Abstract
Many surveys and interviews have elicited male practitioners’ views about gender balance in the early childhood education and care workforce, and few have explored in depth the context to such work choices, whether economic, cultural, social or personal. A life history approach was employed to provide a retrospective account by six early childhood education and care professionals of their lives and some of the influences on these. They varied in job role, in organisation that employed them and in their ages ranging from 20 to 60 years. Being at different stages of their life course, some had lived through considerable societal change in education, job choice, attitudes and values. The life history approach also offered a means to explore broader questions about their professional development, links between life and work that rose above the individual voice to represent the profession that participants had chosen.
Keywords
Introduction
As observed by Tomlinson (2013), early childhood education and care (ECEC) has been predominantly a female profession for over a century. Bartlett (2015) noted that despite decades of attempts to achieve a greater gender balance in many professions, the ECEC workforce has lagged behind with no more than 2 per cent of staff in England being men. Across Europe, rates of participation have varied from less than 1 per cent to considerably more in Denmark where 6 per cent of staff in infant–toddler centres and 10 per cent in kindergartens are men (Oberhuemer et al., 2010). Reasons given for this have ranged from perceived low public esteem for the work and long working hours to low pay and lack of career advancement (Cameron, 2013; Cremers et al., 2010; Emilsen and Koch, 2010; Rolfe, 2006; Sataøen, 2010).
The previous small survey conducted by Jones (2016) of 31 male practitioners in ECEC however found the majority of respondents highly qualified, provided with opportunities for career progression and relatively well paid. While they recognised workforce conditions as a potential barrier to attracting men into ECEC, none of them referred to such conditions as a factor influencing their entry into the workforce. At the same time, they acknowledged the need to improve qualifications, career routes and work conditions in order to encourage more men into the field. As was evident in a study investigating the experiences of male ECEC practitioners in Greece by Rentzou and Ziganitidou (2009), respondents’ reasons for working with children were not associated with extrinsic motivations but instead were inspired by a love of childhood, the ability to create relationships and the potential to impact the lives of those they worked with. They emphasised the benefits of providing children male role models that were nurturing, capable and caring.
Despite the many surveys and interviews that have elicited male practitioners’ views about gender balance in the ECEC workforce and the benefits to children of growing up surrounded by caring men and women, few have explored in depth the reasons, whether economic, cultural, social or personal. A life history approach that provided a retrospective by the individual of his life in whole or part (Tierney, 2000) seemed well suited to address the following questions.
Research questions
The research questions are as follows:
What retrospective account can a male ECEC practitioner offer of his life as he experienced it?
What sense does the practitioner himself make of this to gain greater understanding?
Theorising gender
A variety of theoretical perspectives for researching men and masculinities have evolved that influence the construction of masculinities. Connell (2005) has urged a move beyond the study of masculinities locally and individually towards a rethinking of masculinity in terms of macro-contexts. This demands a focus on structure, institutions and processes that underpin and influence masculinities in societies, and hence draws attention to the major socialising institutions of the family, the educational system and workplace. From this perspective, gender may be regarded as a dynamic process that emerges in and through everyday practices and relations.
Holter (2005: 25) drew attention to distinctions made between male dominance, specifically men’s use of gender power and patriarchy (societal and social structures of oppression) to explore a structural gender equality/inequality perspective. He noted that historical changes in forms of patriarchy have led over time to a decrease in discrimination in contexts such as the United Kingdom that has equality legislation (Department for Education (DfE), 2014) though still with ‘hidden’ power structures. Thus, while a minority of men at the top may still benefit from patriarchal privileges, non-privileged men may seek to compensate by emulating their dominant gendered behaviour.
Holter (2005) identified a ‘hegemonic femininity’ where women actively create gender segregation and turn men into ‘stereotypical (male) representatives’. Meanwhile, men may ‘distance’ themselves from feminine standards and yet enjoy ‘role freedom’ to take on caregiving activities and express feelings. Indeed, he outlined how men and masculinities feature in various threads of feminist thinking, helping to create the field of masculinity by questioning man’s appropriation to themselves of cultural ideologies that favoured men, that social institutions reflected and that men as a group benefitted from subordination of women as a group.
More recently, Buschmeyer (2013) has argued for the construction of an ‘alternative masculinity’ among men in the childcare profession. The suggestion of Buschmeyer and Lengersdorf (2016) was that a younger generation is committed to a variety of feminist and gender critiques other than those associated with hegemonic masculinities. This incorporates the relation between hegemonic forms of masculinity and non-hegemonic masculinity as well as the relation between hegemonic masculinities, masculinity forms that support and strengthen hegemonic masculinity and those that resist and challenge hegemonic masculinity. Suffice it to say, hegemonic masculinity is challenged by the appearance of new legitimate forms of masculinity that reflect the dynamic nature and ever-changing notions of gender.
Empirical studies
Over the last 15–20 years, empirical studies investigating the composition of the ECEC workforce, particularly the experiences of male ECEC practitioners, have been varied in scale and in research methods employed, as well as in the aims and research questions addressed. Moreover, the studies have arisen from different social and political contexts of England, Europe and other parts of the world. Despite this, analysis of the findings reveals common themes and similarities that offer insight into the practice of male ECEC practitioners in England and elsewhere. Themes relate to professionalism and reform; recruitment and retention; gender distribution; allocation of tasks and activities; and views on men’s roles and professional practice by the public, other professionals, parents and children themselves from studies in England, Europe and beyond.
Studies have been characterised by reported poor work conditions, low pay salaries, poor career progression and low status of ECEC work (professionalism and reform theme, Cameron, 2013; Cameron et al., 1999; Cremers et al., 2010; Sataøen, 2010; Sumsion, 1999). This, it was reported, deterred men from entering the field and also encouraged male practitioners to consider alternative career options with more favourable conditions (recruitment and retention theme, Cameron et al., 1999; Emilsen and Koch, 2010; Erden et al., 2011; Rentzou and Ziganitidou, 2009; Rolfe, 2006; Vandenbroeck and Peeters, 2013). While male school pupils reported disinterest in a job within ECEC, those who did work in the field had entered the workforce later on in their career trajectories, sometimes influenced by family members’ occupations (gender distribution theme, Cameron et al., 1999; Emilsen and Koch, 2010; Erden et al., 2011; Rentzou and Ziganitidou, 2009; Rolfe, 2006; Vandenbroeck and Peeters, 2013) . Once in their roles, male practitioners tended to work with older children, with only a minority working directly with very young children (allocation of roles theme, Buschmeyer, 2013; Nentwich et al., 2013; Sumsion, 2000; Warin, 2006). Reported practices of male practitioners were considered to be different from female counterparts with repeated reference made to the tendency for men to engage in physical activities and interactions with children in their care. In emphasising difference between male and female practitioners, based on essentialist notions of gender, allocation of tasks and roles was reflective of the traditional division of labour between men and women. As such, the value of male practitioners as role models was emphasised, yet there were inconsistencies regarding what this might entail (views on men’s roles theme, Brandes et al., 2015; Brody, 2014; Brownhill, 2014; Cameron et al., 1999; Vandenboek and Peeters, 2013). However, in a study on sex roles of male and female caregivers within ECEC in the Netherlands, Polanen et al. (2017) found entirely the opposite to be the case; male and female staff shared similar interaction styles and roles (also see Brandes et al., 2015).
Methodology
The life history approach adopted has meant many things to many people (Tierney, 2000: 539). Tierney described it as a biographical method elicited or prompted by another person, ‘an individual’s very personal view of his experience as he understands it’. It provides a portal or entryway through which the listener or reader (or researcher) might understand a culture different from their own and a process through which the researcher and reader come to understand the means by which someone else makes sense of the world (Tierney, 1998). The researchers’ role was thus to understand the conditions in which the participants, in this case, male ECEC practitioners, lived and worked.
Methods
Participants
At the time of the previous survey (Jones, 2016), our 31 participants were asked whether they would be willing to participate in life history interviews in order to gain the male practitioners’ own personal accounts of their life and work experiences. A total of six confirmed a willingness to take part. The six participants were all white, varied in age group and drawn from a range of professional groups, different types of ECEC settings though each had different job roles within the field of ECEC. Table 1 presents a profile of the six male practitioners who participated in the life history interviews.
Profiles of life history participants.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Instrument used
The researchers identified specific topics to explore (see Table 2), taking account of themes emerging from a review of literature. This ensured that while there was a level of structure to the interviews, the interviewees had the opportunity to steer the interviews in their own direction. While the key topics addressed specific stages within participants’ careers, there was flexibility in the approach adopted to account for individual narratives and for emerging themes to be explored. The linear frame was not intended to suggest sequential movement of experience but rather offered a means to help define how the past was constructed.
Life history topics.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Procedure
Participants were assured of anonymity throughout the research process and asked for their agreement for the interviews to be recorded to ensure completeness and fidelity. Their multiple work commitments were acknowledged and so a single session was requested from each participant at a time and place of their choosing. Each interview lasted approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes.
Analysis
Chase (2011) identified a sub-type of qualitative inquiry that is distinguished by its biographical aspect as a form of narrative inquiry revolving round an interest in life experiences by those who live them. Mean-making through shaping or ordering experience was intended to highlight what could be learned about the narrated lives of ECEC practitioners, as well as their lived experience. Accordingly, the researchers’ role was to document the individual narrator’s biography, address family life, education and work experiences and also to identify broader events and common themes that emerged. Chase stressed that understanding could be gained from content analysis of narrated lives, those of the individual and the group, in order to get different views and explore events leading up to the current situation. Having different accounts and perspectives enabled her to interpret puzzling aspects of life interviews and revealed the reflexive interplay between the narrative account and the wider social environment, in our case, the role of men and related to work conditions. Drawing on the approach of Chase (2011), content analysis was applied across the narrated lives. This revealed key themes that reflected a shaping or organising of experience in stages of individual histories (early life experience, education, experience of fatherhood, reflections on career choices and career trajectories) as well as broader reflections on the wider social environment related to men in childcare (the role of men in ECEC, the benefits of their participation and strategies to increase participation). Having gained a broad understanding from the content analysis, it was possible to examine individual differences within or across the group. Accordingly, each theme has been presented to reflect individual experience within the context of the group of six to allow for comparison and contrast.
Ethical considerations
While the research was conducted in accordance with the British Psychological Society’s (BPS) (2009) Code of Ethics and Conduct with respect to conduct, confidentiality and informed consent, so far as possible, a situated approach to ethics was adopted to take account of ongoing or unanticipated ethical considerations. Data collection from life history has been described by Goodson (2001) as a ‘grounded conversation’. This allowed topics to be explored through dialogue with the researcher who at times shared her own experience, with a focus on establishing common ground in terms of professional interest and expertise as well as establishing a positive and trusting relationship. Goodson and Sikes (2001) argued for research which ‘explores and takes account of different objective experiences and subjective perspectives’ (p. xi). The life history interviews focused on the story the individual narrated about events and experiences within their lives as a reflexive process that was rich and contextualised.
Results
Early life experiences
When discussing own early life experiences, participants referred to occupations of parents and other family members who had worked within education or within the specific field of early childhood.
Table 3 indicates that the mothers of five participants worked within teaching or preschool education, while the mother of the sixth worked within a hospital. Four participants (Iain, Alan, Simon and Peter) referred to their wives’ experience of working within education, and David referred to his sisters’ recent decision to train as a teacher. Two participants (Simon and Jack) attended their mothers’ settings during early childhood.
Family members’ occupations.
Three participants (Alan, Peter and David) referred to parents’ occupations as an early influence on career aspirations. Alan commented, ‘I suppose you look at your parents and say, well, I’m going to do something like that’. Peter observed, ‘well, I wanted to be like Dad, didn’t I?’ David decided he wanted to be a teacher because his mother was training to be a teacher during his early childhood. In contrast, Iain referred to his recent influence on his mother’s career choice – ‘she’s followed in my footsteps, she would have been employed into after-school clubs about the time I was working in a very similar role’.
Only two participants (Jack and David) referred to early career aspiration of working within education. Jack referred to a desire to work in ECEC towards the end of his junior school career, while David recalled a love of ‘playing teachers’. The remaining four participants described early career aspirations that were unrelated to ECEC. For example, Iain referred to a desire to be a bank manager, Alan remembered being unsure about his early career aspirations, Simon wanted to be a footballer and disc jockey and Peter wanted to be a doctor, like his father.
Two participants (Simon and Jack) referred to opportunities for work experience with young children during secondary schooling, both as a result of their own networks and connections. Iain and David gained experience with young children in a primary school. Iain spoke of 2 weeks of work experience, and David enjoyed work experience within a primary school as a receptionist, initiated by his mother who worked in the school. Peter and Alan did not refer to any opportunities in related work experience.
None of the participants engaged in work experience offered by their secondary school relevant to ECEC, nor did they describe any promotion of ECEC as an option for work experience.
Education
All participants referred to difficulties in obtaining either General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) or ‘Advanced’ level qualifications that had impacted upon their decision to enter further or higher education. Two participants (Iain and Jack) described disappointment at their GCSE grades, while four participants (Alan, Simon, Peter and David) had a similar reaction to their ‘A’ level grades. At this stage, only Alan decided to enrol for ECEC training, achieving a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) Level 3 in childcare.
Difficulty in obtaining external examinations did not deter participants from seeking relevant qualifications at a later stage. Since leaving school, five participants gained a range of qualifications relating to ECEC. Iain completed a part-time undergraduate degree programme and then enrolled on a Graduate Teacher Programme. After completing his NVQ Level 3 qualification in childcare, Alan gained Early Years Professional Status (EYPS). Simon had no relevant ECEC qualifications. Jack had not completed additional training since gaining the NVQ Level 3. Peter achieved a master’s degree, and David completed National Professional Qualification in Integrated Centre Leadership (NPQICL) training before completing his master’s qualification.
Experiences of fatherhood
Four participants (Iain, Alan, Peter and David) referred to the birth of their own children and fatherhood as significant influences on their ECEC work. Simon and Jack had not yet had children.
Participants felt that their experience as fathers had influenced their decision to work with young children. Iain believed that it influenced his day-to-day work within the field and vice versa. He felt that he utilised fatherhood experiences within his work because he had not previously worked with children under the age of five. Alan believed that fatherhood experience was directly related to his decision to work with children in partnership with his wife – ‘it shows you that our background to thinking about children is something very precious and special … That’s how we feel about all of the children in our settings’.
Career trajectories
Describing career trajectories, five participants (Iain, Alan, Jack, Peter and David) referred to a number of job transitions, within and outside of ECEC. Iain reported previous work as a hotel receptionist and customer-service bank assistant. Becoming bored, he enrolled on a Graduate Teacher Programme. This resulted in his successful application for a primary teacher position and work within a variety of roles, including physical education coordinator and information and communication technology coordinator. However, he did not see ‘any progression because of the small size of the school’. He felt part of a stable workforce but also recognised that many of his (predominantly female) colleagues had worked there for over 25 years and had ‘no plans to leave’. When he considered applying for a deputy head teacher position within this school and learned of similar intentions of a female colleague, he resigned from his job.
Alan initially worked as a computer programmer and was later employed by International Business Machines (IBM). Meanwhile, his wife registered as a childminder within their family home. Due to the nature of his job, Alan began working from home and ‘was very much part and parcel of what was going on there’. By the time 16 children were attending his wife’s provision, they bought a building from which to run a day nursery. Alan became increasingly involved in their nursery business – ‘we both wanted to work together … We wanted to do something with children and that became more of a passion’. He resigned from his IBM job and quickly progressed from assisting with his wife’s childminding business into a management position within the nursery, having gained EYPS.
Simon became interested in gap-year experiences offered by European youth-work organisations and worked at a preschool in Poland. Having enjoyed this experience, he applied to teach English within summer camps for children from 6 years of age. On completion of his gap year, Simon worked within a supermarket and enrolled on a 2-year foundation degree in music production. In his second year, Simon decided to return to Poland to continue to work with children. During this time, he met his wife and returned home for their wedding. Simon and his wife began applying for jobs as teaching assistants. Both applied for and were offered a job within the same nursery. Simon thought, ‘there’s a job, it’s not sitting in front of a computer screen for eight hours a day and I don’t have to wear a suit – sign me up’.
On completion of his NVQ Level 3 college course, Jack applied for jobs within day nurseries. He was successfully appointed as a nursery nurse and worked within a setting for a time. He resigned from his job however because ‘they were just getting me to do handy-man jobs like a bit of gardening, a bit of “DIY” and I thought, well, that’s not childcare’. Subsequently, Jack was appointed as a nursery nurse at another day nursery.
Peter enrolled on a 3-year teacher-training course with his wife. Having completed his course, Peter entered his first primary teaching position ‘in a very rough area’ and contemplated resigning within a week. He remained within this job for longer than anticipated and later was appointed as a drama teacher in a newly formed secondary school. He was later appointed at another secondary school to teach children with additional needs.
Later, he was appointed as deputy head teacher in a primary school. Among the staff, ‘there was a good mixture of genders and a good social mix’. However, he was ‘quite young to be in that position’ and encountered varying reactions from colleagues. During this period, Peter trained for a head teacher qualification and was successfully appointed to an acting head teacher post which lasted one term. During the 1990s, however, he felt that ‘education just started changing and became something I no longer recognised and I no longer wanted to be a part of it’. He eventually left his teaching career and began to work within an educational research team.
David worked as a primary school lunchtime supervisor at the age of 19 and later as a play-worker within after school clubs. His play-worker role lasted for 12 months before he helped to set up a new after school club. He eventually became the manager of this provision. After 3 years, David worked as a nursery officer in a maintained school. He then applied for a position as a child development worker and resigned from his job as nursery officer. After 9 months as a child development worker, he realised that it was ‘dreadfully dull and didn’t offer the same areas of interest and stimulation’. Later, David applied for a job as director of a charity and worked within this role for 18 months and engaged in community-focused and community-led programmes to reduce stress and isolation of vulnerable children and families. However, David became less confident about the continued financial support for the charity and subsequently resigned. He was successfully appointed as a Sure Start children’s centre leader and, later, cluster leader.
Current job roles and responsibilities
Of the six, three (Alan, Simon and Jack) directly worked with children on a face-to-face basis within nursery provision. Alan referred to himself as a nursery owner, responsible for 500–600 children and 90 staff. Simon referred to himself as a nursery assistant working with preschool children on a daily basis but considered this as secondary to his role and responsibility as a ‘Christian who works with children’. Jack worked with preschool children, although he had recently focused on children from birth to 2 years of age in order to extend his experience. During his early experiences with children, he reported that he was a ‘little too enthusiastic’ and had to be calmed down by the female staff.
The three remaining participants worked indirectly with children, working instead alongside adults. Two participants worked within children’s centres, Iain as an education manager, while David as a children’s centre area manager. They described complex roles that involved multiple responsibilities. Iain managed ‘twenty-five children and twenty-five staff … predominantly female’, which was ‘a lot harder than I expected’. David described that his responsibility for ensuring statutory obligations and targets were met in preparation for Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted). He also took a ‘lead role in early health’, focusing on public-health transition work. David considered himself to have a citywide strategic responsibility.
Peter, as with Iain and David, worked primarily alongside adults. He described his role as ‘self-employed early-years consultant’. He was no longer working directly with young children because ‘my hearing has deteriorated and I’m in situations where they can’t communicate with me and that’s frustrating for them as much as it is for me … I would rather take myself out of that and work with adults’. In this role, Peter was engaged in strategic planning with senior Local Authority officers.
In terms of future career intentions, five participants intended to remain within the ECEC field; however, two participants suggested that they were unlikely to remain within their current job roles. Iain observed that there was ‘a lot of (job) uncertainty … around children’s centres … so I am in the process of looking at other options’. Simon intended to explore alternative options to ECEC work, ‘not even a career, just a job’ though he suggested that he might consider a job within education.
Jack had not worked within ECEC for long and intended to remain within his current job. That said, ‘there is a part of me that wants to look at working within entertainment as my friends are entertainers on cruise ships’. Peter exclaimed ‘I won’t go anywhere else, there is too much I am still interested in. Why would I want to? I’m just fascinated by the whole sphere really’. David was unsure about future intentions. He was ‘fairly de-motivated at the moment’ due to approaching a ‘certain age’ and asked himself– ‘do I want to do this for another twenty-five years? Where is it going to lead me? What’s it going to give to me?’ Asked if he definitely intended to remain within the ECEC field, he replied ‘well, that’s what I thought but I don’t know now. I’m looking at other things’. He reflected on earlier interests in teaching and stated that this left ‘had an itch that never quite went away’ and wished he had pursued a career in schools and become a head teacher.
Wider reflections on the role of men in ECEC
Surveillance
Participants considered the role of men in society, the positive aspects and challenges of working with young children. In relation to challenges, all participants emphasised concern regarding societal reactions to their career choice, specifically within the context of increased surveillance of men in relation to young children.
Peter referred to the ‘social fear’ of men working with young children, ‘fanned by the wretched newspapers’ and creating a ‘social badge that says you are strange if you want to work with young children’. He reported the impact of this on his own ECEC work– ‘at my infant school, I actually said to my staff every time I comfort a child, every time I am saying well done to a child I risk my job’. Meanwhile, a parent became uneasy about Jack working within his nursery and asked the manager ‘is he [the male practitioner] … ok?’
Traditional roles of men and women
Five participants referred to traditional roles of men and women when reporting the challenges of working in ECEC. They identified the traditional association between women (as mothers) with education and care of young children. Alan suggested that ‘historically, man is the breadwinner, goes out to work while mum is at home looking after the children, cleaning, cooking and washing’. Iain referred to the traditional notion that ‘men go out to work and pay the bills and the women stay at home and are the ones who have to readjust their lives to suit the needs of the family’.
Work conditions
Five participants identified current work conditions as a challenge in the sector. Iain considered ECEC to be a ‘poor industry to work in’ and regarded this as a significant issue for men who are ‘the main support of the family’. Two referred to the low status associated with ECEC work. Peter commented, ‘society has forgotten how important childhood is and how important old age is. We have been seduced by the delights of the ages in between’.
Two participants reported a lack of career progression as a challenge. Simon commented, ‘I’m not sure if it’s something that is able to get the most out of me, it takes what I’m good at and uses that, but doesn’t then stretch it’. Iain considered potential career progression and commented that there was ‘no fluid pathway into anything’.
The benefits of working in ECEC
The difference between men and women
Considering the benefits of working in ECEC, four participants suggested that men brought something different to ECEC work. For example, Iain commented, everyone can bring something to the table but I do think that men offer something different from women, like men’s interests and hobbies and things that are different from females. I think their outlook on life is different from females, their personalities …
For Alan, the differences between male and female practitioners related to the language used within settings: men and women interact differently, men use language differently from women. Without stereotyping, women tend to have a more nurturing manner which talks down to children … they keep the language lower but also in the way that they interact with them.
Jack considered men and women had different interests within ECEC settings, while Peter stated, ‘everybody is an individual we are all different, there may be similarities but even identical twins are different’.
Single-parent families
Three participants referred to the role of male and female practitioners within the context of single-parent families. Iain commented, ‘in this day and age when there are more and more separations and divorces happening, children are not seeing father figures as much … I think the more males they come into contact with for positive reasons the better really’.
Alan also referred to a lack of father figures within families in England, and Peter contrasted the current lack of consistent father figures in children’s lives in comparison to experiences within his own childhood.
Strategies to increase participation
Participants considered strategies to encourage participation of men in ECEC. Iain felt that a clear developmental pathway for practitioners might encourage men to enter the workforce. Alan considered the benefits of men in ECEC within the wider concept of diversity; however, he shared concern regarding previous approaches to this: it very much annoys me when we get held to account for somebody to come and count the number of pictures of black people on the wall and say that’s fine. It’s just tokenism, it’s absolutely ridiculous so that’s where my passions come from for having men involved in the workforce and it is about diversity.
Alan identified the need to influence culture and change attitudes within society and inside the sector. He suggested that ‘we try to build a culture that says it’s normal for men to be part of the workforce and it is expected that men and women work together to provide care for children and families …’ Alan called for increased promotion of success stories of male professionals particularly within schools’ careers advice: let’s get some proper careers advice, let’s get into schools and talk to children about what they may or may not want to do and the fantastic opportunity … to use their skills and talents with children and then to build courses that are appropriate for boys … Get them support in a workplace, mentors and experience of working in places that are going to support them and make them succeed rather than excluding them so that they drop out along the way.
Alan called for increased government priority to be given to increasing the number of men in ECEC: someone needs to draw up an action plan to say we will address the culture inside the sector, outside the sector, look at men, look at young men, look at older men, look at training, look at all of those bits and pieces, put them together and run some models and just say, do it as a pilot. It’s not rocket science.
Simon focused on the need for funding to support strategies to promote ECEC and felt that efforts to increase the number of men in ECEC would be limited without this. Simon considered the idea of male-only ECEC training courses. He commented, I think men-only things, classes, are brilliant and it’s really, really working but I think there need to be more. I think even in colleges when the girls are doing their childcare course, that there is a boys’ childcare course as well.
Jack disagreed, ‘it’s making out that the guys need more because it makes it sound like it’s stereotyping all females because they already know how to work in childcare’. Peter referred to the importance of raising salary and qualification levels in order to ‘make people aware of the importance of ECEC’. He reflected on the European and international context, stating, ‘if you look at a society that has a strong community and family ethic, there is less of an issue around men being involved in ECEC. I mean, why wouldn’t men be involved?’ David referred to the ability to progress from roles such as a nursery assistant to ECEC leadership roles and the need to promote such progression. He commented, we need to do something to reduce that inequity in skill expectation and we need to be working with children as early as we can and influencing them for the future, yet we only invest in such a small part of the training.
Discussion
The first question – what retrospective account of his life as he experiences it can a male practitioner offer – allowed participants to reflect on the course their life had taken so far and some of the influences on this. Given that participants’ ages ranged from less than 20 (Jack) to at least 60 years (Peter), they were at very different stages of their life course and some had lived through considerable societal change in education, workplace and job choice, attitudes and values.
In terms of primary socialisation, Iain, Alan, Peter and David, all the older men, acknowledged the significance influence of family members and parental occupations on their life choices and experiences. Moreover, they all drew attention to the influence of wives and partners, the impact of the birth of their own children and the role of fatherhood on their own career aspirations. The young men, Jack and Simon did not refer to the role of the family.
With respect to secondary socialisation, specifically education, all six had been low-achieving boys at school and reported poor performance in external examinations. Nevertheless, Iain, Alan, Peter and David had all achieved graduate or post-graduate status. Jack had gained NVQ Level 3, but Simon had no relevant ECEC qualifications. In terms of work experience during formal schooling, only the young men Jack and Simon had had this opportunity during their more recent education.
Only one young participant (Jack) had nourished an early desire from primary school age for a career in ECEC, though he expressed some impatience with the hegemonic femininity he experienced in the ECEC workplace. Indeed, in the interview, he reported recently working with children from birth to 2 years of age, suggesting a caring masculinity that marked him out from the other participants.
The other participants had ‘chequered’ career paths characterised by employment within a variety of unrelated fields. Thus, ECEC emerged as an employment option that resulted from dissatisfaction with previous jobs and not part of a pre-planned career trajectory.
The second question – how does the practitioner make sense of this experience – provided a means to ‘raise issues from participants’ lives’ (Goodson and Sikes, 2001). Their own sense of identity was developed and described as each individual practitioner moved from family into the world of school and work. Fundamental to this was their implicit recognition that their own social identities and sense of selves were linked to culture and attitudes within the wider society and inside the ECEC sector itself. In this way, through decades, the older men were able to construct their own sense of self, including learning gender roles and ideas about what was appropriate for males and females that changed over time. As Alan noted, there was a need to build a culture that says, it’s normal for men to be part of the workforce and it is expected that man and women work together to provide care for children and families, understand that and so do the staff. Hopefully, public attitudes may be more supportive than in the past.
A central issue has been the low rate of participation in the ECEC workforce, and the participants offered a range of suggestions. Within the ECEC sector, as part of a wider diversity policy, clear developmental pathways for practitioners might encourage men to enter the workforce. Outside the sector, proper career advice and work experience would address the lack of relevant and targeted information and advice for men about the benefits and challenges of childcare careers. There was also thought a need for vocational training courses specially marketed and intended to support men. Employers had a responsibility to ensure workplaces were welcoming to men and to actively recruit them. As David suggested perceptions of men in ECEC had to be changed, he did not consider it happening ‘in his lifetime’.
Conclusion
Life history provided a method to explore both individual male practitioners with their different experiences and views as well wider commonalities within the group. At the same time, it offered a method to explore broader questions about professional development, links between life and work that rises above the individual voice to represent the profession the participants had chosen. As Connell (2002) noted, a structure of relationships interconnects gender regimes of home, school and workplace. This is the context in which the lives of men in ECEC are situated and in which their masculinities are constructed and enacted. From this perspective, inequality is a matter of society and men’s and women’s roles in society, not men and women themselves (Holter, 2005).
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Birmingham City University, which awarded a bursary for the research.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The Author received a studentship for doctoral research from Birmingham City University.