‘Observe and Absorb’: Tracing Fathering Interactions and Practices at Community Dads’ Groups

Abstract

Community dads’ groups offer a novel environment to observe fathering interactions and practices. Our analysis of observations at these settings alongside semi-structured interviews focuses on the symbolic and social interactions between fathers, the caregiving practices they engaged in with their children and how these interactions influenced their identities. At six dads’ groups we observed several deliberate strategies of social avoidance with other fathers, as well as moments of ‘banter’. Interviews reveal the symbolic meanings of these encounters, indicating that dads’ group spaces, while mostly devoid of ‘chattiness’, nonetheless offer opportunities for fathers to observe the caring practices of others, to learn and modify behaviours in response, and to offer fleeting, gestural support. Our findings contribute insights into the social dynamics within male homosocial settings, demonstrating subtle forms of interaction between men which are important aspects of constructing a fathering identity. Community dads’ groups may help men feel confident in attending structured parenting classes.

Keywords

fatherhood community dads’ groups masculinity social interaction fathering

Introduction

Community dads’ groups, where father figures¹ attend (usually weekend) activities with their child/ren, offer a novel setting to study contemporary fathering practices. These groups are occasions where male parents, mostly unknown to each other, gather without the child’s mother present and engage in playful and creative activities, such as making craft items, singing or role-play. These groups typically take place in settings, such as Children’s Centres, that are commonly regarded as feminine spaces (Doucet 2006), thus the presence of a large group of fathers ‘solo’ caring for their children in such locations disrupt the norms of homosocial social interaction. This article focuses on six community dads’ groups across southern England and describes how these fathers navigated these novel settings, and how they attempt to interpret acceptable and unacceptable homosocial encounters and interactions when templates for such public performances of fathering are rare in the UK. On the surface, the men’s public performances seemingly default to common masculine performances of inattention and withdrawal, or, less frequently, to traditional male conversational ‘banter’. Yet our interpretation of interview data combined with extensive observations illustrates how community dads’ groups present valuable opportunities for fathers to observe and subtly validate other fathers’ public performances, to reflect on their own caregiving, and, subsequently, to benchmark their own practices. Many fathers spoke about revising paternal parenting skills and behaviours, in response to their experiences at the community dads’ group, towards more caring, progressive templates.

Caring or Hybrid Masculinities?

In his reflections on contemporary theories of fatherhood, Johansson (2023) highlights the enduring influence of Connell’s (1987, 2005) theories of the gender order and hegemonic masculinity in shaping sociological understandings of the discourses and practices of fathers. Of particular relevance for fatherhood scholars is the role of the gender order in maintaining discursive boundaries in parental roles and expectations, whereby fathers are portrayed as economic providers and mothers responsible for the provision of care (Connell 2005; Miller 2017). Such divisions of labour, in turn, underscore the socially revered traits or characteristics associated with normative ideals of masculinity, namely that manhood is defined by a rationality, strength, authority and stoicism required for success in capitalist economies, while also avoiding any association with ‘feminized’ traits such as care, emotion and vulnerability (Connell 2005; Johansson 2023; Kimmel 2016; Vidmar 2024).

However, recent shifts in the cultural representations and conduct of fathers have led scholars to question the hegemony of ‘traditional’ masculine traits. Over the past 30 years key changes in the language of fatherhood are evident with fathers described as ‘involved’ (Miller 2017), ‘intimate’ (Dermott 2014), and even ‘interchangeable’ with mothers (Brooks and Hodkinson 2020). What is important in terms of shifting masculine ideals is, as Elliott (2016) argues, the integration of caring practices into men’s everyday lives. By engaging in hands-on care, fathering practices reflect Elliott’s (2016) conceptualisation of ‘caring masculinities’, in which the values of care, nurture and interdependence penetrate and rupture traditional hegemonic framings of masculinity. Yet other scholars argue the continued need to prove oneself ‘a masculine man’ to others remains a ‘relentless test’ (Kimmel 2016, 31), and ‘new fatherhood’ might be a version of ‘hybrid masculinities’, where traits, such as engagement in caregiving, are incorporated into masculine identities without necessarily rupturing or damaging the hegemonic status of manhood (Bridges and Pascoe 2014; Eisen and Yamashita 2019; Randles 2018).

An aim of this paper is to explore the ways in which the principles of caring masculinity play out within community dads’ group settings as part of men’s performances of fatherhood, tracing the ways that the attendees navigated the expectations of care through their embodied practices both with their children and the other fathers present. We are attentive to the enduring relationality of ‘masculinized’ and ‘feminized’ traits in shaping understandings of parental roles. Of particular focus here are the acts or behaviours which can be seen to compensate for engagement in what are perceived as overly feminized activities to reaffirm masculine status (Ezzell 2012; Haltom 2022). As we have discussed elsewhere, men’s engagement in childcare can be reframed to reflect masculinized ideals, such as engagement in leisure or sporting activities (Preston 2024) or allowing for greater ‘risk taking’ behaviour from children (Blackwell 2024).

In this sense, it is possible to evidence the ways in which care is coded as masculine, imbuing care work with the values of masculinity (Jordan 2020; Preston 2024). By masculinizing the enactment of care, many scholars suggest that such practices are consolidated within the existing structures of hegemonic masculinity and the wider gender order, reaffirming unequal gender relations (Bonner-Thompson and Nayak 2022; Eisen and Yamashita 2019; Hunter et al. 2017; Kimmel 2016). Identifying if and how this masculinization of caregiving takes place in dads’ group settings is an additional aim of this paper, as we seek to trace the performative acts that are distinguished as masculine.

Community Dads’ Groups in Context

The evidence shows that men tend not to access community parenting initiatives due to a number of factors, such as their perceived focus on mothering and the lack of male workers (Baran and Sawrikar 2024; Bayley et al. 2009). While men in harmonious parenting dyads may seek and receive private affirmation from their partner (Adamsons and Pasley 2013) and from their children (Marshall and Lambert 2006), fathers claim they have few public opportunities to validate their parenting efforts (Mazza 2020; Neale and Tarrant 2024). Indeed, many men appear reluctant to talk about their fathering status outside the family (Ewald et al. 2020). Settings where groups of men might gather, such as at work (Kelland et al. 2024), pubs (Coates 2008), sporting activities (Coakley 2006) or outside the school gate (Potter and Olley 2012) are rarely used by fathers as opportunities for peer affirmation of the fathering identity. As such, many UK fathers, particularly first-time, main carer, young or marginalised fathers report being unclear what the behavioural norms are for men as fathers in public, male homosocial settings (Lucas et al. 2021; Molloy and Pierro 2020; Neale and Tarrant 2024).

Unlike mothers, who tend to join community classes and events, and often discuss family life with their friends, this is not currently the typical pattern for fathers in the UK (Hodkinson and Brooks, 2023; Pasley et al., 2014; Langston 2016). When men do attend a community or educational setting, such as a toddler group or ante-natal class, they often describe these spaces as ‘highly feminized’, cliquey and unwelcoming, and say they feel intimidated in these female-dominated, “estrogen-filled worlds” (Doucet 2006; Potter and Olley 2012). While online forums for men to discuss fatherhood have grown, there is still a demand for spaces where men can meet in person to discuss fathering without judgement (Smith et al. 2022). Moreover, even men with extensive child-care responsibilities, such as Stay-at-Home Fathers (SAHFs), describe feeling isolated, and lack peer affirmation, role models and supportive social networks (Brooks and Hodkinson 2020; Lucas et al. 2021).

As fathers seldom refer to community education and child-care spaces as locations for their identity work, fathering identity work tends to be done in the private spaces of the family home (Allen and Daly 2005), anonymously on-line (Smith et al. 2022), through organised, public leisure activities (Kay 2009), or as a solitary activity away from the perceived critical judgements of others (Brooks and Hodkinson 2020). Fathers, therefore, use community parenting services far less frequently than mothers and, as a consequence, gain little from these programmes (Baran and Sawrikar 2024; Molloy and Pierro 2020; Tarrant et al. 2024).

Nonetheless, initiatives to support the parenting skills of father figures have been provided for many decades. In the USA there is significant investment in structured Responsible Fatherhood and co-parenting programmes. While these show promising outcomes (Barlow and Coren 2018; Holmes et al. 2020) they have also been criticised as they often fail to reach fathers from lower socio-economic backgrounds and, when fathers are mandated or sanctioned to attend classes, they may arrive as ill-prepared, apprehensive and reluctant participants (Anderson and Letiecq 2005; Cheng et al. 2024; Randles 2020). Community dads’ groups (the focus of this study), on the other hand, are voluntary and offer an informal, activity-focused setting in which men can attend with their children, and a facilitator leads play and craft activities (rather than an instructor leading a class or structured discussion). Research demonstrates that a local approach focused on father-child activities and informal conversations with other men can be a more attractive proposition to fathers looking to develop their parenting skills (Blackwell 2025; Hanna 2018; Lefkowich et al. 2017).

It should be noted, however, that dads can face barriers to accessing their local community dads’ group. In Brooks and Hodkinson (2020) study of 24 SAHFs in England, many of these men criticised their local dads’ groups for their apparent hegemonic attitudes towards breadwinning practices where these men felt they would be “out-of-place”. Brooks and Hodkinson (2020, 26) conclude that the fathers they interviewed avoided public exposure because they felt their local dads’ groups would be a location where the fathers would have “traditional and judgemental attitudes” towards them as non-hegemonic (i.e., Stay-at-Home) dads.

The limited UK studies of community-based dads’ groups suggest that conventional masculine attitudes are evident alongside more emotionally open, progressive and inclusive ideals of fathering. In Dolan’s (2014) study of a parenting programme for working-class dads in the Midlands (UK), he found that the interaction of masculine and fathering identities were underpinned by ‘traditional’ ideals as “socially normative ways of demonstrating manhood continued to circumscribe men’s thoughts and behaviours regarding fatherhood and fathering practice” (2014, 826). He also observed how masculine identities are “often sustained through men’s capacity to not ask for help” and reported he saw no “‘undoing’ of well understood and expected expressions of masculinity” (Dolan 2014, 825). He concludes by stating that the low-income men he interviewed were publicly unchanged by attending the group due to their powerlessness to surmount working-class masculine ideals which would mean showing weakness or could signal femininity in the presence of other men, thereby highlighting how gender continued to intersect with class position to shape the men’s masculine and fathering identities (Dolan 2014).

On the other hand, alternative outcomes were observed by Hanna (2018) in her study of groups in Scotland and the North of England for young men who are fathers, and also in Robertson and colleagues’ (2016) evaluation of a community dads’ project in the North West of England. Hanna (2018) and Robertson et al. (2016) found that the fathers spoke openly about their lives and emotional attachment to their children. While not entirely void of hegemonic masculine interactions (such as the use of homophobic banter), Hanna (2018, 78) noted how the groups gave disadvantaged young men opportunities to “solidify”, “embrace”, “shore up and further develop their identities as fathers” through peer interaction. Similarly, Robertson and colleagues found that the dads’ group sessions helped fathers develop an emotional openness, building trust and rapport with the other dads, they spoke openly about issues and shared a concomitant sense of respectful identities which provided validation that their experiences were common (Robertson et al. 2016, 18–19). They conclude that a safe and engaging environment for men can introduce fathers “to new forms of social and cultural capital thereby expanding their repertoire of acceptable (and beneficial) ways to ‘be a man’” (see also Blackwell 2025).

What is evident across this review is the importance for many men as fathers to maintain a ‘safe masculine self’ in these homosocial situations so they do not feel their masculinity is threatened (Anderson and Letiecq 2005; Dolan 2014; Nash 2018). Men as fathers are still required, it seems, to master the ‘identity codes’ (Schwalbe and Mason-Schrock 1996) that are symbolic constituents of the gender order of fatherhood. Given that there are few opportunities for men (in the UK) to interact and, therefore, learn the symbolic culture of fathering, apart from exposure to online and media imagery, little is understood about the actual mechanisms of how men present themselves and respond to other fathers’ performances when they meet; how they reflect on and adjust their fathering identity in response to the interactions they experience; and what support is offered by the other interactants to affirm (or refute) new forms of fathering.

The evidence indicates a potential for community dads’ initiatives to be locations where men can cultivate and stabilize their fathering identity, and examine counterproductive masculine conceptualizations of fatherhood amongst peers and programme staff (given the right facilitation; Blackwell 2025; Hanna 2018; Neale and Tarrant 2024; Robertson et al. 2016), while also seeking paternal identity affirmation for their care-work. Research that explores how this takes place, however, remains limited (Cheng et al. 2024; Hanna 2018; Lucas et al. 2021). This study examines how men use the interactive opportunities at six dads’ groups to collaboratively construct caring fatherhood acts, and how they create and share symbolic resources that enable these various kinds of caring acts to be bolstered, while more problematic notions of fathering practices are played out but also subtly resisted (Schrock and Schwalbe 2009).

Theoretical Lens

Symbolic interactionist perspectives (Blumer 1969; Schwalbe 2020) alongside Goffman’s (1955) dramaturgical principles were adopted as theoretical lenses in this paper. This allowed us to understand the myriad ways in which the performances of fatherhood can give meaning to the vast array of actions, gestures and non-verbal cues within the community dads’ group settings. That is to say, while we sought to view our data as reflections of tangible interactions and encounters, we were also attentive to the performative meanings which permeated these actions as part of a process of ‘impression management’ (Goffman 1963) and a purposeful presentation of care and masculinity. Studying the development and maintenance of fathering identities using an Interactionist frame is apposite, we contend, because of its ability to conceptualize the degree to which, and why, a father might enact (or fail to enact) behaviours associated with his paternal identity (Adamsons and Pasley, 2013). Our interactionist approach, thus, investigates how identities are formed, performed, discarded and modified as fathers negotiate their masculine credentials through ‘doing fathering’ (Randles 2020) and ‘displaying fathering’ (Finch 2007) in interaction with others at the dads’ group, while being simultaneously influenced by dominant social expectations as to how both a man and a ‘good dad’ should behave (Pasley et al. 2014).

Methods

The findings presented in this paper derive from two ethnographic studies of community dads’ groups conducted in the South of England between 2018 and 2020. Given the shared aims and methods utilised within our studies, our data has been combined to enhance empirical depth, enabling a thematic analysis of a wider scope of fathering interactions within community dads’ group settings.

Both unstructured and structured participant observations were conducted at six community dads’ groups in six locations in Southern England as part of our respective studies. Three groups were operated by the Local Authority (LA groups), with two taking place in Children’s Centres and one at a library. These groups were targeted at fathers with pre-school children (ages 0–4) and offered a range of indoor play activities, including arts and crafts, toys and soft play areas. The three other groups were led by social enterprises (SE groups), with two running outdoor Forest School events, and one hosting themed monthly events for fathers and their children in a local community centre. In both studies, the authors conducted overt observations of the sessions (with the consent of those present), observing the interactions and encounters that occurred, which were later written up into detailed fieldnotes. These fieldnotes were combined to form part of the data set for this paper alongside 24 semi-structured interviews undertaken with fathers who attended these groups. Participation was voluntary, with interviews taking place in person and lasting for 60–90 minutes Participants were invited to describe their experiences at the community dads’ group they attended, which provided us with subjective detail and insights to strengthen our fieldnotes.

In total, around 300 participants attended the sessions which were observed at the six community dads’ groups (fathers, their children and staff). Due to the public, ‘drop-in’ nature of the groups, it was not possible to collate the demographic details of all the fathers and children in attendance at each group. However, we did collect demographic details before the semi-structured interviews. There were some observable demographic trends, for example, the fathers who participated were predominantly white, heterosexual men. There was some diversity, though, with the fathers’ ages ranging from 18 to 55, a broad range of socio-economic backgrounds, some fathers where English was an additional language, and a small number of gay fathers.

Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) was utilised as a means of developing and constructing themes interpreted in observation and interview data. While the suggested steps of TA, namely familiarisation, coding, theme development and writing up were broadly followed, in practice these were not discrete phases, but an iterative, linked process that called for regular reflection, and on-going refinement as the analysis proceeded (Braun and Clarke 2006). With the interview data, both authors developed a set of themes based on careful analysis of the texts (themes were not pre-specified), which were then shared and discussed. Likewise, once the extensive observation notes had been thematically analysed, a symbolic interactionist perspective was adopted to help us reflect on the myriad ways in which the performances of fatherhood can give meaning to the array of actions, gestures and non-verbal cues within the community dads’ group settings (Blumer 1969; Schwalbe 2020). A framework was developed to help us code and interpret the symbolic meanings of key actions, which also allowed us to incorporate and reflect on the analysis of the interview data.

The two authors met several times to discuss and compare data, to collate themes and to draw conclusions on the symbolic meanings that could be inferred from both interview and observation datasets. While we sought to view our data as reflections of tangible experiences and encounters, we were also attentive to the symbolic meanings which permeated these actions and how they reflected purposeful presentations of care and masculinity. By witnessing ourselves the various social interactions experienced by and impacting on participants, alongside hearing from participants through the semi-structured interviews, we believe the combination of these two methods offers a means to enhance our theoretical sensitivity and, taken together, have enhanced the quality of the analysis.

As part of reflexive practice, it is crucial to observe and reflect on the various ways in which our lived experiences, perspectives and knowledge as fatherhood scholars can influence our interpretation of the data. It is important to explore how our experiences can both resonate and deviate from the perspectives and understandings of those who took part in these studies; for example, the first author is a father, while the second author is not, meaning that certain observed or described fathering practices may be interpreted in different ways. To alleviate for these differing perspectives, both authors engaged in regular collaborative discussions as means of articulating our ideas and offering insights and reflections on these. An additional strength of our analysis, we believe, was the ability to draw on both insider and outsider perspectives when making sense of the data.

Findings

“We’re Dads… We Sit Around and Say Nothing!”: Performative Strategies of Social Avoidance in Dads’ Group Settings

Community fathers’ groups represent an unfamiliar social environment for men’s homosocial interaction. Situated in what may typically be perceived as feminine spaces, such as Early Years centres, they differ significantly from the stereotypical sites of masculine engagement, such as pubs, sports centres or the workplace. Dads’ groups, we observed, represented uncharted territory for many of the attendees, as most had limited knowledge and experience of the social norms and expectations for interactions between their fellow attendees (unless they were friends or regulars). Quiet engagement between fathers and their children at the dads’ groups was the dominant theme of our observations with very few verbal interactions observed between dads.

When dads inevitably did come into contact with each other, such as when their children began playing together, these were notable for the sense of ‘awkwardness’ they engendered:

Sue [a staff member] popped her head around the door and announced that the snacks were ready: a selection of rice cakes, breadsticks, cucumber and apple. Dylan and Jonathan picked up their daughters and carried them across the room, their voices drifting out the door and down the corridor. I was suddenly met by the silence in the room. There were four other dads sat together: silent. Their heads were down, their bodies enclosed: nothing was said. Another beat. Still silent. I smiled awkwardly, not quite knowing how to react. [Field-notes]

There were a number of such ‘silent encounters’ observed across the groups, with several strategies of ‘civil inattention’ (Goffman 1963) deployed to avoid engaging in conversation. As societies have evolved practices that reflect social norms of appropriateness in social interaction, civil inattention refers to the proper amount of indifference to others and to what extent one should respect the boundaries of another person’s private sphere (Goffman 1963). In our data, these instances included the avoidance of eye contact, focusing intently on their child or looking at mobile phones. Moreover, the fathers were observed to deliberately withdraw when another father approached, finding an alternative location to remain out-of-the-way and demonstrate a lack of interest or aloofness. Such strategies can arguably represent acts of compensatory masculinity in response to the perceived sociability of the setting (Ezzell 2012), with their silence and inattention reflective of a dogmatic independence deemed to signify masculine status.

Questions regarding the avoidance of social interactions between the fathers were posed in the semi-structured interviews. Participants readily acknowledged that fathers infrequently spoke to each other, with several describing this as “quite normal for men”, recognising that men seldom talk, interact and seek to make friends with other men they do not know well. As Paul remarked:

I often joke with my wife. She says: ‘So what happens at these dads’ groups?’ and I say: ‘Well, we’re dads. Just nothing [laughs]. We sit around and say nothing. That’s what men do!’

The lack of engagement with other fathers can again be seen as a compensatory masculine act as it avoids exposure and vulnerability in unfamiliar and ‘femininized’ territory. Particularly given the ‘child-led’ nature of the LA groups, with the fathers engaging in a range of ‘pre-school’ activities, such as singing nursery rhymes, the decision to remain aloof, independent and unremarked was a means of avoiding potential social embarrassment. This risk of exposure was acknowledged in the semi-structured interviews, as Dylan explained:

You sort of recognise that, actually, a lot of it comes down to natural awkwardness and shyness. And I feel like it’s easier for dads to just lock themselves in with their child and just play with them (Dylan, semi-structured interview)

Alongside civil inattention, shyness can be seen as being purposefully deployed as a means of setting social boundaries between the fathers, regulated by embodied gestures and verbal cues (e.g., “I should check what [child] is up to”) to maintain distance and personal space (Scott 2005).

The feminized reading and interpretation of such parental spaces can also impose challenges and ruptures to masculine ideals. For mothers in particular, community groups are used as spaces to socialise, form friendships and seek advice (Morris 2019). This social interdependence – a key tenet of care ethics – could be seen to challenge masculinized ideals of stoicism and independence. Such masculinized demands, in turn, were seen to structure and limit the types of conversations within community dads’ groups. As Tom (staff member) suggested, “[Men] still do the blokey thing ‘cos you can’t go: ‘Ooh aren’t you a fabulous dad!’ type of thing ‘cos we don’t do that”. There is, in this sense, an imposing of masculinized barriers in conversations and interactions, informed by taken-for-granted expectations of what men can and, crucially, cannot say.

“I Enjoy Learning From How Other Dads do Things”: Silent and Gestural Support as Masculinized Forms of Care

While interactions between fathers at the community dads’ groups were seemingly restricted by the boundaries of conventional masculine expectations, there were other, more subtle, ways in which interdependence was fostered within these spaces. When discussing their motivations for attending the sessions, for example, many of the fathers expressed a desire to learn ways of engaging with their children by observing the other attending fathers. However, their observations were always conducted in a clandestine manner, so, we suggest, as not to push the limits of the norms of masculine interaction:

I was quietly watching all these other dads who were very interactive with their kids and I wasn’t being at all, I was a bit standoffish and letting her do her thing and I suddenly thought: ‘Maybe I’m doing this wrong!’ So, I got into the ballpool with her, and I wasn't doing, you know, what I thought was right, but I was kind of copying what the other dads were doing. (Harry, semi-structured interview)

This ability to ‘quietly’ watch and learn from the other fathers was noted as a positive experience across the semi-structured interviews. For example, Sean said: “I enjoy learning from how other dads do things” and Luke talked about “a connection, a sense that I’m not the only one, just getting one or two little ideas”. Alex said he had unobtrusively watched “four different dads” and noticed “four different techniques to handle a situation”. This watching and noticing allowed them to benchmark their own fathering practices and to discern new interactive possibilities with their children:

You do see how dads react with children and how some dads are very playful and, I don’t know, roll around in the mud… yeah, you do see how different dads are with their children. It’s nice to see. (Chris, semi-structured interview)

Leon, who defined himself as “very overprotective”, found the dads’ group useful in learning how to step back and take a more relaxed approach with his child:

So, initially, in my head, I was like: ‘Oh my God! What is he doing? He’s dominating the soft play. He’s standing on the thing and jumping up!’ So, all of this was coming up for me… and then I changed to more of a: ‘Crikey, I could really learn from that!‘, so letting go and not being so worried… so, observing other dads … I think other people are much more: ‘Let them get on with it!‘. Seeing that’s been really helpful (Leon, semi-structured interview)

While these observations took place somewhat covertly, David was also equally alert to the fact that he might well be being observed, and so felt he should model positive practices that other dads might pick up on:

There’s a general uplift in your engagement with your kids when you know other dads might take input from you, by watching you with your kids, you know, you’re doing a café role play with the kids, maybe other dads are seeing that and then getting involved in the same way. (David, semi-structured interview)

While the fathers might be catching a sly glance at other dads, which was acceptable, it was evident that social interaction and conversations were not appropriate. Even when the dads helped each other out with parenting tasks, very few words were exchanged. As Alex explained:

You can spot some dads that are struggling a bit, it’s their first time away with the kids or something, and you kind of pitch in and give them a hand, but nothing’s really sort of said, it just happens so, maybe they would get a benefit from it, hopefully they do… yeah, it’s all the unsaid and absorbing it all in, just a nice experience. (Alex, semi-structured interview)

So while fathers might “pitch in” from time to time to protect “first-timers” from embarrassing public deliveries of nascent fathering practices, it seems normal that “nothing’s really … said”. This type of ‘silent support’, then, arguably reflects a masculinized interpretation of caring practice; a form of social interdependence that is performed in an overtly masculinised manner to compensate against ‘feminized’ practices (Ezzell 2012; Haltom 2022). These were, as the staff members described, often fleeting moments, reinforced by small, insignificant gestures:

One of the little indicators we’ve noticed is, sometimes just a quick eyeballing and a nod, and for some, that’s all they need. Sort of: ‘You’re doing alright mate’ type of thing. We’re not going to suddenly embrace and become great buddies or anything like that but just a nod to say: ‘It’s alright. It’s ok to be like this’ (Tom, semi-structured interview)

As Tom alludes to here, while the interactions between the fathers may be quiet and subtle, they are nevertheless imbued with symbolic meaning. According to Goffman (1963), actors must “exist for one another” (Crossley 2022) by means, initially, of perception without, ideally, giving more away about ourselves than we might wish to. As such, we need to deploy acts of ‘impression management’ and maintain ‘face’ (Goffman 1955). The co-presence of other men, for these dads, appears as a source of potential vulnerability because their embodied care-work makes the dads susceptible to mockery. Yet mockery does not occur – throughout the participants refer to the dads’ groups as ‘safe spaces’. Indeed, on closer inspection, there are numerous momentary, gestural affirmational interactions taking place, such as a little nod here and there, and the odd spoken word, as well as a general understanding that the men are allowed to observe each other and, in return, they accept they might be surreptitiously observed. It could be argued that these interactions, despite their underlying caring intentions, serve to reinforce conventional masculine traits (e.g., taciturn aloofness) yet they also hint of a shift from unwavering independence to a degree of shared, but silent, endeavours – a sense that, as dads who are learning, that they are in some way ‘all in this together’. The nod which says “you’re doing alright, mate” can be interpreted as sign to simply keep going, to remain strong and resilient but also that you are not alone and your caring is validated as ‘“it’s ok to be like this”’ as a man.

“There’s a Bit of Banter”: Reaffirming Hegemonic Masculine Tropes in Group Interactions

While interactions and conversations between the fathers were typically infrequent or fleeting across the groups, the setting and organisation of the social space were, to some degree, set up to facilitate friendly engagement among the fathers. The SE groups, for example, were more recognisable as ‘masculine’ spaces, taking place either outdoors as part of Forest Schools, or in hired community spaces and were designed by the (male) staff as ‘more masculine' (e.g., by having tools, messy river play or boisterous games). One SE group, for instance, hosted monthly themed workshops led by a local father, which included ‘rap battles’, a stand-up comedy masterclass and a movie special effects artist.

These events struck a more clamorous tone when compared to the more child-led LA groups, which enabled the performance of more recognisable masculine traits. One session, for example, involved the fathers and children making and designing a rocket using old plastic bottles. While initially a group activity, this ended with the fathers congregating together to take turns in launching their rockets across the room, narrowly avoiding hitting their children who were playing on their own. Much of the interaction, in this sense, was facilitated by the competitive element of seeing who could launch their rocket the furthest, appealing to their masculine sensibilities.

This competitive undertone was also evident in an outdoor group. In one case, Frank (the group facilitator) had set a ‘bush-craft challenge' which dared dads and children to eat an uncooked fish’s eyeball while demonstrating their filleting skills, resulting in a performative dialogue of ‘one-upmanship’:

One of the dads filleted a mackerel perfectly and brought it over to the fire for Frank to cook, with his son holding the other piece, saying out loud he worked in the fishing industry. A different dad asked if anyone went fishing and started to tell a story about his mate who was a professional angler but his story was interrupted by Frank who was talking about his daring escapades in the Australian outback. ‘Angler-dad’ tried a couple of times to continue his story… but he got cut off by another dad who started talking about his new sea kayak and his adventures off the coast. (field-notes)

Similar behaviours sometimes occurred where fathers had attended with a group of friends. One prominent (albeit rare) example involved a group talking about stereotypically masculine topics, including excessive drinking, football and sexual encounters (Vaccaro 2011), before engaging in overtly misogynistic and homophobic ‘banter’:

Olly got out his phone and got onto Facebook and said: ‘Look at her!’ Steve commented that she was ‘a fit looking lady’. Olly said: ‘that’s my son’s teacher’. Steve replied: ‘I wouldn’t mind her teaching me!’ Then Olly said: ‘Well, she likes other women, she’s a lesbian. What a waste! Eh Steve? Such a waste!’ (field-notes)

Bill, a staff member at the group, indicated in his interview that such behaviour was inevitable when bringing groups of men together in a masculinized space:

Well, there’s a bit of banter, that’s where you gotta say it, but we don’t let it go too far or anything. I think we tend to be a bit more up front rather than beat about the bush… we just say it as it is, and I think sometimes that has caused problems, but what’s said in the group, stays in the group. It doesn’t really go outside. And if you’ve said something, I say: ‘mate, well, you know, next week is a different week’. (Bill, staff member)

In this case, Bill alludes to the ways in which hegemonic masculine behaviours are enabled in group dynamics, for example, the notion that “what’s said in the group, stays in the group” implies that the men can speak ‘freely’ without the fear of potential repercussions (Vaynman et al., 2020). For some fathers, however, such interactions were perceived as oppressive and marginalising, resulting in them disconnecting from the group:

As soon as someone starts talking boobs n beer, I’m like: ‘Yeah, yeah that’s me out’…, I hate it when you get a group of lads together and they just turn into primates [laughs] (Nathan, semi-structured interview).

Our analysis here highlights on-going gender tensions: while fathers are engaged in caring enactments of paternal masculinity at the events, the social context and setting can, for a few, lead a reversion to ‘traditionally’ hegemonic masculine behaviours to compensate for their engagement in ‘feminized’ tasks of childcare (Bach 2019; Eisen and Yamashita 2019; Lewington et al. 2021). Yet there are clear indications that some dads – who may be much less vocal and obvious in the group settings – quietly disassociate themselves from the one-upmanship and banter (actions which would not be evident unless we had spoken to them). Interactions between fathers, therefore, are predominantly (but not universally) informed by masculinized norms which set the boundaries of ‘acceptable’ engagement. Future research should explore in more detail those men who genuinely transcend (indeed reject) traditional, acceptable masculine boundaries in their fathering practices and beliefs.

Discussion

Realigning early years and parenting services towards promoting the engagement of fathers has been a focus for several decades in the UK (Featherstone 2009; Neale and Tarrant 2024), not least due to the benefits for families when fathers are involved in the routine care and everyday lives of their child (Medved 2016; Ranson 2015). This paper has explored the ways in which fathers navigate unfamiliar parental landscapes, and how their perceptions and performances of a range of masculinities are influenced by these spaces. Our observations and interviews with fathers suggest that interactions between fathers in dads' group settings continue to be informed by conventional or ‘traditional’ expectations of masculinity, such as stoicism, independence and remaining unemotional, avoiding prolonged or meaningful engagement with other men around them (but not their children). In the small number of cases where interactions moved beyond small talk, these were predominantly (but not always) informed by hyper-masculinized discourses, including competitiveness, one-upmanship and ‘blokey’ banter. There were, however, as we have highlighted, many more subtle and fleeting moments of support amongst the participants, with fathers describing the benefits of observing other fathers’ caring practices. It was acknowledged that such practices occurred but remained unspoken, instead they offered each other reassurance through subtle gestures, such as a nod of the head or brief eye contact. This, we argue, reflects the masculinized ideals of social interdependence which structured the boundaries of father interactions.

Our findings offer nuanced perspectives on how community dads’ groups function as social spaces, and the ways in which the attendees present and perform not only a fathering role but also demonstrate care within the confines of hegemonic masculine expectations. In this sense, our findings reflect Hunter and colleagues (2017, 4) suggestion that “caring and hegemonic masculinities often appear to sit alongside one another” and that men “manoeuvre within and across… social structures” using tools familiar to them to create a “hybrid masculinity that reinforces… hierarchies of inequality” (Haltom 2022). However, the mutually supportive gestures and affirmation between men, however small or fleeting, reflect an incorporation of care values, as argued by Elliott (2016), with new forms of male camaraderie fostered through co-relational fathering practices (Medved 2016; Van Doorn et al. 2021). In these male homosocial settings, the importance of being able to safely observe without the expectation of speaking to strangers appears enormously important to these fathers as a means of compensating for the ruptures in hegemonic ideals. Any incorporation of care tends to be balanced by responding with clearly masculine behaviours. Yet, with each gesture of validation from another man, the limits of acceptable masculine interaction become slightly porous and change is brought about, we believe, as to what might be permissible within masculine norms.

The evidence presented here indicates, for male parents in these unfamiliar settings, conversation is not the means for social interaction – given the heavy weight of masculine norms, it is too early, for many, for this to occur (Nash 2018). The step before conversational engagement is a mutual weighing up of the situation where discreet observations can be made to assess the situation and this, we contend, is a symbolic, albeit small, step for men in incorporating interdependent practices of care (Elliott 2016). Missing this stage and skipping straight to expectations of open, heartfelt conversations between men is still beyond the realms of hegemonic masculine expectations, with emotional openness and talking still “too radical” for many men’s homosocial interactions (Nash 2018, 8).

Fundamentally, being at a distance allows the men to safely, cautiously and legitimately observe the other participants interacting, to see their gestures, behaviours and responses, to witness men’s care-work, playful sides and techniques for managing children, while “absorbing it all, taking it all in”, without the need for any troublesome talk. By unobtrusively observing diverse enactments of paternal practices fathers can, by simulating inattentiveness, mutually evaluate each other and absorb modifications to their own behaviours and attitudes, learn safely on the periphery and validate their own fathering performances. Strategic avoidance and enacted shyness might thus appear to be safe removals from the action but they are, we suggest, full of subtle interaction and meaning-making moments while the men feign inattentiveness of other men. On the surface, they thus appear withdrawn, uninterested and distracted, as the norms of masculinity demand, but below this surface performance they are watching, learning and performing a modified (yet acceptably masculinized) interpretation of care.

Conclusion

To conclude, a father’s removal from and apparent disinterest in the dads’ group activities could be described as acts of civil inattention (Goffman 1963) linked to the gendered nature of ‘typical’ male public performances in ‘feminine’ spaces (Dolan 2014; Doucet 2006), with unobtrusive, momentary scanning of others to ensure neutral interaction while maintaining personal spatial boundaries and poise, which evidently adhere to ‘normative bases of public order’ (Goffman 1959, 1961, 1963). We contend, however, the theory of civil inattention on its own does not adequately explain fathers’ performances in community dads’ groups. There are degrees of inattention and attentiveness, with regular moments of active (yet surreptitious) observation. There are, therefore, abundant opportunities to watch behavioural performances, reflect, learn and feel validated by peers, however fleeting their momentary nods of approval might be. In this respect, dads can elect to distance themself from disagreeable behaviours and to pivot towards more attractive paternal behaviours, knowing this shift will not be judged and may even be validated. Our analysis highlights the relational nature of hitherto private paternal actions when fathering practices are made public, and the importance of a collective, unspoken sense of maintaining masculinized social norms while simultaneously and surreptitiously undermining these long-held norms.

As has been argued, fathering identities should not just be honed through private performances of fathering (Beglaubter 2021; Ranson 2015) – ideally fathers need a wider sphere of encounters in order to observe others’ performing their fathering and where they can gain affirmative reciprocal appraisals (Schoppe‐Sullivan and Fagan 2020). Through community dads’ groups, we have argued in this paper, the construction of fathering identities moves from a personal and private family matter to one of public and collective responsibility. By creating opportunities for dads to validate not just their own but importantly other men’s paternal identities too, dads’ groups, while seemingly unremarkable spaces, could, we believe, unsettle traditional family care practices, and become a valuable part of civic services seeking to support caring, progressive fathers in our communities. Our findings contribute insights into the social dynamics within male homosocial settings, demonstrating subtle forms of interaction between men which are important aspects of constructing a fathering identity. Community dads’ groups, we conclude, may offer a valuable stepping point before men feel confident in attending more structured parenting classes.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ian Blackwell

Ethical Considerations

Full name of the committee that approved the research: This project was granted ethics approval by the Plymouth Marjon University and the University of Brighton. Confirmation that all research was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines/regulations applicable when human participants are involved (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki, or similar): We can confirm that all research was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines/regulations applicable when human participants are involved-the BERA Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research 2018.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participants in this research. Research participants received an Information Sheet which gave details of the purpose of the research, data handling, anonymisation and data storage. Once any questions were answered about the research, those who agreed to take part all signed a consent form prior to taking part in this research.

Author Contribution

Dr. Ian Blackwell’s contribution was 50 percent. Dr. Jason Preston’s contribution was 50 percent.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, Dr. Ian Blackwell. The data are not publicly available due to them containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.*

Note

Author Biographies

Ian Blackwell is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Innovation in Fatherhood & Family Research at Lincoln University and a Visiting Lecturer at Plymouth Marjon University (UK). He is also the founder and CEO of The Dads Network CIC, a social enterprise that supports father figures and their children across the UK.

Jason Preston is a Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Brighton. His research specialises in the relationship between masculinities and care, in particular, the ways in which men understand and practice the roles of caregiver and care-receiver.

References

Adamsons

Pasley

. 2013. “Refining Identity Theory to Better Account for Relationships and Context: Applications to Fathering.” Journal of Family Theory Review 5 (3): 159–175.

Allen

S. M.

Daly

. 2005. “Fathers and the Navigation of Family Space and Time.” In Situated Fathering: A Focus on Physical and Social Spaces, 49–70. Bloomsbury Academic.

Anderson

Letiecq

. 2005. “Situating Fatherhood in Responsible Fatherhood Programs: A Place to Explore Father Identity.” In Situated Fathering: A Focus on Physical and Social Spaces, 187–208. Bloomsbury Academic.

Bach

A. S.

2019. “Bach, A. S. (2019). The ambiguous construction of nondominant masculinity: Configuring the “new” man through narratives of choice, involved fatherhood, and gender equality.” Men and Masculinities 22(2): 338–359.

Baran

M. B.

Sawrikar

. 2024. “Service-Level Barriers and Facilitators to Father Engagement in Child and Family Services: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Studies.” Children and Youth Services Review 156: 107295.

Barlow

Coren

. 2018. “The Effectiveness of Parenting Programs: A Review of Campbell Reviews.” Research on Social Work Practice 28 (1): 99–102.

Bayley

Wallace

L. M.

Choudhry

. 2009. “Fathers and Parenting Programmes: Barriers and Best Practice.” Community Practitioner 82 (4): 28–31.

Beglaubter

2021. ““I Feel like It’s a Little Bit of a Badge of Honor”: Fathers’ Leave-Taking and the Development of Caring Masculinities.” Men and Masculinities 24 (1): 3–22.

Blackwell

2024. “Introducing Dadness.” Journal of Family Studies 30 (6): 1058–1083. doi:10.1080/13229400.2024.2378359.

10.

Blackwell

2025. “The Role of Community Dads’ Groups in the Construction of Fathering Identities.” In Navigating Contemporary Fatherhood in Europe, 48–64. Bristol University Press.

11.

Blumer

1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press.

12.

Bonner-Thompson

Nayak

. 2022. “Crafting Masculinities: Embodying, Recuperating and Redistributing Care in Young Lives.” Social & Cultural Geography 23 (9): 1238–1256. doi:10.1080/14649365.2021.1910993.

13.

Braun

Clarke

. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.

14.

Bridges

Pascoe

C. J.

. 2014. “Hybrid Masculinities: New Directions in the Sociology of Men and Masculinities.” Sociology Compass 8 (3): 246–258. doi:10.1111/soc4.12134.

15.

Brooks

Hodkinson

. 2020. Sharing Care: Equal and Primary Carer Fathers and Early Years Parenting. Policy press.

16.

Cheng

S. Y.

Kohl

P. L.

King

, et al. 2024. “Factors Associated with Fatherhood Program Engagement and Completion: Lessons Learned From Participating Fathers.” Journal of Social Service Research 50 (5): 820–833.

17.

Coakley

2006. “The Good Father: Parental Expectations and Youth Sports.” Leisure Studies 25 (2): 153–163.

18.

Coates

2008. Men Talk: Stories in the Making of Masculinities. John Wiley & Sons.

19.

Connell

R. W.

1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person, and Sexual Politics. Stanford University Press.

20.

Connell

R. W.

2005. Masculinities. 2nd ed. University of California Press.

21.

Crossley

2022. “Goffman and the Sociology of the Body.” In The Routledge International Handbook of Goffman Studies, 231–241. Routledge.

22.

Dermott

2014. Intimate Fatherhood: A Sociological Analysis. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203927069.

23.

Dolan

2014. “‘I’ve Learnt What a Dad Should Do’: The Interaction of Masculine and Fathering Identities Among Men Who Attended a ‘Dads Only’ Parenting Programme.” Sociology 48 (4): 812–828.

24.

Doucet

2006. “‘Estrogen-Filled Worlds’: Fathers as Primary Caregivers and Embodiment.” The Sociological Review 54 (4): 696–716.

25.

Eisen

D. B.

Yamashita

. 2019. “Borrowing From Femininity: The Caring Man, Hybrid Masculinities, and Maintaining Male Dominance.” Men and Masculinities 22 (5): 801–820. doi:10.1177/1097184X17728552.

26.

Elliott

2016. “Caring Masculinities: Theorizing an Emerging Concept.” Men and Masculinities 19 (3): 240–259. doi:10.1177/1097184X15576203.

27.

Ewald

Gilbert

Huppatz

. 2020. “Fathering and Flexible Working Arrangements: A Systematic Interdisciplinary Review.” Journal of Family Theory & Review 12 (1): 27–40.

28.

Ezzell

M. B.

2012. ““I’m in Control”: Compensatory Manhood in a Therapeutic Community.” Gender & Society 26 (2): 190–215. doi:10.1177/0891243211434611.

29.

Featherstone

2009. Contemporary Fathering: Theory, Policy and Practice. Polity Press.

30.

Finch

2007. “Displaying Families.” Sociology 41 (1): 65–81.

31.

Goffman

1955. “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” Psychiatry 18 (3): 213–231.

32.

Goffman

(2002/1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday and Company.

33.

Goffman

1961. “Role Distance.” In Life as Theater: A Dramaturgical Sourcebook, 101–111. Routledge.

34.

Goffman

1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organizations of Gatherings. Free Press.

35.

Haltom

T. M.

2022. “Masculine Maneuvers: Male Baton Twirlers, Compensatory Manhood Acts, and Hybrid Masculinity.” Men and Masculinities 25 (4): 527–545. doi:10.1177/1097184X211052537.

36.

Hanna

2018. Supporting Young Men as Fathers: Gendered Understandings of Group-based Community Provisions. Springer.

37.

Hodkinson

Brooks

. 2023. “Caregiving fathers and the negotiation of crossroads: Journeys of continuity and change.” The British Journal of Sociology 74 (1): 35–49.

38.

Holmes

E. K.

Egginton

B. R.

Hawkins

A. J.

Robbins

N. L.

Shafer

. 2020. “Do Responsible Fatherhood Programs Work? A Comprehensive Meta‐Analytic Study.” Family Relations 69 (5): 967–982.

39.

Hunter

S. C.

Riggs

D. W.

Augoustinos

. 2017. “Hegemonic Masculinity Versus a Caring Masculinity: Implications for Understanding Primary Caregiving Fathers.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 11 (3): e12307. doi:10.1111/spc3.12307.

40.

Johansson

2023. “Theorising Fatherhood: Challenges and Suggestions.” Families, Relationships and Societies 12 (1): 49–59.

41.

Jordan

2020. “Masculinizing Care? Gender, Ethics of Care, and Fathers’ Rights Groups.” Men and Masculinities 23 (1): 20–41. doi:10.1177/1097184X18776364.

42.

Kay

2009. Fathering Through Sport and Leisure. Routledge.

43.

Kelland

Searle

Brown

. 2024. Fathers at Work: Forfeits, Deficits and Disregarding Discourse. Gender, Work & Organization.

44.

Kimmel

M. S.

2016. “Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear.” In Women in Culture: An Intersectional Anthology for Gender and Women's Studies, Vol. 24. Blackwell Publisher.

45.

Langston

2016. “Invisible Fathers: Exploring an Integrated Approach to Supporting Fathers Through the Mellow Dads Parenting Programme Piloted in a UK Prison.” Journal of Integrated Care 24 (4): 176–187.

46.

Lefkowich

Richardson

Robertson

. 2017. ““If We Want to Get Men In, Then We Need to Ask Men What They Want”: Pathways to Effective Health Programing for Men.” American Journal of Men's Health 11 (5): 1512–1524.

47.

Lewington

Lee

Sebar

. 2021. ““I’M Not Just a Babysitter”: Masculinity and Men’s Experiences of First-Time Fatherhood.” Men and Masculinities 24 (4): 571–589.

48.

Lucas

S. E.

Mirza

Westwood

. 2021. “‘Any D*** Can Make a Baby, But It Takes a Real Man to Be a Dad’: Group Work for Fathers.” Qualitative Social Work 20 (3): 718–737.

49.

Marshall

S. K.

Lambert

J. D.

. 2006. “Parental Mattering: A Qualitative Inquiry Into the Tendency to Evaluate the Self as Significant to One’s Children.” Journal of Family Issues 27 (11): 1561–1582.

50.

Mazza

2020. “Young Dads: The Effects of a Parenting Program on Urban African-American Adolescent Fathers.” In Experiencing Social Research, 33–46. Routledge.

51.

Medved

C. E.

2016. “Stay-At-Home Fathering as a Feminist Opportunity: Perpetuating, Resisting and Transforming Gender Relations of Caring and Earning.” Journal of Family Communication 16 (1): 16–31.

52.

Miller

2017. Making Sense of Parenthood: Caring, Gender and Family Lives. Cambridge University Press.

53.

Molloy

Pierro

. 2020. ““It’s Not Girly”: Rural Service Providers’ Perceptions of Fathering, Masculinities, and Intersectionality.” Children and Youth Services Review 115: 105095.

54.

Morris

C. A.

2019. “The Significance of Friendship in UK Single Mothers’ Intimate Lives.” Families, Relationships and Societies 8 (3): 427–443.

55.

Nash

2018. “Addressing the Needs of First‐Time Fathers in Tasmania: a Qualitative Study of Father‐Only Antenatal Groups.” Australian Journal of Rural Health 26 (2): 106–111.

56.

Neale

Tarrant

. 2024. The Dynamics of Young Fatherhood. Policy Press.

57.

Pasley

Petren

R. E.

Fish

J. N.

. 2014. “Use of identity theory to inform fathering scholarship.” Journal of Family Theory & Review 6 (4): 298–318.

58.

Potter

Olley

. 2012. Engaging Fathers in the Early Years: A Practitioner's Guide. Bloomsbury Publishing.

59.

Preston

2024. “‘I Try to Do Something a Bit Different’: Exploring Fathers’ Integration of Care Ethics in Everyday Family Lives.” Families, Relationships and Societies 1 (aop): 1–16. doi:10.1332/20467435Y2024D000000016.

60.

Randles

2018. ““Manning Up” to Be a Good Father: Hybrid Fatherhood, Masculinity, and US Responsible Fatherhood Policy.” Gender & Society 32 (4): 516–539.

61.

Randles

2020. “The Means to and Meaning of “Being There” in Responsible Fatherhood Programming with Low‐Income Fathers.” Family Relations 69 (1): 7–20.

62.

Ranson

2015. Fathering, Masculinity and the Embodiment of Care. Springer.

63.

Robertson

Woodall

Henry

, et al. 2016. “Evaluating a Community-Led Project for Improving Fathers’ and Children’s Well-Being in England.” Health Promotion International 33 (3): 410–421.

64.

Schoppe‐Sullivan

S. J.

Fagan

. 2020. “The Evolution of Fathering Research in the 21st Century: Persistent Challenges, New Directions.” Journal of Marriage and Family 82 (1): 175–197.

65.

Schrock

Schwalbe

. 2009. “Men, Masculinity, and Manhood Acts.” Annual Review of Sociology 35 (1): 277–295.

66.

Schwalbe

2020. “The Spirit of Blumer's Method as a Guide to Sociological Discovery.” Symbolic Interaction 43 (4): 597–614.

67.

Schwalbe

Mason-Schrock

. 1996. “Identity Work as Group Process.” In Advances in Group Processes, edited by Markovsky

Lovaglia

Simon

, Vol. 13, 115–149. JAI Press.

68.

Scott

2005. “The Red, Shaking Fool: Dramaturgical Dilemmas in Shyness.” Symbolic Interaction 28 (1): 91–110.

69.

Smith

Youssef

G. J.

Shatte

Teague

S. J.

Knight

Macdonald

J. A.

. 2022. ““you Are Not Alone”: A Big Data and Qualitative Analysis of Men's Unintended Fatherhood.” SSM-Qualitative Research in Health 2: 100085.

70.

Tarrant

Way

Ladlow

. 2024. “Increasing Father Engagement Among Minoritised Fathers Through Proactive Service Support and Outreach: Insights From a Participatory Pilot Study.” Community, Work & Family 28: 686–703.

71.

Vaccaro

C. A.

2011. “Male Bodies in Manhood Acts: The Role of Body‐Talk and Embodied Practice in Signifying Culturally Dominant Notions of Manhood.” Sociology Compass 5 (1): 65–76.

72.

van Doorn

Dye

De Gracia

M. R.

. 2021. “Daddy Issues: Friends Rather Than Fathers Influence Adult Men's Hegemonic Masculinity.” Personality and Individual Differences 171: 110467.

73.

Vaynman

M. J.

Sandberg

Pedersen

. 2020. “‘Locker Room Talk’: Male Bonding and Sexual Degradation in Drinking Stories.” Culture, Health and Sexuality 22 (11): 1235–1252. doi:10.1080/13691058.2019.1670864.

74.

Vidmar

C. M.

2024. “Undermining the Moral Obligations of Manhood Acts.” Symbolic Interaction 47 (3): 317–341.