
The Impact of Parenting on Children’s Behaviour
What the Parents Say
What This Tells Us
References
5 How Children Benefit from Opportunities That Promote Their
Development
Assuring Confidentiality and Anonymity
Confidentiality
Anonymity
The Impact of Parenting on Children’s Development and
Attainment
What the Parents Say
Speech and Language Development
Social Development
Behavioural Development
Improved Confidence
School Readiness and Education
What This Tells Us
 References
6 The Significance of the Family Working Together
Parenting Programme Critique
What the Parents Say
What This Tells Us
References
7 The Importance of the Right Environment to Share Parenting
Experiences with Other Parents
What the Parents Say
What This Tells Us
References
8 Discussion and Conclusion
What Parents Thought About the Impact of Parenting
Programmes
Research Question 2: Parents’ Views Regarding Parental
Changes
Research Question 3: Parents’ Views on the Impact to the
Children
Parenting Programmes as a Real-World Example of a
Transplant Model in Practice
Research Question 1: Parents’ Views on Parenting
Programmes
How My Methodology Can Serve as an Example for General
Social Science Research
Critical Realism as a Philosophy
Maximising Participation Through Anonymity and
Confidentiality
Engaging to Maximise Participation
 Respecting the Data
Current Parenting Programme Availability
Conclusion
References
Index
List of Figures
Fig. 1.1 Ontological layers in Critical Realism

 
Fig. 2.1 Research timeline

 
Fig. 2.2 Initial groupings of nodes

 
Fig. 2.3 Analysis process from transcript to themes

 
Fig. 3.1 Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model

 
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Parents recruited per programme

 
Table 2.2 Parents selected for interview

 
About the Author
Katy Smart has Ph.D. research interest, which forms the basis of this
book, that came about through over 30 years of working with children,
young people and parents. This included being a parent programme
designer and facilitator, NVQ lecturer and assessor in childcare and
education, Educational Psychologist Assistant, preschool leader and
primary school teacher. She was also the Parent Support, Extended
Services and Children’s Centre Advisor for 78 primary, secondary and
special schools and 14 children’s centres for a local authority in the
south-west of the UK for over six years.
Her interest in parenting and parental engagement has also been
influenced by 31 years of being a mother. As a mother she always
treasured the time she spent with her three children from reading
stories and playing with them as they discovered the world through
encouraging them to develop and explore their imaginations and
creativity, to supporting their learning with field trips and helping with
homework, to embracing their passions and helping them achieve their
dreams.
Katy is currently a Post-doctoral Researcher at the University of
Oxford; prior to that she was a Senior Teaching Associate at the
Graduate School of Education at the University of Bristol. Since 2013
she has been the editor of the Psychology of Education Review, the
journal of the Psychology of Education Section of the British
Psychological Society.
Previous publications by Katy include a chapter in Psychology
Applications and Developments III entitled Parenting Programmes: A
Transplant Model in Practice. She also was the co-editor of The Role of
Competence Beliefs in Teaching and Learning, part of the Current Trends
monograph series from the British Journal of Educational Psychology.

 
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_1

1. Introduction
Katy Smart1  
(1) School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

 
Abstract
Parenting is one of the most important and rewarding roles you can
have, yet it comes with many challenges—it is not an innate skill. It is
widely recognised that parenting contributes significantly to children’s
development, learning and achievement. Consequently, the UK
Government provided funding for the nationwide delivery of parenting
programmes to increase positive parental engagement with their child
and their child’s education, with the ultimate goal of improving the life
chances of children and young people.

Keywords Parenting programme – Parental engagement – Parental

involvement – Critical Realism

When it comes to children’s development and education, parents matter.

Parents matter. Parents matter to me. When it comes to jobs the
most important has to be parenting. Although without pay, it is
arguably the most rewarding position you will ever have. Yet it comes
with so many challenges and yes probably some heartbreak. I wish I
could say being a good parent is innate, but even if you have a solid
foundation in preparing you to be a parent you will, most likely, at some
time be faced with situations that you do not know how best to handle.
With the growing international recognition of the importance of the
parental role in their child’s education, the UK Government
commissioned Charles Desforges and Alberto Abouchaar to examine
research findings on the relationship between family education,
parental support and parental engagement on the one hand and their
child’s achievement and adjustment in schools on the other. Desforges
and Abouchaar’s (2003) review suggested that to improve the
educational achievement of children and young people parents need to
support their children; this goes beyond providing the basic needs such
as housing, love, safety and nutrition and extends to include parent–
child interaction, helping with school work and educational choices and
communication with their child’s educational setting.
The most important finding from Desforges and Abouchaar’s review
was that parental engagement in their child’s learning and
development could have a notable positive impact on their child’s
attainment and achievement.

In the primary age range the impact caused by different levels of

parental involvement is much bigger than differences associated
with variations in the quality of schools. The scale of the impact
is evident across all social classes and all ethnic groups.
(Desforges and Abouchaar 2003, pp. 4–5)

This suggests that parental engagement can have a greater impact

on the child’s achievement than the variations in teaching quality
between schools. This is quite a remarkable finding.
I should highlight here that the terms “involvement ” and
“engagement ” are frequently used interchangeably in the literature; I
will clarify this distinction later in this chapter in the section
Introduction to Key Terms.
Before I share the details of my study, first a little about myself and
why I considered this to be an important area that required
investigation.
My Ph.D. research interest came about through over 30 years of
working with children, young people and parents. This has included
being a parent programme designer and facilitator, Educational
Psychologist Assistant, preschool leader and primary school teacher as
well as the Parent Support, Extended Services and Children’s Centre
Advisor for a local authority in the south-west of the UK. The
differences in relationships between children and their parents,
through observation in my professional experience, appeared to have a
noticeable impact on children’s behaviour, development, attainment,
school attendance, social interaction and ultimately on their future
outcomes.
My interest in parenting and parental engagement has also been
influenced by 31 years of being a mother. As a mother I have always
treasured the time I have spent with my three children from reading
stories and playing with them as they discovered the world through
encouraging them to develop and explore their imaginations and
creativity, to supporting their learning with field trips and helping with
homework, to embracing their passions and helping them achieve their
dreams. However the knowledge and skills necessary for positive
parenting do not come with the arrival of a new baby; for many parents
they have not had positive parenting experiences themselves or have
lacked the opportunity to learn these skills. For parent and child, this
can mean missing out on these formative shared experiences; for the
child this can also mean not reaching their full academic potential
without such valuable parental engagement.
In my role as a parent programme facilitator, parents frequently
shared with me that attending the programme had improved their
knowledge around child development and made a positive difference to
their parenting skills. A common comment after completing the
programme was that they wished they had attended a course earlier. As
a preschool leader and primary school teacher parents have thanked
me for the time I have given them to discuss their child and for my
support. This relationship between myself, as an educational
professional, and parents is I believe fundamental in promoting
communication between home and the educational setting and in
fostering partnership working. It can help parents feel less threatened
about coming to talk to teachers around any concerns they may have or
asking for assistance in explaining how they can best support their
child with their education. This I believe helps promote parental
engagement in their child’s education and subsequently improved
achievement for their child.

Introduction to Key Terms

Throughout this book, a number of terms are introduced which might
benefit from a clear definition of how I use them.

Parents
Although when using the term “parents” I am referring to both mothers
and fathers, the parents involved in this study were predominantly
mothers; in both my professional experience and the evidence from the
literature it is still mainly mothers who are the primary caregivers
(Shuffelton 2015) and it is the mother who usually attends a parenting
programme. However there are fathers, albeit fewer, who are the
primary caregiver and who attend the parenting programme so the use
of parents rather than mothers is used to reflect this.

Parenting Styles
Parenting styles refers to the broader pattern of parenting practices
relating to the behaviours and interactions between the parent and
their child. For example Baumrind (1967) described four styles of
parenting in her research: neglectful, permissive, authoritarian and
authoritative. Gottman’s (1997) research also identifies four central
parenting styles: the dismissing parent, the disapproving parent, the
laissez-faire parent and the emotion-coaching parent.

Parenting Skills
Parenting skills are the techniques and tools that the parent can adopt
in their interactions with their child including: using positive praise;
establishing routines; setting clear consistent boundaries; engaging in
parent–child activities to support and promote their child’s social,
emotional, physical and cognitive development.

Parental Involvement and Parental Engagement

Specifically here I will be referring to parental involvement and
engagement with their child’s education and development.
Parental involvement focuses primarily on the educational process
and educational setting. This is largely concerned with information
sharing between parents and school or school-related activities
including: parents’ evenings; school assemblies; home/school
agreement; supporting the Parent Teacher Association; helping out in
the library. These activities are not directly associated with the child’s
learning and may have little impact on the child’s attainment (Harris
and Goodall 2007).
Parental engagement goes one step further with parents actively
taking a role in supporting or creating activities to promote their child’s
development and education. This could include: developing a
stimulating and positive home learning environment; actively taking an
interest and supporting their child’s schoolwork and homework;
engaging in activities with their child that would promote their child’s
social, emotional, physical and cognitive development. Parents are
“doing with” rather than “being done to” or “doing to”.
I have defined above how I use and interpret these two terms,
however in the literature these phrases are often used interchangeably;
an example of this would be when Desforges and Abouchaar use the
term “involvement” yet when Goodall and Vorhaus (2011) refer to this
document they use the term “engagement”—both referring to the same
parental interactions. Feinstein and Symons (1999) is another example
who refer to “involvement” however by my definition they are talking
about “engagement”. Other than in direct quotations I will be using my
definition to avoid ambiguity.

Introduction to Parenting Programmes

Desforges and Abouchaar’s (2003) review was a key factor that led to
the UK Government introducing a number of initiatives aimed at
promoting children’s attainment through parental interaction with
their children and their children’s school. Particular emphasis was
placed on local authorities’ engagement with parenting programmes
and the recruitment of a new workforce of Parent Support Advisors
(Lindsay et al. 2009) to help bridge the gap between schools and
parents. The success of Parent Support Advisor (PSA) pilot
programmes resulted in specific Government funding being provided to
introduce this scheme to all local authorities across the country, with
additional funding being made available to provide training for and
delivery of parenting programmes. To access this funding, each
authority was presented with five evidence-based parenting
programmes to choose from. An expected outcome from this provision
was the improvement of parental engagement with their child’s
education and a subsequent improvement in their child’s educational
attainment. Children’s centres also received funding to ensure they
provided similar support for parents whose children were not yet in
school, including the delivery of parenting programmes.
In 2009 I was asked to lead on the Parent Support Advisor project
for a south-west local authority, and my responsibilities included co-
ordinating the recruitment and training of all the Parent Support
Advisors across the borough. Each cluster of schools, a cluster
comprising a secondary school and its primary feeder schools,
recruited one PSA. I worked closely with the head teachers from each
cluster to recruit the PSA that would best suit their cluster; it was
important that the heads were involved in this process as they would be
referring the parents they considered needed support to their PSA. All
the PSAs received extensive training including being trained as a
parenting programme facilitator.
The importance of the parental role in their child’s development
and education was further substantiated in 2010 when the UK
Government commissioned Frank Field to conduct an independent
review on life chances and poverty. Field’s review also acknowledged
the importance of the role of parents in preventing poor children
becoming poor adults:

Nothing can be achieved without working with parents. All our

recommendations are about enabling parents to achieve the
aspirations that they have for their children.
(Field 2010, p. 6)

Field’s review highlighted the increasing number of parenting

programmes being offered at the time of writing his report in support
of disadvantaged families, particularly those with children in the early
years, and the positive impact such programmes can have on parenting
and the home learning environment. One of his recommendations was
that all new parents should be encouraged by children’s centres to take
advantage of a parenting programme.
However it was not long before the Government started to
withdraw funding, first from the PSA initiative and then from the
children’s centres. Frustrated by this change of direction, which seemed
to be based on factors other than feedback about the efficacy of the
programmes, I submitted my research proposal to the University of
Bristol—and so my Ph.D. study began. During my research I watched
the funding being taken away completely from the PSA initiative and
then gradually from the children’s centres who were also delivering
parenting programmes.

Research Aims
A number of parenting programmes have been developed, both
internationally and in the UK, to meet the varying needs and
approaches most suitable to parents. One of the key aims of many
parenting programmes is to help parents develop positive parenting
skills to support them in preventing or reducing challenging behaviour
in children. Other aims integral to the philosophy of parenting
programmes include strengthening the parent–child relationship,
increasing children’s social and emotional learning, promoting school
readiness, promoting parents’ awareness of children’s development
and the importance of maximising learning opportunities.
As part of a wider agenda, parenting programmes have had a
greater emphasis placed on their value after the research findings of
Desforges and Abouchaar; this had a powerful influence on local
authorities offering and delivering more parenting programmes. The
existing research into parenting programmes has primarily focused on
their impact to children’s behaviour; this could be attributed to the
primary aim of many parenting programmes being directed in this area.
However, having a background in psychology and education I was
additionally interested in the impact that the programmes have on
parental behaviour and the subsequent effects on children’s
development and attainment. Specifically, I was interested in the
parents’ perspectives; my research provided parents the opportunity to
express their views on parenting programmes.
My study followed a number of families through one of three
parenting programmes and beyond. My aim was not to advocate any
particular parenting programme or indeed parenting programmes in
general; rather my purpose was to explore parents’ perspectives on
whether they considered parenting programmes to have had an impact
on their own behaviour and whether they considered this had
subsequently had any impact on their child. My study explored the
longitudinal perspective by revisiting the families participating in my
research one year after they had completed a parenting programme to
examine the parents’ perceptions of any lasting influence. The three
parenting programmes my research focused on were, Triple-P, Webster
Stratton’s The Incredible Years and Peers Early Education Partnership
(PEEP), three of the most popularly adopted programmes across the
south-west of the UK at the time of starting my research. I will describe
these programmes in more detail in the next chapter. In total 136
parents attending 20 courses took part in my study.
By gaining the parents’ perspectives I aimed to establish how
effective parenting programmes are in terms of being a vehicle to
deliver advice and guidance—how well do they succeed in getting
across information and new ideas? Do they ensure parents feel
empowered by the programme rather than being made to feel
inadequate? Do parenting programmes change how a parent interacts
with their child? Does this in turn improve the child’s progress? Does
this really change the cycle that affects so many families—poverty
(Blanden et al. 2005), teenage pregnancies (Smart 2003) and mental
health problems (Murray and Cooper 1997). An investigation into the
parenting programme process was a key component of my research.
It is suggested that if a parent has formed a positive attachment to
their child and continues to interact and take an interest in their life, it
will have a positive impact on their future outcomes (Ainsworth et al.
1978; Bowlby 1980). Many factors come into play that influence how a
parent develops a relationship with their child: their own role models
when growing up; mental health issues; domestic violence; addiction
(drugs, alcohol, gambling); socio-economic factors; their own
education; initial mother–infant attachment. How do parenting
programmes fit into this landscape?
The main aim of my research was to explore the parents’
perceptions, but to ensure a degree of triangulation and to promote
trustworthiness in the data, I needed to seek a secondary source to
provide an alternative perspective to the parents’ reports. To this end
my research incorporated the views from parent programme trainers—
they saw the parents typically on a weekly basis, following them
through the entirety of the course, and were well-placed to provide this
additional perspective. However the focus of this book is solely on the
parents’ voices.
With these considerations in mind, my study addressed the
following three research questions:
1.
What are the views of parents regarding the parenting programme?  
2.
What are the views of parents regarding the changes that parents  
have made as a result of attending a parenting programme?
3.
From the perspective of parents, what impact has the parenting  
programme had on the children?
My research questions were framed in this way to allow for the
voices of the parents to be heard and for them to share their views on
the parenting programme process, any parental behaviour changes and
any impact on the child. The heart of my research is the parents’ voices
and as such I have tried to include as many as possible in this book; a
key component will be the use of direct quotations from parents,
allowing their voices to be heard in the context of my research. These
quotations come from both questionnaire responses and interviews
and will be identified as such. Responses from the post-programme
questionnaire are labelled “Q-post”; responses from the one-year-on
questionnaire “Q-year”; interview quotations will be labelled with the
participant’s pseudonym. Transcribed phrases starting mid-way
through a sentence will be prefixed with an ellipsis (…), words inserted
for contextual clarity will be contained within square brackets [ ],
emphasised phrases will be underlined and a pause in the participant’s
response will be indicated with two dots (..).

A Critical Realist Research Approach

The purpose of my research was to increase the knowledge and
understanding of the impact of parenting programmes without actually
affecting what already exists; my aim was to develop this
understanding without distorting the mechanisms that led to its
generation. Further, my research goes beyond a direct empiricist view
and uses the parents’ stories to better appreciate the underlying reality
—in other words I wanted to try and understand more about what
mechanisms might be causing the impacts that are observed. This
placed my study comfortably within Bhaskar’s (1975) Critical Realist
philosophy in that by employing interviews with participants I would
gain an insight into the underlying reality through an analysis of their
experiences. Also in line with this philosophy it is possible to view the
parenting programmes as “an ensemble of structures, practices and
conventions that individuals reproduce or transform” (Bhaskar 1991, p.
76). I wanted to make connections between what the parents were
saying and what was happening in their lives. Sims-Schouten and Riley
(2014) consider this as providing a sense of justice to their research
participants.
Central to Critical Realism is the concept of different ontological
domains or layers—the Real, the Actual and the Empirical—see Fig. 1.1.
As each deeper layer is revealed and understood it becomes necessary
to return to the original event for further critical analysis.

Fig. 1.1 Ontological layers in Critical Realism

Here the Real encapsulates the underlying structures, mechanisms

and processes that are ultimately responsible for what we can observe;
the Real cannot be seen but we can speculate on it, although it is not
something we have any direct knowledge of. An example of this would
be gravity; we do not see gravity however we know if we drop an object
it will fall. Above the Real, the next layer is the Actual; this refers to
events, the events that are caused by the Real mechanisms. We cannot
observe the Real however we can observe the Actual: using the example
of gravity we can see the object drop, that is to say we cannot observe
gravity itself but we can observe an event caused by gravity. Finally the
third ontological level of Bhaskar’s Critical Realism is the Empirical, the
domain of the experience, where the Actual events translate into
measurable outcomes. This is the position occupied by the researcher
and is characterised by the measurements and observations that they
make. For example in the case of gravity, the Empirical domain includes
the measurements of how long an object took to fall.
Applying this ontological model to my research reveals how the
responses from individual parents and trainers comprise an empirical
view of parenting programmes. Through the combination and analysis
of these experiences I aim to uncover an understanding of the actual
impacts of the programmes and then ultimately to determine the real
mechanisms and processes that led to these outcomes. Through my
research I am gaining knowledge from individual parent’s experiences
and using induction to draw conclusions about larger populations
(Danermark et al. 2002); however as part of this induction I have to
revisit my understanding of the original event. This steady cycle of
discovery, understanding, more discovery and amendment will get me
closer to an accurate conclusion (Patomäki and Wight 2000).
A second key component of Critical Realism is the recognition of the
epistemic fallacy—the mistaken idea that ontological questions can be
translated into purely epistemological terms, whereby being can be
explained by our knowledge of being. Bhaskar highlights this fallacy
through his ontological model presented above; the existence of the
underlying reality, the domain of the Real, is independent of our
knowledge and awareness of it, as experienced in the Empirical
domain. Bhaskar goes on to further distinguish these two entities as an
intransitive underlying reality compared to a transitive and changeable
empirical understanding of that reality. Continuing the earlier example
of gravity, we can see how Newton’s laws of gravity have been
superseded by Einstein’s General Relativity as our epistemological
understanding of this phenomenon, however the ontological reality of
gravity has remained unchanged. In terms of my research, this
distinction allows me to recognise that the impact of parenting
programmes, the underlying reality, will be experienced and reported
differently by different participants. I therefore need to combine
multiple perspectives in order to fully appreciate the impact.
It could be argued that allowing the voices of the participants the
opportunity to tell their story is enough. This would be a purely
narrative approach and would flow naturally from the interview
structure of my research. However Clough and Nutbrown (2002)
suggest that social research is political and question the point of any
research that does not have an impact on either the researcher or
society. Dowling and Brown consider research can bring with it a
means of understanding the world that you did not have before, which
could impact on your own “professional practices” (Dowling and Brown
2010, p. 1) as well as encouraging further research. My research could
have focused on the stories of one or two families however I feel it is
important to go beyond the narrative, where the reader is left to draw
their own conclusions, and rather to explicitly analyse the real
mechanisms and processes behind the impact of parenting
programmes in order to propose further research and potentially
influence social policy. Bhaskar’s (2008) four planar social being MELD
model helps me to do this, where the four planes are defined and
characterised as:
First Moment or 1M: stratification and the epistemic fallacy
Second Edge or 2E: absences and negative power2
Third Level or 3L: totality and reflexivity
Fourth Dimension or 4D: transformative agency and positive
power1
To help understand this model and how it applies to my research I
need to clarify some of the terminology Bhaskar uses, namely the
elements that I drew upon in my research. The First Moment (1M)
refers to basic Critical Realism which is the starting point for the model,
beginning with the stratification into the three ontological levels as
shown in Fig. 1.1 earlier and the recognition of the epistemic fallacy.
The Second Edge (2E) introduces the concept of absence and its
associated negative “power2”. It highlights the importance of elements
that we cannot see but which have significant effects. Collier (1998)
uses the example that the absence of vitamin C in our diet would cause
scurvy. Through observation of crew members on long sea voyages it
was the absence of fresh fruit and vegetables that was discovered to be
the direct contributory cause that led to this disease. In the Third Level
(3L) Bhaskar explains that totalities “must exist for social life to be
possible” (Bhaskar 1998, p. 629). He relates how each individual
exhibits a subset of the features of the larger group to which they
belong and therefore the experiences of an individual need to be
analysed and understood within this wider context. Recognition of
these totalities is a vital step on the path to influencing change, which is
the ultimate goal of Bhaskar’s Fourth Dimension (4D), wherein the
positive “power1” of transformative agency, the human ability to
change the world, is captured.
To demonstrate how this model works I have outlined below how
my research contributes by mapping it onto the MELD framework:
1M observe and collect the perspectives of parents and trainers
on the parenting programme process, changes in parental behaviour
and impact on the child, understanding how each individual’s
experience is one manifestation of the underlying reality.
2E identify what was the nature of the changes reported by
parents, recognising the nature of both becoming and “be-going”
(Bhasker’s terminology for changes associated with loss or absence).
What is or was missing in regard to parenting behaviours and child
development. Are there any contradictions in what parents and
trainers are saying?
3L looking at the whole picture, the totality, of the impacts of the
parenting programme process. Examining this totality through
multiple time points, multiple perspectives, both parents and
trainers, and multiple methodologies.
4D using this new knowledge and understanding to pursue real
change; refocusing the Government and local authority attention to
addressing these changes.
Although it is my longer-term intention to influence social policy,
my research was not intended to change the objects or events which
form part of the study itself; I was simply observing through the
information from the questionnaires and interviews. This allowed me
to develop knowledge and understanding through the experiences of
the participants. It was through critical examination of the
questionnaires and interview transcripts and other data collected,
including casual conversations whilst taking part in group sessions,
that themes were developed. Although I was looking at events on the
surface, the relationship with the real underlying mechanisms and
structures needed to be understood; Critical Realism helped me
appreciate that my observations were just abstractions of the true
reality and that I needed to critically interpret these observations to
fully understand the deeper causal relationships.

Summary
Parenting programmes have been developed and delivered as part of a
wider initiative to increase positive parental engagement with their
child and their child’s education, with an ultimate goal of improving the
life chances of children and young people. In my professional
experience I have seen first-hand how much difference parental
engagement can make and I felt there was a real need to explore
parents’ perceptions of whether or not parenting programmes can
make a difference in this regard. I therefore considered it important to
explore parents’ views on the structure, content and delivery of
parenting programmes, how they have personally been impacted by
attending such a programme and finally whether or not this might be
affecting their child.
In the next chapter I will move away from discussions of why I
undertook this research and introduce the parents who took part in my
study, in particular the eight interviewed parents, along with a
description of how I collected and analysed their perspectives.
The following chapters will be framed around five key themes that
developed from my interactions with the parents as part of this
research:
Chapter 3 discusses how the parents valued the parenting
strategies that they had learnt and the impact it had on their
parenting and their relationship with the child;
Chapter 4 shows that having attended a parenting programme
parents are now appreciating spending quality time with their child;
 Chapter 5 goes on to demonstrate how the children benefit from
opportunities provided by their parents that promote their
development;
Chapter 6 raises the importance of the family working together to
adopt these new strategies and the potential consequences of not
doing so;
Chapter 7 discusses the significance of the right environment to
share parenting experiences with other parents. This chapter will
look at the aspects of the environment that the parents considered
particularly important.
Finally in Chapter 8 I will summarise the key findings from my study
and look at how aspects of my methodological approach might be
applicable more widely within social science research.

References
Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Walls, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;
distributed by Halsted Press Division of Wiley.

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior.
Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43–88.
[Crossref]

Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds: Leeds Books Ltd.

Bhaskar, R. (1991). Philosophy and the idea of freedom. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bhaskar, R. (1998). Critical realism and dialectic. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson,
& A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings. London: Routledge.

Bhaskar, R. (2008). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Routledge.

[Crossref]

Blanden, J., Gregg, P., & Machin, S. (2005). Intergenerational mobility in Europe and North
America. Report supported by the Sutton Trust, Centre for Economic Performance, London
School of Economics. London: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss III: Loss, sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books.

Clough, P., & Nutbrown, C. (2002). A student’s guide to methodology: Justifying enquiry. London:
Sage.

Collier, A. (1998). The power of negative thinking. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson,
& A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings. London: Routledge.
Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. C. (2002). Explaining society: Critical
realism in the social sciences. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and
family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A review of literature. Nottingham: DfES
Publications.

Dowling, P., & Brown, A. (2010). Doing research/reading research: Re-interrogating education.
London: Routledge.

Feinstein, L., & Symons, J. (1999). Attainment in secondary school. Oxford Economic Papers, 51,
300–321.
[Crossref]

Field, F. (2010). The foundation years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults: The report
of the Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances. London: Cabinet Office.

Goodall, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of best practice in parental engagement. London:
Department of Education.

Gottman, J. (1997). Raising an emotionally intelligent child. Seattle, WA: Gottman Institute.

Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging parents in raising achievement: Do parents know they
matter?: A research project commissioned by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.
Warwick: University of Warwick.

Lindsay, G., Davis, H., Strand, S., Cullen, A. M., Band, S., Cullen, S., et al. (2009). Parent support
advisor pilot evaluation: Final report. Warwick: University of Warwick.

Murray, L., & Cooper, P. J. (1997). Effects of postnatal depression on infant development.
Archives of Disease in Childhood, 77, 99–101.
[Crossref]

Patomäki, H., & Wight, C. (2000). After postpositivism? The promises of critical realism.
International Studies Quarterly, 44, 213–237.
[Crossref]

Shuffelton, A. (2015). Re-privatizing the family: How “opt-out” and “parental involvement”
media narratives support school privatization. Critical Education, 6(12).

Sims-Schouten, W., & Riley, S. (2014). Employing a form of critical realist discourse analysis for
identity research: An example from women’s talk of motherhood, childcare, and employment.
In P. Edwards, J. O’Mahoney, & S. Vincent (Eds.), Studying organizations using critical realism: A
practical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smart, C. (2003). The effects of educational provisions on teenage pregnancies. Master of

Education: University of Bristol.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_2

2. The Parents
Katy Smart1  
(1) School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

 
Abstract
This book focuses on the voices of parents. It gives them the
opportunity to share their views around the process and outcomes
associated with attending a parenting programme. This chapter
introduces the parents who supported my research, in particular those
who took part in the interview phase, and describes the methodologies
I employed to collect and analyse their perspectives.

Keywords Parenting – Fathers – Teenage mothers – Socio-economic

status

Meet the parents: Adelajda, Ava, Emily, Emma, Isabella, Jacob, Olivia,
Sophia.
The whole purpose of my research, and this book, is to capture the
voices of the parents who attended a parenting programme. My
research was all about understanding what they had to say about the
programmes and how they perceived the programmes had made an
impact on them and their families. Therefore I consider it important
that I dedicate this chapter to introducing the parents who formed the
core of my study, describing the process by which I selected the
parents, particularly those who took part in my interviews, the
techniques I used to collect their views and the methodologies I
adopted to analyse what they told me.
Before I go on to talk about my research design in more detail and
how I selected the parents to take part in the interview phase of the
study, I would like to briefly share some of the research literature
around the groups of parents that were identified as those who would
particularly benefit from attending a parenting programme (DfES
2007). These Government targeted groups comprise of fathers, teenage
mothers and parents with a low socio-economic status. Understanding
why these specific parent categories were identified as target recipients
for the programmes is especially important as it was essential that I
listened effectively to the voices from each of these demographic
groups.

Targeted Groups
Fathers and Parenting Programmes
The first group that were targeted by local authorities were fathers .
With increases in the number of women working and the time fathers
spend with their child (DfES 2007), along with the recognition of the
importance of the role of the father and the strong links between the
father’s interest in their child’s schooling and their subsequent
educational outcome (DfES 2007; Field 2010), children’s centres were
charged with actively designing and promoting services for fathers
(DfES 2007).
Although parenting programmes in general are designed to prepare
both mothers and fathers for parenthood, from both my own
professional experience and from research carried out on parenting
programmes it is evident that it is mostly mothers who attend. It could
be argued that it is easier for mothers to attend as the programmes are
often delivered in the day whilst the fathers are at work. However even
with increasing numbers of mothers going out to work and more
fathers becoming the main carer it still appears very few fathers attend
parenting programmes. To establish whether a fathers -only group
would encourage fathers to engage in an Incredible Years programme,
Helfenbaum-Kun and Ortiz (2007) arbitrarily assigned 39 fathers to
either an eight-week programme or to a control group. Although at the
start the fathers expressed an interest and attendance on the
programme was good, by the end of the course 70% of the registered
fathers had attended fewer than half the sessions.
 The European Union Platform for Investing in Children (European
Union Platform 2015) found that, in 2012, the rate of women in work in
Sweden (71.8%) was approaching that of men (75.6%). In fact the
proportion of mothers with children under the age of six who were in
work was even higher at 76.8%. Axberg and Broberg’s (2012) study
into whether The Incredible Years programme is transferrable to
Swedish parents, with children between the ages of four and eight,
supports this high rate as they found that 80% of their mothers were
employed. Sweden certainly appears to be leading the way forward to
equal gender parenting and offers 16-months of leave for parents that
can be used by either the father or mother, two months of which is
exclusively for fathers (France-Presse 2015). Although the focus of
Axberg and Broberg’s study was the transferability of The Incredible
Years programme from American to Swedish parents, I was particularly
interested in whether father participation in a parenting programme
would be higher in a country where there was such a focus on equal
gender parenting. Surprisingly all the participants in this study were
mothers even though 63% of the children lived with both their parents.
In Australia, Gray et al. (2003) quote 65.5% of all two-parent
families with children under 15 as having both parents working. To give
working parents easier access to a parenting programme Sanders et
al.’s (2011) study, with the support of a number of organisations in the
Brisbane metropolitan area in Australia, recruited parents to take part
in their research through workplace notice boards and letters attached
to payslips. From the 152 employees who expressed an interest in
taking part in the research 121 working parents with children between
the ages of one and 16 met the study’s criteria; each parent was
arbitrarily assigned to either a Workplace Triple-P programme or to a
control group. Even though the programme was delivered in the
workplace, 72.4% of participants were mothers. This cannot be
attributed to mothers working fewer hours as the programme was
delivered during the working day. This suggests even taking a parenting
group into the workplace does not increase father participation.

Teenage Mothers and Parenting Programmes

One group of parents that children’s centres were encouraged to engage
were teenage parents . Compared to older parents, teenage mothers
and fathers are more likely to experience a wider range of challenges
(DCSF 2008) such as coming from a deprived background,
unemployment, own mother was a teenage mother, repeated
unplanned pregnancies, educational problems, poor health, unstable
relationship. To help support teenage parents the UK Government
(DfES 2007) asked children’s centres to provide support and advice
including support in parenting.
Young mothers, or more specifically teenage mothers, have been a
strong focus of UK Government policy (DfES 2007; DCSF 2008, 2009) as
it is suggested that teenage parents are often from very deprived
backgrounds (DCSF 2009; Barlow et al. 2011). Statistics show that
numbers of teenage pregnancy are known to be higher in areas of
greater socio-economic deprivation, although reduced numbers of
teenage pregnancy have been noted in areas with proximity to youth
family planning clinics (Diamond et al. 1999). McLeod’s (2001) study of
the shifting patterns of teenage pregnancy highlights results from the
1980s and the 1990s showing an increased disparity depending on
local deprivation. The Social Exclusion Unit (1999) found that
teenagers in socio-economically disadvantaged areas were less likely to
terminate their pregnancy, as they appeared to strongly disapprove of
this practice and felt it would stigmatise them in the eyes of others. In
contrast, the teenagers from a more affluent region were more likely to
have an abortion. This divergence of preference between classes is
aligned with reported differences between the middle-class girl and her
working-class equivalent in their future aspirations (Dawson and
Meadows 1995).
My earlier research (Smart 2003) investigated the effects of three
different educational provisions (home tutoring; school; pupil referral
unit [PRU]) for teenage pregnancies and mothers who studied for their
GCSEs. The findings from this research suggest the best educational
provision was offered at the PRU as this provided knowledge on
childcare and an on-site nursery provision for their babies. However a
limitation of this research was the small number of teenage mothers
included; there were only three case-studies, one for each provision.
During my professional experience of talking to teenage mothers and
other professionals who worked with them I learnt that in many cases
the teenagers’ own experiences of being parented had not been
positive. I have observed during visits to PRUs that although there may
be no formal parenting programme sessions the teenagers all had to
attend lessons on childcare—the intention here was to break the cycle
of negative parenting. Additionally parenting skills were learnt by the
teenagers as they interacted with the nursery staff when they joined
their baby in their breaks throughout the day.

Poverty and Parenting

Parents that came from areas with a low socio-economic status (SES)
were also prioritised by local authorities; the first phases of children’s
centres were built in these areas to support the local families. Field
(2010) summarised in his report on “The Foundation Years: Preventing
Poor Children Becoming Poor Adults” by acknowledging that the most
important element in a child’s development is what parents do with
their child. Further he recommended supporting services for parents in
developing new parenting skills with increased funding for families
living in areas of socio-economic deprivation. This additional support
and funding enabled local authorities and children’s centres to deliver
parenting programme groups.
A number of studies have investigated the relationship between
poverty and parenting. Simons et al.’s (1992) study, with a participant
sample of 451 two-parent families, suggests that the effects of socio-
economic disadvantage can have a negative impact on parenting for
both mothers and fathers. Although a significant number of children
who grow up in socially disadvantaged households receive good care
and consequently experience positive developmental outcomes,
extreme poverty is often associated with inadequate nutrition and
housing leading to developmental problems (Goldberg 2000). Wetz
(2009) also found that there is a correlation between families
experiencing poverty and attachment difficulties.
Blanden et al. comment “that family income in the childhood years
does make a genuine difference to educational outcomes” (Blanden et
al. 2005, p. 3). Gregg and Washbrook (2009) used the Avon
Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) data of 14,000
children born in Avon in the early 1990s to investigate the effects of
socio-economic position on educational attainment. They found that
child attainment at age seven was generally lower for children from
socio-economically disadvantaged families and, even if they did well at
age seven, their performance was more likely to slip as they progressed
through primary school. Children from poor backgrounds tended to
view themselves as academically less able. However Gregg and
Washbrook’s findings indicate that it is not simply the family’s
economic status that has a direct impact but rather the parental
attitudes towards education. Feinstein and Symons (1999) also suggest
that parental interest in education is four times more significant than
social and economic status in influencing attainment at 16. The
implication here is that, as far as the child is concerned, it is their
parents’ engagement rather than living in poverty that can influence
their outcome; but for parents, living in poverty appears to have a
profound effect on the attention they give to their child’s education.
This was supported by Field’s review which found that:

It is family background, parental education, good parenting and

the opportunities for learning and development in those crucial
years that together matter more to children than money.
(Field 2010, p. 5)

The significance of specifically mentioning these groups is that they

were actively targeted and encouraged to take part in a parenting
programme. I factored this in to my research design by incorporating
several demographic questions in the pre-programme questionnaire.
This enabled me to ensure that I invited parents from each of these
targeted groups to take part in the interview phase of my research.

Research Design
With clear aims for what I wanted to investigate, and a philosophical
perspective to back up my approach, I now had to design exactly how I
was going to go about performing the research. I recruited a total of
136 parents across 20 courses (Table 2.1) in the south-west of the UK
to take part in my study, the majority of which had preschool-aged
children (0–4 years).
Table 2.1 Parents recruited per programme
Parenting Number Number Age groups of children
programme of of
parents courses
Triple-P 7 2 One parent attended Primary Triple-P and had at least one
child that attended primary school. Six parents attended
Teen Triple-P and had at least one child attending a
secondary school
The 17 4 Seven parents accessed the baby programme; four
Incredible attended the preschool programme; six went to a primary
Years programme
PEEP 112 14 All parents had at least one child under the age of four
Total 136 20  

Access to participants was through local authorities, schools,

children’s centres and parent programme facilitators. Through my work
as both a teacher and local authority advisor I had already developed a
number of contacts in each of these areas who were able to assist me in
accessing parenting groups. Additionally I was able to use my
knowledge of the local authority structure to contact advisors who
were also able to help me access the parenting programmes that were
included in my research.
I employed a mixed methods research approach utilising
questionnaires, featuring both quantitative and qualitative questions,
as well as semi-structured interviews. The use of questionnaires was
chosen as one of the main methods of collecting data as it allowed me
to recruit a large number of parents. The use of interviews enabled me
to probe further, collecting rich data around the parents’ experiences.
I firstly devised a pre-programme questionnaire whose purpose
was to record demographic data and to establish parental practices and
expectations pre-intervention; I will refer to this as “Q-pre” for short.
This was then supplemented by a follow-up questionnaire at the end of
the programme (“Q-post”) to explore parents’ initial perspectives,
having attended the course, regarding what they then did differently
and what they thought they had gained from the course. Questions
included: “How much time are you able to spend playing with your
children?”, “What activities do you share with your children?”, “How do
you support your children’s nursery, pre-school or school?”, “How
confident are you in each of these areas?”. Additionally I incorporated
several qualitative questions to increase the availability of parental
subjective views. To provide participants with maximum protection I
devised a system where parents could remain anonymous to me whilst
also ensuring that the trainers did not see their data. This was a
particularly important aspect of my data collection design and one that
I hope will help future researchers. I will discuss this system in greater
detail in Chapter 5.
The findings from an analysis of the questionnaire responses were
then used to direct a series of post-programme semi-structured
interviews with parents (referred to later as “I-post”). I devised an
interview schedule based on the questionnaire responses to examine
parents’ views on the parenting programme process, how it impacted
their behaviour and how this subsequently affected their child.
My study explored the longitudinal perspective by revisiting the
families one year after they had completed the programme with a third
questionnaire (“Q-year”) to examine the parents’ perceptions of any
lasting impact. The one-year-on questionnaire included both
quantitative and qualitative questions that were asked on the pre- and
post-programme questionnaires to establish whether there had been
any lasting parental behaviour changes since attending the programme
and whether there had been any longer-term impact on the child. I also
carried out one-year-on interviews (“I-year”) with the original
interview participants following up on the themes which developed
from the post-programme analysis. A visual representation of the
overall process is shown in Fig. 2.1.
Fig. 2.1 Research timeline

I selected a subset of eight parents (Table 2.2) to take part in

interviews, allowing me to gain a deeper insight into their perspectives.
The selection process was based on criteria derived from the
information provided on the pre- and post-programme questionnaires
and comprised four key factors:
Table 2.2 Parents selected for interview
Pseudonym Relationship to Teenage Low Programme Children
child parent? SES? attended
Adelajda Mother     PEEP 2
Ava Grandmother     The Incredible Years 4
Emily Mother     Triple-P 2
Emma Mother Yes Yes PEEP 2
Isabella Mother     Triple-P 2
Jacob Father   Yes PEEP 2
Olivia Mother   Yes The Incredible Years 4
Sophia Mother     PEEP 1

contactability of parents;
parental confidence levels;
representation from all three of the parenting programmes;
representation from both local authority targeted groups (low
socio-economic status, teenage parents, fathers ) and non-targeted
groups.
Regarding contactability, the selection criterion was that the parent
was happy to be contacted again in connection with my research.
Parents had been invited on the questionnaires to provide their contact
details if they were happy for me to send subsequent questionnaires
directly to them; this was particularly important for the one-year-on
questionnaires as it would be expected that the majority of parents
would no longer be in contact with the trainers at this time.
Research suggests that there is an association between parental
confidence and parental engagement—the more confident that parents
feel regarding their ability to fulfil their parenting role, the more
engaged with their child’s education and development they are likely to
be (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003; Harris and Goodall 2007). I looked
at the pre-programme questionnaire responses to the question “How
confident are you in each of these areas?” and employed a selection
criterion of low confidence on course entry, defined by the parent
reporting a degree of confidence lower than the top two levels. I wanted
to focus on parents who were in most need of support and advice; those
who might otherwise have been disengaged with their child’s
development and education.
 For this phase of my research it was important that I interviewed
parents from each of the parenting programmes. For the Triple-P and
The Incredible Years programmes I had fewer participants to select
from; for The Incredible Years programme I had only three participants
and for the Triple-P programme I had six parents who had completed
both the pre- and post-programme questionnaires. Although initially I
had interest from several local authorities delivering these
programmes, at the point of rolling out the pre-programme
questionnaire the withdrawal of Government funding meant that local
authorities had to cancel their planned delivery. However even with
this limitation, I was still fortunate enough to be able to recruit parents
from all three programmes covered in my study.
The final selection factor was based on participants’ responses to
the demographic questions from the pre-programme questionnaire to
establish whether the parent fell into one of the local authority
identified target groups: teenage parents, parents with a low socio-
economic status and fathers . Taking these groups into consideration, it
was important that I tried to capture the perspectives from both
targeted and non-targeted parents to see if there was any evidence to
suggest that parents and children from targeted families were impacted
differently to those who were not targeted. Therefore I selected parents
who represented each of these target groups in addition to ones who
did not fall into any of these categories.

The Parents for Interview

Using the selection criteria discussed above, a total of eight parents
were invited to take part in the interview phase of my research. Before
we look at this in more detail let us get to know the parents a little
better. All the names of the parents are pseudonyms; I also provided
pseudonyms for the children who were mentioned, by name, by the
parents during their interviews.
Adelajda and her husband both came from Poland and both had
attended university. Adelajda’s husband worked full-time and although
she did not work herself she recorded on her questionnaire that they
did not have any money worries. They had two daughters who on my
first visit to the children’s centre both attended the PEEP group; by the
time we had our first interview the eldest daughter had started school.
At home the family only spoke Polish, so initially the only time the girls
were encouraged to speak English was at the PEEP group. Adrianna
was the eldest daughter.
Olivia and her husband both left school with five GCSEs. They had
four children who Olivia referred to as child one, two, three and four.
From the interview it became apparent that Olivia had difficulty with
the behaviours of child one and child four; both children exhibited
Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) traits. Between the pre-programme
questionnaire and the interview data, I learnt that child number one
was a girl and in the junior years at primary school. Child number two
was also a junior but their sex was never referred to. Child three and
child four were both boys, one was in an infant class and the other at
preschool.
Ava was Olivia’s mum . Both Ava and her husband left school before
they were sixteen. They are now both retired and often look after their
grandchildren, Olivia’s children, after school. Ava was keen to attend
The Incredible Years programme to both support her daughter and also
to help her in learning strategies to promote more positive behaviours
from her grandchildren, in particular the eldest and youngest.
Emily and her husband had two sons William and Liam. Both
Emily and her husband had a university education; Emily in psychology
and child development. Emily’s husband was in full-time employment
and they had no money worries at the time of completing the pre-
programme questionnaire. William attended primary school and Liam
went to nursery.
Emma was a single teenage mum with two children. Her eldest,
Ella, and a younger son, both attended PEEP sessions at their local
children’s centre. Emma did not fill in the section around her
qualifications or whether she had any money worries. Both of her
children attended nursery whilst Emma was studying for a childcare
qualification. Ella was due to start school in the September.
Isabella and her husband had two sons. Isabella’s husband was
university educated and Isabella joined an Open University programme
later. Although her husband worked full-time and Isabella 28 hours a
week, they still had money concerns. Their eldest child, at the time of
completing the pre-programme questionnaire attended college and the
youngest secondary school. Isabella had been concerned about her
youngest child’s behaviour since he had been in primary school.
Jacob and his wife also had two sons, Ethan and Noah. Both Jacob
and his wife had attended university. Jacob worked ten hours a week
and his wife, the main wage earner, 20 hours a week. Money was a
worry. Even though Jacob’s mother-in-law was a teacher they had
decided that they would home educate their children. Ethan who had
previously attended PEEP groups was now being home-schooled. Noah
still attended PEEP groups.
Sophia had attended college and her husband university. They both
worked; Sophia two days a week and her husband full-time. Whilst
Sophia was at work their son Mason, who was one, went to a
childminder. Sophia did not fill in the question regarding whether they
were experiencing any money issues.

The Interviews
Having got to know the parents who took part in the interviews, we
now need to look at the interview process.
It was essential that I created the right atmosphere where parents
would feel comfortable to talk freely and so I ensured that the parents
had a say in where they wished the interview to take place. As
important as it was that the participant should feel comfortable, it was
also essential that I, the researcher, felt safe. I addressed this by
suggesting we met in public places such as cafes, schools or children’s
centres rather than, for example the parent’s home. I believe giving the
parents this choice helped them feel more in control as well as at ease
in their environment.
The interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and then
analysed using a thematic approach based on Braun and Clarke’s
(2006) model. Prior to commencing the analysis, I created a provisional
start list of thematic codes; the interviews were then analysed to
extract further themes, moving from a deductive to an inductive
paradigm. Using a commercially available qualitative data management
software package, I was able to go through each transcript in turn
creating descriptive codes, or nodes, each corresponding to a short
section of the transcript. This analysis drew upon a mixture of semantic
coding, capturing the surface meaning of the data, and latent coding
capturing deeper assumptions and interpretations. In all, 388 nodes
were created from three hours 49 minutes of post-programme
interview recordings with the parents.
The next phase of analysing the data was to group together the
nodes representing common areas. Some I was able to place into
groupings that I had already identified (deductive) from my
professional experience and the literature review, whilst others were
generated solely from the data (inductive).
As a tactile, visual learner I found that I was more comfortable with
the data printed out on individual strips of paper, each representing
one of the nodes from the transcript analysis, and laid out on a large
table—rather than attempting to manipulate the data within the
constraints of a computer screen. This was a time-consuming exercise,
however by having the nodes on paper it enabled me to move them
around easily and search for groupings and commonalities, see Fig. 2.2.
It also allowed me to become fully immersed in the data, gaining more
familiarity with it.
Fig. 2.2 Initial groupings of nodes

It is important to note that the number of occurrences of a topic

does not alone make it a theme; rather it is about whether the topic has
captured something important that is related to the research question
(Braun and Clarke 2006). Braun (2015) posits that it comes back to the
judgement of the researcher, me, to what determines a theme. I chose to
identify the themes that were important to the parents and that
addressed my research questions through a more subjective and
personal approach.
Once the nodes had formed groups, then consideration was given to
the relationships between these groupings and the identification of
appropriate labels or titles for these clusters. As related groups became
increasingly clustered together so their identifying labels began to
crystallise into themes. To ensure that I did not miss any potentially
important themes it was necessary to spend time away from the data
and then revisit it with fresh eyes to ensure I had not lost sight of the
research questions (Braun and Clarke 2006). It was also necessary to
revisit the source of the data to make sure that I did not take any
element of data out of context.
Repeated hierarchical phases of this grouping procedure eventually
resulted in a final set of themes being created from the parents’
interview data. A visual representation of the overall analysis process is
shown in Fig. 2.3.

Fig. 2.3 Analysis process from transcript to themes

Summary
This research study was carefully designed to ensure it included
parents’ views from all the targeted categories associated with
parenting programmes: fathers, teenage mothers, low socio-economic
status. It was also important to capture the perspectives of parents who
did not fall into one of these categories and so my selection criteria
allowed for this.
This book presents the findings from my research in terms of the
themes that developed from the rigorous qualitative analysis of the
interview transcripts. I will illustrate these themes making use of
quotations from parents’ questionnaires, as completed by all 136
participants, and interviews with the sub-sample of eight parents. All
names used are pseudonyms.
Although I won’t be discussing it further in this book, it is important
to mention that data was also collected from parenting programme
trainers. This ensured a degree of triangulation and promoted
trustworthiness in the data. I had no personal vested interest in
parenting programmes, and by giving the data time and care to allow
the themes to develop, I ensured that it was the parents’ views and
opinions that emerged rather than mine.
Over the next five chapters we will be hearing more from Adelajda,
Ava, Emily, Emma, Isabella, Jacob, Olivia and Sophia, as well as other
questionnaire parents, as I explore each of the five themes that
developed from the parents’ data. I will make extensive use of
quotations taken from both the parents’ questionnaires and interviews
in order that their voices can really be heard:
Chapter 3 The importance of learning and using parenting
strategies.
Chapter 4 The value of spending quality time with their child.
Chapter 5 How children benefit from opportunities that promote
their development.
Chapter 6 The significance of the family working together.
Chapter 7 The importance of the right environment to share
parenting experiences with other parents.

References
Axberg, U., & Broberg, A. G. (2012). Evaluation of “the incredible years” in Sweden: The
transferability of an American parent-training program to Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 53, 224–232.
[Crossref]

Barlow, J., Smailagic, N., Bennett, C., Huband, N., Jones, H., & Coren, E. (2011). Individual and
group based parenting programmes for improving psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents and
their children (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Blanden, J., Gregg, P., & Machin, S. (2005). Intergenerational mobility in Europe and North
America. Report supported by the Sutton Trust, Centre for Economic Performance, London
School of Economics. London: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.
Braun, V. (2015, July 16). Doing thematic analysis doing and communicating qualitative research.
London: Kingston University.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77–101.
[Crossref]

Dawson, N., & Meadows, S. (1995). The education of pregnant schoolgirls and schoolgirl mothers
(Bristol Papers in Education). University of Bristol, Bristol.

DCSF. (2008). Families in Britain: An evidence paper. Nottingham: Department for Children
Schools and Families Publications.

DCSF. (2009). Getting maternity services right for pregnant teenagers and young fathers.
Nottingham: Department for Children Schools and Families Publications.

Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and
family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A review of literature. Nottingham: DfES
Publications.

DfES. (2007). Every parent matters. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills
Publications.

Diamond, I., Clements, S., Stone, N., & Ingham, R. (1999). Spatial variation in teenage
conceptions in south and west England. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A
(Statistics in Society), 162, 273–289.
[Crossref]

European Union Platform. (2015). Sweden: Successful reconciliation of work and family life
[Online]. Available: http://europa.eu/epic/countries/sweden/index_en.htm. Accessed 28th
July 2016.

Feinstein, L., & Symons, J. (1999). Attainment in secondary school. Oxford Economic Papers, 51,
300–321.
[Crossref]

Field, F. (2010). The Foundation Years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults: The
report of the Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances. London: Cabinet Office.

France-Presse, A. (2015, May 28). Swedish fathers to get third month of paid paternity leave.
The Guardian.

Gray, M., Qu, L., Renda, J., & De Vaus, D. (2003). Changes in the labour force status of lone and
couple Australian mothers, 1983–2002. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Gregg, P., & Washbrook, E. (2009). The socio-economic gradient in child outcomes: The role of
attitudes, behaviours and beliefs: The primary school years. Bristol: University of Bristol.

Goldberg, S. (2000). Attachment and development. London: Arnold.

Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging parents in raising achievement: Do parents know they
matter?: A research project commissioned by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.
Warwick: University of Warwick.

Helfenbaum-Kun, E. D., & Ortiz, C. (2007). Parent-training groups for fathers of head start
children: A pilot study of their feasibility and impact on child behavior and intra-familial
relationships. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 29, 47–64.
[Crossref]

McLeod, A. (2001). Changing patterns of teenage pregnancy: Population based study of small
areas. BMJ, 323, 199–203.
[Crossref]

Sanders, M. R., Stallman, H. M., & McHale, M. (2011). Workplace Triple P: A controlled
evaluation of a parenting intervention for working parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4),
581–590.
[Crossref]

Simons, R. L., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., & Wu, C. I. (1992). Support from spouse as mediator
and moderator of the disruptive influence of economic strain on parenting. Child Development,
63, 1282–1301.
[Crossref]

Smart, C. (2003). The effects of educational provisions on teenage pregnancies (Master of

Education). University of Bristol, Bristol.

Social Exclusion Unit. (1999). Teenage pregnancy: Report. London: Stationery Office.

Wetz, J. (2009). Urban village schools: Putting relationships at the heart of secondary school
organisation and design. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_3

3. The Importance of Learning and

Using Parenting Strategies
Katy Smart1  
(1) School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

 
Abstract
This chapter examines the first theme that developed from my
research: “the importance of learning and using parenting strategies”. It
examines the difference between parents who attended the PEEP
programme and those who attended The Incredible Years and Triple-P
programmes. Parents reported positive changes, especially the effective
adoption of parenting and behaviour management strategies, along
with increased parental confidence.

Keywords Parenting strategies – Bronfenbrenner – Triple-P – The

Incredible Years – PEEP – Parental confidence

This chapter discusses how the parents valued the parenting strategies
that they had learnt and the impact it had on their parenting and their
relationship with the child.
This is the first of five chapters each of which will share one of the
key findings that developed from my research. This chapter will look at
the theme the importance of learning and using parenting strategies.
This is not my thesis and I don’t want to put off the reader with an
extensive literature review; however it is important to provide a basic
grounding of what previous research had already been carried out and
what it found. So to help gain a better understanding of the importance
of the findings from the parents’ data and put it into context, this
chapter will start by focusing on the literature around parenting and
the key factors that affect it, including parenting skills, parental
confidence and the theory of what is considered by many, such as Field
and Desforges and Abouchaar, to constitute “good parenting”.
I will then go on to introduce more fully the three parenting
programmes that my research included. The chapter will then focus on
the first key theme from the parents’ data that I will be discussing: The
importance of learning and using parenting strategies. This theme
addressed my second research question What are the views of parents
regarding the changes that parents have made as a result of attending a
parenting programme? The purpose of this question was to establish an
understanding of any behavioural changes that parents may have made,
when interacting with their child, associated with knowledge and skills
that they had acquired from attending a group-based programme.

Theory of Good Parenting

To help us better understand what “good parenting” may look like first
we need to understand what a child needs to flourish and grow. To
define what constitutes “good parenting” is somewhat problematic as
there is no single definition; however there are a number of factors that
might generally expect to be included. These include providing the
basic needs of a child: love, warmth, food, shelter, physical safety and
emotional security. Additionally good parenting includes nurturing and
encouraging the child’s developmental and learning needs: physical,
social, emotional and cognitive (Field 2010). A child should expect the
“provision of a secure and stable environment, intellectual stimulation,
parent–child discussion, good models of constructive social and
educational values and high aspirations relating to personal fulfilment
and good citizenship” (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003, p. 4). I would
also add to these the factor of consistency and continuity of parenting,
the use of positive praise, the sharing of quality parent/child activities
and interactions appropriate to the child’s age, creating a stimulating
home learning environment, and clear, consistent use of boundaries.
However it needs to be recognised and acknowledged that there are
cultural differences in what is considered good parenting.
 A number of major child development theories have contributed to
our understanding of what a child needs to develop. Given that my
research examined the impact of an external intervention on the child,
specifically parenting programmes, I focused here on Urie
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner 1979) as
it provided a framework within which this impact could be discussed.
Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory explains how
everything in a child’s immediate and also more remote environment
can affect how a child grows and develops socially, emotionally,
physically and cognitively. Bronfenbrenner developed this multi-
levelled system to demonstrate how the different aspects of the
environment impact on children’s development. The four levels are
identified as the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem and the
macrosystem (refer to Fig. 3.1).

Fig. 3.1 Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model

The microsystem is the immediate environment in which the child

lives. A child’s microsystem includes any direct relationships or group
they interact with, for example their immediate family or caregivers
and their nursery or school. How these organisations interact with the
child will have an impact on how the child grows; the more positive and
nurturing these interactions and places are, the better the child will be
able to develop.
 The second level, the mesosystem, affects how the different aspects
of a child’s microsystem work together in the interest of the child. A
positive example of this would be if the child’s parent or carer took an
active interest in the child’s school—this could be attending parents
evening or watching their child in the school’s concert—this will help
promote the child’s development. A negative example from the child’s
mesosystem would be to find their mother and step-mother fighting on
the playground on whose turn it is to pick up the child and whether
staying up to 9 p.m. was acceptable.
The third level, the exosystem, takes account of the other people
and places that the child may not interact directly with but which will
often still have a significant effect on them; for a child this could include
the parents’ workplaces and extended family members. For example, in
a time of employment uncertainty the main wage-earning parent is
made redundant and finds it difficult to pay the mortgage, bills or even
to afford the weekly food shop; this could have a negative effect on the
child. Conversely if a parent finds a job having been unemployed for a
period of time this could result in a positive effect as the family would
be in a better position to provide for the child’s physical needs such as
food, warmth and clothing.
The final level is the largest, most distant environment and set of
people from the child; however it will still have a significant influence
on their development. The macrosystem includes factors such as the
economic background, the political system and the socio-cultural
environment in which the child and the lower levels of the model are
situated. As with these lower levels, the macrosystem can affect a
child’s development either positively or negatively through examples
such as economic instability, political legislation and national conflict.
How does this tie in with theories on good parenting? Central to
Bronfenbrenner’s model is the interaction between the layers making it
a very complex environment that the child grows up in. Family,
specifically parents, are usually the people who have the greatest
contact with the child and also create the environment where the child
spends the greatest amount of time. Specifically, moving through the
first three of Bronfenbrenner’s systems, from the microsystem to the
mesosystem to the exosystem, the interactions and environment the
parents create and are involved in impact hugely on the child. This is
further echoed by Meadows: “The proximal processes of the parent-
child microsystem account, I think, for an enormous part of the child’s
chances of growing up to be a well-functioning social person”
(Meadows 2010, p. 157). Williams et al. (2014) studied the perceptions
of 30 preschool teachers in Sweden regarding children’s learning in
preschool; they developed a theoretical framework that drew upon
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. They suggest the
interactions between the different layers (the preschool curriculum, the
teachers’ educational approaches, children’s learning, and the changes
in the practices of the setting) demonstrate how children’s learning is
impacted not only through their interactions with the immediate
environment, but also the interactions between the other layers—this
includes how the preschool curriculum and the teachers’ pedagogical
style influences the child’s immediate environment.
Bronfenbrenner points out the importance of the linkage between
the different systems to maximise the impact on child development.
Seginer (2006) employed Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework,
specifically the microsystem and mesosystem levels, in her review to
examine parental engagement both at home and at school. Her analysis
of 60 studies looked at the relationship between parental engagement
and child outcomes, with the studies being categorised into three age-
related sections: preschool; elementary school; middle, junior and
senior high school. Seginer’s analysis suggests that both home and
school based parental engagement is positively related to educational
outcomes across the age ranges and social groups. My own personal
experience as a teacher also supports that where there is good
relationship between the school and the family it promotes consistency
and continuity for the child both socially and educationally. This is
achieved through information sharing which can help both schools and
parents in better supporting children.

Developing Parenting Skills

Researchers have often tried to categorise parenting styles in order to
better understand their impact on the child. For my research the
identification of parenting styles has helped inform the development of
the parenting programme content, how the programme is delivered
and how the trainers can tailor the programme to meet the individual
parental requirements. Here “parenting styles” refers to the broader
pattern of parenting practices relating to the behaviours and
interactions between the parent and their child. For example, Baumrind
(1967) described four styles of parenting in her research as neglectful
parenting, permissive parenting, authoritarian parenting and
authoritative parenting. Gottman’s (1997) research also identifies four
central parenting styles: the dismissing parent, the disapproving
parent, the laissez-faire parent and the emotion-coaching parent. He
goes on to suggest that it is by parents recognising their own individual
parenting styles that they would be better able to understand and
address the quality and type of the interaction they have with their
child. Miller (2010) agrees that if parents recognise their own
parenting style this can be the initial step to changing how they engage
with their child. However she suggests that although parents are able to
take on any of these parenting styles, the reality of daily life is
frequently that we revert back into habitual behaviours that come most
naturally to us, whether it is because of our inherited disposition and
personalities or because of our own childhood and surroundings.
A key component of my own professional experience in promoting
children’s development and education has been the importance of
working with parents and valuing the knowledge and experience they
bring with them. Pugh (2010) emphasises the importance of
professionals working in partnership with parents, with both parties
equally contributing their knowledge. It is then that outcomes for the
child can be improved. Mezirow (1994) agrees that both parents and
professionals could view things differently if they listen and share their
knowledge with one another.
When a woman has a baby there is no sudden rush of knowledge on
how to be the perfect parent. The reality is that most parents have very
little experience or preparation on how to be a parent. Parenting
programmes aim to fill in this gap by providing a structured process
and training to prepare mothers and fathers to become a better parent.
As part of her invited address to the International Congress on
Cognitive Psychotherapy, Crittenden suggests that if a longitudinal
study was adopted and followed the journey of parents and their
children, “parents would be seen to be well-intentioned, but sometimes
misdirected” (Crittenden 2005, p. 6). The implication here is that on the
whole parents do not choose to be “bad” parents, indeed they want to
do their best for their child; it could simply be that they do not know
how to be a “good” parent or it may be that there is no single definition
of what a “good” parent looks like. This is further supported when
Moran et al. state that “it also becomes clear that we must be prepared
to find many different views of what makes for ‘good parenting’”
(Moran et al. 2004, p. 18). Attending a parenting programme has the
aim of changing how a parent interacts with their child and by
following parents through their experience it will help us understand
whether this is the case and whether this has impacted on their child’s
development and attainment.
Worldwide a number of different programmes have been devised to
provide support in becoming better parents and to improve both
parent and child outcomes, and numerous reviews into these
programmes have been carried out. Furlong et al.’s (2012) review found
that group-based parenting programmes, programmes that run for
parents in groups rather than one-to-one, are particularly effective in
supporting parents learning how to manage their children’s behaviour
and improving their parenting skills including techniques on how to
praise, play, reward and discipline their children. This is further
supported by Coren and Barlow’s (2009) review of parenting
programmes for teenage parents; not only did they conclude positive
outcomes for the parents but also for their children. Stevens (1984)
found that, in general, parents who had a good understanding of child
development displayed good parenting skills; for example, parents who
were aware of the importance of a positive physical environment for
development were the ones who were found to have provided concept
development toys and books.
From my own professional experience of working in the early years
I found that this acquired understanding of the importance of play in
the child’s development encouraged parents to value, actively promote
and even participate in play opportunities with their child where
previously they may have been negative, dismissive and uninterested in
this type of interaction. I have also found that an understanding of child
development can promote the parent-child relationship as it helps a
parent know how to interact and treat children and the importance of
doing so. This was certainly the finding from Coren and Barlow’s
review of eight parenting programme studies; both the individual and
group-based parenting programmes targeted at teenage parents found
significant improvement in mother–child interaction, parental
knowledge, maternal identity and attitudes to mealtimes. More recently
Lindsay and Cullen’s (2011) report of the Parenting Early Intervention
Programme, which included both Triple-P and The Incredible Years,
found attendance on the programme did improve parenting skills;
these outcomes were maintained one year on.
An approach adopted in many parenting programmes is to include
elements around improving knowledge on children’s development and
better ways to manage behaviour. Al-Hassan and Lansford’s (2011)
study on the Better Parenting Programme (BPP) in Jordan used both
experimental and control groups to compare whether attending the
parenting programme made any difference. They found that parents
who had attended this programme showed a significant increase in
their knowledge on child development, whereas parents in the control
group showed no significant increase. Although both groups showed an
increase in using positive parenting to address their child’s behaviour
only the parents who attended the parenting programme explained to
their child why their behaviour was wrong. Parents in the experimental
group also showed a significant increase in parental engagement in
activities with their children and recognition of behaviours such as
leaving the child at home alone, having someone underage looking after
their child and not buying them new clothes that could amount to
neglect. An important point to note is that the study’s data collection
methods relied solely on self-reports from parents which could impact
heavily on the trustworthiness of this research. Parents may record
what they think would please the researcher; their responses could
depend on how they are feeling on the day of completing the
questionnaire; they may circle responses randomly as they are unable
to read and understand the questions or do not have the time or
inclination to read through it properly.
Evidence from these reviews and studies would suggest that
parenting programmes are not only good at developing parenting skills
but also have a positive impact on outcomes for the children.
The Importance of Parental Confidence
Research suggests that there is an association between parental
confidence and parental engagement—the more confident that parents
feel regarding their ability to fulfil their parenting role, the more
engaged with their child’s education and development they are likely to
be (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003; Harris and Goodall 2007). Hallam
et al. (2004) agree that parental confidence and parental perception of
their role are contributory elements associated with the level of
parental engagement with their child. One of the key findings reported
by parents was increased confidence in understanding and in
interacting with their child. However, it should be noted that parents
who considered the parenting programme to be beneficial are more
likely to respond to a questionnaire than those who did not; further
research on the views of parents who did not complete the
questionnaire would be necessary to draw any definitive conclusion.
Desforges and Abouchaar go on to establish that increased parental
engagement can lead to improved educational outcomes for the child,
and so a positive link can be established between parental confidence
and the child’s achievement.
Research also suggests that parental confidence can play a role in
promoting positive parent–child attachment. Leckman et al.’s (2004)
review reported that mothers of premature babies who expressed
confidence in their parenting ability, as well as having positive feelings
towards their baby, were more receptive to the signals from their child
during their interactions with them and were more affectionate in their
touching—these are indicators of a secure attachment (Ainsworth et al.
1978). I will discuss the impact of attachment on parenting further in
the next chapter.
A key element associated with a range of characteristics of child
development and well-being as proposed by Barlow et al. (2014) is
parental psychosocial functioning, with depression and anxiety,
parental confidence and parental conflict being some of the
contributory components. In their meta-analysis looking into parenting
programmes for improving parental psychosocial health, 16 out of the
48 studies they reviewed assessed for parental confidence. From these
studies they found that there was a significant improvement in parents’
confidence immediately after attending a parenting programme,
however the results at short term follow-up were mixed. This suggests
that although parenting programmes can improve the psychosocial
functioning of parents, including improving parental confidence,
follow-up support is needed to maintain these improvements.
Sanders et al. (2003) suggest that by promoting parenting
confidence, along with increasing their knowledge and skills, this can
help parents to avoid severe behavioural, emotional and developmental
difficulties in their child. To this end, the Triple-P parenting programme
aims to promote parental confidence through developing parenting
knowledge and skills (Moran et al. 2004). In an evaluation of group-
based Triple-P, Sanders et al.’s (2003) meta-analysis reported on 11
studies that included parental confidence as a measure: seven of these
studies reported improved parental confidence as an outcome on
completing the programme; results for parental confidence for the
other four studies were not included in this paper. Further it was noted
that, on the whole, this confidence was maintained at the six-month
follow-up. Sanders et al. went on to suggest that parents with increased
parental confidence had a more positive attitude towards their child
and adopted more positive parenting skills. Martin et al. (2000) agree
that there is a correlation between maternal confidence and their
child’s aggression. In their study of 248 mothers of preschool children
in Australia, Martin et al. examined the relationship between children’s
behaviour, mothers’ confidence in managing their children’s behaviour
and the mother–child relationship. The study reported that the child’s
aggressive behaviour negatively predicted the mother’s confidence.
Furthermore, a mother–child relationship characterised by anxiety and
guilt was found to be a strong predictor of the child’s aggression.
Evidence from these reviews and studies would suggest that
parental confidence could be an important contributory factor in
developing parental engagement and positive parent–child
relationships. As part of my research it was useful that I explored this
further and so I looked at the impact on parental confidence having
attended a parenting programme and any associated effect this had on
the child.
The next sections will look specifically at the parenting programmes
that I focused on for my research: Triple-P, The Incredible Years and
PEEP. All three of these parenting programmes are run by trained and
experienced practitioners and are standardised in how they are
delivered with the expectation that parents attend all the sessions. The
aims of these programmes include improving knowledge on child
development and parenting skills, improving parent–child relationships
and promoting appropriate behaviour.

The Parenting Programmes in This Research

Triple-P
Triple-P (Positive Parenting Programme) is an evidence-based
programme developed by Matthew Sanders at the University of
Queensland in Australia (Sanders et al. 2003). This programme has
been developed through 30 years of research providing confidence that
this is a sound programme to adopt and is widely used across the UK.
There are five levels of intervention in the Triple-P programme: these
progress from Level 1, a universally applicable scheme, through Levels
2 and 3, aimed at supporting parents of children with mild to moderate
behavioural difficulties, to Levels 4 and 5 targeting families with severe
and serious problems. These levels are coupled with both one-to-one
and group delivery styles. The rationale for the development of this
programme was to provide parents with a better quality of advice
around parenting. The five main principles that form the basis of Triple-
P are: ensure a safe and stimulating environment; create a positive
learning environment; use assertive but non-coercive discipline; have
realistic expectations; take care of oneself as a parent.
Triple-P is probably the most researched of the parenting
programmes included in my study, however this has been conducted
mostly outside of the UK. This may be attributed firstly to the research
carried out at the University of Queensland where Sanders is based and
secondly as it is a widely used programme other researchers have also
become interested in the impact it has on both parents and children.
However most of this research is around the impact on children’s
behaviour and not around the impact of the programme on the home
learning environment or children’s development and attainment.

Webster Stratton’s The Incredible Years

Similar to Triple-P, The Incredible Years has several different
programmes under its umbrella. The Incredible Years has six distinct
evidence-based programmes: Parents and Babies; Parents and
Toddlers; Early Childhood Basic Parent Training; Advanced Parent
Training (6–12); Support Your Child’s Education Parent Training;
School-Age Basic Parent Training (Incredible Years 2012). The main
aims of The Incredible Years programmes are to increase children’s
social and emotional learning and self-control skills, reduce challenging
behaviours in children, strengthen parent–child relationships and
promote school readiness.
The Incredible Years, like Triple-P, is one of the most rigorously
evaluated of the behavioural programmes; however this research has
again mostly been conducted outside of the UK.

PEEP
The Peers Early Education Partnership (PEEP) is a parenting
programme that was developed in Oxford in the UK and which aims to
improve the life chances of children by raising educational attainment,
particularly in disadvantaged areas, by supporting parents. This is
achieved through group activities that promote parents’ awareness of
children’s development and the importance of maximising early
learning opportunities (PEEP 2012, 2015). In most parts PEEP groups
are run weekly and children attend with their parents. Groups may be
universal or targeted; some may also be universal groups where a
number of places are reserved for targeted families. Like both Triple-P
and The Incredible Years there are several different elements to this
programme, in this case they are based around the age of the child.
There are five PEEP Learning Together programmes: Baby; Ones; Twos;
Threes; Fours.
Having been devised in Oxford it is not then surprising to find that
much of the research around the effectiveness of the PEEP programme
has been carried out by the University of Oxford Department of
Education. Evangelou and her colleagues have been involved in much of
this. One particular study focused on early intervention for children at
risk of educational underachievement (Evangelou et al. 2007); this is
one of the very few studies that looks at the correlation between
parents attending a parenting programme and education which has a
longitudinal perspective.
With an understanding of the research into parenting skills and
good parenting, we will now move on to look at what I found out about
the parents’ views on learning and using parenting strategies.

What the Parents Say

Each of the chapters around the themes that developed from my
research will follow the same structure in that there will be a section on
What the parents say followed by What this tell us.
Although all three questionnaires were analysed you will note that
quotations come from the post-programme and one-year-on
questionnaires. The pre-programme questionnaire’s purpose was to get
a baseline of quantitative data: how the parents spent time with their
child; their child’s educational setting and parents contact with
provision; confidence levels around a number of parent/child
scenarios; reasons for attending the parenting programme; and finally a
series of demographic questions to ensure that I selected a cross
section of parents to interview. The post-programme and one-year-on
questionnaires contained the same quantitative questions, minus the
demographic ones, so that I could carry out appropriate statistical tests
to measure any differences in parental confidence, activities shared
with children and time spent playing with them. However it was the
qualitative questions on the post-programme and one-year-on
questionnaire that gave the parents a greater opportunity to express
their views about the parenting programme, providing quotations for
What the parents say.
I will also be using quotations from the semi-structured interviews
with the eight parents—these enabled me to probe further, collecting
rich data around their experiences. The questions were open-ended
promoting a deeper insight to their views and enabling the voices of the
parents to be heard. The advantage of using semi-structured interviews
is that I did not have to rigidly adhere to my pre-prepared interview
schedules as I wanted to allow parents the chance to share their
perspectives around the parenting programmes, and this required the
conversation to develop into areas that I had not considered.
 An essential element to gaining as many parental voices as possible
was by actually visiting and taking part in the parenting groups. This
enabled me to introduce my research to the parents and for them to ask
questions. It was here that I was able to reassure them that their
opinions would be confidential and to be able to offer them the
opportunity to have their say anonymously. By taking part in the
groups it also enabled me to listen to parents passing comments. I
would definitely recommend to other researchers the time you invest at
the start of your research and the effort you put in giving time to
answer questions, promote confidentiality and to devise systems to
allow for anonymity really could make the difference to the number of
participants taking part in your study.
The purpose of my research was to gain the parents’ perspectives
and for the parents who took part in the interviews I reassured them
that I would use pseudonyms when reporting my findings. Usually
participants need confirmation that you will assure this. I say “usually”
as I did have one colleague who had a parent who wanted their name to
be known. In this case it was discouraged as it would also have
identified the child the research was about. It also potentially would
have identified other participants as many of them came from the same
area, and they did not want to be recognised in the research. Although
some participants want their story and identity known, researchers
need to be careful if a participant wants to be known; think about the
knock-on effect.
When I designed the questionnaires, I took great care to ensure
every question was relevant to my research. A vital part of the research
process is piloting and it is through this that I made sure that each
question was used and that each question would enable me to address
my research questions. It was also important that I followed certain
questions through from pre-programme, to post-programme to one-
year-on. I followed the same process with my interview questions
although as they were semi-structured interviews there was scope for
discussions to go in various directions; all with the view of addressing
the research questions. This was especially valuable as conversations
travelled down pathways that had not been raised in the literature.
So, on to the parents’ voices.
 An interesting aspect of this theme is that parental reports differed
between parents who attended the PEEP programme and those who
attended The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes. This difference
could align with the main reasons why parents attended the
programmes in the first place: PEEP parents tended to go to the groups
to spend time playing with their young child, interact with other
parents and for their child to socialise with other children, whereas
many of the parents on The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes
attended because they had concerns around their child’s behaviour.
For PEEP parents, they reported that after attending the programme
they placed more emphasis on creating a safe and healthy environment
for their child:

They eat more healthy.

PEEP (Q-post)

My daughter, she didn’t really eat that much fruit but since
coming to the group she’s like tried a lot more fruit and that. She
now does eat a lot more fruit. I think that’s really like seeing
other children eating and like just trying out new things, I think
she’s enjoyed.
Emma

I am more aware of healthy food and physical play.

PEEP (Q-post)

I intend to attend … the local swimming pool.

PEEP (Q-post)

More careful about having hot drinks around children.

PEEP (Q-post)

Emily also realised that she needed to take precautions to ensure

the safety of her children when they went out:

It’s like when we went we went for a walk and they scooted too
far out of sight and my partner was getting cross with them. I
said well you can’t really get, you can get cross with them until a
 point, because they have done that, but we didn’t say before they
went off ‘stop at a certain point’; they need to have some
guidance. They can’t necessarily just think for themselves about
the dangers. I said you can’t always blame them for running off
when we don’t give them a guidance first to say where to stop.

Emily has also found that proactively anticipating situations, talking

to her children about where they were going and what was expected of
them, had helped:

… you can tell your child this is where you’re going, this is what
we doing, you need to hold mummy’s hand … I did that going to
the dentist, um because my little one had trouble with the
dentist and he’d been about five times and never shown the
dentist his teeth. So I did the whole going to the dentist, you’re
going to do this, you’ve got a busy road to cross, you need to hold
my hand, um and that was the first time he showed the dentist
his teeth.

PEEP parents also reported that they spent more time with their
child particularly singing, counting and reading stories, activities that
could all contribute to promoting the child’s language development:

I read more books, we don’t have the TV on for so long.

PEEP (Q-post)

I intend to attend the local library at least fortnightly.

PEEP (Q-post)

The data suggested parents were beginning to recognise the

benefits of reading stories and singing to babies and toddlers. During
my visits to groups I spoke to a number of parents who prior to
attending a PEEP group had not considered it necessary to engage in
these activities as they had felt their child was too young to benefit
from this type of interaction. In some extreme cases parents had
minimal language interaction with their child.
Responses from the post-programme questionnaires and interviews
suggested parents were learning the importance of the role of play in a
child’s development:

I am understanding that young children are learning while

playing.
PEEP (Q-post)

Understand what children do and little children can learn.

PEEP (Q-post)

I feel like I’ve learnt more ways to play, new ideas I would have
never thought of before.
PEEP (Q-year)

More patient and more confident in playing with my child.

PEEP (Q-year)

… some good ideas that I hadn’t wouldn’t have thought about

probably otherwise. Some of the stuff we have played like having
a tray of rice and things like that, it’s such a simple thing and it
means they can kinda make a mess that isn’t really messy
because it’s so easy to clear up so that’s quite a good idea so I
think I’ve probably picked up a few good activities.
Jacob

Talking more about everyday things to help speech progression,

counting during everyday tasks, e.g. Putting 2 shoes on, you’ve
got 1 nose.
PEEP (Q-year)

One year on, parents continued to report that they were spending
more time playing with their child and using the ideas learnt on the
programme.
One of the main reasons why parents attended a PEEP group was
for their children to interact and socialise with other children. Post-
programme questionnaire responses revealed that parents found the
course helped them achieve this:

Meeting new people, helping my child develop.

 PEEP (Q-post)

To help us with making new friends in the area,

PEEP (Q-post)

Help me and my children become more confident and make new

friends.
PEEP (Q-post)

Give her more confidence in herself and playing with other

children.
PEEP (Q-post)

For this mother the impact of attending a PEEP group not only
changed her behaviours but also how she felt as a parent:

I feel like a better mum and I am more patient, I have learnt

loads, I like my child more because we play in a more structured
way and we both have input and I watch him more rather than
try to lead everything.
PEEP (Q-post)

This suggested that although parents may have had very specific
reasons for attending a programme, for example meeting other parents,
social interaction for their child, helping manage their child’s
behaviour, they were finding that they were coming away with
unexpected outcomes.
Parents on the Triple-P and The Incredible Years programmes came
away with a largely different set of parenting strategies more
appropriate to the ages and needs of their children, particularly in
terms of behaviour management. One Triple-P trainer shared that
parents who attended her Teen Triple P groups often arrive saying
“they’ve in their opinion got the worse teen that ever walked the earth”,
sometimes even having police involvement. On attending the group, the
parents realise that they are not alone with the challenges they face.
The trainer went on to say that having attended the parenting
programme “they’ve [the parents] changed and they’ve realised the way
they react is how the children reacted to that so hence they change”.
 Parents were learning how to promote positive behaviour by
encouraging independence and giving their child responsibility:

Getting them to take ownership of their behaviour/actions, e.g.

not completing homework, accepting consequences from school
and discussing why and how we can improve.
Triple-P (Q-post)

Trying to encourage small independent steps.

Triple-P (Q-post)

Try to give options so they make the decision.

Triple-P (Q-year)

Listen to them. Value them more. Allow them to make choices.

The Incredible Years (Q-post)

For some parents, where they felt as though they were in a constant
battle with their child, they learnt to evaluate which issues were the
important ones that need addressing and which behaviours to ignore:

Not trying to correct every behaviour. By picking the battles.

The Incredible Years (Q-post)

Ava has also experienced the benefits of choosing her battles:

You let things go and concentrate on the things that you do need
to address …They poke their tongue out at you - you can sort of
ignore them rather than try to reprimand them so I think it’s
happier all round … a calmer atmosphere.

Olivia, a mother of four, also found it to be a matter of choosing

which battles to fight but then was able to turn the battles into a game:

picking the battles and actually you know it’s… it’s not you know
‘don’t do this’. I don’t feel myself going ‘la-la-la’ you know, and I
don’t find myself shouting ‘cause um I remember going to the
very first group and having to shout at them to put their shoes
 on and stuff, you know. And just like this morning um child
number three didn’t want to get dressed and so ‘let’s have a race
then’. So then it was a game. So then he was dressed you know
and fabulous.

It was interesting to note that the use of praise was one of the key
strategies that was widely identified. The indication is that parents
were beginning to realise that they were quick to tell off their children
if their behaviour was not appropriate but less quick to praise their
child when they were behaving or helping out.

Give more ‘I’ messages. Give plenty of reward.

The Incredible Years (Q-post)

More communication and specific praise.

The Incredible Years (Q-post)

The kindness chart has done wonders.

The Incredible Years (Q-post)

Praise children more for good behaviour.

Triple-P (Q-post)

I try to be more patient. More positive praise.

PEEP (Q-year)

They do respond well to the positive praise.

Triple-P (Q-year)

The ones I mainly try and use are the positive praise one…they
really like being praised so it does have an impact.
Emily

These last three quotations come from the one-year-on

questionnaires and interview and show that parents were still using
the positive strategies learnt on the programme and were continuing to
see the benefits of doing so.
 Parents were not only coming away with strategies to help them
promote positive behaviour, they were also realising the importance of
continuity and consistency in the application of these strategies—by
their partner as well as themselves:

Deal with discipline more consistently.

Triple-P (Q-post)

But unfortunately the way you get with families, one day dad has
the problem and mum says ‘go away and calm down dad’, and
another day mum has the problem and dad says ‘go away and
calm down mum’… You know I have a problem with when I
come home from work and I find the other half on his laptop,
and one watching the telly and the other on the computer and
nobody’s checked if the homework’s been done. And every week
mum’s bad guy… The status quo gets disrupted when mum
comes in and says ‘right this, this, this, this, this, this, de de da’
and they’ve all been sat doing their own thing and not doing
what they should’ve been doing.
Isabella

I’m trying to sort of say to my partner that. Trying to stop them

shouting and flying off the handle so much because he’s got less
patience than me. And trying to tell him about the positive
praise and make, try and make, you know, get him on board as
well so that it’s consistent.
Emily

An important outcome is that parents are recognising that it is a

change in their own behaviour that is influencing the change in their
child’s. Both Emily and Olivia recognised that by changing how they
addressed certain behaviours they could have a positive effect on their
children:

…’cause sometimes you don’t think about your, the impact of

your behaviour on your children.
Emily
 I’m trying to be calmer and think that does have an impact on
how they respond to you. If you’re telling them off and
everything, I think that then makes more negative behaviour.
Emily

…for me I find the top of the pyramid, the actual punishment,

that has reduced down. Definitely, it’s, it very rarely gets to the
point where we’re at the top of the pyramid where we’re having
to use punishment.
Olivia

…more patient and understanding of why my children behave in

a certain way. More confident to challenge behaviour and not
give into tantrums.
PEEP (Q-post)

This suggests that by adopting positive parenting strategies, parents

were resorting less to punitive measures and they were seeing the
positive results of doing so:

I think it builds up a better relationship with the child.

Olivia

Not only were parents realising that they were changing their
behaviour but others around them were seeing the changes too. Emma
had other people notice the change in how she interacted with her
children:

I can’t remember who it was but I was um playing with the

children and they wasn’t listening and I said ‘right if you don’t
listen we’ll have to put it away’ and someone said to me they can
tell that I have learnt that through coming to the group. So
others have noticed that I’m more confident with them as well
with their behaviour.
Emma

Another suggestion from the responses to the questionnaires and

interviews was that by adopting positive parenting strategy families
were discovering a more harmonious home life:

By stay calm and reduced level of shouting in our house

becoming a happier home.
The Incredible Years (Q-post)

Equipped with the appropriate strategies and knowledge, parents

reported that they left the course with increased confidence:

Probably gives me the confidence to go back to the secondary

school to ask for more help.
Isabella

Ava considered her confidence in managing her grandchildren’s

behaviour had increased “dramatically” since attending the
programme. She could “cope with that now – before I didn’t know what
to do”. Particularly with one of her grand-daughters, Ava could now
“understand what she’s going through and calm her down quite quickly;
before it would be a meltdown”.
Olivia also reported that her confidence in managing her children’s
behaviour had increased since adopting parenting strategies learnt on
the course:

…it’s the being able to deal with the challenging behaviours

around doing it.

Interestingly the analysis of the quantitative Likert scale post-

programme data showed little change in reported parental confidence.
In contrast, when parents were asked on the same post-programme
questionnaire the open question “What element from this parenting
programme do you feel has helped you the most?” they frequently
commented on how the programme had increased their confidence:

Having the confidence to take my child to play groups with

people I don’t know.
PEEP (Q-post)
 I am more confident in general with my child. I take him out and
about more and also enjoy more quality time with him at home.
PEEP (Q-post)

Socialising with other mothers and becoming more confident

with my baby.
PEEP (Q-post)

Perhaps the implication is that parents found the programme

increased their general parenting confidence, but were unable to
quantify this in regard to the specific scenarios on the questionnaire. It
could be that they found it difficult to measure this in relation to scores
on their previous questionnaire; the pre-programme. The single
notable change in reported parental confidence in regard to a listed set
of scenarios, all came from the one-year-on questionnaire and were all
related to the same theme: supporting their child’s education.
Interestingly this theme did not emerge as important from the
qualitative questionnaire and interview analysis, but is possibly related
to the parents’ greater exposure to their child’s educational provision
one-year-on.
Six out of the eight parents interviewed talked about how they felt
better equipped to support their child’s development and manage their
child’s behaviour. For Sophia, going to PEEP with her son Mason has
helped increase her knowledge around child development, making her
feel more confident as a parent:

That’s what’s quite nice is that um I kinda come to these groups

and because you don’t have a manual of how to do it and so you
need that bit of extra confidence of of other parents and children
around and seeing, you know, things you kinda play with and
seeing how they develop as well that it gives you kinda
confidence to be able to kinda do more with your child.

…we can go out and you can learn things with them and then
that gives you confidence to help them develop.

Emily who attended a Triple-P programme also commented on how

you do not get a manual when you give birth:
 I think it acts as a sort of a reminder, when you have a child you
don’t get a manual do you, what you’re supposed to do with
them. I know I’ve done child development but in my degree it
doesn’t tell you about discipline it’s more about nature versus
nurture and things like that isn’t it rather than how to deal it
with all the other things.

Olivia attended The Incredible Years programme and found the

positive parenting strategies had not only helped with the two children
who were exhibiting inappropriate behaviour but was also benefiting
her other two children:

It encompassed children number two and number three who

weren’t showing challenging behaviours but were able to um
bring out the better in them. Um for instance the praising, and
spending one-on-one time, those kind of things. So it was, it was
er a complete balance for both spectrums you know, of both
ends really. For children with the most challenging and also to
try and sort of grow and work on those relationships of the ones
who tend to get left in the middle because they’re not shh, you
know not demonstrating that challenging behaviour.

Olivia now even shares her newly learnt strategies with friends who
are experiencing undesired behaviour from their children:

…a friend of mine has twins and they were refusing to put their
shoes on and you know it was getting fraught, and I just said ‘do
you want me to put your shoes on or you going to put your shoes
on?’

Parents consider that many of the strategies they had learnt on the
programme, such as giving more positive praise and picking their
battles, could be effective and have a positive impact on their child and
their family.

What This Tells Us

What I heard from the parents here addressed my second research
question: What are the views of parents regarding the changes that
parents have made as a result of attending a parenting programme?
Parents reported positive changes in parental behaviour, especially the
effective adoption of parenting and behaviour management strategies,
along with increased parental confidence. This was seen to also impact
other aspects of their lives, including giving parents the confidence to
approach their child’s school with concerns or going on to further
training to develop their career, all of which was having a direct impact
on the child.
This outcome aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system model
(Bronfenbrenner 1979) whereby factors with which the child does not
directly interact can still have an impact on them. In the context of my
study, Bronfenbrenner’s exosystem would include the two parenting
programmes where the child does not attend with their parent: The
Incredible Years and Triple-P. According to Bronfenbrenner, interactions
within the exosystem, in this case between parents and trainers, have
the potential to indirectly impact the child through induced changes in
parental approach, attitude and behaviour. Although the child did not
attend the sessions, the strategies parents learnt and were using at
home were having a positive impact on their child and their family.
Similarly the PEEP programmes would fall into Bronfenbrenner’s
mesosystem, where the parents and trainers interacted with each other
and also directly with the child. Here the parents were interacting with
the trainers, growing their knowledge on child development and
positive parenting strategies, and then using what they had learnt not
only during group sessions but also at home.
My findings add further support to the evidence (Coren and Barlow
2009; Al-Hassan and Lansford 2011; Lindsay and Cullen 2011; Furlong
et al. 2012) that parenting programmes can be successful in
encouraging the learning and adoption of new parenting skills and
strategies. One key parenting skill reported by the parents in my
research was the use of positive parenting techniques to manage
children’s behaviour; strategies included verbal praise, kindness chart,
listening to their child, negotiation and providing options. Additionally
parents reported a new understanding on the value of play in their
child’s development. The outcome of this new knowledge has led to
parents reporting changes around the time and activities they share
with their child; these included sharing stories, singing, cooking and
playing with their child. My research also demonstrated two key
outcomes arising from the adoption of these positive parenting
strategies: firstly an improved parent–child relationship, again echoing
the findings of Coren and Barlow; secondly a reported increase in
general parental confidence, supporting the findings of Manby (2005)
who reported improvements in parental confidence as they were able
to successfully apply strategies to address their children’s behaviour.
In addition to the learning of new parenting skills, these findings
demonstrated that parents were also learning more about child
development and the importance of the role they play in this area. This
supports the earlier findings of Al-Hassan and Lansford (2011). The
subsequent parental behavioural changes reflect how an increased
understanding of their child’s development can help improve their
parenting skills, as identified by Stevens (1984); in particular it helps
them to create a safer and more stimulating environment within which
their child can thrive. This ranged from an understanding of healthy
eating and physical play to the value of singing, reading stories and
playing even with the very youngest infants.
From my professional experience I have found that most parents
want to do their best for their child; this is further supported by them
agreeing to or choosing to attend a parenting programme, often to help
them develop their knowledge around child development and positive
parenting strategies. I have also found in the years that I have been in
the education system, specifically early years and primary, that working
in partnership with parents and respecting their knowledge as a
parent, helps encourage them to develop their parenting skills. There
have been many occasions where I have found parents wanting to do
their very best for their child but not knowing how to go about it and
have welcomed the opportunity to work in partnership with me to help
improve their knowledge in this area.
My findings relating to this research question demonstrate that
parents are adopting positive strategies learnt on the programmes and
are becoming more confident in their role. This is important because it
demonstrates how the desire of parents to do their best for their child
is being met by the parenting programmes; they are being supported in
improving their knowledge on child development and positive
parenting strategies resulting in increased parental confidence.

References
Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Walls, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;
distributed by Halsted Press Division of Wiley.

Al-Hassan, S. M., & Lansford, J. E. (2011). Evaluation of the Better Parenting Programme in
Jordan. Early Child Development and Care, 181, 587–598.
[Crossref]

Barlow, J., Smailagic, N., Huband, N., Roloff, V., & Bennett, C. (2014). Group‐based parent training
programmes for improving parental psychosocial health. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews, 6, CD002020.

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior.
Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43–88.
[Crossref]

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Coren, E., & Barlow, J. (2009). Individual and group-based parenting programmes for improving
psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents and their children (Review). Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews, 3, CD002964.

Crittenden, P. M. (2005). Attachment and cognitive psychotherapy. International Congress on

Cognitive Psychotherapy. Gøtengorg, Sweden.

Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and
family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A review of literature. Nottingham: DFES
Publications.

Evangelou, M., Brooks, G., & Smith, S. (2007). The birth to school study: Evidence on the
effectiveness of PEEP, an early intervention for children at risk of educational under-
achievement. Oxford Review of Education, 33, 581–609.
[Crossref]

Field, F. (2010). The foundation years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults: The report
of the Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances. London: Cabinet Office.

Furlong, M., McGilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S., & Donnelly, M. (2012).
Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions for early-onset
conduct problems in children age 3–12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2,
CD008225.

Gottman, J. (1997). Raising an emotionally intelligent child. Seattle, WA: Gottman Institute.
Hallam, S., Rogers, L., & Shaw, J. (2004). Improving children’s behaviour and attendance through
the use of parenting programmes: An examination of good practice. Nottingham: DFES
Publications.

Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging parents in raising achievement: Do parents know they
matter?: A research project commissioned by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.
Warwick: University of Warwick.

Incredible Years. (2012). The Incredible Years. Available: http://incredibleyears.com. Accessed

31 July 2012.

Leckman, J. F., Feldman, R., Swain, J. E., Eicher, V., Thompson, N., & Mayes, L. C. (2004). Primary
parental preoccupation: Circuits, genes, and the crucial role of the environment. Journal of
Neural Transmission, 111, 753–771.
[Crossref]

Lindsay, G., & Cullen, M. A. (2011). Evaluation of the Parenting Early Intervention Programme: A
short report to inform local commissioning processes. London: Department for Education.

Manby, M. (2005). Evaluation of the impact of the Webster-Stratton Parent-Child Videotape

Series on participants in a Midlands town in 2001–2002. Children and Society, 19, 316–328.
[Crossref]

Martin, A. J., Linfoot, K., & Stephenson, J. (2000). Exploring the cycle of mother-child relations,
maternal confidence, and children’s aggression. Australian Journal of Psychology, 52, 34–40.
[Crossref]

Meadows, S. (2010). The child as social person. London: Routledge.

Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 44, 222–
232.
[Crossref]

Miller, S. (2010). Supporting parents: Improving outcomes for children, families and communities.
Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill and Open University Press.

Moran, P., Ghate, D., & Van Der Merwe, A. (2004). What works in parenting support?: A review of
the international evidence. London: Department for Education and Skills.

PEEP. (2012). Peers Early Education Partnership. Available: www.peep.org.uk. Accessed 31 July
2012.

PEEP. (2015). Peers Early Education Partnership. Available: http://www.peeple.org.uk/.

Accessed 11 May 2015.

Pugh, G. (2010). Principles for engaging with families: A framework for local authorities and
national organisations to evaluate and improve engagement with families. London: NCB.

Sanders, M. R., Markie-Dadds, C., & Turner, K. M. (2003). Theoretical, scientific and clinical
foundations of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: A population approach to the promotion
of parenting competence. Brisbane: Parenting and Family Support Centre, The University of
Queensland.
Seginer, R. (2006). Parents’ educational involvement: A developmental ecology perspective.
Parenting, Science and Practice, 6, 1–48.
[Crossref]

Stevens, J. H., Jr. (1984). Child development knowledge and parenting skills. Family Relations,
33, 237–244.

Williams, P., Sheridan, S., & Sandberg, A. (2014). Preschool—An arena for children’s learning of
social and cognitive knowledge. Early Years, 34, 226–240.
[Crossref]
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_4

4. The Value of Spending Quality Time

with Their Child
Katy Smart1  
(1) School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

 
Abstract
This chapter discusses the second theme that developed from my
research: “the value of spending quality time with their child”. Parents
recognise the importance of ensuring that their interactions with their
child are enjoyable and productive rather than confrontational and
negative. As a result they are forming improved relationships and
experiencing a more harmonious home life.

Keywords Parenting – Quality time – Bronfenbrenner – Attachment –

Behaviour – Critical realism

This chapter shows that having attended a parenting programme,

parents are now appreciating spending quality time with their child.
This theme the value of spending quality time with their child
addressed my third research question: From the perspective of parents,
what impact has the parenting programme had on the children? The
purpose of this question was to establish an understanding of any
impact that the parenting programme had on the child, through a
critical analysis of the parents’ views.
One of the main things that I heard from the parents was how they
described the ways in which they interacted with their child.
Specifically, the post-programme questionnaire responses suggest that
since attending a programme parents are spending more quality time
with their child. This chapter will start by looking at the impact and the
importance of attachment on parenting. Next it will look at the impact
of parenting on children’s behaviour before moving on to discover what
the parents had to say. I will then finish the chapter by discussing what
this tells us.

The Impact of Attachment on Parenting

Research has indicated that there are many contributory factors in the
development of attachment between parent and child, and the
subsequent impact of this relationship on the child’s progress. A
number of factors could contribute to why what should be an automatic
attachment to the infant does not always present itself; these are
usually attributed to how the mother or caregiver responds to the
infant. A securely attached child usually receives consistent, sensitive,
accepting and co-operative attention from their mother or caregiver
(Ainsworth et al. 1978). An infant who receives inconsistent responses
to their communication and signals can often become anxiously
attached and will tend to cry more and for longer periods of time;
characteristics of anxious attachment also include smiling less, not
responding positively to being held and reacting negatively to being put
down. For the anxious/avoidant child, the mother or caregiver tends to
be particularly rejecting of the infant to the extent where the mother
often exhibits a strong aversion to any physical contact.
Research into the changes that occur in the brain during pregnancy,
the neural circuitry of parenting, and on the changes that occur during
the first months postpartum suggests that the way in which adults
respond to their babies can result in lasting consequences for the child
(Mayes 2010). Shuffelton (2015) considers that the “mother/child bond
is uniquely tight, and lasting, and essential to a child’s healthy
psychological development. Only a mother (not a father, other family
member, or paid caretaker) can provide this care” (p. 2). Bowlby (1982)
however considers attachment can also be found beyond the mother–
infant relationship and recognised a secure attachment could be
established by any person, father or any other caregiver, who regularly
gives their time and attention. Howes (1999) agrees with Bowlby that a
similar attachment to that of the mother–child relationship can be
formed between the child and an alternative caregiver. Ainsworth
(1985) proposes that the most important factors in a person’s social
support system are those that have attachment elements that bring
with it a sense of security. That these are not solely restricted to
parent–child and caregiver–child relationship and that they can be
established beyond infancy; it could be formed between sexual
partnerships and between siblings.
Veríssimo et al.’s (2011) study of 35 families in Lisbon (where in
this case a “family” consists of both parents living together and one
child attending a private day-care programme) found that even though
the children involved in the study had a secure attachment with both
parents, the security with each may correlate to different
developmental outcomes. For example, it was suggested that a secure
attachment with their father resulted in an increased number of
friendships and an improved ability to cope with aggressive behaviours.
This may be attributed to the different types of play and interaction
between the child and father compared to the mother; a father’s play
was typically more physically stimulating whilst a mother’s play was
characterised by calmer interactions.
Improvement in parent–child attachment relationships is often one
of the goals of parenting programmes, particularly those offered to at-
risk parents such as teenagers. Barlow et al.’s review (2011), which
included eight studies with 513 participants, looked at the outcomes
from teenage parents attending parenting programmes. The results
suggest that both just after attending the parenting programme and at
follow-up there was an improvement in the parent’s responsiveness to
the infant and the child’s responsiveness to the mother, both measured
using the Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (Sumner and Spietz
1994). There was also evidence, using the same scale, that there was an
improvement in the parent–child interaction, such as mealtime
communication. This would suggest that by attending a parenting
programme you can develop or improve an attachment between parent
and child where there had been little positive attachment in place.
Although Miller (2010) agrees that supporting parents with activities
that could promote the parent–child relationship further research
would be needed to see whether this improved the parent–child
attachment and whether this could also have a positive impact on the
child’s development and attainment. Bohr and BinNoon’s (2014) study
of teenage parents in Canada attending Right From the Start, an
attachment-focused parenting programme which included sessions on
teaching specific parenting skills, found that overall parental sensitivity
did improve. However a major limitation of this study was that out of
the 11 teenage parents who started the programme only four parents
continued to the end of study. Egeland and Farber’s (1984) data also
supports that the attachment relationship can be changed after the
child’s first year. Research carried out by Simonič and Poljanec (2014)
exploring the mothers’ views of any changes having attended a weekly
structured young mothers’ group, focusing on developing their
awareness of the importance of the mother–child bond and supporting
them through any difficulties in establishing this, suggests that mothers
became more relaxed in relation to their expectations around
motherhood resulting in an improved mother–child bond. The impact
of the parenting programme on the parent–child attachment
relationship was one of the key aspects that I focused on in my research
study.

The Impact of Parenting on Children’s

Behaviour
Barlow and Parsons’ (2005) meta-analysis of five studies found that
group-based parenting programmes for parents with children up to
three years of age did show improvement in children’s behaviour. This
is further supported by Thomas et al.’s (1999) review of 14 studies,
with children aged birth to six years, which also reported significant
improvement in both parent and child behaviour, especially where the
emphasis was on parental empowerment. Hutchings et al. (2007)
investigated the impact of a specific parenting programme, The
Incredible Years, in Sure Start services for parents of children aged three
and four years considered at risk of developing conduct problems.
Their findings showed that children’s behaviour improved significantly.
Results measured included both parents’ self-reports and direct
observations carried out by the research team, promoting the
trustworthiness of the study, furthered by using a randomised
controlled experiment using a block design allocated by area. The
results of this study suggest that it is possible to mediate children’s
behaviour by teaching parents key parenting skills and modifying how
the parents behave.
Looking at programmes delivered to parents of slightly older
children, Furlong et al.’s (2012) more recent review of parenting
programmes found that for children aged three to 12 years who were
showing signs of early onset conduct problems, group-based parenting
programmes helped parents to develop their parenting skills resulting
in improved behaviour of their children. Results only report on the
short-term effects; evidence of longer-term effects was not available.
This appears to be quite a common factor in many studies investigating
the impact of parenting programmes. Menting, de Castro and Matthys’
(2013) review of 50 studies covering 4754 participants, also looking at
a wider age range, again found that the parent-training programme was
an effective intervention as measured immediately after the course; no
longer-term results were reported.
There certainly seems to be a substantial level of research into the
effects of parenting programmes on children’s behaviour and it appears
to be very positive across the board—including that from UK studies.
Rogers, Hallam and Shaw’s (2008) study across 134 local authorities in
England found that in almost all cases parents reported an
improvement in children’s behaviour at home. A one-year-on study on
the parenting programme Parents Altogether Lending Support (PALS) in
Dundee conducted by Zeedyk et al. (2008) found that parents felt they
were still able to manage their children’s behaviour one year after they
attended the programme. It must be noted the results of this study
came from parents’ perceptions and there was no independent input or
triangulation. Lindsay and Cullen’s (2011) evaluation of the recent
Parenting Early Intervention Programme (PEIP), a national UK
Government initiative, also found that there was a considerable
improvement in children’s behaviour.
There is much evidence to support the view that by attending a
parenting programme parents can improve their children’s behaviour
and this is still an area being actively researched, including the three
specific parenting programmes included in my study. Taking this into
consideration I did not further explore the direct impact on children’s
behaviour but instead focused on the parenting programme process,
changes in the behaviours of parents and the impact, other than
behaviour, this had on the children.
Having looked at the research literature it is now time to listen to
what the parents have to say about how attending the parenting
programme helped them discover the value of spending quality time
with their child.

What the Parents Say

In this section you will hear the parents’ views on parenting
programmes. 136 parents took part in the questionnaire phase of my
research, from this eight were selected using the information they
provided on their demographics to offer a range of views for the
interview stage. Parents completed questionnaires before, after and
one-year-on having completed a parenting programme. Those who
were selected for an interview shared their experiences after having
completed a parenting programme and again one-year-later. It was
important to catch up with the parents one-year-on to establish
whether they considered the parenting programme had a long-lasting
effect. The data was then analysed giving us the five themes that I will
be sharing with you in this book.
I would like to reiterate that all participants are fully anonymised
and no real names have been used or referred to at any point.
Pseudonyms for the participants were selected from the top 100 names
for girls and boys. One of the parents interviewed was from Eastern
Europe, a common heritage within the south-west region; I considered
it important that I should randomly select a name from this part of the
world to maintain her heritage.
You will recall that my third research question was all about the
parents’ views on how attending the programme had impacted their
children. Some of the most interesting and relevant findings from the
parents were that they, the parents, identified the value of spending
quality time with their child. I’m not suggesting that these parents said
they didn’t spend time with their child prior to attending a parenting
programme. Rather, what came out of the data was that parents
demonstrated a discovery for the value of spending quality time with
their child:
 The group has also been able to help me try new activities with
my children and share new experiences with them
PEEP (Q-post)

Sing a lot more with her at home daily.

PEEP (Q-post)

Bonding with my child through song and playing

PEEP (Q-post)

Listen and learn. I like to spend time with my children

PEEP (Q-post)

Play more and do more crafts, cooking

PEEP (Q-post)

Spend more time playing and the importance of play. Some great
creative ideas
PEEP (Q-post)

Playing, reading more with my child

PEEP (Q-post)

I spend more time playing with her and focusing on a single

topic and involve stories/TV programs to support that theme.
PEEP (Q-year)

Yesterday we came home from school and made quiches for tea
and things like that. We try and do quite a lot with him. My
eldest likes drawing so quite often sit down and do drawing with
him
Emily

These last two quotations came from a one-year-on parental

questionnaire and Emily’s one-year-on interview and demonstrate that
parents still valued spending quality time with their child 12 months
after completing the programme.
 Triple-P parents with younger children also reported that they are
now making more time to spend with their child:

Have a set ‘play 1:1’ time once a week

Triple-P (Q-post)

In addition to parents reporting that they are spending more time

with their child, they are finding that they are more relaxed during this
interaction:

I am a lot calmer and spend more time with him

Triple-P (Q-post)

Sophia is very conscious that time passes by quickly and it is too

easy to neglect their interaction with their child:

…you’re busy kinda doing other things. Sometimes you do

actually forget that they just need that time, just to sit down on a
one-to-one basis.

Jacob also recognises the danger of getting caught up in the

housework:

It’s too easy to get caught up in the domestic routine, there’s

always washing up, laundry and DIY jobs and all kinds of stuff
you’ve got to do when you’re at home.

Both Jacob and Sophia are very conscious of now making time to
play with their sons:

…it’s trying to kinda, er, you want the structure but you also
want to have a bit of playtime for them. Because, you know, we
all know that, er, you know children aren’t children for long
really, and then we’ve got to get into this whole ‘you’re not
meant to do that because you’re now a grown up’ or like that,
you know … that’s why I try and do things right now.
Sophia
 Jacob was very aware that he had spent a lot of quality time with his
older son but less time with his younger son; coming to PEEP gave them
special time to play together:

It gives me and Ethan something that’s about us going out to

something together, which is something I had a lot of with his
brother, Noah, and less of with him.

With Jacob spending some quality time by taking Ethan to PEEP,

this in turn allowed Jacob’s partner to spend some quality time with
their older son, Noah:

It gives, it gives his brother a chance to spend some time with his
mum as well, which is something that’s important. For him that
was, um, really noticed when Ethan was born, that Noah was
quite put out because suddenly he’s got to share his time, share
his parents, general space and all that kind of stuff. So he needs
to have some time to spend on his own with his mum every now
and then, which he gets when I take Ethan out.

For Sophia, her “… partner is quite a clean freak”, so coming to PEEP

allows her to have time to enjoy messy play together without the mess
at home:

That’s what’s brilliant, you can get the messy here, they can tidy
up afterwards and it’s not in your house [laughs].

All the PEEP parents interviewed reported that they are using at
home the activities they have shared during the sessions:

…there’s been some good stuff, some good ideas that I hadn’t
wouldn’t have thought about probably otherwise.”
Jacob

I’ve got to know a lot more songs. I can do more stuff with them
and activities, like different ideas like I wouldn’t think of before I
seen here and I’ve used it at home, they’ve really enjoyed it …
they enjoy me doing things with them.
 Emma

The data analysis also suggests that parents are changing how they
communicate with their child; parents are listening to what their child
says and responding in a way that makes the child feel valued. It
appears that this in turn means that the child will then talk more to
their parent improving both communication and the quality of
interaction they have with their parent:

Listening skills - they confide more

The Incredible Years (Q-post)

Listen to her more and let her lead when playing

PEEP (Q-post)

…we talk to each other more and communicate more

Triple-P (Q-post)

I listen to them more and allow them to be more independent.

PEEP (Q-year)

PEEP sessions actively encourage parents to play with their child

and continue at home the activities and skills learnt on the course. The
data analysis suggests parents are doing this and as a result are forming
improved relationships with their child:

I am more confident in general with my child. I take him out and

about more and also enjoy more quality time with him at home
PEEP (Q-post)

We get on better.
PEEP (Q-post)

What This Tells Us

Key to my research has been the role the parents play in their child’s
development and this maps to the first level of Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological system model, the microsystem, which represents the
immediate environment surrounding the child. In the context of my
research, this level maps primarily to include the child’s interaction
with their parents, although for those who attend the PEEP
programmes this would also include the exchanges between the trainer
and child during the programme sessions. It is through the interactions
between the layers in this model, from the exosystem through the
mesosystem to the microsystem, that the parenting programme can be
seen to have an impact on the children of the parents attending.
Answering my third research question, From the perspective of
parents, what impact has the parenting programme had on the children?,
one of the key outcomes identified is an improved relationship between
parent and child. The views of the parents suggest that they recognise
the value of ensuring that their interactions with their child are
enjoyable and productive rather than confrontational and negative.
This is facilitated and supported by the parent learning new skills and
strategies coupled with them spending more quality time together.
In addition to parents reporting that they are spending more time
with their child, they are finding that they are more relaxed during this
interaction. PEEP sessions actively encourage parents to play with their
child and continue at home the activities and skills learnt on the course.
The data analysis suggests parents are doing this and as a result are
forming improved relationships with their child.
The data analysis also suggests that parents are changing how they
communicate with their child; parents are listening to what their child
says and responding in a way that makes the child feel valued. It
appears that this in turn means that the child will then talk more to
their parent improving both communication and the quality of
interaction they have with their parent.
Adoption of strategies learnt on the programme is found to be
contributing to an improved bond between parent and child, with their
relationship being reported as happier, less stressful and more
constructive. This key outcome of attendance on a parenting
programme further supports the findings of Simonič and Poljanec
(2014) who researched mothers’ views having attended a young
mother’s group. This outcome is important to note because this
improved relationship feeds back into promoting the child’s behaviour
and confidence, and indirectly increases their school readiness.
 An important strength of my research was how I used Roy Bhaskar’s
philosophy Critical Realism (1975), in particular his MELD framework
(2008), to guide my research methodology. My ontological and
epistemological perspectives sit comfortably within Bhaskar’s Critical
Realism: ontologically I recognise that objects exist in and of
themselves, independently of our knowledge of them; further I
acknowledge that our understanding of them may change over time, or
between observers, but that the underlying reality remains constant.
My epistemological approach, which aligned with Bhaskar’s
Dialectical Critical Realism (DCR), was to collect information from
multiple perspectives, specifically different individuals, different
methodologies, different times, in order to assemble a full picture of the
“actual” events, leading to an understanding of the underlying reality.
DCR further provided me with a framework, MELD, to guide my
methodology to the goal of using the new knowledge and
understanding of parenting programmes to pursue real change. If we
take a look back to how my research fitted within the MELD model as I
outlined in Chapter 1, we can see how the parents’ views help me reach
4D:
1M I observed and collected the perspectives of parents and
trainers on the parenting programme process, changes in parental
behaviour and impact on the child, and used these to help
understand how each individual’s experience is one manifestation of
the underlying reality.
2E identified what were the nature of the changes reported by
parents, recognised the nature of both becoming and “be-going”.
What is or was missing in regard to parenting behaviours and child
development. I looked at whether there were any contradictions in
what parents and trainers were saying. Although this book does not
include the trainers’ perspectives this was an important element of
my research as it provided triangulation to the data and promoted
trustworthiness of the findings. The trainers’ views aligned with
what the parents were reporting.
3L looked at the whole picture, the totality, of the impacts of the
parenting programme process. I examined this totality through
multiple time points, multiple perspectives, both parents and
 trainers, and multiple methodologies (questionnaires and
interviews).
4D use this new knowledge and understanding to pursue real
change; refocus the Government and local authority attention to
addressing these changes.
Using this as a model I took individual parent’s feedback, combined
it with others, analysed it critically looking for deeper implications and
meanings. I now share the knowledge and understanding that I have
gained with others through conferences and my written work.
I believe that my use of Bhaskar’s MELD to frame my methodology
provides valuable knowledge to future researchers and professionals,
and that it can act as an example for how Critical Realism can be
applied within social science research.

References
Ainsworth, M. D. (1985). Attachments across the life span. Bulletin of the New York Academy of
Medicine, 61, 792.
[PubMed][PubMedCentral]

Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Walls, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;
distributed by Halsted Press Division of Wiley.

Barlow, J., & Parsons, J. (2005). Group-based parent-training programmes for improving
emotional and behavioural adjustment in 0–3 year old children. Campbell Systematic Reviews.

Barlow, J., Smailagic, N., Bennett, C., Huband, N., Jones, H., & Coren, E. (2011). Individual and
group based parenting programmes for improving psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents
and their children (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds: Leeds Books Ltd.

Bhaskar, R. (2008). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Routledge.

[Crossref]

Bohr, Y., & BinNoon, N. (2014). Enhancing sensitivity in adolescent mothers: Does a
standardised, popular parenting intervention work with teens? Child Care in Practice, 20, 286–
300.
[Crossref]

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Egeland, B., & Farber, E. A. (1984). Infant-mother attachment: Factors related to its
development and changes over time. Child development, 55(3), 753–771.

Furlong, M., McGilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S., & Donnelly, M. (2012).
Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions for early-onset
conduct problems in children age 3–12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Howes, C. (1999). Attachment relationships in the context of multiple caregivers. In J. Cassidy &
P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical application (2nd ed.).
New York: Guildford Press.

Hutchings, J., Bywater, T., Daley, D., Gardner, F., Whitaker, C., Jones, K., et al. (2007). Parenting
intervention in Sure Start services for children at risk of developing conduct disorder:
Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 334, 678.
[Crossref]

Lindsay, G., & Cullen, M. A. (2011). Evaluation of the Parenting Early Intervention Programme: A
short report to inform local commissioning processes. London: Department for Education.

Mayes, L. C. (2010). Introduction. In T. Baradon (Ed.), Relational trauma in infancy:

Psychoanalytic, attachment and neuropsychological contributions to parent-infant
psychotherapy. New York: Routledge and Taylor & Francis Group.

Menting, A. T., de Castro, B. O., & Matthys, W. (2013). Effectiveness of the incredible years parent
training to modify disruptive and prosocial child behavior: A meta-analytic review. Clinical
Psychology Review, 33, 901–913.
[Crossref]

Miller, S. (2010). Supporting parents: Improving outcomes for children, families and communities.
Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill and Open University Press.

Rogers, L., Hallam, S., & Shaw, J. (2008). Parenting programmes: Do generalist parenting
programmes improve children’s behaviour and attendance at school? The parents’ perspective.
British Journal of Special Education, 35, 16–25.
[Crossref]

Shuffelton, A. (2015). Re-privatizing the family: How “opt-out” and “parental involvement”
media narratives support school privatization. Critical Education, 6(12).

Simonič, B., & Poljanec, A. (2014). Building motherhood in the young mothers’ group. Child Care
in Practice, 20, 270–285.
[Crossref]

Sumner, G., & Spietz, A. (1994). NCAST Care-giver/parent-child interaction teaching manual,
Seattle, WA: NCAST. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, School of Nursing.

Thomas, H., Camiletti, Y., Cava, M., Feldman, R., Underwood, J., & Wade, K. (1999). Effectiveness
of parenting groups with professional involvement in improving parent and child outcome.
Effective Public Health Practice Project. Toronto: Public Health Branch, Ontario Ministry of
Health.

Veríssimo, M., Santos, A. J., Vaughn, B. E., Torres, N., Monteiro, L., & Santos, O. (2011). Quality of
attachment to father and mother and number of reciprocal friends. Early Child Development and
Care, 181, 27–38.
[Crossref]

Zeedyk, M. S., Werritty, I., & Riach, C. (2008). One year on: Perceptions of the lasting benefits of
involvement in a parenting support programme. Children and Society, 22, 99–111.
[Crossref]
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_5

5. How Children Benefit from

Opportunities That Promote Their
Development
Katy Smart1  
(1) School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

 
Abstract
This chapter discusses how parental behavioural changes, having
attended a parenting programme, can benefit their child. Parents report
an increased awareness of how their interactions can promote child
development and school readiness, with outcomes aligning well with
the Early Years Foundation Stage targets. Additionally, this chapter
captures the system I devised to provide anonymity and confidentiality
to the participants in my research.

Keywords Child development – Speech and language – Social –

Behavioural – School readiness – Improved confidence

This chapter goes on to demonstrate the benefit to children arising from

parental behavioural changes having attended a parenting programmes.

Assuring Confidentiality and Anonymity

Before I dive straight into discussing the third theme, I would like to
talk about one of the big problems that faces many researchers, in
particular those investigating potentially sensitive or personal issues in
social science—that of recruitment and retention of participants. This
is particularly effective for those potential participants who may, for
any number of reasons, rather not take part because of becoming
known especially if they would like to share unfavourable comments.
Before I continue, I would like to be clear in how I define and use the
two terms confidentiality and anonymity. I consider this to be important
as I often encounter these terms being used interchangeably which I
feel can be very misleading.

Confidentiality
When I use the term confidentiality I am ensuring that the identity of
the participants who took part in my research is not revealed. I know
who the participants are but no-one else will know. This requires more
than simply removing any references to their name—I must also ensure
that I do not share any personal details which could lead to their
identity being recognised.

Anonymity
The term anonymity differs from confidentiality; when I offer anonymity
to potential participants, I am saying that I too will not know who they
are. I will not have any record of their name or any contact information.
It is so important that research captures all the voices and not just a
select few. To overcome this and to promote parental participation and
honesty, as well as providing participants with maximum protection, I
devised a system where:
i.
parents could remain anonymous to me;  
ii.
the trainers could not see their confidential data;  
iii.
I was able to compare pre- and post-intervention data from  
individual participants without loss of anonymity.
Firstly I allocated index numbers to the pre-programme
questionnaires before they were handed out. The gatekeeper within
each group, typically the programme trainer, would then complete and
retain a list that mapped parent names to index numbers. The parents
completed the questionnaires and returned them in sealed envelopes to
the gatekeeper, ensuring that their responses were kept confidential.
When I issued the subsequent post-programme questionnaires, again
with index numbers, the gatekeepers were able to refer to their lists
and ensure that each parent received a correctly numbered
questionnaire. And again they were returned via the gatekeeper in
sealed envelopes. The consistent mapping of parent to index number
meant that I was able to match pre- and post-programme responses
from individual parents, for comparison purposes, without having
visibility of the parent’s identity.
I believe that this approach can be widely applicable to the field of
collecting longitudinal data. By assuring the parents of anonymity
whilst still providing a mechanism to collect further data from them at
a later date, this allowed anonymous comparisons between pre-
intervention and post-intervention data. Further, by providing
envelopes in which the questionnaires were to be returned, I ensured
that the parents’ responses were kept confidential from the
gatekeepers so promoting honesty of opinions. This combination of
anonymity and confidentiality helped to minimise any concerns on the
side of the parents and so maximise participation. This novel approach
will, I hope, support future researchers and professionals in promoting
participation rates, particularly amongst more vulnerable groups.
My research aimed to be as inclusive as possible by looking at a
range of parenting programmes in a range of geographical locations
and venues, but it was by its very nature constrained to examine the
views of only those parents who actually took part in the programmes.
This is an important point to highlight as I have not included in my
research the voices of those who chose not to participate in a parenting
programme, and it would be valuable to hear why parents might make
such a choice. Was it because of the practicalities of attending or was it
because of some negative perceptions associated with parenting
programmes? Additionally, it would have been beneficial to ascertain
why some parents did not complete the course. However because of the
anonymity offered to parents, such that they were not required to
provide their names or contact details on the questionnaires, this
meant that I was unable to pursue the reasons why some parents had
not completed the course. This is certainly an area that needs further
research.
 Now on to what the literature has to say about the impact of
parenting on children’s development and attainment.

The Impact of Parenting on Children’s

Development and Attainment
The engagement and interaction of families is a key component in
children’s development (Feinstein et al. 2004) and education
(Desforges and Abouchaar 2003). Here development, as outlined in the
Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) framework, includes: personal
social and emotional; literacy; communication and language;
mathematics; understanding the world; physical; expressive arts and
design. These elements are the precursors to, and foundation blocks of,
the child’s subsequent educational attainment. The rationale for
combining “development” and “attainment” in this section is that
between them they cover the entire age range from young infants,
through preschool and into primary and secondary education.
Desforges and Abouchaar’s review found that at home parenting
had a bigger impact regarding variations in child attainment than the
quality and composition of primary schooling. Parents were found to be
the key influences on the choices young people make at ages 14 and 16.
This further supports the importance of the parent–child relationship
and the investment of developing this through such initiatives as
parenting programmes. Research such as that of Desforges and
Abouchaar suggests that parental input impacts on children’s lifelong
learning, behaviour and developmental outcomes. They make a strong
argument that parental engagement with their child at home “is much
more significant than any other factor open to educational influence”
(Desforges and Abouchaar 2003, p. 91). Hattie’s (2009) meta-analysis
into the contributions from the home on their child’s education agrees
with Desforges and Abouchaar’s findings in that the effect of parental
engagement in their child’s learning over a child’s school career can
make a difference equivalent to adding an extra one to one-and-a-half
years to their child’s education. Harris and Goodall (2007) also agree
that parents who support their child’s learning have the largest
influence on their child’s educational achievements; they found that
when parents and teachers worked together to support the child’s
education there was a significant improvement in the child’s learning,
further supporting the role of the parent in their child’s educational
development. Harris and Goodall suggest that:

Parents have the greatest influence on the achievement of young

people through supporting their learning in the home rather
than supporting activities in the school. It is their support of
learning within the home environment that makes the maximum
difference to achievement.
(Harris and Goodall 2007, p. 5)

They consider that the most significant forms of parental

engagement are frequently invisible to schools. This is more about the
general support parents provide such as trips to the library which the
school may not be aware of.
Further, Pomerantz et al. (2007) propose that:

Parents’ involvement may be particularly beneficial for children

when it is autonomy-supportive, process focused, characterized
by positive affect, or accompanied by positive beliefs. However,
parents’ involvement may have costs for children if it is
controlling … characterised by negative affect, or accompanied
by negative beliefs.
(Pomerantz et al. 2007, p. 388)

This is supported by Hong and Ho (2005) who discovered that for

parents of adolescents, excessive parental monitoring of their
homework and social life had a negative effect on their teenager’s
educational aspirations. Hattie’s meta-analysis agreed that parents
adopting “a surveillance approach” (Hattie 2009, p. 68) regarding their
adolescent son or daughter’s homework and social life could result in a
negative impact on their child’s learning.
Interestingly Hong and Ho (2005) also suggest that it was parental
aspirations that had the most significant influence on children’s
achievement. Hattie (2009), whose meta-analysis included Hong and
Ho’s study, found that the strongest correlation with children’s
achievement was indeed parents having high expectations and
aspirations for their children, resulting in adding the equivalent of an
extra two to three years to their child’s education.
Russell and Granville (2005) recognise that there are a number of
factors that can affect how parents support their child’s education and
have identified seven different types of parental involvement—
informal, semi-formal, formal, active, less active, home based and
school based. They were surprised by the amount of impact that
parental support in the home can have on the child’s educational
attainment. Input at home could range from helping with homework
and providing learning resources through to simply talking to their
child about their day. Based on my professional experience I consider
that parents should be encouraged to value the importance and impact
of the time they spend simply talking to their child about their school
day or activities or tasks they share at home. This interest in their child
especially if coupled with parental aspirations (Hong and Ho 2005;
Hattie 2009) could have a positive effect on their child’s education.
For some parents where they may be living in crisis (Sampson
2007) pressure to support their child’s homework could add to what
already may be a very difficult time. From my professional experience,
working with a young woman who was coming to terms with having
lost her mother and suddenly finding herself to have effectively become
the parent of her brother, I found that she was in a constant battle with
him as she tried to encourage and support him to do his homework; a
battle that neither of them enjoyed. It was only after agreeing with the
school that this family did not need the additional pressure of having to
get the child to complete his homework and then discussing with the
sister the importance of what she was already doing with her brother,
sharing activities and tasks in the home and talking about those, that
she realised she was still supporting his education.
Russell and Granville found that for some parents supporting their
child’s education meant paying tutors to teach their child, particularly
around exam time. I have also found in my professional experience that
more parents are employing tutors to support their child’s education
but not just at exam time or in secondary school but starting whilst at
primary school. Additionally I have found more parents making
arrangements with school to take their child out during the school day
to have these sessions rather than after school. It may be the case that
the child is benefitting educationally from these sessions, but the
constant pressure and time spent on literacy and maths raises concerns
as to whether the child is missing out on other important subjects
which would give them the chance to discover areas of expertise and
passion, in addition to the lack of essential play opportunities when
they have to go to additional classes after school. School test and exam
results may improve but what about the child’s well-being? This is an
area for further research, however it is not one that will be addressed in
this study.
As a direct outcome of Desforges and Abouchaar’s (2003) report,
local authorities country-wide received funding to recruit Parent
Support Advisors (PSA) whose role included delivering parenting
programmes. The remit of the PSA was to assist in tackling
underachievement by working in partnership with families in a school
context to enable pupils to have full access to educational opportunities
and overcome barriers to learning and participation. The principle
behind the PSA role is one of preventative and early intervention
(Lindsay et al. 2009). Their role includes targeting parents of children
and young people whom local agencies agree to be at risk or those
parents with problems that are known to put their children at risk; for
example, parents who are offenders or who have mental health, drug or
alcohol problems. A key focus of their role is to ensure that they engage
with parents and where appropriate refer them to a parenting
programme, often one which has been specifically tailored by the local
authority.
Following Desforges and Abouchaar’s (2003) review, a few years
later Goodall and Vorhaus (2011) carried out a follow-on review to
establish what interventions best supported and improved parental
engagement in their child’s education. Interventions included in the
review were those that were aimed at supporting parental engagement
in the education of children from five years of age through to 19.
Goodall and Vorhaus summarised the importance of ensuring that a
parental engagement strategy needed to be integrated as part of the
ethos of the whole school approach. They also stressed the importance
of understanding what a parent already does with their child and how
they are more likely to work with the school when they try to engage
them further in their children’s learning. Goodall and Vorhaus proposed
that interventions should be targeted at certain groups of parents and
importantly families’ cultures and expectations should be taken into
account when considering appropriate interventions.
Returning to Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model and the
effects of the parent on the child’s development and attainment, we see
that proximal interactions between the parent and their child have the
most immediate and earliest influence on the child. Kiernan et al.
(2008) recognised the importance of the parents’ role in their
children’s lives when they examined the factors that contributed to the
school readiness of children living in a disadvantaged area. The findings
from Kiernan et al.’s (2008) study have contributed to the design of
new services in three disadvantaged areas of North Dublin in Ireland to
help develop parenting skills with the intention that this will improve
school readiness. Sampson (2002, 2003, 2004, 2007) has carried out
extensive research in the USA around family interventions and
children’s attainment for poor black and Latino families; much of his
work has focused on promoting a positive learning environment.
Evidence supports that home life can have a huge impact on the child
and their education. Sampson (2007) proposes that children who
receive help with their homework and live in a more positive home
environment will do well in school. However, Sampson (2007) found
that many families live in crisis and although in most cases parents do
want to support their children other priorities are at the forefront,
including how to pay the bills.
Some existing research into parenting programmes has touched on
the impact they have on the child’s development and attainment.
Furlong et al.’s (2012) review of parenting programmes for parents
with children aged two to 12 included child educational or cognitive
abilities as a secondary outcome, however only four out of the 13
studies included in the review had data for this and one of those was
excluded as some of the information was missing. All measures were of
short-term impact and none of the studies were carried out in the UK.
Furlong et al. (2012) were unable to draw any conclusions on the
effectiveness of the parenting programme’s impact with regards to
educational and cognitive abilities; this could be attributed to the short-
term nature of the studies. Although attainment was not the focus of
Hallam, Rogers and Shaw’s study (2006) it was recognised that where
parenting programmes had an educational focus promoting home-
school links, it was beneficial to children in school. School attendance
was not one of the reasons for parents attending the programmes
examined by Rogers et al. (2008), but they suggest that a positive
approach to morning routines at home resulted in improved school
attendance.
As part of their research for their book “Educating Ruby: what our
children really need to learn” (2015) Claxton and Lucas interviewed
parents and were particularly struck by one letter where a parent
thanks the school for running a workshop for parents which they found
invaluable in providing them with the correct language, tools and ideas
to support their child’s education. This appears to further demonstrate
that parents want to be good parents and to be better able to support
their child’s education, however sometimes they need help in achieving
this; parenting workshops or programmes could be the means to
provide this support. Hattie (2009) also raises the importance around
parents being able to “speak the language of schooling” (Hattie 2009, p.
71) to help parents support and develop their child’s learning.
Claxton and Lucas go on to suggest that before we can look at how
to shape the education system we need to first look at what parents can
provide for children at home to support their education: “the informal
‘domestic curriculum’” (Claxton and Lucas 2015, p. 154). Here they talk
about how the parent can model and coach engagement in learning
using the example of a Scrabble game to illustrate how the parent could
support their child with developing words from the letters in a fun way,
and of course remembering to praise the child when they formed their
letters into a word; this will not only help the child with their language
and spelling but also help promote the child’s confidence and self-belief
in their own ability. Parents do not necessarily mean to but
inadvertently they can dampen their child’s curiosity when they get
frustrated with answering their child’s questions and no longer bother
to respond. At the heart of our learning is curiosity and parents hold a
key role in nurturing and developing this by answering their child’s
questions about the world; however silly or obvious they may seem to
the parent, to the child they are still learning about the world. Games
can be played to promote the child’s curiosity and of course this will
also help develop the child’s language and communication skills.
Claxton and Lucas suggest that a great deal of unhappiness comes from
poor explanation or unintentional misinterpretations; in other words
poor communication. To help children to develop their communication
skills and have their opinions valued, parents could develop
opportunities where their child could practise this skill, around the
dinner table or with a game of “Just a minute” (Claxton and Lucas
2015). Many of these ideas sound obvious but evidence has shown that
not all parents are actively engaging in conversations with their child.
Clearly parenting can have a considerable impact on children’s
development and attainment. My research included an investigation of
if and how parenting programmes have a role to play in this regard.

What the Parents Say

Going back to the parents who participated in my research, all eight
parents interviewed reported that since attending the programme they
had observed an improvement in one or more areas of their child’s
development. This sits comfortably within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
model, specifically the microsystem where there is a direct interaction
between parent and child.
Sophia was one of the parents who recognised that by attending a
PEEP group she was learning how she could promote her son’s
development:

I think it’s the fact you can see him developing, it’s also you
having the ideas to be able to help develop.

The areas of development reported by parents are: speech and

language; social; behavioural; confidence; school readiness and
education. Each of these areas will be investigated individually below.

Speech and Language Development

An integral element of the PEEP programme is promoting speech and
language development through songs and rhymes in addition to sharing
books and stories, so it is not surprising that so many of the PEEP
parents report an improvement in their child’s speech and language:
 She is talking more clearly, using longer sentences and able to
tell me stories nearly word for word
PEEP (Q-post)

Talking more, using more words

PEEP (Q-post)

Her vocabulary has broadened. Found her voice, so expresses

herself at home with her two loud older brothers!
PEEP (Q-post)

Seems to be developing fast … verbal communication better

PEEP (Q-post)

Speech has improved

PEEP (Q-post)

Emma recognises how her son’s speech has improved:

His speech – because before he started nursery and coming up

here his speech wasn’t that well, and since he’s been going to
nursery and coming up here he’s started saying so many more
words. And now he’s like saying sentences and it’s more clearer;
before he wasn’t that well with his speech
Emma

For Adelajda attending PEEP has been key in developing her

daughters’ spoken English. At home the family only spoke their native
tongue, so coming to the group was the girls’ main exposure to taking
part in English speaking interactions.
Emma had noticed a difference in her son’s language development
since reading and sharing stories with him:

…he’s more interested in books. Before if I showed him a book

he didn’t want to read it, he’d just want to play with a car or
something. But now he actually sits down and I read the book to
him and he like points out things in the book and says what it is,
so I think it has helped him.
 Mirroring singing and reading activities at home, as promoted
during PEEP sessions, appears to be supporting speech and language
development in the child. The data analysis suggests not only are PEEP
parents reporting an improvement in their child’s speech and language,
they have also identified the value of singing rhymes and sharing
stories and books with their child, even babies, in promoting this.
For The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes the questionnaire
and interview data analysis has not identified activities that could
promote speech and language development as important components
of the programmes. This could be attributed to two factors: firstly the
focus of attending the programme for parents is usually around
improving their child’s behaviour and secondly the children are mostly
older and in school.

Social Development
One of the main outcomes reported by parents on the post-programme
questionnaire after attending a PEEP group is improved child social
development:

My children have become more sociable with others and are

able to sit still for longer
PEEP (Q-post)

They are more happy. They like to play. They like other children
PEEP (Q-post)

He is more confident and plays nicer with children of his age.

PEEP (Q-post)

I find he behaves better and plays with other children and

getting better at sharing. It nice seeing him playing
PEEP (Q-post)

Recognising the value of their child socialising with other children

was also a common response from the PEEP parents interviewed:

I think those groups are really brilliant because they can like
prepare you for it so, so kids are really prepared for to play with
 kids
Adelajda

…they’re getting the confidence to be um … with other children,

learn to share, sit down, snack time and it’s kinda routine
Sophia

…social development – they’re a lot more sociable

Emma

…interaction with other kids, so he’s developed.

Jacob

For Emma, and many other parents that I spoke to in the groups,
she felt:

If they didn’t come here then they wouldn’t like socialise with
many other children

For The Incredible Years and Triple-P parents, socialising is viewed

through a different lens; for these parents the data suggest it is more
about how their child’s behaviour can have a negative impact on how
their child socialises with other children. This will be discussed further
in the next section on behaviour.

Behavioural Development
One of the most noteworthy areas of development that was evident
from the data analysis across all three programmes was behavioural.
This was especially notable from parents who attended The Incredible
Years and Triple-P programmes and could be attributed to parental
attendance on these programmes being largely motivated by concerns
around their child’s behaviour.

…they are a lot calmer and enjoy playing with a variety of things
PEEP (Q-year)

They are able to talk about their feelings, and be kinder

The Incredible Years (Q-post)
 …much happier and more compliant
The Incredible Years (Q-post)

The questionnaire responses suggest that behavioural development

is being assisted by parents adopting strategies taught on the
programme:

…they are taking more notice of what I say. Their faces light up
with positive praise.
Triple-P (Q-post)

The parents interviewed also report how a change in their own

behaviour is having an impact on their child’s behaviour:

It does seem to have more of an impact if you say ‘right you’ve

done this, now I’m going to take away something’, and they’re
like [in squealy voice] ‘no’. Whereas if you’re shouting at them
they start shouting back, and I think it then escalates the whole
situation.
Emma

Isabella tries to employ many of the strategies learnt during her

sessions and has found they have helped her son better manage “tricky”
situations. Olivia considers using the strategies has had a positive
impact on all of her children’s behaviour, not just the two she had
concerns with. Ava agrees with Olivia and has found that since adopting
the strategies she has observed a positive difference in her
grandchildren’s behaviour.
From the questionnaires and interviews we can conclude that
parents, across all three programmes, have reported improvements in
their child’s behavioural development since they attended the
programme.

Improved Confidence
Many PEEP parents reported an increase in their child’s confidence
since attending sessions with their child, particularly regarding
socialising with other children:
 Gaining confidence and making friends
PEEP (Q-post)

They are more confident while playing with other children

PEEP (Q-post)

Confidence and we have made some friends for life

PEEP (Q-post)

More confident in playing with other children

PEEP (Q-year)

She became more confident around new people

PEEP (Q-year)

These last two quotations came from the one-year-on questionnaire

and suggest that improved confidence was still a noteworthy factor for
the parents 12 months after completing the programme.
Sophia found other parents had also noted and commented on her
son’s increase in confidence:

Other people who have seen him at the child-minder’s see him,
oh it’s great, oh suddenly ‘couldn’t see you with him but he was
confident’, … and that’s what’s great, is that you kinda, um, you
can’t always be with them so it’s nice to sometimes hear that
kinda, actually yeah, he looks really confident.

Jacob had observed that an increase in his son Ethan’s confidence

had resulted in his son becoming more independent, and he no longer
felt the need to be holding on to him all the time at PEEP. During my
initial visits to this particular PEEP group, Ethan would be next to his
father all the time—however during the post-programme interview he
moved freely between the two group rooms:

…he wouldn’t have been happy with me going off into another
room, he’d miss me a lot quicker
Jacob
 At his one-year-on interview Jacob talked about when he first
attended a group with his older son:

Noah was really quite … a lot quieter when we first started

coming here with him but now he’s quite self-confident

Jacob’s older son, Noah, is home-schooled and their youngest Ethan

will be too. Although Jacob takes his sons to a weekly home-school
group, contact with other children is limited compared to going to
school. However having attended PEEP session both sons appears to
have developed their confidence which seems to have helped them
interact with other children.
When she started PEEP, Emma’s daughter Ella would not speak
during group activities. However at the post-programme interview
Emma reported how she will now contribute:

…my daughter is her confidence. Because she was really shy

before, and she didn’t like to have her say in like what song she
would want to sing or anything like that. But now she like, she if,
when we come up here they say ‘do you want any songs’ she’ll
speak up and she’ll choose a song she wants to sing. So I think
definitely with her it’s her confidence.

Ella was due to start school the September following this interview
so having the confidence to say what she wants and how she is feeling
was going to be important during this transition phase and thereafter.
Emily reported that:

…my eldest is quite confident now at school.

For Adelajda she found that an increase in her daughter’s

confidence meant that when she started school she was able to explain
to her mother that she was unhappy:

She’s more confident with that because she- she- she can explain
what- what- what was really happening.
 Adelajda was then able to work in partnership with the school to
resolve this.

School Readiness and Education

Analysis of the questionnaire and interview data has already identified
increased confidence as being a key element in helping a child settle in
school:

He settled better into pre-school and became more confident

about attending the new school.
PEEP (Q-year)

PEEP parents have reported a number of other developmental skills

learnt from attending sessions with their child that have also
contributed to their child’s school readiness:

Concentration has improved and my child enjoys playing with

toys in an appropriate way not just trashing everything!
PEEP (Q-post)

New ideas on how to play and ways to encourage learning in a

way that appeals to her
PEEP (Q-post)

Play different learning games at home

PEEP (Q-post)

She’s better with numbers and colours

PEEP (Q-post)

One year on, this parent reported how skills learnt on the PEEP
programme were helping now her child was in school:

…better in school with listening, just into other activities

PEEP (Q-year)

For many of the parents who attended The Incredible Years and
Triple-P programmes their children were already in school—these
parents reported that adopting positive parenting strategies had a
positive impact on their child’s schoolwork:

A more calmer environment to do homework et cetera

The Incredible Years (Q-post)

Emily shared that:

…my eldest is quite confident now at school and I try and praise
him. And I try and do his homework in a positive frame rather
than try and force him if he doesn’t want to do it. I’m trying to
keep everything on a positive as he does get really, both of them
do, get really excited if you do say [puts on more enthusiastic
voice] ‘well done’. They get really excited about them achieving
something rather than just brush it under the carpet; they really,
like, beam.

From the data it appears that children whose parents have attended
a parenting programme are well-prepared for learning in schools.
However my research could not tell us if there was an impact to their
educational attainment; this would require a more longitudinal study
following the children into the school system.

What This Tells Us

An interesting observation within this theme, “How children benefit
from opportunities that promote their development”, is that many of the
developmental areas spontaneously highlighted by PEEP parents align
well with the targets identified in the Early Years Foundation Stage
(EYFS) standards: communication and language; physical; personal,
social and emotional; literacy; mathematics; understanding the world;
expressive arts and design. This suggests that PEEP groups are in
general succeeding in addressing the EYFS goal of preparing children
for school.
Parents have observed developmental improvements in the areas of
their child’s speech and language, social skills, behaviour and
confidence.This is important because these are the mechanisms which
will help support the child with their transition into, and subsequent
progression through, the education system. This finding supports
Kiernan et al.’s (2008) research which recognised the importance of the
parents’ role in their child’s school readiness. Whilst the findings of this
study are unable to draw any direct conclusions regarding the impact of
the parenting programmes on educational attainment outcomes, the
findings do demonstrate that parents, having attended a parenting
programme, recognise the advantages of providing opportunities to
promote their child’s development. This not only further supports the
findings of Hattie (2009) and Desforges and Abouchaar (2003) on the
importance of parental engagement in the child’s developmental and
lifelong learning outcomes but also demonstrates that having attended
a parenting programme parents, themselves, recognise the impact of
their engagement. This is important as it advocates the value of the role
of parenting programmes in improving child outcomes.
The research literature suggests that parental engagement with a
child’s education can have a positive impact on their behavioural,
developmental and educational outcomes (Desforges and Abouchaar
2003; Harris and Goodall 2007; Hattie 2009; Claxton and Lucas 2015).
From my own professional experience of teaching both in the early
years and primary, I have found that parental engagement in a child’s
education can and does have a positive effect on these outcomes. A
child who has spent quality time playing with their parent, where the
play has been structured and reinforced by a parental appreciation of
child development, or who has had support at home with their
homework often reaches developmental and educational milestones
ahead of their peers. Hattie (2009) goes further and suggests that
parental support could add the equivalent of an extra two to three years
to the child’s education. Although parents may not directly identify the
changes in their behaviour and interactions with their child as
necessarily supporting their child’s education, from my professional
experience I have found that indirectly they are making a positive
impact in this area.
Finally, and most importantly, the parents who took part in this
research, are themselves reporting a difference in how they are
interacting with their child and the positive impact this is having on
their child. They are seeing how their child has benefitted from how
they interact and how this in turn has promoted the child’s
development.

References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Claxton, G., & Lucas, B. (2015). Educating Ruby: What our children really need to learn.
Carmarthen, Wales: Crown House Publishing.

Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and
family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A review of literature. Nottingham: DfES
Publications.

Feinstein, L., Duckworth, K., & Sabates, R. (2004). A model of the inter-generational transmission
of educational success (Wider Benefits of Learning Research Report No. 10). London: Centre for
Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning, Institute of Education, University of London.

Furlong, M., McGilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S., & Donnelly, M. (2012).
Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions for early-onset
conduct problems in children age 3–12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Goodall, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of best practice in parental engagement. London:
Department of Education.

Hallam, S., Rogers, L., & Shaw, J. (2006). Improving children’s behaviour and attendance through
the use of parenting programmes: An examination of practice in five case study local
authorities. British Journal of Special Education, 33, 107–113.
[Crossref]

Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging parents in raising achievement: Do parents know they
matter? A research project commissioned by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. Warwick:
University of Warwick.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement,
London. New York: Routledge.

Hong, S., & Ho, H.-Z. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental involvement on
student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling across ethnic groups. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97, 32.
[Crossref]

Kiernan, G., Axford, N., Little, M., Murphy, C., Greene, S., & Gormley, M. (2008). The school
readiness of children living in a disadvantaged area in Ireland. Journal of Early Childhood
Research, 6, 119–144.
[Crossref]

Lindsay, G., Davis, H., Strand, S., Cullen, A. M., Band, S., Cullen, S., et al. (2009). Parent support
advisor pilot evaluation: Final report. Warwick: University of Warwick.

Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’
involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational
Research, 77, 373–410.
[Crossref]

Rogers, L., Hallam, S., & Shaw, J. (2008). Parenting programmes: Do generalist parenting
programmes improve children’s behaviour and attendance at school? The parents’ perspective.
British Journal of Special Education, 35, 16–25.
[Crossref]

Russell, K., & Granville, S. (2005). Parents’ views on improving parental involvement in children’s
education: Executive summary and conclusions. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Sampson, W. A. (2002). Black student achievement: How much do family and school really
matter? Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Sampson, W. A. (2003). Poor Latino families and School Preparation: Are they doing the right
things? Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Sampson, W. A. (2004). Black and Brown: Race, ethnicity, and school preparation. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Education.

Sampson, W. A. (2007). Race, class, and family intervention: Engaging parents and families for
academic success. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_6

6. The Significance of the Family

Working Together
Katy Smart1  
(1) School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

 
Abstract
This chapter presents a new and unexpected finding from my research
regarding the importance of whole family engagement with the
parenting programme. Parents report the need for consistency and
continuity in their parenting and how this is best assured by both
parents adopting the same positive strategies. This highlights the
danger of one parent becoming the “expert” and the other feeling
disempowered.

Keywords Transplant Model – Expert Model – Family engagement –

Triple-P – The Incredible Years – PEEP

This chapter looks at the importance of the family working together to

adopt these new strategies and the potential consequences of not doing
so.
In most parts whether it is Triple-P, The Incredible Years or PEEP,
usually only one parent attends the parenting group. However as part
of my study I did meet several parents, especially for the PEEP
programme, where either both parents attended together or they
alternated around their work schedules. One PEEP parent commented
that her partner wanted to see what all the fuss was about and co-
ordinated his work so that he could join a session. He enjoyed it so
much that he decided to factor this in when booking in his work. During
my visits, specifically PEEP ones, it was really good to see that it was
not only the mums, childminders or grandparents that were taking
their children along but also the dads. For many it was that they had
taken on the role of the main carer whilst their partner went to work;
for others it was a shared role and was dependent on work timetables
and for some it was because they wanted to take an active role in their
child’s activities.
The interview data revealed that some of the parents considered
that whole family engagement was an important element in ensuring
the success of parenting programmes. Parents reported that different
styles of parenting could become a contentious issue and put further
pressures on a family who may already be experiencing difficulties, as
parents disagree or even argue in front of the children, displaying a
fractured unit—one that the children could play upon. When only one
parent attends a parenting programme my research highlighted that
there is the danger of that parent becoming the “expert”, leading to an
imbalance in parenting.
An interesting aspect of this theme, the significance of the family
working together, is that it developed from the analysis of interviews
where the parents had attended the Triple-P or The Incredible Years
parenting programme. It is often the case that parents who attend these
programmes do so as they have concerns around their child’s
behaviour and feel that it would be helpful if all family members are
working together to address this.
Before I share the parents’ views which led to the development of
this theme, I will first refer to the literature which discusses some of the
concerns around parenting programmes.

Parenting Programme Critique

There have been a number of research findings that have identified
potentially negative aspects of parenting programmes. In terms of such
critiques, Furedi (2008) proposes that research into parenting is
inevitably influenced by what is considered to be culturally normal.
Forehand and Kotchick (1996) also identify that the significance of
cultural values on parenting is not yet taken into account within
parenting training. This highlights the danger of parenting programmes
being designed with one view of what is culturally normal and applied
universally without taking into consideration local social expectations.
This sense of normalisation implies there is a need to correct the
individuals and turn them into normal parents (O’Malley 1996)—
although referring to schools, Foucault’s (1977) description of
“disciplinary power” could equally be applied to parenting programmes
as they are trying to ensure parents comply with the criteria of the
programmes.
The prescriptive nature of many accredited structured parenting
programmes means that they are not designed in a way that allows
trainers the flexibility to respond or adapt the programme in
acknowledgement of what a parent already knows, how they already
interact with their child or even their cultural or religious background.
In fact they tend to operate from the microsystem paradigm, mainly
focusing on “changing or improving the one-on-one interaction
between child and parent” (Mapp and Hong 2010, p. 350) suggesting
that they bring skills to the parent. This would place parenting
programmes within the Expert classification of Cunningham and Davis
(1985) Expert, Transplant and Consumer models: “Professionals use
this model if they view themselves as having total expertise in relation
to the parent. Here essentially professionals take total control and make
all the decisions” (Cunningham and Davis 1985, p. 10). In my
experience trainers often identify more with the Transplant model
“where they view themselves as having expertise, but also recognize
the advantage of the parent as a resource” (Cunningham and Davis
1985, p. 11), however the prescriptive nature of many programmes can
make this difficult.
Ideally a parenting programme would have sufficient structure to
ensure that the relevant expertise was passed on but would be flexible
enough to take account of parents’ existing knowledge and
accommodate alternative social and cultural norms. West et al.’s (2013)
exploratory study of three major evidence-based parenting
programmes (Strengthening Multi-Ethnic Families, Triple-P and The
Incredible Years) found that the six urban local authorities taking part
in the study did try to address the diverse range of cultures and faith of
the families within their community. For those local authorities that
had a particularly large ethnically mixed community they chose the
Strengthening Multi-Ethnic Families programme as it was considered
more flexible in meeting the needs of families from different faiths,
cultures and settings. Miller (2010) suggests the need for trainers to
look for opportunities to tailor the support so that they meet the
individual circumstances of the parents.
Another concern with parenting programmes is the potential for
them to be perceived as a corrective measure for “inadequate parents”.
Recommending attendance on a programme suggests that the parent is
not doing their best for their child or that they lack the basic skills
required in parenting. Indeed it could be seen as though the parent is
failing their child thus disempowering them in their parental role
(Furedi 2008; Cottam and Espie 2014). Such a perception could then
result in lower parental engagement with the programme leading to
poorer outcomes or potentially the parent dropping out of the
programme altogether. Furthermore the parent is often perceived as
“hard-to-reach” (Feiler 2010; Mapp and Hong 2010), a secondary
negative implication towards the parent. Miller (2010) proposes that all
parents at some point could find that they do not have the finances or
physical, mental or emotional energy to meet their child’s needs. This
idea that parents are failing in their role and need to attend specialised
classes characterises parenting programmes within a deficit model; this
is supported by Goldberg who found parenting programmes assumed
“a parenting skills deficit” (Goldberg 2000, p. 358) through their
delivery. Goodall and Vorhaus (2011) agree that parents seemed to
consider that by attending a parenting programme this would be
considered as an admission of failing as a parent. However Miller
(2010) suggests that parents should be encouraged to seek out help
when they need it and that by doing so it is not an indication that they
are failing in their role.
Crozier (1998) raises the issue that sometimes partnership with
parents actually looks like surveillance on the ground and that
professionals have a deficit view of parents and that they, the
professionals, know best; this sits comfortably within Cunningham and
Davis (1985) Expert model. This deficit view of parents was something
I needed to be very cautious about addressing in my research: I
specifically constructed my interview schedules with parents to
examine the extent to which this theme emerged and the extent to
which this was perceived as a negative aspect of the programme.
Additionally I included opportunities for parents to discuss any
elements from the programme that they liked or disliked and whether
they felt their own skills were taken into account, moving away from
the Expert model and instead towards the Transplant model
(Cunningham and Davis 1985).
Although many programmes try to be pre-emptive rather than
purely applied to “failing” parents, in my experience such an aspiration
is frequently unsuccessful because of the constraints of budgets,
resources and the prerequisite to target certain parental categories.
Miller also suggests that although attending a parenting programme
could potentially be useful to any parent, they tend to be accessed by
parents “with a very wide range of needs” (Miller 2010, p. 67). The
issue then becomes self-sustaining; once in the mind-set that the
programme is there for targeted parents it becomes much harder to
change that view. My research accommodated these potentially
negative issues by soliciting parents’ own perspectives on the value and
effectiveness of the programmes; if the parents were made to feel
disempowered by attending the course this may well have had
implications on their engagement with the programme and subsequent
interaction with their child. In my professional experience I have found
that most parents, not just those who have a wide range of needs,
experience at some time a need for advice and support but find that
they often do not know where they can go for it. Miller (2010) adds:

The ride is never straight-forward, there will be good times and

bad ones and parents will, at times, feel elated and at others
desperate.
(Miller 2010, p. 72)

Miller and Sambell (2003) interviewed 37 parents (25 parents with

teenage children, six parents with children with special needs, four
parents with preschool and primary aged children and two parents
who were teenagers themselves) from seven focus groups to find out
their views on their parenting needs and their perceptions of how they
felt they were being addressed. From the analysis of the interview data
Miller and Sambell (2003) reported that parents identified three
distinct models of parenting support and learning: the dispensing
model, whereby the child is targeted directly; the relating model, where
the parent is the recipient of the attention and the reflecting model, in
which the parent develops an understanding of the parent–child
relationship. My research similarly sought the views of parents
regarding the effectiveness of the parenting programmes, and
investigated the subsequent changes in parental behaviour and child
development.
Given the potential for a parenting programme to be
disempowering, it was particularly interesting that the significance of
the family working together was a notable finding that developed
within my research. This was highlighted by the unforeseen
consequence of one parent attending the programme, creating an
imbalance in the parenting structure within the family; inconsistent
parenting and the perception of one parent being the “expert” could
potentially lead to conflict. But what do the parents say?

What the Parents Say

Some of the parents considered that whole family engagement is an
important element in ensuring the success of the strategies learnt on
the parenting programmes; this was particularly evident in the
responses from parents attending The Incredible Years and Triple-P
programmes. Although there was no explicit question asking whether
the parents felt it important or necessary that there was a whole family
engagement in the parenting programme, three out of the eight parents
spontaneously referred to this topic, commenting on the importance of
both parents being engaged in the programme.
Isabella, a mother of teenage boys who attended a Triple-P Teens
programme, felt particularly strongly that it would be beneficial: “this is
where I think you need something where you do as a family”, identifying
that “some aspects of the programme more with the child” should be
attended together. One benefit she considered of involving the whole
family was:

The older sibling as well, so that actually if we’re not rememb-,

you know if different members of the family are not
 remembering the right strategy someone else can say ‘mum go
away and sit down’.

Isabella not only felt this about the Triple-P programme she
attended during this research but also for the ASK programme she had
previously attended.

Well when I did the ASK one we took it in turns to go, so that the
other half had some exposure, um and that’s why I’m thinking
now, I think you need to do things, you need probably a couple of
sessions as a whole family. So.. so that the.. the child can see that
these are some of the suggestions for parents got to follow. So
that the child could come along and say to mum ‘you haven’t
been following that strategy; you haven’t been putting my
rewards up on the wall. Why haven’t you been putting my
rewards up on the wall? You should be!’ I would really like some
family sessions.

Isabella identifies here one important aspect of family engagement;

that is the recognition that sometimes you can forget to use the
strategies and may need the occasional prompt. This was something
that Emily, who attended the Triple-P Primary programme, also brought
up at her one-year-on interview:

When I forget it’s more chaotic because they haven’t got any
expectations of what they they’re supposed to be doing when
you go somewhere.

Strategies which Emily had previously used which were effective,

but had not used for several months, were now forgotten. Had her
partner attended then maybe these would not be lost.
Olivia, a mother of four who attended The Incredible Years parenting
programme, also commented that “it would be beneficial for partners” to
attend the programme.
Emily, a mother of two young sons (one in nursery and one in Key
Stage 1 primary) suggested at her post-programme interview that:
 I think it’s helpful if you both to go ‘cause it’s harder for one
parent to tell the other parent what to do.

Emily went on to share that she had a very different parenting style
to her partner, however for her it would always be her partner’s
position that would be enforced.
Different styles of parenting could become a contentious issue and
put further pressures on a family who may already be experiencing
difficulties, as parents disagree or even argue in front of the children.
Continuity and consistency was certainly a contentious issue for
Isabella and one which she thought the course could help address:

Um I realise now when he starting to get tired, that’s a flash,

that’s a real anger flash point when he’s starting to get tired. So
because he had a very sporty day yesterday, I tried to get him to
bed early; I say early I mean eight o’clock. And at quarter to nine
I’m telling his dad off because they’ve been up there playing
games, and I said ‘I’m trying to get him to go to bed’… That’s why
I think the group, the group work, the family and child together
is probably quite important.

Olivia’s husband, at the time of this interview, was working with the
trainer on a one-to-one basis on the strategies that were taught on The
Incredible Years programme. For Olivia this:

…was absolutely brilliant, ‘cause all these changes were

happening and I felt I was equipped but he wasn’t, and it’s a very
difficult um time to tell your husband… it can be a bit
condescending isn’t it.

From talking to one of the other mothers on this programme, it

became evident that her husband was also going to be working with the
same trainer on a one-to-one basis. Having both parents taking part in
the programme and adopting the same positive strategies would
certainly promote continuity and consistency in their parenting.
Although this theme developed from the interviews with parents
attending the Triple-P and The Incredible Years programmes, PEEP
parents could equally find it important. The reason it was not discussed
was that there were no specific questions included in the interview
schedule that investigated their thoughts around this. A note to self or
other interested researchers in this area: this would certainly be worth
further exploration.

What This Tells Us

An interesting aspect of this theme is that it developed from the
analysis of interviews where the parents had attended the Triple-P or
The Incredible Years parenting programme. It is often the case that
parents who attend these programmes do so as they have concerns
around their child’s behaviour and feel that it would be helpful if all
family members are working together to address this. Conversely, at
this stage of the data gathering, PEEP parents did not mention during
their interview that they considered it important that the whole family
took part or were involved in the programme. This could be attributed
to the parents not considering PEEP to be a parenting programme;
several parents wrote on their questionnaire that they did not realise or
did not know it was a parenting programme. However on one of my
visits a mum commented on how her husband adjusted his work hours
one week to attend the PEEP group as he was keen to find out what all
the excitement was about. He enjoyed it so much that he regularly co-
ordinated his hours so that he could attend the group.
From both the literature review and my own professional
experience, it was expected that certain themes would probably
develop from the analysis of the questionnaire and interview data as
they had been the focus of previous research: themes such as an
improvement in children’s behaviour (Thomas et al. 1999; Barlow and
Parsons 2005; Hutchings et al. 2007; Furlong et al. 2012) or parents
adopting positive parenting strategies (Coren and Barlow 2009;
Lindsay and Cullen 2011; Furlong et al. 2012). What was interesting
from the interviews with Triple-P and The Incredible Years parents was
the emphasis that they placed on whole family engagement in the
programme; a completely new and unexpected finding. This is
important because it is about providing continuity and consistency in
parenting and reducing family conflict, and was identified by the
parents as being more likely to take place if both parents adopted the
same positive parenting strategies. For one parent to be perceived as
the expert, telling the other how they should be parenting, could place a
strain on their relationship or possibly make the other parent feel
disempowered.
It seems the concerns raised in the literature review around
Cunningham and Davis (1985) Expert model could apply more to the
inter-parent relationship rather than the parent–trainer relationship.
You may ask how could I identify this as a theme when it arose in
just three out of the eight interviews. It is important to note that the
number of occurrences of a topic does not alone make it a theme;
rather it is about whether the topic has captured something important
that is related to the research question (Braun and Clarke 2006). The
questions on the questionnaires and the interviews did not specifically
ask anything around whole family engagement yet the subject was
introduced by three of the parents during their interview; three out of
the four Triple-P and The Incredible Years interviews. You will have
noted from Chapter 2 that I carried out a rigorous analysis of both the
questionnaire and interview data, and seeing this theme develop from
the data and the significance and impact it can have on the family, I
made sure this was recognised within my findings.
My research progress was guided by Bhaskar’s (2008) MELD model:
from the First Moment (1M) of collecting the experiences of parents
and trainers to understand more about the underlying reality of
parenting programmes; through the Second Edge (2E) of analysing the
data with a recognition of how absences and negative power are an
important part of the process regarding changes in parenting
behaviours and child development; to the Third Level (3L) of looking at
the whole picture through multiple perspectives, identifying themes
that represent the totality. This finding, of the value placed on whole
family engagement in the parenting programme, is an important aspect
of my research and has taken me towards the Fourth Dimension (4D) of
Bhaskar’s MELD model: it provides us with new knowledge and
understanding which could lead to the refocusing of how parenting
programmes are offered and delivered by integrating a whole family
philosophy into their design.
To summarise, parents, particularly those who attended the Triple-P
and The Incredible Years programmes, consider it important that both
parents should have the opportunity to attend at least some parts of the
programme, be it in a joint group or separate one-to-one sessions. This
would promote continuity and consistency in parenting. This in turn
could promote a more relaxed, calm home environment.

References
Barlow, J., & Parsons, J. (2005). Group-based parent-training programmes for improving
emotional and behavioural adjustment in 0–3 year old children. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 1,
1–59.

Bhaskar, R. (2008). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Routledge.

[Crossref]

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77–101.
[Crossref]

Coren, E., & Barlow, J. (2009). Individual and group-based parenting programmes for improving
psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents and their children. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews, 3, CD002964 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002964.

Cottam, S., & Espie, J. (2014). Discourses underpinning parenting training programmes:
Positioning and power. Children & Society, 28, 465–477.
[Crossref]

Crozier, G. (1998). Parents and schools: Partnership or surveillance? Journal of Education Policy,
13, 125–136.
[Crossref]

Cunningham, C., & Davis, H. (1985). Working with parents: Frameworks for collaboration. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.

Feiler, A. (2010). Engaging ‘hard to reach’ parents: Teacher-parent collaboration to promote

children’s learning. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
[Crossref]

Forehand, R., & Kotchick, B. A. (1996). Cultural diversity: A wake-up call for parent training.
Behavior Therapy, 27, 187–206.
[Crossref]

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.

Furedi, F. (2008). Paranoid parenting: Why ignoring the experts may be best for your child.
London: Continuum.

Furlong, M., McGilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S., & Donnelly, M. (2012).
Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions for early-onset
conduct problems in children age 3–12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8, 1–
239.

Goldberg, S. (2000). Attachment and development. London: Arnold.

Goodall, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of best practice in parental engagement. London:
Department of Education.

Hutchings, J., Bywater, T., Daley, D., Gardner, F., Whitaker, C., Jones, K., et al. (2007). Parenting
intervention in Sure Start services for children at risk of developing conduct disorder:
Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 334, 678.
[Crossref]

Lindsay, G., & Cullen, M. A. (2011). Evaluation of the parenting early intervention programme: A
short report to inform local commissioning processes. London: Department for Education.

Mapp, K. L., & Hong, S. (2010). Debunking the myth of the hard to reach parent. In S. L.
Christenson & A. L. Reschly (Eds.), Handbook of school-family partnerships. New York:
Routledge.

Miller, S. (2010). Supporting parents: Improving outcomes for children, families and communities.
Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.

Miller, S., & Sambell, K. (2003). What do parents feel they need? Implications of parents’
perspectives for the facilitation of parenting programmes. Children & Society, 17, 32–44.
[Crossref]

O’Malley, P. (1996). Risk and responsibility. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault
and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and the rationalities of government. Abingdon,
Oxon: Routledge.

Thomas, H., Camiletti, Y., Cava, M., Feldman, R., Underwood, J., & Wade, K. (1999). Effectiveness
of parenting groups with professional involvement in improving parent and child outcome.
Effective Public Health Practice Project. Toronto: Public Health Branch, Ontario Ministry of
Health.

West, A., Mitchell, L., & Murphy, T. (2013). Implementing evidence-based parenting
programmes in a small sample of English urban local authorities: Eligibility, fidelity and
intensity. Children & Society, 27, 471–483.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_7

7. The Importance of the Right

Environment to Share Parenting
Experiences with Other Parents
Katy Smart1  
(1) School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

 
Abstract
This chapter captures the final theme that developed from my study,
where parents reported that one of the most important aspects of the
parenting programme was the opportunity to meet, share with and
learn from other parents. This demonstrates how trainers were
successfully adopting a Transplant model of parent-professional
practice, creating the right environment for parents to share
information and then build on that existing knowledge.

Keywords Parenting programme – Learning environment – Transplant

Model – Triple-P – The Incredible Years – PEEP

This chapter discusses the significance of the right parenting programme

environment, one in which participants are encouraged to share
parenting experiences with other parents—what aspects of the
environment did the parents consider to be particularly important?
The last, but perhaps the most surprising and encouraging theme
that developed from my analysis of parents’ data was the importance of
the right learning environment. What I’m talking about here is the way
in which the parenting programme was delivered, how the trainer
approached the subject, and how the parents taking part were made to
feel, rather than, say, the details of the venue in which the course was
held. With this in mind I found that what parents were telling me could
be summarised into three phases: the recognition of the importance of
parents’ pre-existing knowledge; the facilitation of the sharing of this
knowledge with other parents; the building on this knowledge-base by
application of a Transplant as opposed to an Expert model of parent-
professional practice. In this chapter I’ll be using the parents’ voices to
explain more about what I mean by each of these three phases.
This was one of the key themes that developed from the parents’
interviews to help answer my first research question, and a particularly
noteworthy theme; the parents’ perception that the environment needs
to be right to share parenting experiences with other parents. This
theme developed from seven of the parents’ interviews making this an
especially important aspect of the parenting programme. The parents
talked about the importance of a number of factors such as friendly,
approachable and helpful staff; a clean and safe place for children to
play; the structure and calmness of group and being able to spend
quality time with their child—all of which contributed to an
environment in which they could get together to share experiences and
ideas. Without this opportunity they could feel isolated, as if they are
the only one who was experiencing these difficulties and, in some cases,
even doubt their abilities to be a good parent. This was a particularly
interesting finding as the importance of the environment where the
parenting programme is delivered was not an area that was discussed
in the literature.
One key aspect of this theme was having the right environment to
talk to and learn from other parents. The Government had specific
targets at whom they aimed these programmes, fathers, teenage
mothers and parents with low socio-economic status, and although all
the programmes I attended actively encouraged participation from each
of these targeted groups they did however also allow parents who did
not come under any of these specific categories to attend. From what I
saw and heard from the parents, this wider and more inclusive
approach to attendance created a much more fertile environment in
which a broader range of parental experiences were brought together
to be shared for the benefit of all.
This new knowledge of the importance the parents place on the
trainers creating the right environment is especially valuable as it could
help trainers in ensuring that they are creating a space where parents
want to come to and don’t feel threatened or undermined in their role.

What the Parents Say

To ensure that I had parents representing all the government targeted
groups (fathers, teenage mothers and parents with low socio-economic
status) in the interview phase of my research, I included a series of
demographic questions on the pre-programme questionnaire. You will
note a representation from all the demographic groups in the
quotations below; all adding evidence to the importance of the right
environment to share parenting experiences.
A key element in creating the right atmosphere where parents feel
comfortable and safe to share their experiences is the staff. One parent
wrote on her post-programme questionnaire:

The staff have been amazing and the structure has been really
good.
PEEP (Q-post)

Another added:

Chatting to the staff and other parents regarding everything

from sleep to diet, behaviour etc.
PEEP (Q-post)

A year after the first interview Jacob still remembered the value of
being able to talk to other parents:

I think you can kind of just exchange ideas and just be comforted
to know that everybody’s just got the same problems.

This was a common theme that was evident both in the

questionnaires and during the interviews. For some parents having the
right environment gave them somewhere to go where they could meet
other parents:
 PEEP was hugely beneficial to both Lily and me. Always
stimulating and friendly. Much of Lily’s childcare has always
fallen to me due to my wife’s severe illnesses since Lily’s birth.
Organised groups were fun in themselves and also gave me good
contact with other parents.
PEEP (Q-year)

For many parents, not just dads, the parenting groups might be the
only time they get to meet other parents. This was especially the case
with PEEP parents who did not have an older child as they would not
get to meet other parents at the school gate.
For some parents these sessions could become a lifeline to help
them through some very difficult times:

Making friends as I suffered from postnatal depression.

PEEP (Q-post)

Although not one of the government’s specific targets, it was

recognised by professionals working with parents that mothers
suffering from postnatal depression could also benefit from joining a
parenting programme. As this was a particularly sensitive area to
include on a questionnaire, and as it was not the focus of my research, I
did not incorporate any questions either on the questionnaire or in the
semi-structured interview schedule around mental health. However a
couple of parents shared how attending a parenting programme helped
support them during this difficult time.
Meeting and sharing parenting experiences with other parents is so
very important in supporting mums and dads through some very
difficult times. Having the trainer can also mean that vital help can be
signposted.

Attending a session with other mothers with children of a

similar age to my son to talk through concerns.
PEEP (Q-post)

That I am not the only one with dealing with sharing and
tantrums.
PEEP (Q-post)
 Meeting new people. Sometimes I thought I was not good with
my children, I trying.
PEEP (Q-post)

Making new friends and discussing how people deal with

different situations that arise with the child.
PEEP (Q-post)

Emma, a young mother of two, found that by talking to other

parents she was able to add to her toolkit of strategies in managing her
children’s behaviour:

…for me speaking to other adults has helped me as well because

I have learnt like different ways to manage their behaviour and
stuff, and obviously at that age like to put rules down and I
learnt and feel more confident and that.

For many parents the analysis of the data suggests that without
groups where they can get together to share experiences and ideas,
they could feel isolated, as if they are the only one who is experiencing
these difficulties and, in some cases, even doubt their abilities to be a
good parent.
For Jacob, his wife worked from home and was the main wage
earner. Jacob home tutored his sons and looked after the main
household chores. He shared that if it was not for attending the
children’s centre he “wouldn’t see anybody during the day”.
Jacob went on to say that the PEEP group was a “calmer group,
there’s more opportunity to talk to each other” and for Jacob this was
one of the three key themes that developed from his interview, being
able to share and talk to other parents:

…but at this group the people talk to each other more so I think
that’s an important thing about coming to these groups as well,
for the parents to get out and talk to each other as well as
children.

Adelajda also felt that the PEEP group was an important part of her
weekly routine:
 If it wasn’t for groups like that I would be just at home because I
cannot afford to pay for, I dunno, softplace every day, it’s
horrendous it’s like £7 now. So this is great, this is for free, it’s
always open.

For Adelajda she found talking to other parents especially valuable,

having come from Eastern Europe she did not have any family nearby
so turned to these sessions to extend her knowledge around child
development and also the English school system. As a primary school
teacher I have found parents who have moved to England often find our
school system very different from that in their own countries and their
own childhood experience; unless a relationship between the parent
and the educational setting has been developed this can be overlooked.

What This Tells Us

Having the right environment to share information with other parents
was a recurring theme across all three parenting programmes. The data
suggest one of the most important benefits of attending a parenting
programme is the meeting, sharing, talking and learning from other
parents. Seven out of the eight parents’ data had this as a developing
theme, despite there being no questions specifically asking whether
parental interaction was an important aspect of the parenting
programme. The one exception was Ava, a grandmother who attended
the programme with her daughter Olivia (a mother of four children);
although this theme did not develop from the analysis of Ava’s
interview, she did however comment that she would have welcomed
the opportunity to have attended a parenting programme when her
own children were young.
It is interesting to note that this theme, the importance of other
parents on the programme, was not found to diminish the role of the
parenting programme trainer. The parents recognised the role of the
trainer in “setting the scene” and supporting them through challenging
times in addition to providing general parenting advice and
information. Concerns expressed in the literature around parenting
programmes being regarded as an Expert model (Cunningham and
Davis 1985) with parents being told what to do by the parent
programme trainer, was not evident in my research. Conversely the
data strongly suggest that the parenting programmes I studied fall
within the domain of being a Transplant model, with parents and
parenting programme trainers working in partnership.
Further analysis of the parents’ post-programme interviews
revealed other aspects of parental preference regarding the
environment in which the programme was delivered. Interestingly for
Olivia, reflecting back on what elements she would have liked from a
parenting programme which she could have attended when her
children were toddlers, she was quite adamant that she would have
preferred for it to be held in a village or church hall rather than a
children’s centre. This was quite contrary to all the parents I spoke to
who attended a PEEP group, not just in the post-programme interviews
but also during the groups I visited. This could suggest that perhaps
Olivia had a negative previous experience or her preconception of a
children’s or family centre was not a positive one. Interestingly Ava,
Olivia’s mother, also agreed that had she had the opportunity to attend
a group with her children when they were toddlers, she would have
preferred a village or church hall, however she gave no indication that
she had recently visited a children’s centre. Were the daughter’s views
regarding a children’s centre those passed on from the mother, or had
the daughter passed on a negative experience to the mother? This
aspect, the nature of the course setting, could be an area for further
exploration in a follow-on study, with parents who attend parenting
groups held in children’s centres or alternative venues.
Another important point raised by Isabella was around who could
access the programme:

…if you come from a particular socio-economic group there will

be support there for you; if you come from different socio-
economic groups you are not perceived as requiring any support
and there are not any issues.

She was not the only parent who raised this as an issue:

If you have got enough money coming in and got enough things
you’re meant to be able to just kinda, sometimes I just feel like
 you just get on with it. Where’s if I was someone who had more
issues kinda going on I would get more support of how to bring
up my child.
Sophia

From the interviews we can conclude that parents value parenting

programmes as an opportunity for them to meet and share information
with other parents at least as much as they appreciate them for their
intrinsic educational value. Additionally for some parents, particularly
those with preschool children, it might be the only opportunity they get
to interact with other parents and indeed “get out of the house”. For The
Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes, parents in most cases attend
because they have concerns around their child’s behaviour and by the
end of the programme they have developed a toolkit of strategies to
support them. For PEEP parents the suggestion is it is more about going
to a toddler group to meet other parents, play with their child and for
their child to socialise. However from talking to parents and analysing
the data it seems that they come away with much more; they have
learnt about child development, the importance of sharing stories and
rhymes, healthy eating and a myriad of other topics that are covered in
the programme.
Parents value the role of the trainers in creating the right
environment: trainers need to be friendly, approachable, non-
judgemental and helpful. Parents feel that trainers create the right
environment where they can share their parenting experiences and
support each other within the structure of the group. It is the
interaction with the other parents on the programme that is
particularly important to them.
During my research I witnessed the effects of Government and local
authority withdrawal of funding, resulting in a complete or partial
reduction in parenting programmes offered. First, funding for PSAs was
withdrawn resulting in a dramatic reduction in parenting programmes
being offered to parents of school-aged children. For many of the
children’s centres which were still able to offer parenting programmes,
this meant that the groups they ran had to be restructured so that they
were now predominantly for targeted parents—specifically parents
living in areas of socio-economic deprivation, teenaged parents and
fathers. The danger of this is that the perception of children’s centres
and parenting programmes could return to the view that they are there
for “failing” parents, an erroneous view that I have found has taken
years to overcome since the roll out of Phase One children’s centres
which were built only in disadvantaged areas. During my time as a local
authority Parent Support and Children’s Centre Advisor, and
throughout this research, I witnessed how hard children’s centre staff
had worked to counter this image. From the one-year-on questionnaire
data and my more recent visits to children’s centres, it was quite
apparent that parents were well aware of the changes that were
happening in their area. This process of reduction and re-targeting of
parenting programmes will not only limit the attendance of middle-
class parents, who for some reason are viewed as not needing
parenting support, but would also discourage targeted parents who do
not want to be viewed as failing in their role. This will result in a
negative change to the environment for parents, which they value so
highly, to one in which they can no longer benefit so much from sharing
information with other parents.
During one of my last visits to a group for this research I met two
parents who had previously been to and enjoyed attending a PEEP
group with their older children, and had found it incredibly difficult to
find one to go to with their younger children. In another group attended
by a mix of mothers and fathers, cut-backs meant that the children’s
centre decided to close this group and replace it with a fathers-only
group. Sophia, one of the parents I interviewed, met with one of the
fathers from the group they both used to attend and asked how he
found the new group; his reply was “like tumbleweed”, with the new
fathers-only group apparently suffering from very low numbers and
limited group interaction. Maybe this group grew since I carried out
that interview and maybe more fathers attended, but what happened to
all the mothers and their children? None of the fathers had asked for a
specific group for them, no-one asked them if they wanted it,
Government funding and targets had simply dictated it. From the one-
year-on questionnaire responses it was evident that the parents who
could no-longer attend these targeted groups struggled to find PEEP
groups that they were able to attend.
 To summarise, there are two key findings from this theme that
address my first research question about parents views of the
parenting programme process: firstly how parents valued the role of
the trainers in creating the right environment, where they could share
their parenting experiences and support each other within the
structure of a parenting group; secondly how parents valued the role of
other parents on the programme. Importantly, although the
perspectives and experiences of other parents were viewed as a critical
element of the programme, this was not found to diminish the role of
the parenting programme trainer. Seven out of the eight parents
interviewed recognised the role of the trainer in “setting the scene” and
supporting them through challenging times in addition to providing
general parenting advice and information.
The parents spoke positively of their experience of attending a
parenting programme and considered that they worked in partnership
with the trainers rather than being told what they should or should not
be doing. I would like to emphasise this point because it suggests
trainers are not adopting the role of an expert, as in Cunningham and
Davis’ Expert model, but rather are working in partnership with
parents as in their Transplant Model. For one particular PEEP group I
visited, it could be suggested that they had gone one step further and
were moving towards the Consumer model where participants choose
what they want included in their session, as there was provision for
parents to suggest what topics were covered in the group. This is
important because it suggests that parents are being empowered by the
approaches to learning being adopted by the trainers, rather than
disempowered by being made to feel inadequate as suggested could be
the case (Cottam and Espie 2014). This also indicates that the concerns
raised by Crozier (1998), whereby trainers view themselves as the
expert and have a deficit view of the parents, may have been
successfully overcome—at least on the programmes which formed part
of my research. Consequently, as a result of adopting this Transplant
model, trainers are reporting that parents are leaving the course with
increased confidence, not only in parenting but also in other aspects of
their lives.
References
Cottam, S., & Espie, J. (2014). Discourses underpinning parenting training programmes:
Positioning and power. Children and Society, 28, 465–477.
[Crossref]

Crozier, G. (1998). Parents and schools: Partnership or surveillance? Journal of Education Policy,
13, 125–136.
[Crossref]

Cunningham, C., & Davis, H. (1985). Working with parents: Frameworks for collaboration. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_8

8. Discussion and Conclusion

Katy Smart1  
(1) School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

 
Abstract
This final chapter revisits the key findings from my research, presenting
them in the context of the existing literature and my own experience,
and proposes that parenting programmes are an effective example of
the Transplant model of parent-professional practice. Additionally, I go
on to highlight some key components of my methodology which I feel
can be beneficial to other social science researchers.

Keywords Parenting programme – Transplant model – Learning

environment – Family engagement – Critical realism – Social science

What I’ve learned, what went well, what this means and what we can do
next.
In this, the last, chapter I will summarise the key findings from my
research. This doesn’t just include the specific answers to my research
questions, but also relates to how my research is part of a bigger
picture. With that in mind I will organise my findings into three distinct
categories. Firstly, I will summarise what the parents thought about the
parenting programmes. Secondly, I will propose how parenting
programmes are a real-world example of a Transplant model in
practice. And finally, I will look at ways in which elements of my
methodology can be applied more widely within the context of general
social science research.
In the first section I will be discussing what the parents thought
about the parenting programmes in the context of my second and third
research questions:
What are the views of parents regarding the changes that parents
have made as a result of attending a parenting programme?
From the perspective of parents, what impact has the parenting
programme had on the children?
I will discuss how these questions are addressed by the key findings
from my study, in the context of other relevant literature and my own
professional experience.

What Parents Thought About the Impact of

Parenting Programmes
Research Question 2: Parents’ Views Regarding Parental
Changes
Addressing my second research question, we can see from Chapter 3
that parents reported positive changes in parental behaviour, especially
the effective adoption of parenting and behaviour management
strategies, along with increased parental confidence. This was seen to
also impact other aspects of their lives, including giving parents the
confidence to approach their child’s school with concerns or going on
to further training to develop their career, all of which will have a direct
impact on the child.
This outcome aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system model
(1979), whereby factors with which the child does not directly interact
can still have an impact on them. In the context of my study,
Bronfenbrenner’s exosystem would include the two parenting
programmes where the child does not attend with their parent: The
Incredible Years and Triple-P. According to Bronfenbrenner, interactions
within the exosystem, in this case between parents and trainers, have
the potential to indirectly impact the child through induced changes in
parental approach, attitude and behaviour. Although the child does not
attend the sessions, the strategies parents are learning and using at
home are having a positive impact on their child and their family.
Similarly, the PEEP programmes would fall into Bronfenbrenner’s
mesosystem, where the parents and trainers interact with each other
and also directly with the child. Here the parents are interacting with
the trainers, growing their knowledge on child development and
positive parenting strategies, and then using what they have learnt not
only during group sessions but also at home.
My findings add further support to the evidence (Coren and Barlow
2009; Al-Hassan and Lansford 2011; Lindsay and Cullen 2011; Furlong
et al. 2012) that parenting programmes can be successful in
encouraging the learning and adoption of new parenting skills and
strategies. One key parenting skill reported by parents in my research
was the use of positive parenting techniques to manage children’s
behaviour; strategies included verbal praise, kindness chart, listening
to their child, negotiation and providing options. Additionally, parents
reported a new understanding on the value of play in their child’s
development. The outcome of this new knowledge has led to parents
reporting changes around the time and activities they share with their
child; these included sharing stories, singing, cooking and playing with
their child. My research also demonstrated two key outcomes arising
from the adoption of these positive parenting strategies: firstly an
improved parent–child relationship, again echoing the findings of Coren
and Barlow (2009); secondly a reported increase in general parental
confidence, supporting the findings of Manby (2005) who reported
improvements in parental confidence as they were able to successfully
apply strategies to address their children’s behaviour.
In addition to the learning of new parenting skills, my findings
demonstrated that parents were also learning more about child
development and the importance of the role they play in this area. This
supports the earlier findings of Al-Hassan and Lansford (2011). The
subsequent parental behavioural changes reflect how an increased
understanding of their child’s development can help improve their
parenting skills; in particular it helps them to create a safer and more
stimulating environment within which their child can thrive. This
ranged from an understanding of healthy eating and physical play to
the value of singing, reading stories and playing even with the very
youngest infants.
From my professional experience I have found that most parents
want to do their best for their child; this is further supported by them
agreeing to or choosing to attend a parenting programme, often to help
them develop their knowledge around child development and positive
parenting strategies. I have also found in the years that I have been in
the education system, specifically early years and primary, that working
in partnership with parents and respecting their knowledge as a
parent, helps encourage them to develop their parenting skills. There
have been many occasions where I have found parents wanting to do
their very best for their child but not knowing how to go about it and
have welcomed the opportunity to work in partnership with me to help
improve their knowledge in this area. This is supported by Crittenden
(2005) who agrees that parents have a desire to do the right thing but
sometimes do not know how. My findings relating to this research
question demonstrate that parents are adopting positive strategies
learnt on the programmes and are becoming more confident in their
role. This is important because it demonstrates how the desire of
parents to do their best for their child is being met by the parenting
programmes; they are being supported in improving their knowledge
on child development and positive parenting strategies resulting in
increased parental confidence.

Research Question 3: Parents’ Views on the Impact to the

Children
Key to my research has been the role the parents play in their child’s
development and this maps to the first level of Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological system model, the microsystem, which represents the
immediate environment surrounding the child. In the context of my
research, this level maps primarily to include the child’s interaction
with their parents, although for those who attend the PEEP
programmes this would also include the exchanges between the trainer
and child during the programme sessions. It is through the interactions
between the layers in this model, from the exosystem through the
mesosystem to the microsystem, that the parenting programme can be
seen to have an impact on the children of the parents attending.
Answering this third research question, two key outcomes
regarding impact on the child are identified: an improved relationship
with their parent (Chapter 4) and an increased degree of school
readiness (Chapter 5). The first of these is facilitated and supported by
the parent learning new skills and strategies coupled with them
spending more quality time together. Adoption of strategies learnt on
the programme is found to be contributing to an improved bond
between parent and child, with their relationship being reported as
happier, less stressful and more constructive. This is another key
outcome of attendance on a parenting programme and further supports
the findings of Simonič and Poljanec (2014) who researched mothers’
views having attended a young mother ’s group. This outcome is
important to note because this improved relationship feeds back into
promoting the child’s behaviour and confidence, and indirectly
increases their school readiness.
Improvement in school readiness is the second notable outcome for
children; an increase in positive parenting skills and parental
knowledge of child development can lead to an improvement in the
child being ready to start school. Examples of school readiness include
language development, social development, confidence and behaviour.
These are the foundations which will help support the child as they
move into and subsequently through the education system. This finding
supports Kiernan et al.’s (2008) research where the importance of the
parents’ role in their child’s school readiness is recognised. Although
the findings of this study are unable to capture any association between
parenting programmes and educational attainment outcomes, the
findings do demonstrate that having attended a parenting programme,
parents are recognising the advantages of providing opportunities to
promote their child’s development. This supports the findings of Hattie
(2009) and Desforges and Abouchaar (2003) on the importance of
parental engagement in the child’s developmental and lifelong learning
outcomes, and also demonstrates that having attended a parenting
programme parents, themselves, recognise the impact of their
engagement. This further advocates the value of the role of parenting
programmes in improving child outcomes.
From the literature review the suggestion is that parental
engagement with a child’s education can have a positive impact on their
behavioural, developmental and educational outcomes (Desforges and
Abouchaar 2003; Harris and Goodall 2007; Hattie 2009; Claxton and
Lucas 2015). From my own professional experience of teaching both in
the early years and primary, I have found that parental engagement in a
child’s education can and does have a positive effect on these outcomes.
A parental appreciation of child development can help lead to
structured quality play opportunities for the child and is likely to
promote a home environment where educational support is more
forthcoming—a child raised in this environment often reaches
developmental and educational milestones ahead of their peers. Hattie
(2009) goes further and suggests that parental support could add the
equivalent of an extra two to three years to the child’s education. These
changes in parental behaviour and interactions with their child may not
necessarily be seen by the parents as directly supporting their
education, however from my professional experience I have found that
indirectly they are making a positive impact in this area.
In the next section I will look at the findings that address my first
research question:
What are the views of parents regarding the parenting
programme?
Specifically, I will focus on what the parents told me about the
learning environment and how this enabled them to get the most out of
the programmes.

Parenting Programmes as a Real-World

Example of a Transplant Model in Practice
Research Question 1: Parents’ Views on Parenting
Programmes
My first research question was addressed by two key findings: firstly
how parents valued the role of the trainers in creating the right
environment, where they could share their parenting experiences and
support each other within the structure of a parenting group, and
secondly how parents valued the role of other parents on the
programme. It is however important to note that although the views
and experiences of other parents were seen as a vital component of the
programme, this did not reduce the importance of the role of the
parenting programme trainer. The vast majority of the interviewed
parents identified the role of the trainer in “setting the scene” and
supporting them through challenging times as well as providing general
parenting advice and information. The parents considered that they
worked in partnership with the trainers rather than being dictated to. It
is important that I highlight this point again because it suggests the
trainers were not adopting the role of an expert, as in Cunningham and
Davis’ Expert model, but rather were working in partnership with
parents as in their Transplant model (Cunningham and Davis 1985). As
I mentioned in Chapter 7 for one of the PEEP groups I visited, it could
be suggested that they had even gone one step further and were
moving towards the Consumer model where parents were encouraged
to choose what they want included in their session. This is important
because it suggests that parents are being empowered by the
approaches to learning being adopted by the trainers, rather than
disempowered as indicated in Cottam and Espie’s (2014) research.
Further this also suggests that, for the programmes that formed part of
my research, the concerns regarding trainers identifying themselves as
the expert and having a deficit view of the parent were unfounded.
As highlighted in Chapter 6 I anticipated that a number of themes,
such as an improvement in children’s behaviour, would probably
develop from the analysis of the data especially as they had been a
focus of previous research. However what was particularly interesting
from the interviews with the Triple-P and The Incredible Years parents
was the emphasis that they placed on whole family engagement in the
programme. This is not only important because it would provide
continuity and consistency in parenting and reduce family conflict but
also because it was reported that for one parent to be perceived as the
expert, telling the other how they should be parenting could place a
strain on their relationship or possibly make the other parent feel
disempowered. Interestingly the concerns raised in the literature
review around Cunningham and Davis Expert model appear to apply
more to the inter-parent relationship rather than the parent–trainer
relationship.
Bhaskar’s (2008) MELD model guided my research process. MELD
took my research from the First Moment (1M) of collecting the
perceptions of parents through the Second Edge (2E) of analysing the
data with an acknowledgement of how absences and negative power
are a vital part of the process regarding changes in parenting
behaviours and child development; to the Third Level (3L) of looking at
the whole picture through several perceptions, identifying themes that
represent the totality. The key findings uncovered by my research,
specifically the importance of the right learning and sharing
environment and the value placed on whole family engagement in the
parenting programme, have taken me towards the Fourth Dimension
(4D) providing us with new knowledge and understanding. This new
knowledge could be capitalised on in terms of the delivery of not only
parenting programmes but also other parent focused initiatives
through sharing groups rather than one-to-one interventions and by
encouraging whole family engagement.
I will now move on to the third stage of my conclusion and look at
how elements of my methodology can provide valuable knowledge in a
wider social science research context.

How My Methodology Can Serve as an Example

for General Social Science Research
Critical Realism as a Philosophy
As discussed in Chapter 4, an important strength of my research was
how I used Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy Critical Realism to guide my
research methodology. Ontologically I acknowledge that objects exist in
and of themselves, independent of our knowledge of them. Additionally
I recognise that our understanding of them might change over time, or
between observers, but that the underlying reality remains constant.
By collecting multiple perspectives, specifically different
individuals, different methodologies, different times, in order to
assemble a full picture of the “actual” events, leading to an
understanding of the underlying reality, aligned perfectly with
Bhaskar’s Dialectical Critical Realism. DCR also offered me with a
framework, MELD, to guide my methodology to the desire of using the
new knowledge and understanding of parenting programmes to pursue
real change. Revisiting how my research fitted within the MELD
framework, we can see how the parents’ views helped me reach 4D:
1M was the start of the MELD process. Here I observed and
collected the views of parents and trainers on the parenting
programme process, changes in their parental behaviour and the
 impact on the child. I used these to help understand how each
individual’s experience is one manifestation of the underlying reality.
2E was where I identified what was the nature of the changes
reported by parents, and recognised the nature of both becoming and
“be-going”. I looked for what was missing in regard to parenting
behaviours and child development. I compared the data from the
parents and trainers to see whether there were any contradictions in
what they were saying. Although this book does not include the
trainers’ perspectives this was an important element of my research
as it provided triangulation to the data and promoted
trustworthiness of the findings. The trainers’ views aligned with
what the parents were reporting.
3L is the point where I looked at the whole picture, the totality, of
the impacts of the parenting programme process. I examined this
totality through multiple time points, multiple views, both parents
and trainers, and multiple methodologies (questionnaires and
interviews).
4D is the final stage where I am now using this new knowledge
and understanding to pursue real change; I want to refocus the
Government and local authorities’ attention to addressing these
changes.
By using Bhasker’s MELD I have taken individual parent’s
perspectives, combined it with others, analysed it critically looking for
deeper implications and meanings. To really embrace 4D and to pursue
real change I now share the knowledge and understanding that I have
gained with others, this book being one important example.
I hope that by sharing how I used Bhaskar’s MELD to provide
structure to my methodology this will provide valuable knowledge to
future researchers and professionals, and that it can act as a real
example for how Critical Realism can be applied within social science
research.

Maximising Participation Through Anonymity and

Confidentiality
An additional strength of my methodological approach is the technique
I discussed in Chapter 5 for helping to increase questionnaire returns
through anonymity, and I believe that it may provide new knowledge to
the field of collecting longitudinal data, particularly from possibly
vulnerable groups. By assigning index numbers to questionnaires and
having the gatekeeper allocate a parent to an index, I guaranteed the
parents anonymity whilst still providing a system to gather further data
from them at a later date, thus allowing anonymous comparisons
between pre-intervention and post-intervention data. Additionally, by
providing envelopes in which the questionnaires were to be returned, I
guaranteed that the parents’ responses were kept confidential from the
parent programme trainers. This combination of anonymity and
confidentiality helped reduce any worries the parents may have had
and so promoted participation. This novel approach will, I hope,
support future researchers and professionals in maximising
participation rates, especially amongst more vulnerable groups.

Engaging to Maximise Participation

Another particular strength of my questionnaire data collection was
investing time to visit the parenting groupspersonally to introduce my
research and spend time interacting with the parents and children.
Although I emphasised that taking part in my research was completely
voluntary and that there would be no negative implications if they did
not, the questionnaire returns from these visits were almost 100%. One
of the poorest responses I had was from a Baby PEEP group where
there were 19 parents with their babies, all moving around various
rooms to complete activities between feeding their babies; it was a
particularly hectic session for the trainers and there was
understandably little opportunity for parents to complete
questionnaires, however I still received 16 (84%) completed forms.
Although I offered a visit to all the groups taking part in my
research, some of the trainers chose to tell their parents about my
research themselves; in these instances I provided a briefing sheet
outlining my research. For these groups the returns were not so high.
This could be attributed to a number of reasons: not being present
meant that I was unable to provide any additional information to
answer parents’ questions or address their particular concerns, and did
not give me the opportunity to convey the enthusiasm I brought to my
research when I talked about it. For one local authority, I visited a The
Incredible Years group and received 100% returns on the pre-
programme questionnaire. However for the post-programme
questionnaire, and pre-programme questionnaire for subsequent
groups, the local authority advisor decided that the trainers would co-
ordinate the questionnaires on my behalf; the returns were very poor.
This is important as it demonstrates that by investing time and going
into groups to talk to parents and explain the value of the research, the
level of parents’ engagement is increased and they are much more
likely to complete the associated questionnaires. It is recognised and
expected that for a longitudinal study there will be a natural loss of
participants during the research (Robson 2002; Oppenheim 2005;
Thomas 2009), so by maximising participant engagement at the start of
the research process it is more likely that there will continue to be a
sufficient number of participants taking part in the final stage of data
collection.

Respecting the Data

The final point I would like to emphasise is another particular strength
of my research method, which was the combination of using open-
ended questions in the questionnaires and interviews, coupled with the
adoption of a thematic approach to analyse the data. This enabled
parents to express their views in areas which I may not have
considered as they had not arisen during my professional experience or
during the literature review, and which could have easily been
overlooked had I used different methods of collecting and analysing the
data. This is important because it provided me with a more complete
picture of the value parents have placed on being able to attend a
parenting programme.
To promote trustworthiness of the data I analysed responses from
both parents and, although not discussed in this book, trainers on some
common issues; this helped make my analysis more robust. This
process of triangulation, in combination with coding of the data, helped
minimise any biases in my interpretation which could potentially arise
coming to this study with 30 plus years of professional experience.
Methodological triangulation was achieved as results from the
interview analysis were reinforced by considering questionnaire
responses too. Braun and Clarke acknowledge that as a qualitative
researcher you come with “identities and experiences” (Braun and
Clarke 2013, p. 21) and do not consider that you should try to be rid of
it but rather take account of it. It was important for me to look for
indicators that bias might be creeping into the analysis and then
influencing the rest of the research design; at any point where I
considered this appeared to be happening it was necessary to step back
and re-evaluate the analysis with a more objective perspective. I used
this self-awareness to minimise any bias in my analysis.
Working with recorded interviews is a time-consuming process.
Having typed up the transcripts I embraced the familiarisation phase
and devised nodes of data which I then cut out on strips of paper and
physically moved around my dining room table, creating groups and
then themes. Looking back at these nodes I can see effective initial
coding identifying features of the data which eventually led to the
development of the themes discussed in this book. I am confident that
the themes that developed from the data are robust, supported by data
collection from both parents and trainers. This stage took many weeks
as I would step away from the data and then revisit it, looking through a
fresh lens, making sure that I really captured the essence of what the
parents said in the themes that I developed. As a result of this extended
duration and the physical tactile nature of moving conversational
snippets around in space, I became totally immersed in the data and far
more familiar with it than I feel would have been possible in a purely
digital environment.
I urge researchers to respect their data and factor in sufficient time
to properly analyse it. The danger of rushing this stage of the process is
the researcher potentially “cherry picking” the themes that they
expected, or even worse mistakenly imposing their own meaning on
what has been said. As researchers it is important that we demonstrate
rigour and trustworthiness in our analysis. Stepping away and giving
time before revisiting the data again can help to minimise biases and
promote objectivity in the analysis.

Current Parenting Programme Availability

Although the Government policy of introducing parenting programmes
provision may appear to be removed from the child, in that the child is
not the direct recipient of the programme, my research has shown that
it can still have an impact on them. This aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological system model, where the interactions within and between
the macrosystem, exosystem and mesosystem have an ultimate impact
on the microsystem. What becomes evident from my research is the
causal relationship between Government policy focus, funding of
parenting programmes, parents attending those programmes, parents
applying the knowledge and strategies learnt at home—and how this
interplay between the levels can impact the child.
This is important because changes in Government focus frequently
lead to a change in where funding is allocated:

Following the evaluation of the PEIP the government decided to

fund a further roll out across all 150 LAs in England, the
Parenting Early Intervention Programme (2008-2011). One of
the roles expected to be fulfilled by PSAs was to support the
delivery of parenting programmes.
(Lindsay et al. 2009, p. 22)

From the themes that developed through my research, there is a

clear overlap around several aspects of the parenting programmes
including changes in parental behaviours and the associated positive
impact on the child. What can be concluded is that almost all parents
are reporting a positive impact for the parent, for the child and in many
cases for the family of the parent attending the parenting programme. I
would like to emphasise this point because it suggests that there is a
real need for parenting programmes; a need that should be addressed
across all parents and not just targeted at a specific group.
I would agree with Field (2010) when he says:

There is an increasing range of specific programmes aimed at

disadvantaged families with young children which demonstrate
that improvements can be made to the home learning
environment, parenting, and child outcomes more widely.
(Field 2010, p. 58)

I would however suggest that this support should not only be

offered to a limited group of targeted parents but that it should be
universally available. The Government’s objective of targeting certain
parents has imposed restrictions on trainers regarding how many
parents they can accept who do not fall within these target groups—
and these restrictions are becoming increasingly tight as further cuts
are made to funding. Yet in my interviews, parents spontaneously
commented on how they felt it important that the programmes need to
be available to all parents; the need for practical parenting skills is
universal and not just confined to specific target groups.
Back in 2011, a UK Government report from the House of Commons
Education Committee stated that:

The Sure Start programme as a whole is one of the most

innovative and ambitious Government initiatives of the past two
decades. We have heard almost no negative comment about its
intentions and principles; it has been solidly based on evidence
that the early years are when the greatest difference can be
made to a child’s life chances, and in many areas it has
successfully cut through the silos that so often bedevil public
service delivery. Children’s Centres are a substantial investment
with a sound rationale, and it is vital that this investment is
allowed to bear fruit over the long term.
(House of Commons 2011, p. 4)

And yet throughout this research I watched the acceleration of cuts

to Government and local authority funding. Millions of pounds had
been invested across the country in children’s centre builds and
training staff and yet within only a few years these centres were being
closed down (Sylva et al. 2015). The result was that closures to
children’s centres impacted on the very families that the Government
and local authorities said they were trying to support; these families
are now expected to travel further to access centres. One head-teacher
whose school is considered to be in a more deprived area shared that
her families will simply not cross town to access a group.
In December 2015 (BBC 2015) a county council in the south-west of
the UK released its plans to close half of its 30 children’s centres. In the
same article one of its local authorities announced that it proposed to
close its last five remaining children’s centres; there had been 14 in
2013. The resulting consultation with local parents in January 2016
demonstrated that there was overwhelming support to keep the
children’s centres open (Smith 2016). Despite pleas from parents, in
February 2016 it was announced (BBC 2016) that all five children’s
centres, along with their parenting classes and support groups, would
be closing. Services to support vulnerable children would now be
through health visitors and home visits. This directly contradicts one of
the key findings from my research where parents reported the
importance of parents being able to get together and share their
experiences in a friendly and supportive environment. In addition to
learning parenting skills, parents, both mothers and fathers, shared
stories of how attending a group had: helped them cope with postnatal
depression; make new friends; improve their relationship with their
child; realise that they were not the only one with questions around
parenting. There were reports that without the group they would be
isolated and not see anyone all day. The recommendations from NICE
(National Institute for Clinical Excellence 2006) provide further
supporting evidence of the importance of group-based parenting
programmes rather than individual-based programmes. It is essential
to maintain offering parenting support within a group environment;
this was one of the most important themes arising from my research,
and emphasises the value that parents place on sharing experiences
and knowledge with other parents.
The important points here, based on the evidence from my research,
are that funding needs to be restored for community-based parenting
programmes and that the programmes need to be made more
universally available.

Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to provide parents the opportunity to
express their views on parenting programmes; this is also the strength
of this study. The reason for this book was to make sure those voices
were heard. This is important as my research gave parents the
opportunity to express what they thought of the parenting programme
process, whether they considered there had been any changes in their
parenting since attending a course and whether they felt it had
benefitted their child—an opportunity that had been seriously
neglected.
I think it is important to emphasise again that the methodological
strategy that I developed meant that parents were provided with the
opportunity to complete questionnaires anonymously thereby not only
maximising participation, whilst still being able to collect data over
multiple time points, but also promoting honest views. Parents were
also given the chance to speak freely at interviews knowing that their
identity would not be disclosed. I made it clear when introducing my
research that I was not trying to advocate or promote parenting
programmes I simply wanted to hear their perspectives. There was no
indication from any of the parents that they felt disempowered since
attending the programme, on the contrary parents reported feeling
more confident.
Positive outcomes reported by parents have included a better
understanding of supporting their child’s development, spending more
quality time with their child and an improved parent-child relationship.
From my own professional experience I would suggest that a positive
parent–child interaction is the key to promoting the child’s educational,
behavioural and developmental outcomes.
My research has also highlighted some valuable new knowledge
regarding the delivery of parenting programmes and similar initiatives,
re-iterating the importance of the Transplant model. Information is best
delivered in an environment which acknowledges and builds on
parents’ pre-existing knowledge and skills, allowing them to share with
others whilst embracing the new ideas being presented on the
programme. I have also uncovered the importance of whole family
engagement in such initiatives; the most effective dissemination of
information needs to reach into the whole family and not just attempt
to create a single expert within the household. It is important that these
aspects of my findings are taken into consideration by local authorities
and other organisations when designing and delivering parent-facing
programmes.
In conclusion, given the right learning environment, parenting
programmes can offer a successful route to increasing parental
knowledge on child development as well as introducing strategies and
techniques to support and promote the child’s behaviour, development,
school readiness and education. This increase in parental knowledge
and subsequent change in parental behaviour often results in a more
harmonious home atmosphere, an improved parent–child relationship
and a more supportive home learning environment.
I hope my research and this book help to promote the principle that
the evaluation of a policy or intervention needs to consider the impact
on the individuals concerned and that it is important to spend time to
actually listen to what they say.

References
Al-Hassan, S. M., & Lansford, J. E. (2011). Evaluation of the better parenting programme in
Jordan. Early Child Development and Care, 181, 587–598.
[Crossref]

BBC. (2015). Swindon council set to close all its children centres [Online]. Available: http://www.
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-34983055. Accessed 1st April 2016.

BBC. (2016). Swindon budget: Children centres axed as council tax rises [Online]. Available:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-35666916. Accessed 1st April 2016.

Bhaskar, R. (2008). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Routledge.

[Crossref]

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative Research: A practical guide for beginners.
London: Sage.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Claxton, G., & Lucas, B. (2015). Educating Ruby: What our children really need to learn.
Carmarthen, UK: Crown House Publishing.

Coren, E., & Barlow, J. (2009). Individual and group-based parenting programmes for improving
psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents and their children (Review). Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews.

Cottam, S., & Espie, J. (2014). Discourses underpinning parenting training programmes:
Positioning and power. Children and Society, 28, 465–477.
[Crossref]

Crittenden, P. M. (2005). Attachment and Cognitive Psychotherapy International Congress on

cognitive psychotherapy. Sweden: Gøtengorg.

Cunningham, C., & Davis, H. (1985). Working with Parents: Frameworks for collaboration. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and
family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A review of literature. Nottingham: DfES
Publications.

Field, F. (2010). The foundation years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults: The report
of the Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances. London: Cabinet Office.

Furlong, M., McGilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S., & Donnelly, M. (2012).
Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions for early-onset
conduct problems in children age 3–12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging parents in raising achievement: Do parents know they
matter?: A research project commissioned by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.
Warwick: University of Warwick.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
London and New York: Routledge.

House of Commons. (2011). Sure start children’s centres: Government response to the fifth report
from the Children, Schools and Families Committee, Session 2009–10. London: The Stationery
Office Limited.

Kiernan, G., Axford, N., Little, M., Murphy, C., Greene, S., & Gormley, M. (2008). The school
readiness of children living in a disadvantaged area in Ireland. Journal of Early Childhood
Research, 6, 119–144.
[Crossref]

Lindsay, G., & Cullen, M. A. (2011). Evaluation of the Parenting Early Intervention Programme: A
short report to inform local commissioning processes. London: Department for Education.

Lindsay, G., Davis, H., Strand, S., Cullen, A. M., Band, S., Cullen, S., et al. (2009). Parent support
advisor pilot evaluation: Final report. Warwick: University of Warwick.

Manby, M. (2005). Evaluation of the impact of the Webster-Stratton Parent-Child Videotape

Series on participants in a Midlands town in 2001–2002. Children and Society, 19, 316–328.
[Crossref]

National Institute for Clinical Excellence. (2006). Parent training/education programmes in the
management of children with conduct disorders. London: A Health Technology appraisal.

Oppenheim, A. N. (2005). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London:

Continuum.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-
researchers. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Simonič, B., & Poljanec, A. (2014). Building motherhood in the young mothers’ group. Child Care
in Practice, 20, 270–285.
[Crossref]

Smith, S. (2016). Desperate parents plead with council not to close children’s centres [Online].
Available: http://m.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/14218326.Desperate_parents_plead_with_
council_not_to_close_childrens_centres/. Accessed 1st April 2016.

Sylva, K., Goff, J., Eisenstadt, N., Smith, T., Hall, J., & Evangelou, M. (2015). Organisation, services
and reach of children’s centres. Oxford: University of Oxford.

Thomas, G. (2009). How to do Your Research Project: A guide for students in education and
applied social sciences. London: Sage.
Index
A
Abouchaar, Alberto
achievement
Ainsworth, Mary
anonymity
anonymous
attachment
attainment
attendance
B
basic needs of a child
behaviour
Bhaskar, Roy
boundaries
Bowlby, John
Braun, Virginia
Bronfenbrenner, Urie
C
child development
childminders
children’s centres
children’s development
Clarke, Victoria
Claxton, Guy
cognitive
confidence
confidential
confidentiality
Consumer Model
Critical Realism
Actual
Empirical
epistemic fallacy
 Real
underlying reality
cultural
Eastern Europe
Cunningham, Cliff
D
dad
Davis, Hilton
deductive
deficit model
Desforges, Charles
Dialectical Critical Realism (DCR)
See also MELD
disadvantaged
disempowered
disempowering
domestic violence
E
early years
Early Years Foundation Stage
ecological system model
ecological systems theory
emotional
engagement
environment
epistemological
exosystem
expert
Expert Model
F
family
whole family engagement
father
fathers’ group
Field, Frank
G
gatekeeper
Goodall, Janet
good parenting
Government policy
grandparents
group-based
H
Harris, Alma
Hattie, John
home environment
home learning
I
Incredible Years
The Incredible Years
inductive
interviews
involvement
K
Key Stage 1
L
learning environment
longitudinal
Lucas, Bill
M
macrosystem
Meadows, Sara
MELD
absences
be-going
First Moment
Fourth Dimension
negative power
 positive power
Second Edge
Third Level
totality
mental health
postnatal depression
mesosystem
microsystem
mixed methods
mother
mum
N
nursery
O
one-year-on
ontological
ontologically
P
parent–child
parental behaviour
parental confidence
parental engagement
parental involvement
parental knowledge
parental support
parent-child
parenting behaviour
parenting group
parenting programmes
parenting skills
parenting strategies
positive parenting strategies
positive strategies
parenting styles
parenting support
parent programme trainer
parents’ perspectives
parents’ views
parents’ voice
Parent Support Advisor
partnership with parents
PEEP
Peers Early Education Partnership
physical
pilot
positive parenting
positive praise
post-intervention
post-programme
poverty
pre-intervention
pre-programme
preschool
primary school
PSA
Q
qualitative
quality time
quantitative
questionnaire
R
reading
rhymes
S
Sanders, Matthew
school attendance
school readiness
secondary school
secure attachment
self-belief
semi-structured interviews
singing
social
social development
socio-economic status
songs
speech and language
stories
Sure Start
T
targeted group
teenage mother
teenage mothers’ group
teenage parents
teenage parents’ group
teenage pregnancies
teenager
thematic approach
toddler
Transplant Model
triangulation
Triple-P
trustworthiness
V
vulnerable
W
Webster-Stratton, Carolyn
Y
young mother