Preschool Teachers and the Discourse of Suspicion

Abstract

This article addresses the social construction of gender in a preschool context. The data are from ethnographic participant observation in a Montessori preschool and interviews with its preschool teachers. I identify a discourse of suspicion surrounding male preschool teachers preconstructing them as threats. The dimensions of the discourse of suspicion in early childhood education characterize male preschool teachers as pedophiles, homosexual, effeminate, and/or violent. I also identify several strategies preschool teachers use to minimize suspicion. Minimizing suspicion is a discursive and self-presentation strategy with the goal of avoiding and/or limiting suspicion. This article suggests shifting the focus from the dearth of men in early childhood education to the underlying tensions at the intersection of the social construction of gender and early childhood education.

Keywords

masculinity suspicion preschool early childhood education Montessori

Preschools are often a child’s introduction to the world of education. We expect preschools to be happy places that socially and academically prepare children for elementary school. We anticipate fun, laughter, singing, coloring, A-B-C’s and 1-2-3’s, a few bumps and bruises, rule learning, and maybe a few tears. We also expect preschool teachers to be kind, caring, nurturing, knowledgeable, and mothering. That is, we expect preschool teachers to be women. Men are usually not part of the preschool (or elementary school) gender order.

Several scholars address the dearth of men in early childhood education (ECE), especially in primary school education, and its consequences (Francis and Skelton 2001; King 1998, 2009; Sargent 2000, 2001, 2004; Skelton 2003). Policy makers’ response to having too few men teachers has been conceptualized as recuperative masculinity politics against the feminization of education (Skelton 2012), resulting in a push to hire more men, believing boys do not have appropriate role models (Martino 2008). Yet, men teaching in ECE are met with suspicion about being a “real man” (Sargent 2000, 2001). As Paul Sargent (2001, 80) and James R. King (1998) point out, men are openly recruited to teach, but also subjected to scrutiny if they are unmarried or “act funny,” which threatens the gender order.

Policy makers and researchers agree there is a problem. However, is it really that there are too few male role models in ECE? Or, is it a problem of how male teachers are interpreted in these settings? The latter suggests reconceptualizing the problem from recruiting men to the underlying tensions relating to social constructions of gender, and its significance in everyday interpretations relating to ECE.

Masculinities and Suspicion in Early Childhood Education

Masculinities are complex constructions relating to the gender order and emerge in various forms, such as hegemonic, subordinate, complicit, and marginalized (Connell 1995). Hegemonic masculinity is the currently acceptable pattern of practices allowing men’s dominance to continue over women achieving ascendancy through culture, institutions, and persuasion (Connell 1995; Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). Subordinate masculinities are less valued forms of masculinity symbolically expelled from hegemonic masculinity, such as gay masculinities (Connell 1995). Complicit masculinities are those “constructed in ways that realize the patriarchal dividend, without the tensions or risks of being the frontline troops of patriarchy” (Connell 1995, 79). It results in men receiving benefits of hegemony through the subordination of women without using a strong version of masculine dominance (Connell 1995; Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). Marginalized masculinities refer to the interplay of gender with other social forces such as race, ethnicity, and class, and are “always relative to the authorization of hegemonic masculinity of the dominant group” (Connell 1995, 81). Racial and ethnic minority professional athletes, for example, are cheered and revered on the playing fields, but this admiration does not transfer to the political sphere.

Within the gender order, then, hegemonic masculinity overarches other forms, with subordinate, complicit, and marginalized masculinities working below and within its dominant frame. This is not to say hegemonic masculinity is unchallengeable, or that it is completely negative, because representations of masculinity (and femininity) change over time. There are positive outcomes, and many individuals challenge hegemonic domination. Everyday resistance, challenges, collaboration, and/or cooperation with the gender order occur when men undertake professions in female-dominated organizations and women undertake professions in male-dominated organizations.

Teaching in ECE, and child care in general, is traditionally considered “women’s work” (Cameron, Moss, and Owens 1999; Francis and Skelton 2001; King 1998; Skelton 2012). Women comprise 97 percent of preschool and elementary school teachers (Statistical Abstract of the United States 2012, table 616). Preschools are sites in which women are not only the numerical majority but also the cultural ideal for the occupational role—mother-teacher (Sargent 2005; Skelton 2012). Sargent (2005) uses Joan Acker’s (1991) criteria for gendered organizations and finds ECE is “gendered in terms of the symbols in frequent use, the differential structural location of women and men, the internal mental work of individuals as they consciously construct their understandings of the organization’s gendered structure, and the interactions among individuals” (Sargent 2005, 258). In such settings, a “discourse of suspicion” often encircles males.

With few men in ECE, they are targets of the discourse of suspicion framing males as “high status tokens” (Sargent 2004, 174) or as threats. Complimentary interpretations legitimize males in ECE as working toward administration (Sargent 2004). More often, suspicion delegitimizes men in ECE. A man working in a preschool is often framed as unnatural and labeled a homosexual, a pedophile, or feminine (Gosse, Parr, and Allison 2008; King 1998; Oyler, Jennings, and Lozada 2001; Skelton 2012). There is close monitoring of males’ sexuality (Cameron, Moss, and Owens 1999), time spent alone with children (King 2009; Sargent 2001), and affection and touching (Johnson 2000; Jones 2001; Sargent 2001; Skelton 1991).

The discourse of suspicion has various dimensions. Here, I focus on the dimensions of the discourse of suspicion of male preschool teachers being labeled pedophiles, effeminate, homosexual, and/or potentially violent. The discourse of suspicion legitimates hegemonic masculinity and its associated practices, such as sexism and homophobia. It alienates men from being teachers, nurturers, and caretakers of young children. Often, the male preschool teacher is the recipient of cultural and contextual discipline, which affects interactions (Weaver-Hightower 2011). The goal of this article is to describe dimensions of the discourse of suspicion in ECE, and then articulate preschool teachers’ strategies for “minimizing suspicion.”

Strategies for minimizing suspicion are discursive constructions relating to self-presentation with the goal of avoiding and/or limiting suspicion. It is undoubtedly applicable to several contexts such as when race, age, gender, and sexuality are disproportionately undervalued. Here, minimizing suspicion is a self-presentation strategy for “doing gender” (West and Zimmerman 1987) that diminishes suspicion in ECE. The aim is for preschool teachers to present themselves as nonthreatening to the gender order. Minimizing suspicion emerges from explicit and/or implicit understandings of the discourse of suspicion.

Candace West and Don Zimmerman’s (1987) well-known theory of “doing gender” builds on Erving Goffman’s (1977) “gender displays” and Harold Garfinkel’s (1967) ethnomethodological “doing” showing how gender is interactionally embedded. Numerous studies also argue workplace practices of inequality are organizationally embedded (Acker 1991, 2006; Williams, Muller, and Kilanski 2012). Adding to this tradition, Patricia Yancey Martin (2003, 2006) distinguishes between gender practices and practicing gender. The former is part of the repertoire of culturally available practices to enact in a social situation (Martin 2003, 354). Practicing gender comprises the “literal activities of gender” constituting the gender order (Martin 2003, 354). Martin uses a third concept called gender reflexivity, which is thinking about actions and effects related to gender a priori (Martin 2003, 2006). Martin points out that practicing gender reflexively “requires awareness and intention relative to a particular purpose” (2006, 260). Strategies for minimizing suspicion are often explicit, but in some cases are implicit understandings of the discourse of suspicion demonstrating the “seen but unnoticed” power of discourse (Garfinkel 1967, 36).

In the following sections, I describe my research setting, data, and analytic strategy. I then analyze the dimensions of the discourse of suspicion as part of the ECE context. Last, I analyze Ellis Montessori Preschool and its preschool teachers’ suspicion-minimizing strategies.

The Setting and the Project

In 1967 a group of parents founded Ellis Montessori Preschool, a pseudonym, as an alternative to traditional preschools in the area. Ellis Montessori is a nonprofit preschool housed in a former church in a Midwestern college town in the United States. It serves approximately eighty-five families with children ages four weeks to six years. The building has two floors, a full kitchen, offices, and six classrooms conceptually divided into “upper” and “lower” schools. The upper school has three “primary” classrooms with “friends” (the preschool’s vernacular is gender neutral when referring to children) between the ages of three and six years. The lower school also has three classrooms: “preprimary,” “toddlers,” and “infants.” The preprimary room serves children from ages two to three years. The toddler room serves children between the ages of one and two years, and the infant room serves children between the ages of four weeks and one year.

The preschool, like most ECE sites, is a female-dominated workplace. There are approximately thirty-five employees at the school, including the head of school, assistant head of school, kitchen manager, six lead teachers, and about twenty-five assistant lead teachers, support staff, and substitute teachers. When I began my research the head of school, one lead teacher, and two full-time support staff employees were the only men. However, the male lead teacher moved away shortly after my research began and another male support staff employee moved away approximately six months later. At the time of this writing there were two male support staff employees working at the school and the head of school.

I followed Patricia Adler and Peter Adler’s (1987) suggestion to study a familiar setting by doing ethnographic research in the preschool my son had previously attended, and in which I was previously a member on its board of directors. I chose this preschool because it has a unique teaching philosophy, preschools are generally underrepresented in the literature (Delamont 2002), and I wanted to see how preschool teachers worked with children. More personally, I wanted to learn some tricks of the trade, so to speak, to be a better parent. Although I participated in the field prior to formal fieldwork (Fine 2002), I did not formally begin research until over a month after my son left Ellis Montessori and I was no longer on its board of directors. This time frame coincided with the beginning of the college semester in which many employees left and new employees were hired. Limiting my research to Ellis Montessori allowed me to build relationships with the preschool teachers, children, and many of the parents. I experienced similar situations, feelings, and tensions as the teachers, giving me insight into the occupational reality of gender at Ellis Montessori, particularly being a man spending a significant amount of time in a preschool. Last, it helped me understand organizational norms and practices at Ellis Montessori.

My preexisting relationship made gaining access relatively straightforward. However, building trust and rapport in each classroom was not as easy as it was when I was a parent. I realized early on my background knowledge was not enough to help me navigate the social worlds outside of my son’s former classroom. I had to build trust and rapport in each classroom with multiple children, teachers, and parents. By the time I left the first room in which I observed I was generally known around the school as a volunteer, rather than a room parent or board member. I attribute this to the high turnover rate at the beginning and end of each college semester. Although the long-term employees from my son’s classroom remembered my previous roles, this too changed within two months, with only one teacher remaining from my days as a parent and board member. Eventually, my researcher identity became more prominent as I began interviewing the teachers. Whether the children, teachers, and parents knew of me or not, I had to prove I could work with the children in each room as a first step to building rapport.

It took considerable work to improvise my way through the field. I did it mostly by taking an apprentice role to the lead and assistant teachers and using the best of what they had to offer regarding talk and interaction with the children. I learned about the behavior model many teachers used, Positive Discipline (Nelsen 2006), and familiarized myself with the Montessori method as much as possible (Montessori 1964). I intently observed practices and participated, but deferred decisions regarding disputes to teachers until I felt confident I could sort through the issues independently.

Following teachers’ examples allowed me to experience what it was like to be a preschool teacher for brief periods of time. Yet there was distance. The teachers in the first room trusted me with the children, but not enough to let me into the inner workings of the room. When they would discuss classroom matters, for example, they would first glance in my direction and then walk out of my range of hearing. I soon began developing strategies to build stronger trust and rapport with the teachers. My goal, like most ethnographers, was to “unmark” my identity (Pruit 2012) and be a taken-for-granted fixture in the school and privy to insider information. For example, when a need arose in the room, like going to the kitchen to get utensils or milk, I would volunteer. There was also a side to doing research in a preschool making me accountable to parents. I had to blend in enough for parents to believe I was either a legitimate researcher or a teacher. I dressed similar to the teachers, but also had the symbols of my researcher identity with me. Thus, like other preschool teachers at Ellis Montessori, I developed strategies for minimizing suspicion.

Data

This article was written following two years of fieldwork in which I spent two to three days per week at Ellis Montessori Preschool as a participant observer. My fieldnotes include standard information about the date, time in the field, and the day’s eventfulness. I took more fieldnotes during first days in a room when everything seemed fresh and different (Goffman 1989). After a few weeks I began participating more in the day-to-day activities of the classrooms, returning to my notes at opportune moments, such as when the class transitioned from the classroom to the playground. I typed my fieldnotes as soon as possible after leaving the preschool while simultaneously making analytic notes in the margins in markup (Charmaz 2006). If something was particularly interesting, I would make a note of it and come back to it later. I let analytic categories emerge from the field and then continued observations to confirm its presence. Often, I asked the teachers about my interpretations to validate, discard, and/or modify them. This practice allowed me to develop and refine analytic categories early on, shaping my view of the field while still in it. I pursued emergent themes and broadly categorized talk and interaction as types of identity work. Fieldnotes also became a tool for to review others’ and my actions, and to adjust and prepare for future interactions. In this manner, I was able to sketch the analytic contours of my project and generate interview questions from fieldwork.

I conducted twenty-three interviews with Ellis Montessori preschool teachers, three males and twenty females, lasting between thirty and ninety minutes. Interviews focused on the work of being a preschool teacher, including teaching and learning, emotional labor (Hochschild [1983] 2003), and gender work as part of their identity work. My interview guide included different themes developed from fieldwork and allowed me to move through the questions conversationally as themes emerged from the interview context (Holstein and Gubrium 1995).

Interview participants were given pseudonyms, and interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz 2006). Interviews were initially coded using the broad themes from observations and interview questions. I then identified emergent themes for further analysis. I documented themes considering it forms of “interpretive practice” (Holstein and Gubrium 2000). Regarding gender, I asked participants about men working in preschools. Questions about gender came from initial observations that no men worked in the lower school. I was later told of a rule about males not being able to escort children, namely female children, to the restroom unless accompanied by another female employee. I also asked questions about themes arising from the interview context itself, such as about the fairness of organizational gender practices.

Analytic Strategy

I draw on James A. Holstein and Jaber F. Gubrium’s (2000) “interpretive practice” to understand the interplay between discourses-in-practice and discursive practice. Interpretive practice has foundations in ethnomethodology and discourse analysis and seeks to understand what Holstein and Gubrium call the whats and the hows. The whats refer to the repertoire of available discourses, and the hows to the work people “do” to accomplish goals, such as identity construction. Another aspect of interpretive practice relates to institutional contexts. For example, a person might speak “as a father” and call on discourses of family to signal an identity. In turn, the institutional discourses are embedded in specific locales. Writing in relation to constituting subjectivity, Holstein and Gubrium (2000, 95) explain,

Selves are themselves institutional projects in the sense that institutional discourses provide the conditions of possibility and institutionalized discursive practice supplies the mode of production for putting into effect our identities as part of accomplishing matters of ongoing local interest.

Context matters because it conditions the resources individuals use, or choose not to use, during talk and interaction. Contextual resources are matters of situational concern aiming at accomplishing situated goals. Such situated concerns influence, often subtly, individuals’ meaning-making activities in which broader understandings shape local interpretations, though not deterministically. Thus individuals are able to draw upon cultural, institutional, and organizational understandings of gender and education, for example, and then apply it to the situation at hand. Interpretive practice, then, is a way of analyzing the interplay between broader structures of meaning and meaning-making activities.

Focusing on preschool teacher talk and interaction is a potentially rich source of data increasing our knowledge of how discourses-in-practice, such as the discourse of suspicion, relate to preschool teachers’ discursive practice. By concentrating on a single preschool and its teachers, I am able to link preschool teachers’ discursive constructions of gender with organizational practices and cultural (hegemonic) discourses, which lends insight into the social worlds of Ellis Montessori and demonstrates interplay between culture, organizations, and individuals.

The Discourse of Suspicion

If suspicion makes the rules of masculinity visible (Sargent 2005, 258), then unpacking the dimensions of the discourse of suspicion is one way to make visible the unnaturalness in naturalized practices. The discourse of suspicion preconstructs males as threats to the gendered order of ECE. This threat is the fear men are pedophiles, effeminate, homosexual, and/or violent. Thus, suspicion is directed at men characterizing them as predatory, having questionable motives, and/or having subordinate statuses. As with many discourses, the discourse of suspicion has several sources, such as the media or cultural views of occupational prestige. It is some thing “out there” beyond the grasp of individuals, and yet individuals use it in the everyday context of ECE. My goal is to explicate the dimensions of the discourse of suspicion in ECE by examining how preschool teachers at Ellis Montessori Preschool discursively construct it. I identify several dimensions including suspicion and society, women’s work, questioning motives and masculinity, and “the look.”

Suspicion and Society

As with much of our taken-for-granted knowledge, where the discourse of suspicion in ECE originates is difficult to locate. As Judith Butler (1990) points out, there need not be a doer behind the deed. Practicing suspicion and providing the grounds for it is a complicated matter, and often mutually exclusive. When asked, many of the women preschool teachers referred generally to “society” as the reason for suspecting men. Although women teachers trust men teachers at the school, they believe men in ECE are generally stigmatized. The presence of a man preschool teacher implies a potential threat to the safety of children. Here, the discourse of suspicion is broadly construed as a fear of men preschool teachers as pedophiles.

I think there’s, society has an opinion that men teachers, that’s why you don’t see very many male preschool teachers, or teachers in general, just because there is that whole stigma in society that men are more predators and can’t be trusted around younger females.

Jennifer, upper school support staff

Stereotypes of male preschool teachers are not grounded in practical experience, but rely on collective representations (Durkheim [1912] 2001) of “society” that men cannot be trusted with young children because they are potentially predators. Below, Samantha takes the perspective of parents as she explains the rule about men not taking children to the restroom.

I think we made this rule, and I’m not sure why it came about, but I think it is that men can’t take a girl potty by themselves. I think it’s just for peace of mind in the parents. Nothing happened to make that rule, nothing happened to create that rule, but I think it’s just looks, you know? People don’t want an adult man taking their child potty alone . . . I can understand. I don’t have any kids, but I could understand, you know, and we, it would make parents uncomfortable. Because we have such a high turnover anyway, you know? There’s a new man taking your kid potty alone and you don’t know who they are.

Samantha, upper school assistant lead teacher

Samantha illustrates Butler’s (1990) point there need not be an actual person or event bringing about a particular disposition. She attributes the rule to “looks,” in this case, parents’ perception and giving them “peace of mind.” In doing so, Samantha takes the view of a suspicious parent and empathizes with how they may feel about a man preschool teacher caring for their child. Her reasoning is the unfamiliarity with men a parent might have, which preconstructs males as suspicious.

The discourse of suspicion preconstructs a discredited identity (Goffman 1963) prior to ever meeting a male preschool teacher. It is a way to question, categorize, and otherwise police the actions, bodies, and minds of men in ECE. It is present, but lacks experiential grounding. This allows individuals to use the discourse of suspicion while distancing themselves from it.

Women’s Work

Views of gender roles also contribute to the discourse of suspicion. In particular, the binary of “women’s work” and “men’s work” contributes to ideas of hegemony appropriate to one’s biological sex and occupation, among other things. I asked Ceana about why more men do not work in ECE. Her response is preschool teaching is broadly considered “women’s work.” Although Ceana discusses the positive aspects of ECE as women’s work, it can be pejorative for women and also stigmatize men doing women’s work. Both interpretations contribute to the discourse of suspicion in ECE and attribute a subordinate masculinity to male preschool teachers, while also subordinating women in general.

I guess I haven’t really seen that many men interviewing either, so I don’t think it’s on the part of administration’s hiring. But, I mean, this job is quite attractive to young females like myself who are needing steady work that they can do. Doesn’t require, you know, I mean I have a high school diploma but I haven’t graduated college yet. Um, so it’s a good job for girls like me. I mean, it’d be a great job for men too. I think they might just have a bias about it. . . . Like, you know, dealing with children is women’s work.

Ceana, upper school support staff

The discourse of suspicion emerges in individual interpretations of ECE as women’s work. Preschool teaching as women’s work allows for its occupational devaluation through low pay and low prestige, among other things. As Ceana points out, it is open to women without hegemonically valued skills, such as a college education. Hence, men working in ECE have a subordinate masculinity (Connell 1995). Men are not men if they are doing women’s work (King 1998; Sargent 2001; Skelton 2003). As a dimension of the discourse of suspicion, women’s work problematizes subordinated masculinities and might be enough to dissuade men from pursuing careers in ECE. If a dearth of men teaching preschool is problematic, then Ceana rightly locates it within the broader social construction of women’s work.

Questioning Motives and Masculinity

Because preschool teaching is considered women’s work, there is a view men doing it are not the right type of masculine, in addition to being a pedophilic threat. The discourse of suspicion is not only about men being sexual predators but also about men not displaying hegemonic masculinity. As with women’s work, subordinate (gay) masculinities and pedophilia are conflated in the context of ECE (King 1998; Sargent 2001; Skelton 2009) revealing the compounding embeddedness of the discourse of suspicion. Bethany explains how men preschool teachers’ motives are questioned, and how they are often understood as having subordinate masculinities, such as gay or effeminate masculinities.

Some people, I think. Some people I think might assume that, well they might question, “Why does this guy want to be around children? What’s up with him? Why does he like children so much?” Like it’s completely unexpected for some reason. I think also they might view the man as being really effeminate, and might see him negatively. Like he’s not masculine enough. Or, yeah, not masculine enough to find a real job [her emphasis]. Especially because education, of young children at least, is predominantly, women are educators. And it’s seen as a profession, in our culture at least, that is not highly valued. And so if a man goes into a profession like that then I think that, men who would go into the profession are, um, seen in a negative light. Or they’re questioned in a way that people wonder if they’re some kind of pervert or predator in some way. Yeah, if that makes sense. Well just that his character is questioned, and what his intentions are, are questioned.

Bethany, upper school support staff

The discourse of suspicion provides grounds to challenge the character of men in ECE. The motives and masculinity of men are often questioned for working with young children and construct a chain of conflation. Questioning men in ECE conflates the workplace with an effeminate masculinity, effeminacy with sexuality, and sexuality with sexual perversion and child predation. Hegemonic masculinity underscores these conflations. Because ECE is women’s work, men doing it have subordinate masculine and occupational statuses. The underlying meaning is teaching preschool is not a job for a man, and so a real man would not work in a preschool. However, as occupationally undervalued members of the workforce, it is permissible for women to work in professions broadly considered unskilled. Again, women’s work, especially caring for young children, is overtly undervalued work limited to women.

“The Look”

The discourse of suspicion is something preschool teachers experience as scrutiny (King 1998). Bob describes his experiences with the discourse of suspicion as receiving “the look.” “The look” is the belief one is under intense scrutiny. It is the surveillance and gendering of the body, along with perceived subordination and marginalization, experienced through the gaze of another. “The look” is important because it demonstrates awareness of the gender order, prejudice of men in ECE, and cultural preferences for women preschool teachers. Bob’s description of “the look” is of parents touring the school and first noticing their child will have a man preschool teacher.

Now that said, since I’ve worked there I’ve gotten “the look” [uses fingers to symbolize quotation marks]. The look you get from some parents when they walk in and they’re like, “So this is the school my kid’s going to. Oh there’s a man [his emphasis] working here?” I’m like, yeah, I’m the one that’s gonna be the first line of defense if any psychos try to come into the building. You should be thankful I’m here. I’m six foot tall. I’m slightly more physically intimidating than the five foot tall pregnant woman over there in the kitchen. But I’ve gotten that look. I’ve gotten the look from parents where they’re very apprehensive about having a man working in the classroom.

Bob, upper school support staff

Bob’s experience with “the look” acknowledges his perception of others’ suspicion. His knowledge of gendered occupations is a way of understanding his presence as culturally problematic, or at the very least non-normative. Rather than viewing himself as problematic, Bob positions himself using hegemonic masculinity and labels himself positively as a high status token. In this case, he claims a protective status as the “first line of defense” between “psychos” and the children, justifying his value to the preschool. Discursively positioning himself as protective makes claims toward hegemonic masculinity while subordinating a female teacher as incapable of protecting the children (King 1998, 2009).

The above data begin to illustrate the complexity of the discourse of suspicion and how it applies to men in ECE. It influences beliefs about appropriateness relating to context, gender, and work, indicating who should be included and excluded from certain places and practices. Although one might say excluding men is harmful, naturalizing women as caretakers is also harmful. On one hand, it normalizes an increased distance between men and nurturing roles, forcing them to prove their ability before trusting them. On the other hand, it implicitly naturalizes women as caretakers regardless of individual preference.

Having sketched the dimensions of the discourse of suspicion at Ellis Montessori, I will next analyze organizational and individual strategies for minimizing suspicion.

Minimizing Suspicion

Although it is a practice, the discourse of suspicion has seemingly nebulous origins. The Ellis Montessori teachers did not have a concrete example of a male threat, but instead generally referred to collective representations—society, looks, and perceptions—as to why suspicion occurs. In the following sections, I discuss strategies for minimizing suspicion. Here, strategies for minimizing suspicion exist at the organizational and individual levels. Suspicion-minimizing strategies allow men preschool teachers to pass and, at times, trouble the discourse of suspicion. It also has dividends and deductions associated with the gender order. The suspicion-minimizing strategies I identify include limiting suspicion, proposing subordination, setting boundaries, being visible, building trust, distancing from threat, and using family.

Limiting Suspicion

Social stigma underlies certain formal and informal organizational practices. Limiting suspicion is an organizational practice to protect the preschool and its employees from suspicion. During my fieldwork, for example, males did not work in the lower school (with children below the age of three), change diapers, or help children change their clothes. Although I found nothing about these gendered practices in the employee handbook, it was a part of the school’s working code. The account below is of a conversation with the head of school in which we discussed men in ECE. He discusses organizational strategies brought about by parent concerns, rather than concrete events.

While speaking with the head of school I brought up the issue of being a male in ECE. We spoke about how he cannot hire a male employee for the infants’ room because the parents would be “up in arms” as he put it. “They simply wouldn’t allow it.” I asked if it would be problematic for me spending time in there, but he did not believe it would be (“Absolutely not. You already know most of the parents in there.”). We then spoke about the school’s seemingly unwritten policy of males being accompanied when escorting friends to the restroom. He told me about how men cannot change a friend’s [child’s] clothes that has had an accident (urinated in her/his pants) because of the perception. He confessed that many of the gendered practices of the school were to avoid misperceptions. The conversation seemed to have a “my hands are tied” feel to it.

Hiring and placement practices and rules about contact and visibility with children are an administrative concern to avoid misperception. The school’s administration takes preventative measures to limit suspicion of its male employees. Although prevention is an organizational strategy aiming at protecting employees, it also aligns with the discourse of suspicion implicitly perpetuating the idea men in ECE are potential threats. While this may limit suspicion, it also limits where men can be, who they can be with, and what actions they can perform. Organizational gendered practices such as this reinforce gender roles, hierarchy, and stratification in relationships among employees, children, and parents, and demonstrate interplay between discourse and gendered organizational practices.

Proposing Subordination

Proposing subordination suggests submitting to organizational constraints relating to the discourse of suspicion for the benefit of the individual and organization. Men are expected (and believed) to accept organizational constraints as beneficial to them. Gender constraints are coercive and limit agency, but still leave men open to questions about their masculinity, sexuality, and competence. Some preschool teachers believe the rules should apply to everyone, not just men. Women sometimes accept subordination, but do not have the same set of constraints. In this sense, women accepting subordination is largely symbolic, since they are not preconstructed as threats. However, it could result in losing some matriarchal dividends, such as being considered less nurturing.

Employees generally understand organizational practices limiting suspicion as a form of protection. Although attributing the problem of suspicion to collective representations of society and claiming to trust the men at Ellis Montessori, some preschool teachers nonetheless offered explanations justifying organizational practices of subordination. Below, Alicia discusses why the rule about men not escorting children to the restroom is beneficial and protective.

I don’t even feel like the guys that work here feel like it’s an unnecessary rule. The fact is that regardless of whether or not abuse is more prevalent among men is not even the question. It’s the fact that I think society perceives it to be that way. And in order to protect our male teachers and to, you know, to ease the suspicions, or whatever that a parent may believe, that we’ve already covered those bases. Like leaving them [males] above reproach so that they don’t even have to find themselves in a situation where a parent would misunderstand their intentions.

Alicia, lower school assistant lead teacher

Alicia proposes men accept subordination as part of their job. She defends organizational practices as necessary by reifying views of men as suspicious, although she states this is not why the rule is necessary. It is necessary to ease parents’ suspicions and insulate men preschool teachers from potentially questionable situations. Alicia believes men approve of the rules for their benefit, but below I show it is coercive and mostly to avoid suspicion. The potential for parents’ suspicion represents collective representations about men preschool teachers as suspicious and threatening. But, as Alicia explains, organizational practices protect men from being misunderstood.

Like the organizational strategy of limiting suspicion, proposing subordination minimizes suspicion within Ellis Montessori by constraining men. Because it aligns with hegemonic gender norms, accepting subordination has a “patriarchal dividend” (Connell 1995) because men do not have to perform the same tasks as women. Not working in the lower school means men do not have to do “dirty” work, like changing diapers. Thus, while men are constrained in their workplace practices, there is a payoff associated with this constraint.

Setting Boundaries

Setting boundaries is part of the everyday practices preschool teachers do to minimize suspicion. Boundaries are personal rules, rather than organizational rules, implemented on the part of the individual. In Bill’s case, he limits the types of affection he displays toward children (King 1998; Sargent 2001). However, his motives for doing this are not completely obvious to him.

The only thing I ever really set for myself as a boundary, and I still to this day am not even sure why, I always said that, and maybe I heard it somewhere in Montessori, I don’t know, but you know I’d tell the kids whether they were wanting to kind of kiss each other, or whoever, but that was kind of for at home with your parents. And if they say you can kiss other people that’s ok, you know? Hugs are ok, but I wouldn’t let the kids kiss me or I wouldn’t kiss them. I would see other, female, people at school being really affectionate at school and giving them kisses all the time, and I don’t know, I guess that’s just more of a social thing that that’s just more accepted.

Bill, upper school lead teacher

Bill minimizes suspicion by setting affection boundaries. His response illustrates resistance to the idea he could be the object of suspicion, but ultimately the discourse works through him implicitly. Not being bothered by others’ perceptions does not mean he is free from suspicion, or from suspicion minimizing strategies. This is evident when he admits affection boundaries with the children, while also pointing out women are able to show affection without suspicion. At first, he is unsure why he has rules about displaying affection, believing it may be part of the Montessori teaching philosophy, which suggests observational distance between teachers and students, but later attributes women being able to display affection to social circumstances. Not fully considering why he established his affection rules shows how the discourse of suspicion can influence talk and interaction in a taken-for-granted manner (Weaver-Hightower 2011).

Being Visible

Being visible to others is one of the most popular suspicion minimizing strategies preschool teachers use. Using visibility is a way to be accountable to administration, other employees, and parents. It is also a way to be subordinated by and complicit to the discourse of suspicion by conceding the need to place oneself under constant surveillance. Being visible is a strategy men and women teachers use. That is, trying to be visible at all times explicitly acknowledges the discourse of suspicion and is a strategy for minimizing suspicion. Below, Bob discusses the importance of being visible in relation to taking children to the restroom.

So, me as a male taking these female three, four, five-year-old girls to go to the bathroom is as far as me going, walking through the hallway and saying, “There’s the bathroom. Wash your hands and come out when you’re done.” So I’m basically just sitting on a bench in the hallway. So I don’t really worry about any of that because I’m fully within the view of multiple other teachers. If it ever comes up I’ve got witnesses that’ll say I was just sitting in the hallway.

Bob, upper school support staff

While there may be some stigma attached to men taking children to the restroom, there is considerably more stigma attached to not being visible during the process. Always being in the view of others represents subordination and complicity with the discourse of suspicion. Bob is subordinate and complicit with the discourse of suspicion by sitting in the hallway waiting for the children to finish in the restroom and not helping them perform restroom tasks such as hand washing. It allows men to trouble the border between complicit and subordinate masculinities. Taking children to the restroom disrupts the taken for granted, while remaining outside the restroom ensures a form of the patriarchal dividend because there is no interaction with the child in the restroom. An added benefit of being visible is the strengthening of a subordinate masculine identity. A man willing to be a preschool teacher can reap rewards of organizational tokenism, regardless of competency. Many women preschool teachers, for example, referred to men preschool teachers at Ellis Montessori as “safe” and “positive” role models (Martino 2008).

Although teachers agree gender rules apply to men, some of the women employees expressed gender rules should apply to everyone at the school. In this sense, some women employees also accept the burden of suspicion by adhering to gender rules normally aiming at men. Alison explains her understanding of the rules and how she limits suspicion by being visible.

Ah, we were told that that is the policy and we try to adhere to that, but sometimes that’s not possible. But we try to encourage all of our teachers to not be somewhere alone private in the school with a friend, whether they’re male or female. If the child has to go to the bathroom take them to the bathroom in the hallway where everybody can see you all of the time. Don’t take them up to the classroom and be the only one in the classroom with a friend.

Alison, upper school assistant lead

Being visible is a strategy some women teachers use because they believe it is important to protect themselves and men preschool teachers. Alison believes the rules should apply to everyone, rather than men, and being visible is a strategy all teachers should use. In her account, Alison encourages other employees to take children to the hallway restroom, which is most visible to others. Being visible is a display strategy men and women teachers use to minimize suspicion. However, unlike men, women practice visibility symbolically. Women may not receive any type of dividend from not helping a child with restroom-related activities and may even lose interpretations of feminine competence (being nurturing/mothering) as a result.

Building Trust

One of the ways preschool teachers spoke about building trust was when the children would ask them for help, talk to them, and/or show them affection. For the teachers, this represented trust between the child and themselves. Although he has affection boundaries, Bill is an affectionate person and enjoys being in the type of atmosphere where he can show his affection. He uses it as a resource for building and displaying trust.

And I just never wanted to kind of, I don’t know, I never really had too much of a complex, or perception about how parents saw me with kids. I have never had anything except love for the kids in the most teacher/friend way. I never had anything placed on me where I felt I can’t hug this kid, it might seem like I’m a predator or something like that. And, I’ve always been, like I said, a physical, affectionate person and have always wanted this kind of outlet to kind of show my affection for people. And I could see right from the bat how most kids really, that’s how you can build trust with them.

Bill, upper school lead teacher

Bill discursively justifies his displays of affection toward the children. For him, and many of the other teachers, a child’s willingness and desire to seek him out is a sign of trust. Although he has not had sanctions for showing affection (being interpreted as a predator) and believes it helps build trust with children, he still includes the caveat he has “never had anything except love for the kids in the most teacher/friend way.” This statement betrays the power of the discourse of suspicion to exert control over mens’ discursive justification for displays of affection. Although he had never felt like he could not show affection, he still felt it necessary to make clear the type of affection and his motive, which hints at the considerable work men do to minimize pedophilic suspicion in ECE.

Distancing from Threat

Distancing from threat minimizes suspicion by positioning oneself away from a discrediting status. In this discursive moment Bob distances himself from suspicion by using subordinate masculinity (Connell 1995), which is quite different than “being the first line of defense” representing hegemonic masculinity he used when talking about “the look.” Here, Bob draws on the idea men in preschools are threats, and then uses representations from subordinate masculinities to distance himself from suspicion.

Where do I start on this? The whole issue of being a male in a preschool is just a, just a hotbed of discussion. I think it’s ridiculous and asinine on pretty much every front. I wasn’t born with a football player’s physique. I’m not gonna be a manly, manly man, type man. I’m the kind of guy who gets along with kids. I still watch cartoons. I read comic books. There’s nothing weird about it. I have no desire to whatever they’re worried I would do as a man. Are there child molesters in the world? Yes, of course there are. But why do I have to be one to be a preschool teacher? I just, I don’t get that. I mean, I get along with kids. That’s all there is to it. I play video games, I like comic books, I like cartoons, I wear Star Wars T-shirts every day of the week and I’m a grown man. And clearly, I did not grow up so much, but it just means I get and get along with kids.

Bob, upper school support staff

Bob is frustrated with the suspicion of men in ECE. He uses elements from subordinate masculinities to distance himself from the discourse of suspicion and hegemonic masculinity (Wetherell and Edley 1999). Using a subordinate masculinity as a resource speaks to the suspicion men are violent and/or sexual predators. Bob constructs a contrast structure (Smith 1978) in which he positively foregrounds his subordinate masculinity as a non-threat while simultaneously backgrounding hegemonic masculinity as a violent threat. He uses his physical characteristics, choice of clothing, personal entertainment preferences, and interactional strategies with children as resources to distance himself from being a threat and from hegemonic masculinity.

Using Family

Using family refers to Ellis preschool teachers using collective representations of family (Gubrium 1988) as discursive resources during talk and interaction to make claims toward hegemonic masculinity using a heteronormatively complicit form of masculinity (Connell 1995). Preschool teachers use family to challenge, resist, align, and make sense of the discourse of suspicion. Indeed, I found myself using my heterosexual credentials by talking about “my wife” or “my son” with preschool teachers. Often, using family signals the heteronormative order (Kitzinger 2005), which tacitly legitimates hegemonic masculinity while disregarding subordinate masculinities, such as gay masculinity. Male preschool teachers displaying symbols such as a wedding band can signal commitment to a partner and counter pedophilic fears. Below, Bob uses family as a resource to minimize suspicion.

I have a daughter who is beautiful and well adjusted, who loves me very much, and has no reason or will ever have any reason to fear me for any reason. Violent, or, any, any, anything else anyone would ever worry about me being a male in a preschool. . . . So, now that’s just my personal feelings. I’ve got a daughter. I’ve proven time and time again I’m no danger to these kids. Kids trust me and seek me out. So clearly if I was hurting them in any way I would assume they wouldn’t be doing that. I mean, I don’t know. I don’t have a lot of experience with what it’s like to be a child molester. [laughs] Because I’m not.

Bob, upper school support staff

If the discourse of suspicion in ECE turns on fear of men as pedophiles, homosexuals, effeminate, and/or potentially violent persons, then Bob uses family as a resource to minimize it. Bob uses family to emphasize two points. First, he is a “good father,” heterosexual, and by extension a good preschool teacher. Second, he is not a threat to the safety of children. He talks about family and uses the language of being a good parent to explain he is not violent. In this sense, the discourse of suspicion includes men being potentially violent with children, and so he discusses nonviolence as a sign of his trustworthiness. Bob’s repetition (“any, any, anything”) emphasizes his resistance to the suspicion of violence. Similar to Bill (above), he closes his response with an explicit resistance to the discourse of suspicion by clarifying he is not a child molester. Constantly reinforcing one is not a sexual threat indicates the work of minimizing suspicion is an ongoing task for men in ECE.

Conclusion

In this article, I address the complexities of gender at Ellis Montessori preschool by identifying and analyzing the discourse of suspicion and preschool teachers’ suspicion minimizing strategies. In early childhood education the discourse of suspicion almost exclusively applies to men categorizing them as homosexual, effeminate, violent, and/or pedophiles. It provides a context in which men must prove themselves to be trustworthy to administration, other teachers, and parents prior to being accepted at the school. Although the discourse of suspicion in ECE predominantly focuses on men, women also respond to the discourse of suspicion, such as by being visible. Minimizing suspicion involves discursive and self-presentation strategies with the goal of avoiding and/or limiting suspicion, and implicitly or explicitly acknowledge the discourse of suspicion.

Identifying the discourse of suspicion and analyzing minimizing strategies shows the interplay of local interpretations of broader issues and organizational and individual practice regarding those issues. I found, in part, minimizing suspicion draws on personal resources reinforcing hegemonic expectations of masculinity. In other instances, self-presentation strategies appear to trouble hegemony and the discourse of suspicion by bordering complicit and subordinate masculinities, as when men escort children to the restroom but do not enter it. However, minimizing suspicion is not so much resistance to the discourse of suspicion as it is the internalization of it. Although varying masculinities are discursively appropriated, it is only done so as needed. Men develop affection boundaries, build trust, stay visible, distance themselves from threat, and use family to minimize suspicion. In many cases, minimizing suspicion reaps patriarchal dividends, such as when using family. The tacit acknowledgment of the discourse of suspicion reifies, and in some ways validates the gender order. In short, the discourse of suspicion in the context of ECE conditions possibilities for minimizing strategies from which preschool teachers may never truly break.

The discourse of suspicion is a form of surveillance shaping self-presentation strategies, which may have evolved from the need to circumvent fears men are threats to the gendered order of ECE. The main difficulty in practicing minimizing suspicion, or any self-presentation strategy, is our bodies always trap us. Self-presentation strategies are preceded by others’ interpretations, in this case interpretation based on gender roles, occupations, motives, and so on. Preconstructing suspicion reinforces Judith Butler’s (1990) argument “there need not be a ‘doer behind the deed,’ but that the ‘doer’ is variably constructed in and through the deed” (Butler 1990, 195). Although none of the teachers could recall any specific instances of a man acting inappropriately with children, the organizational rules still existed. Thus, the discourse of suspicion perpetuates gender inequality in ECE.

At first blush, gender inequality in ECE appears to reverse itself from hegemonic norms dominating women. It is true the men at Ellis Montessori were limited in some of their work practices because only women were supposed to change diapers, help children change their clothes, and so on. However, when asked, many women teachers admitted this type of “dirty” work was the least enjoyable part of their job. Rather than the rules being exclusionary, it excuses men from the least enjoyable part of the job and provides a patriarchal dividend. This ultimately reinforces gender inequality toward women because they are expected to do more work that is less personally rewarding than men. In this sense, gender inequality masks itself as organizational protection of employees.

If the discourse of suspicion constrains men in ECE, then strategies for minimizing suspicion allow men to pass and/or trouble the gender order. Minimizing strategies evolve from implicit and explicit understandings of the discourse of suspicion. As the data show, the discourse of suspicion shapes how preschool teachers talk and interact in the context of ECE, as well as self-presentation strategies. Bill, for example, limited how he showed affection, but still justified his motives for showing affection when talking about building trust. This troubles hegemony while also being constrained by it. Bob positioned himself against the women of the school to claim a hegemonic protector identity. He also used collective representations of family to make claims toward hegemonic and subordinate masculinities, showing how discursive resources variably position preschool teacher identities. However, both Bill and Bob felt it necessary to make clear their sexuality and motives for working with preschoolers indicating the work of minimizing suspicion is an ongoing reflexive practice.

Suspicion minimizing strategies also hint at preschool teachers’ varying dividends and deductions relating to the gender order. Alison, and many other women teachers, believed all teachers should use visibility. However, a woman being visible is not the same as a man being visible. There is a payoff for a man taking a child to the restroom because he is troubling the gender order while still protecting his masculinity by being visible outside the restroom. A woman does not receive this benefit because she is expected to be a natural caretaker. A man does not actually have to help the child to reap his reward. Whereas a woman not helping a child runs the risk of losing interpretive competencies associated with nurturing, caring, and mothering. This undermines the idea that a preschool is woman’s domain, since a woman’s competency is tethered to naturalized interpretations of femininity, and her femininity is always subordinate to hegemonic masculinity.

This research has limitations, strengths, and implications for future research and those working in ECE. One limitation is that it is a study of one preschool, Ellis Montessori Preschool. As Christine Skelton (2003, 196) rightly notes, there is a danger in essentializing in small-scale studies. She suggests larger studies would be useful for comparing within and between men and women. Next, and related, I interviewed twenty-three preschool teachers, three of which were men, limiting the generalizability of my findings. However, I analyze how preschool teachers construct gender. Others interviewing teachers from primary school settings (King 1998; Sargent 2000, 2001) and preschool settings (Cameron, Moss, and Owen 1999) report similar findings, providing confidence my findings are not isolated to Ellis Montessori Preschool.

The broader significance of this research is it demonstrates interplay between individuals, organizations, and discourse by identifying an observable phenomenon. The discourse of suspicion and suspicion minimizing strategies are gendered expectations for preschools and those within them. It is a reminder that broader social contexts have consequences for organizations and individuals, and of the subtlety with which reality is accomplished. It also illustrates how place is socially constructed in relation to hegemony and contours expectations of inclusion and exclusion.

If there is a dearth of men in ECE it may relate to the dearth of women, racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ persons, and persons with disabilities crafting education policy. This suggests structural changes for who is involved in policy making. Rather than constructing competency through hegemonic traditions of exclusion, a pronounced effort to disrupt the politics of exclusion should be made by capitalizing on our differences at every level of the education policy process. In other words, the implications for policy makers are similar to that of administrators and teachers. Changing the perception of men in ECE is as much about education as it is sensitizing individuals to the social construction of gender.

Training is especially important for administrators and teachers in preschools in which the standards for competency vary from one preschool to the next. Local-level training programs specifically bringing administrators and preschool teachers together to focus on gender related issues would benefit pre-K programs. Skelton (2007, 688) explains teacher training programs are largely silent regarding interpretations of men as sexual predators. She suggests recognizing how “gender intersects with discourses around both primary teaching and primary schooling” (Skelton 2012, 12–13) is important for teacher recruiting. This article is a step in that direction. Acknowledging the reality of the discourse of suspicion will prepare policy makers, administrators, and teachers for challenges associated with gender and ECE. This will shift the focus from the dearth of men in ECE to the underlying tensions at the intersection of the social construction of gender and early childhood education.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jaber F. Gubrium, Candace Kuby, Guðmundur Oddsson, Amanda G. Pruit, and JCE’s thoughtful reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions on previous drafts of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

John C. Pruit is a PhD candidate at the University of Missouri. His work has appeared in such journals as Qualitative Inquiry and Symbolic Interaction. His research interests include culture and identity, qualitative research methods, education, and deviance. His current research is an ethnography focusing on preschool teacher identity work.

References

Acker

Joan

1991. “Hierarchies, Jobs, and Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” In The Social Construction of Gender, edited by Lorber

Judith

Farrell

Susan A.

, 162–79. London: Sage.

Acker

Joan

. 2006. “Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations.” Gender & Society 20 (4): 441–64.

Adler

Patricia A.

Adler

Peter

. 1987. Membership Roles in Field Research. London: Sage.

Butler

Judith

. 1990. Gender Trouble. London: Routledge.

Cameron

Claire

Moss

Peter

Owen

Charlie

. 1999. Men in the Nursery: Gender and Caring Work. London: Sage.

Charmaz

Kathy

. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage.

Connell

Raewyn

. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Connell

Raewyn

Messerschmidt

James W.

2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.” Gender & Society 19 (6): 829–59.

Delamont

Sara

. 2002. Fieldwork in Educational Settings, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.

10.

Durkheim

Emile

. (1912) 2001. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated by Cosmon

Carol

. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

Fine

Gary Alan

. 2002. Shared Fantasy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

12.

Francis

Becky

Skelton

Christine

. 2001. “Men Teachers and the Construction of Heterosexual Masculinity in the Classroom.” Sex Education 1 (1): 9–21.

13.

Garfinkel

Harold

. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.

14.

Goffman

Erving

. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.

15.

Goffman

Erving

. 1977. “The Arrangement between the Sexes.” Theory and Society 4 (3): 301–31.

16.

Goffman

Erving

. 1989. “On Fieldwork.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18 (2): 123–32.

17.

Gosse

Douglas

Parr

Michael

Allison

John

. 2008. “Researching the Halted Paths of Male Primary School Teacher Candidates.” Journal of Men’s Studies 16 (1): 57–68.

18.

Gubrium

Jaber F.

1988. “The Family as Project.” The Sociological Review 36 (2): 273–96.

19.

Hochschild

Arlie Russell

. (1983) 2003. The Managed Heart. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

20.

Holstein

James A.

Gubrium

Jaber F.

1995. The Active Interview, Qualitative Research Methods Series. London: Sage.

21.

Holstein

James A.

Gubrium

Jaber F.

2000. The Self We Live By. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

22.

Johnson

Richard T.

2000. “Hands Off!”: The Disappearance of Touch in the Care of Children. New York: Peter Lang.

23.

Jones

Allison

, ed. 2001. Touchy Subject: Teachers Touching Children. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press.

24.

King

James R.

1998. Uncommon Caring. New York: Teachers College Press.

25.

King

James R.

2009. “What Can He Want?: Male Teachers, Young Children, and Teaching Desire.” In The Problem with Boys’ Education: Beyond the Backlash, edited by Martino

Kehler

Weaver-Hightower

M. B.

New York: Teachers College Press.

26.

Kitzinger

Celia

. 2005. “‘Speaking as a Heterosexual’: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk in Interaction?” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (3): 221–65.

27.

Martin

Patricia Yancey

. 2003. “‘Said and Done’ versus ‘Saying and Doing’: Gendering Practices, Practicing Gender at Work.” Gender & Society 17 (3): 342–66.

28.

Martin

Patricia Yancey

. 2006. “Practising Gender at Work: Further Thoughts on Reflexivity.” Gender, Work and Organization 13 (3): 254–76.

29.

Martino

Wayne John

. 2008. “Male Teachers as Role Models: Addressing Issues of Masculinity, Pedagogy, and the Re-masculinization of Schooling.” Curriculum Inquiry 38 (2): 189–223.

30.

Montessori

Maria

. 1964. The Montessori Method. New York: Random House.

31.

Nelsen

Jane

. 2006. Positive Discipline. New York: Ballantine Books.

32.

Oyler

Celia

Jennings

Gregory T.

Lozada

Phillip

. 2001. “Silenced Gender: The Construction of a Male Primary Educator.” Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (3): 367–79.

33.

Pruit

John C.

2012. “Peak Oil and the Narrative Construction of Unmarked Identities.” Symbolic Interaction 35 (4): 438–55.

34.

Sargent

Paul

. 2000. “Real Men or Real Teachers?: Contradictions in the Lives of Men Elementary Teachers.” Men and Masculinities 2 (4): 410–33.

35.

Sargent

Paul

. 2001. Real Men or Real Teachers. Harriman, TN: Men’s Studies Press.

36.

Sargent

Paul

. 2004. “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Men Caught in the Gender Bind of Early Childhood Education.” Journal of Men’s Studies 12 (3): 173–93.

37.

Sargent

Paul

. 2005. “The Gendering of Men in Early Childhood Education.” Sex Roles 52 (3/4): 251–59.

38.

Skelton

Christine

. 1991. “A Study of Career Perspectives of Male Teachers of Young Children.” Gender and Education 3 (3): 279–89.

39.

Skelton

Christine

. 2003. “Male Primary Teachers and Perceptions of Masculinity.” Educational Review 55 (2): 195–209.

40.

Skelton

Christine

. 2007. “Gender, Policy and Initial Teacher Education.” Gender and Education 19 (6): 677–90.

41.

Skelton

Christine

. 2009. “Failing to Get Men into Primary Teaching: A Feminist Critique.” Journal of Education Policy 24 (1): 39–54.

42.

Skelton

Christine

. 2012. “Men Teachers and the “Feminised” Primary School: A Review of the Literature.” Educational Review 64 (1): 1–19.

43.

Smith

Dorothy

. 1978. “‘K is Mentally Ill’: The Anatomy of a Factual Account.” Sociology 12 (1): 23–53.

44.

Statistical Abstract of the United States. 2012. “Table 616: Employed Civilians by Occupation, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin.” http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/labor_force_employment_earnings.html.

45.

Weaver-Hightower

Marcus B.

2011. “Male Preservice Teachers and Discouragement from Teaching.” The Journal of Men’s Studies 19 (2): 97–115.

46.

West

Candace

Zimmerman

Don H.

1987. “Doing Gender.” Gender & Society 1 (2): 125–51.

47.

Wetherell

Margaret

Edley

Nigel

. 1999. “Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity: Imaginary Positions and Psycho-Discursive Practices.” Feminism & Psychology 9 (3): 335–56.

48.

Williams

Christine L.

Chandra

Muller

Kilanski

Kristine

. 2012. “Gendered Organizations in the New Economy.” Gender & Society 26 (4): 549–73.