Dutch Elementary School Children Enforcing and
Challenging Gender Boundaries
A qualitative study on children’s gender socialization within the educational setting.
Rosalie Töller (11199571) Master Thesis
Sociology: Gender, Sexuality & Society Faculty of Social & Behavioural Sciences University of Amsterdam
9th of July 2018
First supervisor: Dr. M. D. (Marci) Cottingham Second supervisor: Dr. M.P.C. (Marie-Louise) Janssen Word count: 24471
Table of contents
Preface ... 3
Summary ... 4
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Theoretical Framework ... 7
2.1 Children “doing” gender ... 7
2.2 “Doing boy” ... 9
2.3 “Doing girl” ... 12
2.4 Crossing gender boundaries within the school environment ... 15
3. Methodology ... 17
3.1 Research Design and Location ... 17
3.2 Data collection ... 17
3.3 Data Analysis ... 21
3.4 Bias and Ethical Considerations ... 22
4. Gender enforcement ... 25
4.1 Dutch elementary school boys “Doing Boy” ... 25
4.1.1 The Gendered Boy Body... 25
4.1.2 Wanting to be the Class Clown ... 28
4.1.3 I’m a Tough Boy ... 30
4.1.4 Case 1: Being a Feminine Boy ... 32
4.2 Dutch elementary school girls “Doing Girl” ... 35
4.2.1 The Gendered Girl Body ... 35
4.2.2 The Girl Hierarchy ... 40
4.2.3 Playing House ... 42
4.2.4 Case 2: Doing Tomboyish Asian Girl ... 45
5. Conclusion and Discussion ... 48
Bibliography ... 52
Appendix 1: Observation Guide ... 57
Preface
Proudly I present my Master thesis: Dutch Elementary School Children Enforcing and Challenging Gender Boundaries. A qualitative study on children’s gender socialization within the Dutch educational setting based on participant observations of life in the classroom and interviews with teachers. Due to the use of these methods I was able to examine how elementary school children gave meaning to gender and were “doing” gender in their own manner. The thesis was the last part within the graduation process for my Master’s degree in Sociology: Gender, Sexuality and Society at the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences at the University of Amsterdam. I want to thank the elementary school who was willing to let me conduct my research in one of their classrooms. In addition, I want to give a special thank you to all the teachers, especially the two class teachers, who received me into their classroom with open arms and all the wonderful children who I got to know in a short amount of time. Without their participation I was not able to conduct such an enjoyable and rewarding research. Furthermore, I want to thank my supervisors Marci Cottingham and Marie-Louise Janssen for your time, feedback and suggestions regarding my thesis which helped me tremendously in the process.
I hope you enjoy reading my master thesis!
Rosalie Töller 9th of July 2018
Summary
The aim of master thesis is to create a deeper understanding of how Dutch elementary school children enforce masculinity/femininity and how they challenge given gender boundaries within the classroom. Research in the field of gender socialization within early education has mostly focused on constructing one’s gender, took place outside of the Netherlands and was conducted years ago. Consequently new research was needed to explore new insights and to fill up the research gap within this field of study. The “Doing Gender” approach of West and Zimmerman (1987) and Bem’s (1983) Gender Schema Theory are integrated together to eventually analyse the gathered data. Two qualitative research methods, participant observation of the classroom life and in-depth interviews with teachers, were conducted in order to gain insights in the way boys and girls were doing gender in one particular elementary school classroom in the Netherlands. Results showed that girls in this particular classroom carried out different interpretations to femininity, where on the one hand they conformed to normative views on femininity, while at other times they resisted this by undertaking an active, dominant and empowered position. Boys on the other hand were the ones in this particular classroom who were mostly reproducing normative masculinity. By doing so they positioned themselves as dominant in relation to boys who were framed as weak. Surprisingly, the boys used humour as an addition to power to maintain dominance. In the presence of others boys they organised and modified their behaviour, contributing to keeping a social hierarchy in tack. Lastly, gender boundaries were challenged in particular by one boy and one girl. Whereas, the boy conformed to what appeared to be as a “sissy boy”, striking was that he was not sanctioned or stigmatized for his behaviour due to the normalization within the classroom. The girl on the other hand was resisting the hyper-feminine way of doing gender and conformed herself instead to the so called Asian femininity due to her quiet and compliant personality. Although she took on this passive and shy attitude, she was also presenting kind of this tomboyish attitude by playing with the boys group while also not embodying the “typical” boyish play behaviour. This study has illustrated that children have agency within the gender socialization process. Different situations and contexts gave children the possibility to enforce certain form of femininity and masculinity.
Key words: Gender Socialization, Femininity, Masculinity, Netherlands, Gender Boundaries, Agency, Doing Gender, Gender Schema Theory, Early Education
1. Introduction
The elementary school, is argued to be one of the most important and powerful sites when it comes to constructing and contesting one’s gender through interaction and play (Adler, Kless & Adler, 1992; Gansen, 2017; Martin, 1998; Renold, 2005). In the Netherlands children from the age of four are obligated to participate in education. This in turn gives young children the opportunity to display and challenge their gendered behaviour in relation to peers and teachers, creating their own gender norms and values within an educational context (Adler, Kless & Adler, 1992). Furthermore, by this age, children have already been shaped by the gendered environment they live in, before the socialization within the educational system has even begun (van Tubergen, 2015). Noticing this gendered behaviour in, for example, choosing to play with sex appropriate toys and preferring to play with same-sex classmates (Bem, 1993). Although, Dutch society is trying to challenge gender stereotypes1, society is
still highly gendered. Society has made gender one of its most important classifications, in which the emphasis seems to be on the gender binary (Bem, 1983), guiding institutions, one of them being the educational system, in their gender regime. Because children are spending a tremendous amount of their lives within this particular institutionalized setting, they are gaining knowledge about gender cultural values, gender appropriate attitudes and gender beliefs. The given gender boundaries could be seen as a fence (Thorne, 1993), by which children are being controlled in acquiring gender values and adapting their behaviour. In particular, children often experience pressure from their teachers and peers to behave in a gender appropriate manner (Maccoby, 2002). Therefore, these dominant meanings of gender, discipline children in their gender expressions (Gansen, 2017) and restrict their agency when understanding one’s gender. Nevertheless, children do take on an active role in “doing” gender, searching for cues about femininity and masculinity in producing their own gender identity (Bem, 1983; Martin & Ruble, 2004). Within school property playgrounds and play corners in the classrooms are essential areas where children are given the chance of “doing girl/boy” (Renold, 2005), organising their gendered behaviour (Blaise, 2005; Martin & Ruble, 2004). In the battle to create more gender equity in the future, it is relevant to study how children take on this opportunity within the Dutch educational setting.
In the social sciences, a significant amount of interest has been given to gender within the educational context. Research has focused (1) on how children use their bodies to become one’s gender (Martin, 1998), (2) how they construct and experience gender in school (Thorne, 1993), (3) how they are being influenced by the heterosexual gender discourses (Blaise, 2005), (4) how heteronormativity is expressed in the gender socialization process of teachers (Gansen, 2017) and (5) how children's perception of the child-teachers relationship is being shaped by their gender (Spilt et al., 2010). Although this subject has received notable attention from the media and the academic world, the
1 One example of challenging gender stereotypes is the HEMA department store who introduced gender neutral
common focus of these studies often is on the process of how children construct their gender within the educational environment. Because of this common focus, there is a knowledge gap on how children actually adapt to the restrictive gender dichotomy. How do the gender norms within the classroom actually influence the gendered behaviour of children, how do they conceive these norms and values and how do they eventually adjust and adapt their own gender identity? Instead of constructing their gender identity from nothing, children will always be socialized by their environment and normative conceptions, thus never start from a blanc page (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Besides, while it is argued that children take on an active role in this process, little acknowledgement is given to children’s agency in the more recent studies. Although, the study of Thorne (1993) does focus on how children challenge given gender boundaries, it needs to be taken into account that this research was carried out twenty-five years ago. When accounting for that gender relations tend to change over time, this study could be considered outdated. Furthermore, except for one research of Spilt et al. (2010), all other studies have been conducted outside of the Netherlands. In the study of Spilt et al. (2010), they have only focused on the relationship between teachers and children, and not on the peer relationship between children. However, both agents are key players in the gender socialization process of children they should be taken into account as such (Gansen, 2017; Thorne, 1993). In order to contribute to the field of gender socialization in early education, this master thesis will investigate the research gap of how children behave, resist and transform gender within the elementary school setting in the Netherlands. I will explore how gender enforcement is activated in one particular Dutch classroom through the use of classroom participant observations and interviews with teachers while integrating two approaches of West and Zimmerman’s (1987) “Doing Gender” and Bem’s (1983) Gender Schema Theory.
Based on prior literature my main research question is:
“How do Dutch elementary school children enforce masculinity/femininity and challenge gender boundaries within their play and interactions in the classroom?”
The main question is divided into four sub questions:
1. How do children characterize feminine practices and “doing girl” in their interactions and play? 2. How do children characterize masculine practices and “doing boy” in their interactions and play? 3. How do teachers negotiate, influence and navigate gender understandings within the classroom? 4. How do children perform disruptive/deviance behaviour, within their play and interaction, crossing normative gender boundaries?
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Children “doing” gender
In 1987, Candace West and Don Zimmerman, introduced the concept of “doing gender”, in which they defined gender as an act that is carried out within the ongoing interaction with others (West & Zimmerman, 1987), from which gender is the outcome (Morris, 2011). In this, gender is not a particular set of traits that women or men possess, but the “doing” of someone's gender is situated in the presence of others. In particular, the individual is performing and creating their gender while reflecting on the perceived gender behaviours of others and organise, reproduce and modify their own act regarding to this (West & Zimmerman, 1987). In performing one’s gender, the agency of the individual is leading, which makes gender fluid (Messner, 2000). It is not possible to escape doing gender. In every situation gender is relevant, because the individual is performing in masculine or feminine ways, while making itself the subject of evaluation (West & Zimmerman, 1987).2
Over the last decades there has been a shift in sociology, in which children are now positioned as active social agents, resulting in extension of research focussing on children (Christensen & Prout, 2002). Also, research on children and gender has been expanding and a relatively large amount of research has been done on gender within the educational context. One common topic is how children take on an active position within the educational setting and construct gender meanings arising from information received from everyday school life. Barrie Thorne (1993) examined in her study how children are actively constructing their gender within the classroom and school playground in the United States (Messner, 2000; Thorne, 1993). In the daily life of children, they are “doing” gender in their everyday interactions with others (West & Zimmerman, 1987). In a panopticon of doing gender (Brickell, 2003) children create gender meanings (Blaise, 2005). Therefore, in the educational setting children get the opportunity to take on an active role in regular play moments in the classroom and on the playground during the day, establishing their gender behaviour and identity (Davies, 1989). Specifically, Thorne developed the term “gender play” for this, in which the peer group life of children (re)creates gender meanings through their interactions (Messner, 2000; Thorne, 1993). It is argued that doing one’s gender is not just wholly voluntary but is linked to power dynamics in play and interactions of children through restrictment, violation and controlling (Walters, 1999). One of the major insights of Thorne’s (1993) research is that there is a variety in children performing gender within situations. In which children can at one moment participate in crossing sex play, whereas other times the gender boundaries are actively reinforced, when for instance boys come to disturb the play spaces or games of girls (Messner, 2000; Thorne, 1993). Nevertheless, these situations are occurring within the educational
2 I have chosen not to include Judith Butler’s Performativity in this thesis and focus on the “Doing Gender” theory
of West and Zimmerman, because performance and performativity could not been painted with the same brush. This is because performativity focuses more on the speech act and discursive assumptions while “doing gender” sees the actor as central and it includes not only interactions but also gender display and attribution (Brickell, 2003).
context in which gender is interconnected with rules and values (Connell, 1987). Although Thorne’s research gave a range of new insights, it needs to be taken into consideration that her study first of all took place in the United States and secondly the research was conducted two decades ago. Gender relations change over time but also the societal changes have an impact on gender meanings and beliefs. Individuals live in the present and due to this open-endedness different ways of doing gender will operate within society through time and context (Thorne, 1993).
Furthermore, children already learn from an early age, that gender categorization is an obligatory aspect within interaction with others which is mostly based on societal normalized conceptions of gender, the appropriate markers and expressions of masculinity and femininity (Bem, 1983; West & Zimmerman, 1987). Resulting in the child devotion to normative feminine and masculine forms (Blaise, 2005). On particular occasions, it is assumed that individuals perform the idealized behavioural gender notions, pressuring them to act in a socially appropriate manner. Nevertheless, the “doing” of gender approach does not specify their propositions and through this open-endedness it creates different interpretations of how masculinity and femininity is done in the educational context, only focusing on difference while excluding power and inequality. Therefore, gender actions are not only influenced by norms but also responsive to the situational aspects and power relations in the classroom life (Miller, 2002; Morris, 2011). The common though, is that children have a sense of agency regarding for instance free play activities within the classroom in which they are relatively free from the instructions or directions from the teachers or have the freedom to play with whom they want. Still they are not completely the sole participants of their fate because free play will always be supervised within the educational context due to norms and beliefs of the teachers (Wood, 2014). Besides, children’s play and activities are also influenced by the home context and their parents’ beliefs (Goncü, Mistry & Mosier, 2000). In turn, the “appropriate” values of teachers and parents define the degree of freedom that is allowed (e.g. school rules) while also influencing how children create their own meanings and guide children’s playing activities (Millei 2012, Wood, 2014). Choices that children make are mostly for their own purposes but often reflect on the wider cultural beliefs (Wood, 2014). Despite the fact that teachers have the power to socialize their students this does not mean that they are passive agents. All social relations should be taken into account instead of only focussing on the individual. The peer group life creates their own socialization process (Thorne, 1993). In playing with others, the child is self-regulating their “doing boy/girl” and taking this situation to deliberately carry out appropriate gender behaviour and is held accountable for his or her actions, reproducing gender norms (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Therefore, children read, codify and classify received information about masculinity and femininity and put this into a gender schema. Bem’s describes a schema as a cognitive structure from which the child organizes incoming information into a network. By doing so the child is guiding and assimilating itself to the relevant gender behaviours while giving meaning to this from their own perception. Besides, the child makes gender-linked associations based on the influence of his or her environment which have learned them which characteristics can be linked to their own gender. Bem
argues that the gender schema is depending on the social context in which it arises, so in this case the elementary school context will influence how children organize perceived gender cues (Bem, 1983).
Besides, in different contexts the reinforcement of certain feminine or masculine aspects will vary and are often not universal (Murphy & Gipps, 1996). Both Bem (1983) and West and Zimmerman (1987) emphasize that gender is dependent on the social context through interaction with others. Where West and Zimmerman (1987) argue that gender is the outcome within the ongoing interaction and is mainly based on the gender displays of others, Bem’s (1983) notion of a gender schema complements this by including the influence of cultural and situational context while the child is organizing all of this in their own schema which will guide, sustain and reproduce gendered behaviour. Interaction is one crucial way to exchange information. Moreover, children come to develop a readiness of this particular information in different context while organizing actions, displays, attitudes and attributes into their gender schema. The child is always scrutinizing what his or her peers and teachers are doing and what they acknowledge to be the most suitable behaviour (Bem, 1983). Boys and girls are learning, while displaying their gender, that certain cues and behaviours are associated with their gender and guide themselves by using their gender schema (Bem, 1983; Lucal, 1999). Because of this, children organize different forms of masculinity and femininity (Miller, 2002; Pyke & Johnson, 2003), and attach meaning to their social action in “doing gender” (Messerschmidt, 2002) within the educational context. Gender is thus a situated doing in the presence of others while the educational setting is a resource from which students reinforce certain forms of masculinity and femininity (Messerschmidt, 2002; Morris, 2011; West & Zimmerman, 1987).
2.2 “Doing boy”
The school setting, is a resource for boys for “doing boy”, and the context in which they can feel threatened and challenged while performing their masculinity (Connell, 1996; Morris, 2011). In constructing a more clear definition of “doing boy”, Connell’s (1995) concept of masculinity is useful. In 1995, Connell argued that masculinity could not be explained as a character or norm, but emphasis should be placed upon the fact that masculinity is relational and opposite to femininity, an ongoing process through which gender is created (Connell, 1995). In a sense, masculinity is something that boys and men do, also referred to as “doing masculine” (Peachter, 2006). Connell (1995) defines masculinity as:
“Masculinity, to the extent the term is possible to be defined at all, is simultaneously a place in gender relations, the practices through which men and women engage that place in gender, and the effect of these practices in bodily experience, personality and culture” (Connell, 1995, pp. 71).
Connell describes three alternate aspects from which masculinity could be defined. Firstly, masculinity is interpreted as the social location from which the individual moves in and out off. Secondly, the practices and traits individuals employ are referred to as being masculine. Lastly, in the embodiment of these practices, individuals contribute to the cultural and social understanding of these
concepts (Connell, 1995). In performing masculine actions, masculinity is (re)produced and used on the collective and individual level in society (Schippers, 2007). Therefore, masculinity is not fixed, but a dynamic process which changes over time (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2004). In addition, Connell (1995) argues that one overarching masculinity does not exist, but different forms of masculinity prevail in society, creating a social hierarchy. In this framework, masculinity happens in relation to other masculinities and femininity, a distinction between individuals is made contributing to a dominant-subordinate relationship. Hegemonic masculinity, is the first form in the hierarchy and coincidentally also the most dominant and admired (Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). It is contributing to the legitimacy of patriarchy, through the embodiment of particular practices like authority over subordinated masculinity and femininity (Connell, 1995). Hegemony is interpreted as an ideal set of traits, which only a small amount of males are able to possess (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Specifically, traits as being white, heterosexual, physical strength, authority, toughness, objectivity and suppressing emotions are defined as utilized characteristics (Connell, 1995; Morris, 2011; Murphy & Gipps, 1996; Schippers, 2007). It is a necessity to possess all these traits, in the process of becoming hegemonically masculine (Connell, 1995). In the educational setting, the playground is an important context in which sport and game situations give boys the opportunity to practice dominance, display strength, aggression and compete while embodying masculinity, like hegemonic masculinity, and for gender relations to arise (Davies, 1989; Connell, 1995; Renold, 2005; Thorne, 1993). Especially, sport moments are seen as occasions in which boys can construct bodily superiority over girls and non-athletic boys and girls (Messner, 2000). For instance, football, is a common activity on school playgrounds, which often dominates the shared playing space for children. Because of this, a division exists on the play area, in which one area is for football and the other area for “other”, often feminine activities. Boys, who are not interested in playing football are consequently put into the “otherness” space of the playground. In being forced to the side of girls, stereotypical name calling (e.g. sissy, baby, weak) is used to create a separation between masculine forms (Renold, 2005; Thorne, 2003). In addition, the boys who are playing the game and are competent players gain status and power among the other boys, by showing off their success (Renold, 2005). While using the “success” discourse within sports, these boys are being successfully “doing” masculinity while other boys are also trying to internalise this by participating in the same actions (Willis, 1977). In particular, comments about one’s skills or mastery of the game contribute to this form of hegemonic masculinity focussing on the physical component (e.g. competition, domination, toughness) (Connell, 1995; Messner & Sabo, 1994). Furthermore, boys showing of their toughness is contributing to the concept of “doing boy” (Renold, 2005). In internalizing physical and fighting behaviour, boys try to obtain hegemonic masculinity within the educational context, an aspect of hegemony which is easier to access for young boys (Renold, 2005; Thorne, 1993). In displaying their physical powers, boys are seen as tough. In turn, the playground is an important site for boys to perform their violent masculinities while playing games in which physical power and domination are key (Renold, 2005). Wood (2007) argues that boys are taught how to touch others
differently by their social environment than girls. Whereas, girls are learned that touching is something gentle and more nurturing, boys on the other hand learn to perceive it as a way to have control and power over others. In turn, this contributes to the expectation that elementary school boys will have a less gentle way of bodily interaction with other boys. In addition, these behaviours are not only leading on the playground, but also in the classroom interactions, where the toughness discourse is maintained. Due to this fact, they are telling stories in which they dare to take risks and therefore define themselves as being the tough boys. Besides, boys are trying to maintain themselves as pain free after fighting games (Renold, 2005). When boys are showing emotions, such as pain or sadness, they are framed as being weak or feminine (Renold, 2005, Thorne, 1993). Nevertheless, the division between playful and harmful games is often hard to distinguish. In harmful games, some boys perform dominance and oppress others. An unequal power relationship develops between the oppressor and the oppressed, which is usually connected to bullying (Renold, 2005). Besides, playful fighting is often discarded as a joke by both teachers and boys, through which being framed as a bully is avoided (Blackmore, 1995). Therefore, this violent playing behaviour becomes naturalised and tolerated by educators as typical boy behaviours (Renold, 2005).
Furthermore, in framing the hegemonic masculinity as distinct from femininity and subordinated masculinities, boys activity disassociate themselves from these two gender forms (Renold, 2005). Firstly, to maintain the dichotomy of masculinity and femininity, segregation in play and avoiding girls company in this is used by boys (Thorne, 1993). In framing girls as weak and incompetent, boys create an anti-feminine attitude (Walkerdine, 1990). Besides, since boys are excluding girls from their playground “boys” games, girls are often sanctioned by boys for their intellectual work and serious school attitude. By doing so, boys try to position themselves as better (Renold, 2005; Skelton & Francis, 2003). Therefore, boys are acting opposites from the stereotypical feminine discourses, in which girls are interpreted as weak and emotional, by framing themselves as superior. Especially, in situations when boys experience a threat to their hegemony, anti-feminine actions are used in their response (Renold, 2005). In addition, the classroom arrangements contribute to this gender binary as well as by, for instance, the seating arrangements and lining of children (Renold, 2005). Secondly, boys are disassociating themselves from “other” boys who are not able to assign to normative hegemonic traits and build on these subordinated masculinities (Connell, 1995). In particular, boys who avoid rough fighting games and disfavour playing sports, become a vulnerable target for bullying (Thorne, 1993). Often, they are being labelled as “nerdy” or the sissy, against rule breaking and preferably play fantasy games instead of sports (Renold, 2005; Thorne, 1993) in other words “doing” subordinated masculinity (Connell, 1995). For instance the sissy-boy syndrome, refers to boys who are being stigmatized because they ventured too far into feminine qualities (Thorne, 1993), contrasting to boys who are play-fighting and rule-breakers (Walkerdine, 1990). In framing other boys as sissies or fags, the unequal power relations between masculinities and sustained hegemony is getting
strengthened (Thorne, 1993). In relation to this first masculinity form, other masculinities have to locate themselves (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005).
However, there are also boys who are able to transgress masculine boundaries by engaging in both hegemonic activities and pro-school activities (e.g. interested in studying, but also participating in sport games), to prevent themselves from getting bullied (Renold, 2005). Such as complicit masculinity, the second form of masculinity, in which boys support the hegemony, but do not possess all the ideals themselves. Therefore, on the one hand, they meet the normative definition of masculinity and provide from the patriarchal dividend, while on the other hand, they do not challenge this system of patriarchy (Connell, 1995). Boys are “doing” complicit masculinity, while they do not fully possess all traits of hegemony, like not being physically strong and fast enough when playing games (Morris, 2011). Although these earlier studies argue for hegemony masculinity in the educational context through mainly focussing on physical powers, it leaves open other possible ways for boys to gain power in relation to their peers. Thirdly, marginalized masculinities are embodied by boys who are impotent to achieve hegemonic masculinity, while often still subscribing to the normative behaviour of hegemony they are unable to benefit from it. In often trying to subscribe to normative practices of hegemony, there for instance racial flaws make them unable to achieve hegemony (Connell, 1995). Therefore, in this masculinity form the relationship between boys is a result of race and class intersecting with gender (Schippers, 2007). Similarly to complicit masculinity, marginalized boys could feel the need to display these traits from hegemonic masculinity to gain success in sports, instead of academic success (Morris, 2008; Morris, 2011), because they often have an absence of other resources to obtain hegemony (Connell, 1996). Still it is not yet clear what kind of other flaws except from race and social class within the educational context could possibly play a role in the marginalization of boys. Lastly, the fourth form is subordinated masculinity defined as being the opposite of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995). Due to the fact that these males do not fit within the system, they are being referred to as “other” (e.g. homosexuals). Boys, who embody female qualities in school, such as being physically weak and emotional, are often being referred to as being a “sissy” and put into the “otherness” position (Connell, 1995; Thorne, 1993). Besides, the boys who act as the “class clown” or “troublemaker” pull all the attention to themselves, while the boys who are performing non-conforming masculine behaviour loose status (Adler, Kless & Adler, 1992). In conclusion, the masculinity framework from Connell (1995) can clearly connect to the enforced gender behaviour of boys “doing boy” within the educational context.
2.3 “Doing girl”
Where masculinity does not exist without femininity, girls embody different forms of femininity in the educational context, contributing to them “doing girl” (West & Zimmerman, 1987). In which the school gives girls the opportunity to produce multiple femininities (Renold & Allan, 2006). According to Connell (1987) hegemonic femininities do not exist. Femininity appears within masculine power structures, where compliance, nurturance and empathy are seen as female traits from which they are not
able to be hegemonic over other femininities (Connell, 1987). In this light, the femininities that are existing in society are created within a patriarchal system, in which females are framed as subordinated to male and because of this there is no form of femininity able to possess a hegemonic position. One way of femininity that Connell (1987) does refer to is emphasized femininity, in which females are (1) subordinated, (2) unequal to and only act in the interest of males, (3) passive and helpless, (4) cooperative, (5) emotional and (6) the subject (Blaise, 2005; Connell, 1987; Kessler & Mckenna, 1978; Murphy & Gipps, 1996). Firstly, the unequal power relationship between these two genders is a result of the patriarchal system, which still occurs in many societies today but it could be argued this is already tangible for younger girls also (Connell, 1995). Secondly, emphasized femininity is based on the thought that females are only good for male desires and reproductive purposes (Schippers, 2007). Societal pressures are put on females, in which emphasize is given to appear desirable for men. Also, already from a young age, girls get socialized on the importance of their physical appearance (Adler, Kless & Adler, 1992). Often, this form of femininity has also been characterized by females embodying the cultural oppressive meanings of feminine beauty, contributing to a disempowered position in relation to males (Messner, 2000). Therefore, in the upbringing of girls, in which emphasized femininity is taken as the norm, they most likely become submissive and unpowered within relationships. The idea that males take on the dominant role is naturalized. Yet it leaves open if girls in early education actually experience different positioning in relation to the boys already. Would their possible interest in appearance, position them less than boys or could it be argued that this specific aspect doesn’t yet play an important role within the power dynamics of the classroom? Thirdly, in turn young girls are exposed to ideas of being helpless. For instance through fairy tales which tell stories about how the prince saves the princess and lives happily ever after. In addition to the often widespread expectation for girls to play with dolls, beauty enhancement or in a domestic house setting subscribes to the embodiment of emphasized femininity (Messner, 2000). Such as, within girls interaction and play moments, “playing house” is a common theme, in which conforming to the domesticity is led to a passive role. Whereas, boys look for physical and social boundaries, girl play indoors and obey to play more intimate and cooperative, through which they make themselves ready for future domestic position (Adler, Kless & Adler, 1992). But it could perhaps be argued that if domesticity leads to a passive role for girls, due to the fact that nowadays in most western countries household tasks are more equally distributed because of the increase of working mothers. Furthermore, girls within the educational context could take on a passive role, embodying certain body movements like sulking and slouching, positioning themselves as helpless to get attention from others who possibly will offer help (Blaise, 2005). Besides, teachers often define girls as passive when it comes to always conforming to doing well in school, following the school rules, behaving in the teachers favour and not really showing their own opinion (Adler, Kless & Adler, 1992; Skelton, 2001). Yet not all the girls are the same and currently females have more freedom about their agency than a few decades ago, which could influence how girls today are responding. Fourthly, girls are also framed as cooperative, when other children never hear them express moaning of groaning
when decisions are being made when playing with other children (Blaise, 2005). On the other hand, girls use different discourses within their interactions with other girls. Girls are competing in a cooperative manner, by framing some as “best friend” or “being nice” while trying to get rid of others in their games. Being approved “nice” by others is essential girls to fit in. Besides, the friendships created by girls secures them of being a member of a group which is influenced by their doing femininity through sharing secrets, gossiping and having feuds with each other (Renold & Allan, 2006; Thorne, 1993).
However, where Connell (1987) argues that hegemonic femininity does not exist, others are trying to prove the opposite. Pyke and Johnson (2003) applied Connell’s (1995) framework on Asian femininity. In which Asian femininity is framed as the opposite of white femininity which is being defined as self-assured, independent and assertive females. Wherein, this relationship is contributing to a dominant-subordinate dichotomy (Pyke & Johnson, 2003). In this framework, hegemonic femininity is particularly emphasizing the power relations among women and focused more in this case on racial hegemony, instead on gender hegemony (Schippers, 2007). Evidently, just like masculinity doesn’t exist without femininity, this is also the other way around. Schippers (2007) tries to offer a conceptualization which does not diminish masculine behaviour only to males and feminine behaviour only to females, while arguing for multiple forms of femininity within the gender hegemony. Schippers (2007) defines hegemonic femininity as female traits that construct and legitimate a hierarchical and complementary relation between hegemonic femininity and masculinity. Because of this, it still contributes to the dominant-subordinate relationship between males and females (Schippers, 2007). Femininity is adapting itself to the power of males and as stated above compliance, nurturance and empathy are defined as feminine characteristics which does not really contribute to creating hegemony over other forms of femininity (Connell, 1987; Schippers, 2007). But when women are practising traits that are often connected to hegemonic masculinity they get sanctioned or stigmatized. In particular, embodying these characteristics as a female are interpreted as a threat to male dominance. However, Schippers (2007) proposes the term pariah femininities. Whereas, these femininities are the traits of hegemonic masculinity performed by a females like sexual desire for females, authority (being bossy), physically aggressive (being the badass girl), being diligent and assertiveness (framed as being pushy), taking charge and not cooperative, are established as feminine when females perform them (Schippers, 2007; Skelton, 2001). Where different authors argue for the existence of a hegemonic femininity, it raises the question if within the elementary school context something such as being a hegemonic girl would possibly exist. How would young girls embody such characteristics and how would this define their relationship with other girls and boys?
Besides these two femininity forms, another form is occurring within the educational context called hyper femininity (Connell, 1995; Peachter, 2006). Here, “doing girl” often means to act in a hyper-feminine way (Peachter, 2006), based on the “act like a lady” discourse which is commonly the dominant way enforced on girls in the educational context (Allen, 2009; Renold, 2005). Girls experience
pressure from the school environment to behave calm, peaceful, reserved, nice and as polite girls (Allen, 2009). In a school culture where compliance and conformity are expected from girls, they exercise to satisfy this expectation. While girls trying to establishing themselves through play and interaction as the well-behaved girl by following for instance school rules, they also enforce this belief on others (Adler, Kless & Adler, 1992). Girls are being their own cruel authority, through their own surveillance and that of others, when it comes to being hyper feminine (Renold, 2005). Besides, there is often a demand for a heterosexualised way of doing hyper-femininity, where girls experience constraints to meet the societal expectations from the peers and teachers, to act the heterosexual girly girl way, framing themselves as the “proper” girl. This embodiment of the “doing girly girl” refers to appearance and body image (pink, soft, catered) and behaviour (act as the nice girl) (Allan, 2009; Renold, 2005). In particular clothes are a visible key element to distinguish forms of femininity. Girls wearing the clothes, framed collectively as tasteful and pretty, just agreed on wearing it because everyone else is wearing it. Because of acting in this manner they are trying to fit in, investing the “looking pretty” culture (Renold, 2005). Although the expectation is that most young girls do conform to this appearance it leaves open how great the girls’ agency at this particular young age actually is in the process of deciding what to wear and by who this decision is influenced. Furthermore, girls feel the importance of being perceived as the “nice” girl, the need to be a good friend (trustworthy and dependable) (Ringrose 2006) through which they positioned themselves as hyper-feminine while exert oneself to being well-behaved and good looking. All in all, this being the ideal and dominant form of femininity, in which doing girly girl is often perceived as the ideal by girls (Allen, 2009; Butler, 2004; Peachter, 2006).
2.4 Crossing gender boundaries within the school environment
But as a matter of fact, not all children passively conform to the above discussed gender forms, often they resist and challenge these ways of “doing” gender (Skeggs, 1997). In dealing with the binary system, which sees boys and girls as opposites (Bem, 1993), gender boundaries are challenged, strengthened and undermined through play and interaction. In particular, children cross gender boundaries by engaging in activities, performance and emotions of the opposite gender. Crossing occurs in distinct locations and activities (Thorne, 1993). A way for the child to cross the gender divide is for instance by the concepts of being a “tomboy” or “sissy”, which could be seen as children resisting stereotyped gendered behaviour through venturing too far into masculine or feminine qualities. Whereas, the “tomboy” term refers to a girl who goes against the normative and restrictive feminine ways of doing girl. As opposed to the girly girl, they are often defined as moving wild and freely, engage in rough play, adventures, being outdoors, disliking the feminine appearance attributes and engage is boyish activities (Hilgenkamp & Livingston, 2002; Thorne, 1993). Due to this, the girl is opposing the stereotypical femininity and protesting against gender stereotypes, while the term also contest sexist way of doing gender, because a girl who likes to play wild and outdoors is often interpreted as unnatural (Thorne, 1993). But what if a girl embodies both a more girly-girl way of doing gender while also
engaging in rough play behaviour? How would such a girl be defined and what does this contribute to existing gender norms? Furthermore, the gender crossing could be undertaken by girls because of the greater rewards in the masculine territory within the gender binary, learning to be more assertive for instance (Burn, et al., 1996; Miller, 2002). But often this tomboyness is only allowed by their environment until the end of childhood, when the expectations of girls to behave within the “act like a lady” discourse occurs (Hilgenkamp & Livingston, 2002). Where the tomboy term is not really an insult and mostly has some positive meanings, the “sissy” on the other hand is mostly referred to as something negative and less rewarding for boys when crossing into the feminine territory (Miller, 2002; Thorne, 1993). A sissy is mostly referring to boys, whose behaviour and nature participate with the more stereotypical feminine qualities, such as passivity, timidity and reliant (Thorne, 1993). Richard Green (1987) speaks of the “sissy boy syndrome”, where boys are being stigmatized or socially sanctioned by their peers because of dressing more feminine, staying away from the boyish rough games and preferably rather play with girls while even sometimes mentioning their desire to be one of them (Green, 1987; Schippers, 2007). Yet beliefs and values about homosexuality for instance have had some major changes over the last decades which influences the cultural environment and openness on such behaviour. In addition, the school philosophy but also the beliefs of teachers will influence how children react to others crossing gender boundaries. These two concepts, tomboy and sissy, makes the preoccupation with the cultural gender dichotomy even more clear. Where, feminine characteristics are devalued and used as an insult, embraced masculinity by girls is mostly not experienced as an issue (Green, 1987, Thorne, 1993). Besides, in deviating from the normative behaviour, the child’s peers will play an important role when it comes to accepting their way of gendered being. In particular friends who will overlook or share the same gender performance. But if the gender dualism, a powerful force, is unchanged, children will often experience pressures to stay within their own gender possibilities (Davies, 1989).
In conclusion, a relatively large amount of research in this field of science has been done, but still it leaves open some gaps regarding children and gender within the educational context. Whereas, children are capable of understanding “doing” gender in the classroom and will embody this in different ways (Blaise, 2005). Yet, not all children perform gender in identical ways while learning how to enforce their gender in relation to their category but besides this also encountering multiple other “doing girl/boy” possibilities (Davies, 1989). Due to this the outcomes of children’s gender behaviour is unsure and mostly diverse. By integrating West and Zimmerman’s (1987) “doing gender” approach with Bem’s (1983) gender schema this will possible give new insights on how children actively do gender in the presence of others while they in addition organise, reproduce and modify incoming influential information into their developing gender schema. Therefore, the child is developing different forms to adapt, adjust, resist and (re)interpret ideological gender patterns (Thorne, 1993).
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design and Location
The research took place at, a predominantly white3, Bolton elementary school which is located in a
small town in the centre of the Netherlands. To guarantee anonymity for the school, children and teachers, fake names were given in this thesis to participants and the school. This study is based on qualitative research methods consisting of in-depth interviews with teachers and participant observations of children in one particular classroom (grade 1/2) at Bolton elementary school. I took on a role as active participant observer and conducted in total 71,5 hours of observations in three weeks while taking part in the classroom life. Besides I interviewed nine class teachers, seven females and two males, from whom only the two male teachers were not teaching grade 1/2 at the moment, but had experiences working with this particular group. Both the in-depth interviews and participant observations were focused on achieving a better understanding and insider’s view on how gender is enforced by children. The classroom consist of a total twenty-nine children, twelve girls and seventeen boys, and two female class teachers. This particular classroom was selected because of the willingness and enthusiasm of the female teachers to make a contribution to my research. Although, the school and teachers decided they wanted to participate in my research, parents were also informed beforehand. I explained in letter to the parents my role as a researcher, my pedagogic background, the purpose and methods of the study, and if they had any further questions that they could reach out to me. All parents eventually verbally agreed that their child was taking part in the research and showed genuine interest in what I was doing. Furthermore, the classroom consists of nine different play corners such as the house corner, small and big building corner, crafting corner, sandbox, disassemble corner, mathematics and language table. Play moments were a regular activity for this grade and children got the opportunity to decide for themselves in which play corner they wanted to play. However, the teachers also used a classroom system with for instance a bulletin board in which children were allowed to choose a corner with pin on the board, while they were not allowed for example to only play in the home corner the whole week. Children had to play at least once in every corner, but during the day there were also enough moments in which they got the opportunity to choose freely4.
3.2 Data collection
In this research children are perceived as active players within the gender socialization process. In prior research of Barrie Thorne (1993), she conducted observations of gender play in elementary schools. Through her observations it was clear that gender is a social construct and definitions of masculinity
3 Due to the fact that the school is predominantly white, not too much focus have been given to race and ethnicity
in this master thesis. However, in paragraph 4.2.4 Case 2: Doing Tomboyish Asian Girl, ethnicity in relation to the enforcement of femininity will be discussed.
4 The teachers are less strict for the younger children who just started school, because they are still in an early
and femininity that exist in the educational context are framed by the school gender arrangements. In addition, observing students with their peers, instead of only looking at individuals, creates insights of the peer group life in which children act and interact with each other while they are not completely being controlled by the teacher. In particular, the peer group life is an important element, through the use of interaction and play, children were creating meanings and practices contributing to their “doing” of gender (Thorne, 1993). Furthermore, the teachers did not just take on a passive role in the children’s daily worlds, but influences, negotiate and navigating the children’s gender understandings (Blaise, 2005, 2009). Whereas, gender is a social doing, both teachers and students read and classify information of one’s gender while creating their own gender definitions (Bem, 1981; West & Zimmerman, 1987).
In order to generate an understanding on how children are enforcing gender within the Bolton elementary school classroom I used two qualitative research methods. The first method used in collecting data consisted of participant observations of children’s play and interaction in the classroom. All observations were based on spontaneous moments in the classroom, except for one moment when I prepared a group discussion with a structured topic5. In this format both boys and girls were able to
express their opinion about gender, a method that has the purpose to strengthen equality within communication of individuals (Murphy & Gipps, 1996). In the participant observation method, the children’s voices are considered to be really important (Thorne, 1993). During my research I undertook two roles of an observer (e.g. observing from a distant) and a friend (e.g. engage in the interactions and play of children). Most of the time I consciously decided which role to take on, but due to my openness towards the children they often felt the space to engage in interaction with me and invited me in playing with them. Resulting in that when this kind of situations appeared, I complied with their requests. I tried to take on the “least adult” role, in which I stressed not to take on authority or make any decisions in the presence of the children (Adler, Kless & Adler, 1992; Mandell, 1988). But at times, this was something that I struggled with due to my background as a pedagogue. Another reason children associated me with being an adult was due to our difference in height (Thorne, 1993). Right from the beginning, I explained to the teachers and children that I was not a teacher and suggested to call me by my first name (Thorne, 1993), in order to prevent that children saw me as someone with authority and thus creating an unequal power relation. Furthermore, I didn’t want the tasks of disciplining children in their behaviour and actions, while the class teacher also made it clear that they allowed me do so if necessary. In the beginning children often treated and came up to me as a teacher, asking them to help in a conflict or calling me a teacher, I responded that I’m was not a teacher and that they had to find the class teacher. But when times passed by I noticed that children got used to me and didn’t mind my
5 In amplifying my data collection I prepared a group discussion in collaboration with the class teacher. Firstly, I
collected some toys from the classroom and put these on the table in the centre of the room. Afterwards, in turns children got the instruction to grab some of the toys they liked to play with and also put in on the table. When all the toys were collected, I used three hoops (red for girls, blue for boys, and yellow was neutral) and the children had to sort out the toys based on their thoughts on gender. This activity gave me the opportunity to get more insights off the gender assumptions made by children in this particular class.
presence (e.g. when breaking school rules often children looked at me and waited for me to discipline them. As soon as they learned that I was not going to discipline them, they felt some freedom to misbehave6). Whereas, play is a regular element in elementary schools, this gave children the
opportunity to deliberate on gender notions with their peers (Blaise, 2005). In trying to gain access to the children’s world I positioned myself engaging in their daily activities, sitting on a small chair (in the class circle I stationed myself in or a little bit outside the circle) and walking around. During lunchtime, which took place in the classroom, I sat at one of the tables where the children were sitting while additionally going in on offers to sit next to someone. On the playground, I generally walked around, watch ongoing activities and joined in on some. I used an unstructured way while doing observations of the classroom as a whole and documented the everyday practices and actions, and I used a structured technique while deciding to observe particular play corners or groups of children (Martin, 1989).
I order to collect the right kind of data and structure my observations, I constructed an observation guide (appendix 1) beforehand based on the operationalisation of the concepts doing gender and gender boundaries. In labelling someone’s gender, individuals use gender cues which are being presented, monitored and understood as “doing gender” (Martin 1998; West and Zimmerman 1987). In recognizing the gender of others, culturally defined traits are being used to classify the individual in one of the two genders (Lucal, 1999).
● Appearance: in identifying someone’s gender, the appropriate gender display should be used. In every encounter with others, both participants are presenting their gender (Goffman 1976; West and Zimmerman 1987). One of the most obvious ways to identify someone’s gender is by a person's physical appearance, presenting themselves as a boy or girl. One aspect is the variety in clothing they wear (Blaise, 2005). Using their body and attributes to create a gender image for others to easily read (Bordo, 1993). In producing gender differences through clothing (dresses, skirts, high heels), makeup and hairstyles (having longish hair), females and males are not seen as the same (Lorber, 1994; Myhre, 1995).
● Body language: in moving the body and mirroring someone else’s body, they are able to organise body language in relation to femininity or masculinity. The feminine embodied movements could often be recognized by for example twirling (with hair or clothes), slouching and sulking (trying to be noticed by others in pretending to be weak or in need for help and
6 One example of misbehaviour was during lunch time. Kenan, Max, Cara and Britt where sitting together at one
of the tables in the classroom. I was sitting at the table behind them. As soon as the teacher walked out of the room Kenan and Max started making jokes. Both filled their drinking packages with air and then hit it with their fist so that it blew up. One of the drinking packages wasn’t entirely empty, drink splashes flew around and hit Cara. Cara got mad and tells them to stop. Max’s sees that I’m watching them and makes eye contact with me. I just kept on looking at him without any emotion in my face. For a moment he has a thoughtful face whether or not to continue, but then turns around and blows up his drinking package again to repeat his actions. Max looks back at me, while he sees that I’m just sitting there and say nothing, he proudly start laughing about his actions.
attention. By doing so, they provoke others to offer help or support) (Blaise, 2005). Doing gender more unconscious is for example how males and females sit and take up their space (Lorber, 1994). Boys often take up more bodily space, by positioning their bodies more open and freely (Martin, 1989).
● Verbal language: in our daily interaction, gender is being produced within specific contexts (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Different discourses in the classroom life are contributing to the construction of one’s gender. Gender discourse like “being pretty” is connected to specific forms of femininity (Blaise, 2005) and sustains the importance of girls appearance, while other aspects are being ignored (Davies, 1989). On a day to day basis, these kind of comments seem innocent, but these discourses are contributing to meanings of gender (Blaise, 2005). Gender linguistic markers for femininity and masculinity are used in the assumption of one’s gender (Lucal, 1999).
In understanding one’s gender, society’s gender boundaries based on the dichotomy are used for categorizing an individual. In the classroom, children create their own interpretation of these gender boundaries (Thorne, 1993). Through this gender differences sustain and this contributes toward power relations based on gender across children (Martin, 1989).
● Appearance: using physical appearance to recognize someone’s gender could possibly be wrong if the individual does not conform to stereotype traits of femininity or masculinity (Lucal, 1999). The clothes that children wear shape their view on gender, e.g. colour is one often used aspect (boys wear black, blue, green and girl pink, red, purple) (Martin, 1989). ● Activity: in the classroom children have daily free play time in which boys often spent more
time playing with blocks, the car garage, climbing and crawling. Girls on the other hand often play house, with dolls, or do some crafting while sitting at a table (Martin, 1989). In crossing gender activities, children are challenging and confronting the stereotypical gender arrangements (Thorne, 1993).
● Behaviour: the behaviour of children in the classroom is disciplined by the teacher, in which the common expectation of girls is to behave like a “young lady” (Martin, 1989). In this ladylike behaviour the focus is on traits as being calm, peaceful, reserved, nice and polite (Allen, 2009). But not conforming these expectations, and crossing the gender boundaries is leading towards penalization of their behaviour. Thorne (1993) uses two examples of crossing gender behaviour in which the “tomboy” is referring to a girl who is wild, adventures and draw on boyish activities, whereas on the other hand “sissy” is referring mostly to a boy who possesses feminine traits like passivity, dependence and being weak. Using feminine traits to insult boys contributes to the power relations between them, in which boys are dominant and girls subordinated.
In addition to above concepts I also looked specifically how (1) girls interact with girls, (2) boys interact with boys and (3) girls interact with boys and what kind of conflicts they had. While carrying out my observations, I tried be conscious in not being strictly bounded by my theoretical concepts but to be open for surprises that arose from the data (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). I made jotting field notes in a small notebook that described certain events, actions and behaviours, which I later expanded into detailed field notes emphasizing on the most important features of my research (Emerson et al., 1995). In addition, I kept a logbook in which I registered noticeable things, problems and memos. The fieldnotes were a resource which provided insights of the classroom life and deepened my understanding (Emerson et al., 1995). I soon realized that children were interested in what I was writing down, they often asked me to write something down (e.g. that they could tie their own shoe laces). I always was open to the children what I was doing and wrote down, while I often also asked them permission on what I was writing about them. Gladly, they liked what I was doing and had mostly no problem observing them.
Secondly, I conducted interviews with nine teachers, seven females and two males. One of the consequences of a small interview sample is that the findings only relate to this particular school and cannot be generalized to other Dutch schools. Nevertheless, it will give some new knowledge and understandings of gender in the Dutch educational setting. The two class teachers were kind enough to help me ask around which of the teachers were willing to be interviewed. Every teacher had experience in working with this particular target group. I used a semi structured approach, while had prepared some in-depth interview questions (appendix 2) beforehand I also gave teachers space for flexibility and the opportunity to complement the research with their own experiences and interpretations. The interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes and took place in the classroom after school or in one of the office rooms. Before conducting the interviews, teachers were informed about the study and I had sent some of them the interview questions beforehand because they liked to think about potential answers. I recorded all interviews with consent of the teachers and emphasized that their identities and information would be kept anonymous in the thesis. Interviews were recorded in order to have a real dialogue with the teachers, ensure reliability and reproduce findings as true as possible. Additionally, the teachers were informed that the recordings would be deleted after the transcribing process, to optimally secure anonymity. During the interviews, I sometimes felt that teachers were afraid to make generalizations or stereotypical assumptions about gender. This represented the open view on gender of the teachers which they wanted to transfer to me. I assured teachers who had such concerns by reassuring that I understood what they meant and would not judge them.
3.3 Data Analysis
In analysing the gathered data for this research, an abductive analysis is used in moving beyond prior studies on this subject. In performing my master thesis research the abductive analysis was resting on my positional knowledge within the field of gender in the educational system, which I brought to the
table while conducting data and kept an open attitude for surprises. This knowledge is necessary because through this I was able to see what my research was missing, which would possibly steer me towards new theoretical insights (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). In the process of collecting data, field notes of observations and interviews would be transcribed as soon as possible, after the interviews had been conducted. All interviews were conducted in Dutch. The interviews were transcribed within a web based application called “oTranscribe” (otranscribe.com). This was a helpful step in the transcribing process because the information of the data collection was still fresh in my memory and it minimized the possibility of losing data. After everything was transcribed, I listened one more time to the records to double check and thus reduce the opportunity for mistakes (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). Besides, records were deleted right away after they were transcribed. The moment all data was gathered and transcribed, I used Atlas.ti to code and analyse the data. The coding process helped me to interact and to get familiar with my data (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). I started with initial line-by-line coding first of all the fieldnotes and afterwards the interviews, this encouraged me to revisit my data and ensured the arise of different insights. Over two hundred codes were given, which stayed close to the data. After this I performed focused coding in which I reviewed all the initial codes that were used, converged similar ones and deleted the unnecessary resulting in overarching themes of the data (Charmaz, 2014; Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). I searched for similar themes in the interviews which could be linked to themes from the observations cornering how teachers saw the enforcement of gender in this particular school. One interesting finding, from one of the interviews was that one of the class teacher had a contradicting view with what I had been seeing on gendered play behaviour of children. This showed that this particular teacher really believed in non-stereotypical gender play. Although, it is not possible to paint every child with the same brush, it was clear from my observations that majority of boys and girls still chose for stereotypical gender toys or play. Finally, all quotes used in the findings from by observations and the interviews were translated into English by me personally.
3.4 Bias and Ethical Considerations
One of the most important ethical codes is that the anonymity and privacy of the research subjects and actors should be respected (ISA, 2011). Especially, while researching a sensitive topic, like in the case of gender. The data should be kept confidential, unless participants agreed to be cited. As stated earlier all interview records were deleted after transcribing, all quoted names and the name of the school have been changed. Furthermore, because I am conducting research with a vulnerable group, children, this could also lead to some ethical difficulties with the children’s right to participate (Broström, 2006). Since the school had decided to participate in my research and accepted my presence, the children had no choice in whether or not I would be researching them. The consent of the research participant in this case was based on the decision of the school and parents (ISA, 2011). However, they were able to decide for themselves if they wanted to talk to me or wanted to be near me. If they really wanted to, they could just walk away, which offered them a real choice (Davies, 1989). The purpose of carrying out
observations of children’s interaction and play is to learn to see through their eyes in creating meaning, without being biased by my adult rationality. The children from this particular classroom were crucial participants for this study and therefore their standpoint needed to be valued (James & Prout, 1997). In creating a more equal power relationship with the children I took on, as mentioned earlier, the least-adult role. In taking on this role while gathering useful data about the children I had to start from their perspectives and experiences (Warming, 2005). More specifically, participating like I was one of them for instance by taking distance from my adult authority, acting like I was acting under the teachers authority as well (e.g. waiting for the teachers orders to go outside) and interacted on their level (e.g. talking about subjects they proposed) (Davies, 1989; Mandell, 1991; Martin, 1989; Thorne, 1993). As a result of my work experience with this age-group, I felt like this gave me a head start in how to interact with them and make them feel comfortable in my presence. I wanted to give these children a voice instead of only listening, something that is argued to be the ethos nowadays in the field of researching children. Whereas, giving a voice means that I represent them in a honest way in the aim of this study (Warming, 2005). I believe that this child-liked position offered me a lot of interesting insights. Additionally, while doing observations I was alert to signs of resistance of children, by them for instance talking real soft so that I was not able to hear it (Colliver, 2017). One other important aspect to be aware of while doing observations was the so called “big man bias”, in which I tried not only to focus on the children who stood out the most through for instance outgoing behaviour (Martin, 1989; Thorne, 1993). Despite that I tried to be aware of this, especially in the beginning it was something that I struggled with. After the first few days I realized that I gathered a lot of data of outspoken and often the older children in the classroom. In creating more consciousness in the situations and children while doing observations, I chose to use another approach and decided to focus at some specific days or moments on particular children. In addition, I also had a harder time to observe some of the girls, most of the gathered data in the beginning was focused on the boys. In a conversation with one of the class teachers it became clear that the boys in this particular classroom were more present, verbally and physically. Due to this, the presence of some girls was overshadowed. Besides this I thought that it would be easier for me to interact with the girls because of my own gender. But I soon realised that they were the ones who needed more time getting used to my presence (e.g. in the beginning often they turned their back to me and started whispering, while later on they invited me to play with them). In the end, I had to put more effort in observing children who were more introvert and the girls, but this eventually gave me a more equal amount of data of different groups of children. Lastly, my personal involvement with the research location could have led to more positively interpreted findings. Owing to the fact that the school where I gathered the data and conducted my research is an elementary school I was familiar with. Something which could have influenced my interpretations and objectivity because of my own positive experiences with this school. Therefore, to counter this possible bias I tried to stay objective by making use of my academic positional knowledge. To diminish my own researcher bias, I critically reflected on every assumption and conclusion that I made. Furthermore, to minimize my bias, it helped
that I developed a genuine open relationship with both of the class teachers. Because of this, I was able to discuss everything that I saw, asking for advice and their point of views which broadened my knowledge and the findings of this thesis.
