The Quality Dialogue. An Activity-Theoretical Study on Systematic Quality Work in a Municipal Preschool Administration

Abstract in English

Quality dialogues have become increasingly common in systematic quality work which is legally mandated by the Swedish Education Act. The present thesis aims to contribute to knowledge on quality dialogues in local education administrations’ systematic quality work, focusing on the tension between support and control. The research questions are: What is the intended purpose of the quality dialogue, and how does this purpose align with the actions of the quality dialogue participants? How do culturally and historically shaped contradictions influence the development and function of the quality dialogue? The aim and research questions are addressed through a study conducted within a large Swedish municipal preschool administration. The thesis examines quality dialogues occurring at the unit level, the authoritative level, and at the intersection between these two levels of the organisation. A qualitative research design was adopted for the study. The empirical data consists of municipal documents and interviews which were elicited with examples from observed dialogues and participants’ written reflections. The empirical data is analysed through the lens of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory, CHAT. The findings show how quality dialogues have developed locally over time, under the influence of culturally-historically shaped contradictions caused by national and local policy, municipal reorganisation, and societal needs. The findings also show that quality dialogues have multiple purposes and that several culturally and historically shaped systemic contradictions influence the development and function of the quality dialogues. Most contradictions were found in the quality dialogue conducted at the intersection between the unit level and the authoritative level. This is also the quality dialogue most focused on control. Quality dialogues at the unit level and the authoritative level, respectively, focus more on support even though control is also at play. Findings further show that the actions taking place in quality dialogues might not entirely be addressing the shared object of activity because quality dialogue participants’ actions are directed towards substitute objects. Participants display to each other sets of interactional and content-related procedures that could count as procedural display. Based on the key findings, the importance of common preparations when designing quality dialogues and careful follow-up is emphasised.