The Covid-19 pandemic reshaped university teaching and prompted renewed attention to what constitutes high-quality university teachers. In research, students remain comparatively underrepresented in discussions about what characterizes a high-quality university teacher. This study addresses this gap by examining how the primary recipients of teaching conceptualize teacher quality in post-pandemic higher education. Using Q methodology, 41 social sciences students from different Swedish universities sorted 43 statements reflecting aspects of teacher quality derived from prior research. Factor analysis revealed three distinct and statistically robust design-thinking student personas. Sero, the academic purist, values disciplinary expertise, structure, and transparent assessment; effective teachers are those who know their subject and communicate expectations clearly. Kim, the inclusive collaborator, prioritizes relational ethics, fairness, and psychological safety, viewing high-quality teachers as those who foster equitable and inclusive learning environments. Alexi, the inspired thinker, seeks intellectual challenge, creativity, and emotional engagement, emphasizing teachers who stimulate curiosity and make learning meaningful. Across all three perspectives, students showed strong consensus on the importance of clear communication, coherent course design, and fairness in grading. By contrast, teachers’ personal support and student autonomy in shaping learning processes were ranked as less central markers of quality. Beyond its empirical contribution, the study’s results are presented in a design-thinking framework, offering a practical tool for academic development and pedagogical reflection. The personas invite educators and institutions to recognize the coexistence of multiple expectations and to design learning environments that respond to diverse student needs in a rapidly evolving higher education landscape.

School improvement efforts are often initiated top-down and externally imposed. They may lack context-specific considerations and teacher perspectives, leading to limited success. Addressing this empirical and practical knowledge gap, our study offers a bottom-up perspective by exploring primary school teachers’ beliefs about their schools’ improvement capacity in southeast Türkiye. Using Q methodology, we systematically collected subjective viewpoints from forty urban public primary school teachers through their sorting of a 32-item Q sample. Centroid factor extraction followed by Varimax rotation enabled us to identify both areas of consensus and disagreements regarding the conditions that facilitate or hinder school improvement. Utimately, the analysis revealed three distinct perspectives: (1) a harmonious environment with strong leadership, safety, and diversity; (2) emphasis on teacher collaboration but experiencing weak leadership; and (3) acknowledgment of teacher consultation but lacking a collaborative culture. These empirically derived perspectives illuminate how teachers differentially interpret leadership, collaboration, and professional development as components of school improvement capacity. By foregrounding teachers’ subjective viewpoints, the study demonstrates the value of incorporating practitioner perspectives into the design and enactment of school improvement policies. Further research should explore the underlying causes of these perspectives to enhance the effectiveness of educational reforms.

Diese explorative Studie beschreibt Qualitätsaspekte von offenen Ganztagesschulen aus der Sicht von Führungspersonen und Bildungsbehörden in der Schweiz. Diese Qualitätsaspekte wurden anhand der Q‑Methode, die quantitative und qualitative Ansätze kombiniert, untersucht. Die 24 Teilnehmenden bewerteten 43 Qualitätsaspekte, wodurch zwei Meinungsbilder entstanden. Die Meinungsbilder werden entsprechend der Qualitätsdimensionen des Context-Input-Prozess-Output-Modell (CIPO) eingeordnet. Das eine Meinungsbild betont die Bedeutung der Strukturqualität mit Fokus auf das Personal, während das zweite die Ergebnisqualität hervorhebt und das Kind und seine Entwicklung im Zentrum sieht. Die Meinungsbilder stimmen bezüglich der Wichtigkeit von Sicherheit, Inklusion und Wohlbefinden überein. Weniger wichtig war bei beiden die Integration schulischer Inhalte und die materielle Ausstattung. Gemäss der Analyse sollen offene Ganztagesschulen neben Betreuungs-, auch Entwicklungsorte für Schüler*innen sein. Anhand dieser explorativen Studie lässt sich zeigen, dass die Q‑Methode sich gut dafür eignet, die Einschätzung von Qualitätsaspekten unterschiedlicher Zielgruppen zu vergleichen und aufgrund der theoretischen Fundierung unabhängig vom nationalen Kontext für weitere Studien und Beratungen eingesetzt werden kann.

What is important? An explorative study on the relevance of different quality aspects in extended education

This explorative study describes quality aspects of extended education settings from the perspective of extended education authorities and leaders. Their subjective views were analysed according to Q methodology which combines quantitative and qualitative aspects. The 24 participants assessed 43 aspects of quality which resulted in two distinct viewpoints. The viewpoints are categorised according to the context-input-process-output-model (CIPO). One emphasises the importance of structure quality with a focus on personnel. The other highlights outcome quality and sees the child and its development at the center. There is consensus regarding the importance of security, inclusion, and wellbeing. The integration of school content and resources were considered less important. According to the analysis, extended education settings should provide care but also facilitate personal and social development for pupils. This exploratory study shows that the Q methodology is well suited to comparing the assessment of quality aspects of different target groups and can be used for further studies and consultations regardless of the national context due to the theoretical foundation of the quality aspects and dimensions.

Descriptions of what teaching quality in higher education refers to are dynamic, multidimensional, and constantly evolving. Subjective perspectives of university students and educators on teaching quality directly influence the ability of education to unlock potential, both at the individual and societal levels. This research project draws on research that considered the Covid-19 pandemic as disruptive to the way university educators worked and self-identified before the forced digital transformation. The aim is to provide what is currently missing, namely a comprehensive and contemporary understanding of teaching quality in post-pandemic higher education. Based on the perspectives of students and educators, this study’s findings are essential for developing equitable and future-focused educational practices in higher education. Q methodology, combining qualitative and quantitative aspects, is applied. The approach does not impose any categories onto the participants and thereby allows the emergence of their subjective perspectives through a systematic methodological procedure. The project’s first substudy investigated the subjective perspective of university educators. Its findings highlight the positive changes that emerged in post-pandemic higher education, such as educators’ increased openness to innovative teaching methods and enhanced flexibility in learning environments. Results also show a perceived loss of support opportunities for students and their learning processes. We are currently collecting data from students for the second substudy and will eventually compare the perspectives. Drawing on our background as academic developer, the study aspires to open up a critical dialogue between students and educators and facilitate inclusive discussions on educational equity, innovation, and the pursuit of societal progress.

The pandemic (first disruption) eventually led to a forced digital transformation (second disruption) in higher education. Consequently, university educators had to re-navigate their academic teacher identity. This study's purpose is to contribute new knowledge about how teaching quality in current, post-pandemic, higher education might have been affected by these structural changes. To identify consensus and patterns of disagreement regarding subjectively perceived changes, rather than investigating an objective reality, Q methodology was selected. Forty-three university educators shared their views by rank-ordering a set of teaching quality aspects. Q method analysis allowed the emergence of three statistically distinct factors (F1-F3), which were interpreted. More openness concerning new teaching methods and technological innovations and increased accessibility of teaching were seen as positive changes by all factors. Different areas of change regarding teaching quality were most prominent in the three factors: promising change concerning educators' use of visualizations and their pedagogic knowledge and skills (F1); a loss of support for and facilitation of students' learning processes (F2); aspects connected to their own mental health and their awareness of what makes them happy before and during classes (F3). Additionally, results illustrate that in post-pandemic higher education, some university educators might distinguish between mode of delivery and content of teaching when discussing teaching quality. In conclusion, data shows that the disruptive time, despite its unfortunate origin, seems to have triggered both positive changes and revealed new areas of academic development. It remains to be seen how permanent some of the subjectively perceived changes are.

Middle leaders were required to navigate the complexities of educational disruption and respond to internal and external demands throughout the pandemic. This shifting educational context necessitated a sensemaking process to better understand and act on the issues which gave rise to ambiguities in their school environment. This study investigated the sensemaking processes employed by 27 middle leaders from 20 government schools in Qatar, at a time when COVID- related restrictions had been lifted and face-to-face learning had resumed. To collect and analyze data, Q-methodology was applied. A 34-statement Q-sample was developed based on a proposed conceptual framework of sensemaking during times of disruption which included three dimen- sions: intrapersonal, relational, and institutional. Q-factor analysis revealed two significantly differ- ent viewpoints regarding how participants enacted certain practices in response to educational disruption. These were (1) sensemaking as a relational endeavor and (2) sensemaking as an agentic endeavor. The two viewpoints differed in sources of sensemaking and its mechanisms. Sensemaking offered a useful theoretical construct as it revealed middle leaders’ perceptions and enactments, and their struggles in maintaining a balance between structure and agency. The study has implica- tions for middle leadership policy and practices in times of educational disruption and beyond, with its distinctive methodological and contextual contributions. 

Educational psychologists operate across diverse educational contexts spanning from early childhood to tertiary education and are frequently tasked with contributing to the educational success of individuals singled out for special attention. This chapter adopts a more comprehensive approach, one that endorses a perspective of the field that seeks to elucidate learning processes in both formal and informal settings, inform pedagogical strategies, and foster social and emotional development. Consequently, by presenting a synthesis of three examples of Q methodology, this chapter delineates how Q methodology contributes to the domain of educational psychology that endeavors to enhance the efficacy, inclusivity, and supportiveness of teaching and learning for all learners. The first example explores young people’s definitions of bullying, highlighting Q methodology’s reputation as an ethical approach amplifying the perspectives of all individuals. The second example examines a recent study on the emotional responses of family members to their predominantly implicit language policies. Finally, the chapter introduces EDU-Q, and thereby offers a pragmatic illustration of how Q sorting, arguably the most salient aspect of Q methodology, can be employed in various educational settings to facilitate reflective practice and critical thinking and thereby support the work of educational psychologists and practitioners in diverse educational contexts.

The purpose of this research is to provide a first-person account of the dynamics and needed adaptations in an academic’s transition from being a doctoral student to a doctoral supervisor. By employing autoethnography, this study explores the inner experiences, challenges, and insights encountered in the process of developing a supervisory identity, with the aim of contributing to broader discussions on academic development and doctoral education. ChatGPT was used as a critical discussion partner during the author’s reflections. Through reflexive thematic analysis, five core themes were generated: Emergent supervisory identity, Balancing guidance and student autonomy, Collaborative and mutual learning, Communication and meta-reflection, and Aspirations for supervisory development. Each theme reflects the complexity and fluidity of this transition and underscores the evolving nature of supervisory identity. The findings contribute to the literature on doctoral supervision by providing insights into the nuanced, evolving nature of supervisory identity, with implications for supervision pedagogy and the professional development of new supervisors. Through the integration of an AI chatbot, the study is highly original and novel. The methodological approach may offer a model for using AI as a reflective partner in qualitative research, particularly in studies that prioritise self-reflection and critical engagement with personal experience.

This volume investigates the ways in which Q methodology can uncover and foreground new perspectives and contribute to language education and language policy research. It demonstrates the flexibility of this research methodology in addressing dynamic and complex language issues across a variety of educational topics and geographical contexts. The chapter authors use Q methodology to explore topics such as identity, motivation, cognition, emotion, pre-service and in-service teacher beliefs and to evaluate language programmes, curricula and policies. These contributions highlight Q methodology's potential to inform theoretical developments by revealing fresh perspectives on contemporary issues and generating new hypotheses. They foster further Q methodology research, demonstrating how it can contribute to a science of subjectivity and allow researchers to value the perspectives of all stakeholders for more inclusive research. This book will be of interest to graduate students and researchers in language education and language policy research and those in the broader field of social sciences looking to expand their knowledge of the methodology and how it can be used to study contemporary, dynamic and complex issues.