Tiempo Es uno de los factores más importantes para conseguir una adecuada adhesión y es un factor olvidado en la mayoría de las

177

Chapter 6 Conclusions

This thesis has argued that practitioners who work with children in ECEC settings in England are currently using contradictory gender-blind (Hogan, 2012) and gender essentialist scripts to discuss their perceptions of the impact practitioner gender has on approaches to play. This means that they are either unwilling or unable to critique the gender issues specific to their particular workforce such as the paucity of men who choose ECEC as a profession. This lack of critique could be a contributory factor to minimal movement (Mistry and Sood, 2015) of men into the sector. Furthermore, this thesis claims that more could be done to develop the ‘critiquing potential’ of the workforce.

The key contribution I make here is the assertion that, to develop this ‘critiquing potential’, it is vital that ‘gender sensitivity training’ (Warin, 2015) is introduced

for both those already working in the ECEC sector and those who are studying to become part of it. By giving the workforce, and future workforce, the opportunity and tools to question adopted ‘scripts’ (Burn and Pratt-Adams,

2015), they will have the skills to disrupt performative gender practices (Butler, 1990) in the workplace and support others who are trying to disrupt them. This disruption could lead to change in two distinct ways, one being the emergence of ‘gender flexible’ practitioners (Warin, 2017) and, therefore the other being,

178

‘Gender flexible’ practitioners (Warin, 2017) can describe men and women

working interchangeably both to meet the learning and development needs of the child but also to lead on effective play pedagogies. This would mean that they would no longer feel ‘policed’ (Butler, 1990) to behave in gender specific

ways but also they would be challenged in the pedagogy they provide. They would become practitioners who model ‘alternative forms of masculinities and

femininities, the value of a mixed gender workforce, and explicit gender teaching’ (Warin and Adriany, 2017, p. 375). Thisin turn would affect the status of men in ECEC so that they would no longer be perceived as ‘idealised’ or ‘demonised’ (Bhana and Moosa, 2016, p. 49). For example, they would not be seen as those who can bring the ‘missing pedagogy’ of outdoor, risky or rough and tumble play. Neither would they be seen in a ‘marginalised or subordinate way’ (Connell, 2005) as deficit practitioners lacking in the appropriate skill set

to work with young children.

Therefore, this thesis both builds on previous research and also contributes to new understandings of the gendered nature of the ECEC workforce, particularly in relation to play pedagogy. It develops previous work on the gender-blind discourses of ECEC practitioners (Hogan, 2012; Rohrmann and Brody, 2015) and offers new understandings about ‘gender flexible’ pedagogies (Warin and

Adriany, 2017). This latter concept could materialise through a more gender- balanced workforce and could also affect outcomes for young children and

179

transform the perception of the status of ECEC as low status, intellectually unchallenging ‘women’s work’ (Lupton, 2000, Osgood, 2009), addressing Tickell’s concerns about the negative impact for the workforce (Tickell, 2011)

because of the current gender imbalance.

Consideration of the limitations of the research and a reflection on the research process has been addressed in Chapter three (Methodology) (Trowler, 2016, pp. 34-35). The research was designed to capture practitioner views in the hope of working in a constructionist manner (Silverman, 2014, p. xxii) to build a researcher- participant understanding and work collaboratively with participants to make meaning and produce knowledge (Rapley, 2004, p. 27). The purpose was to look for the possible benefits of a more gender balanced ECEC workforce and contribute to a debate about effective practice when working with young children.

The findings therefore contribute to a discussion on the impact of men in the ECEC workforce. Practitioners used a contradictory discourse by claiming that there was little difference in gender approaches to play then continuing to describe observed variations in practice. For example, when explicitly questioned about differences, they used terminology such as ‘personality’ and ‘choice’ to explain any practitioner pedagogical variations using the ‘neoliberal

180

outlook’ often observed in the workplace when gender is discussed (Connell,

2011, p. 37). However, when questioned in depth about their own practices in play, often using their own photographs, they then inadvertently begin to unearth practitioner gender differences; sometimes these differences were seen as complimentary, sometimes they were seen as hierarchical.

The conclusions from my analysis of the data were arrived at using a combined inductive and deductive approach. The inductive approach has allowed me to make some contributory suggestions of a more practical and professional nature such as the introduction of ‘gender sensitivity’ training (Warin, 2015). On

the other hand, the deductive approach, using Connell (2005) and Synodi’s (2010) work as a lens, has allowed me to theory build and propose the notion that the male ECEC practitioner is in danger of being perceived as exhibiting the ‘most subordinate type of masculinity’ within Connell’s framework. He can

be viewed as subordinate to other men because he is engaged in ‘women’s work’ (Sargent, 2005), subordinate to women because he is not perceived to be

as skilled at this work as they are (Sahin and Sak, 2016) and subordinate to children because he has to take his instruction from them within a child-centred curriculum (Adriany, 2015). This perception is more than problematic if the workforce is seeking to recruit and retain more men; it is also a specific situation to those working with children from 0 to 5 for after this time a different curriculum

181

(DfE, 2013) is introduced in England which does not have child-centredness as its focus.

Through asking a small yet diverse selection of practitioners to share their perspectives both in interviews and in qualitative surveys, I have been able to build up a picture of some present practice in order to contribute on a more practical and professional level to the theoretical one outlined above. This contribution could be in the three different areas: recruitment, Higher Education curriculum and CPD (Continuing Professional Development). Instead of attempting to attract men into the ECEC workforce through images and metaphors which emphasise a ‘masculine specific practice’ (Warin, 2014a),

prominence could be given to recruitment initiatives where practitioners of different genders, ages, and ethnic backgrounds are shown working together, as well as with children, in ‘gender flexible ways’ (Warin and Adriany, 2017).

Images used could include both male and females risk taking together outside with children or role playing together with children in the indoor setting. In this way, the images would express a desire to recruit quality, yet diverse, practitioners flexible in the role they carry out and able to work in a collegial way with diverse colleagues.

182

My research can also usefully inform curriculum at Higher Education level for those considering a profession in the ECEC workforce. Indeed, I have already initiated this specific contribution at my own institution with undergraduate ECS (Early Childhood Studies) students; I have written and teach a level 5 module on gender issues in ECEC informed in part by this thesis. Here students can explore the problematic nature of ‘gender blindness’ (Hogan, 2012), the

limitations of both adopting gender role rigidity or positioning their colleagues in this way, and critically unpack how ‘gender flexible’ practices (Warin and

Adriany, 2017) could transform the world of ECEC particularly where different types of play are concerned.

In the same way, I have already had the opportunity to contribute to CPD work with practitioners, for example at the Men in Early Years conference (2017). Here we explored gender flexible practices in where and how practitioners choose to play. Other opportunities for CPD could centre on practitioner/child agency. It was never the intention of this research to examine the benefits or otherwise of a child -centred curriculum in ECEC; however, in this context it does have implications for the role of the adult. It may not necessarily be the nature of the EYFS (DfE, 2017) that is the barrier but rather the way it is being interpreted which impacts on practitioners and their sense of agency, or lack of.

183

Therefore, this thesis is able to offer some recommendations to those who work with the prospective ECEC workforce both in Further and Higher education. These recommendations are linked to the contribution outlined above and are:

i) Consider how recruitment initiatives reflect gender flexibility.

ii) Consider how study programmes for the ECEC workforce allow opportunities to critically explore the key concepts around gender, such as ‘gender blindness’ (Hogan, 2012), and link this to discussions of best

pedagogy.

iii) Consider how CPD for practitioners could centre on gender sensitivity training; Chapter 7 (Gender Sensitivity Training) will set out more explicitly what this CPD could involve.

.

This chapter has synthesised the conclusions arrived at in Chapter 5 (Discussion) to demonstrate how the research question can be answered and therefore the contribution this thesis makes. I have sought to close the ‘circle’

for the reader so that they too reach the end of this research journey convinced that conclusions reached are evidenced based and that, although they may not agree with all the research choices I have made, they are clear about my rationale for making them. The research asked: What perceptions do early years practitioners have about how their gender impacts on their approaches to play? It found conflicting responses to the question in that

184

practitioners both denied and highlighted differences in self-contradictory scripts. There was general agreement that children would miss out from not interacting with males and sometimes this was linked to specific pedagogical approaches. Further research on a much wider scale involving observation of practitioners and commentary on film footage of their practice may serve to more effectively move the debate forward. Of particular interest would be a focus on gendered approaches to agency within a play-based curriculum to build on this study’s contribution to knowledge regarding the role of a gendered

adult within child-centred pedagogy. This in turn could contribute further to discussions both on gender flexible pedagogies and also addressing gender imbalances on a much wider scale such as those at the far end of the ‘thinking about gender’ continuum.

The final chapter (Chapter 7) will focus on the key contribution that this thesis claims to make; it will consider the concept of ‘Gender Sensitivity Training’ by

185