The dissertation

8.1 Introduction

This study of An old issue in a new era: early years practitioners’ perceptions of gender, which has been presented and discussed in the preceding chapters, will now be

summarised. Following this, a consideration and discussion of the study’s possible limitations will be presented. Finally, reflection on the findings, which highlight areas for improvement in practice and possible research opportunities, will conclude this

dissertation.

8.2 The dissertation

Gender is so ubiquitous that often it is assumed that it is innate. However, Lober (1994:54) observes that ‘gender is constantly created and re-created through human interaction’. Like the creation of cultures, gendering necessitates that society contributes to and creates the rules that determine how it is done (West and Zimmerman, 1987). Gender is an integral and identifiable feature of being; its occurrence is so commonplace that it is usually only when it is performed differently or it is disrupted that attention is drawn to how it is being done (ibid). On planning my investigation into EYPs’ perceptions of gender, I therefore did not seek to discover if EYPs created a gendered setting. Rather, I wanted to investigate the mixed messages that my students appear to hold about gender. EYPs proposed that they foregrounded the individual child rather than the child’s sex; however, the frequency of comments such as ‘what do you expect, he’s a boy’ or ‘I know but girls are easier’

intrigued me as there appeared to simultaneously present homogenous yet different expectations for boys and for girls in the nursery.

In a time when, according to Roulston and Misawa (2011), studies into gender are often viewed as outdated and irrelevant, there nonetheless exists a plethora of journal articles,

[148]

and books that appear to highlight and advocate different approaches to education and care (Gurian, 2003, Baron-Cohen, 2004, Sax, 2005). However, as Halpern (2011: xvii)

cautions, ‘(t)he literature on sex differences in cognitive abilities is filled with inconsistent findings, contradictory theories, and emotional claims that are unsupported by the

research’. Further, she claims contemporary literature that promotes biological deterministic views, as discussed in Chapter 2, can result in an acceptance of gender variations which have little or no foundation (ibid). The acceptance of biology as solely determining all gender differences as natural and innate can perpetuate and recreate many of the gender dissimilarities and practices. Kimmel (2000) suggests that the inclination to see differences between the sexes, in contrast to the similarities, results in blindness to the production and creation of the disparities and inequalities between males and females (Chapter 2).

The creation of many of the observable differences between the sexes starts at birth, when girls and boys are made aesthetically and visibly dissimilar to one another. From the way a child’s hair is worn, to the environments in which they live, to the toys that are associated with their sex category (see Sections 4.2 and 5.4), there are created differences that

indicate what it is to be a boy or a girl. Beliefs about boys and girls—including norms and truths about children’s physical appearance, behaviour, psychological or cognitive

strengths and weaknesses—can affect the treatment and responses they receive. These beliefs can ultimately restrict and limit expectations about a child’s capabilities based on their sex category.

At the outset of this project, it was necessary for me to consider the major themes that articulate the ways in which gender was understood. I started with investigating the ‘nature versus nurture argument’ as discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. The literature confirmed that attributing particular characteristics to solely innate or created influences was too simplistic. For instance, as argued by Eliot (2009), socialisation can produce physical manifestations such as the development of particular neurological pathways (Chapter 2).

These observed differences can in turn result in the assumption that the dissimilarities between the sexes’ brains are innate and are solely due to biological sex differences (Gurian and Stevens, 2010). The consideration of the influences of socialisation led me to examine the effects of stereotypes on the development of gender (Chapter 4). I found that stereotypes (re)created and (re)produced particular typical behaviours and characteristics associated with each gender, often resulting in confirmation of these features as being

[149]

inherent in a particular sex. The literature accessed, reviewed and critiqued establishes that gendering is a life-long process that starts as soon as the sex of the baby is ascribed, and masculinity and femininity are conveyed through accepted societal truths and norms that can change over time.

According to Vandenbroeck and Peeters (2008) and Hellman (2011), the first social space beyond the home where gendering occurs is generally the nursery, which is where children are exposed to the influence of institutional socialisation. Gunderson et al. (2012) propose that the views and attitudes of those who work in EYs contributes to the messages children receive about what it is to be a boy or a girl. As such the empirical component of this research sought to explore the perceptions of gender as understood by experienced practitioners who work in nurseries. In order to investigate practitioners’ perceptions of gender, discussion groups (DGs) were set up as described in Chapter 5. The DG sessions allowed qualitative data to be collected and also signposted the benefits of introducing a Toy Survey—which was subsequently extended to other EYPs undertaking the BA in Childhood Practice—as being useful in understanding more fully the participants’

perception of children’s toys.

Issues such as whether the participants believed gender to be innate or created were discussed during the DG sessions. Each participant in this research brought their own unique experiences and understanding of gender to the project. After each session the typed transcripts as well as my identification of themes and further areas for discussion were sent to the participants. This process provided an opportunity for each individual participant to further explore and re-consider topics, or request the inclusion of a new topic during the next session. Although no-one made such a request, some participants did further elucidate comments made at previous sessions. After the four main DGs, a fifth session provided an opportunity for everyone to comment on my initial findings. This consisted of the presentation of a PowerPoint, during which the participants completed an anonymous feedback sheet where they recorded their responses to the conclusions

presented (Appendix 5).

The identification of the themes was, however, not the end of the research process. Whilst the investigation into the literature and theory that underpinned the research was

challenging in terms of unravelling key themes, debates and theory, for me analysing and interpreting the data and making it coherent for presentation was one of the most

[150]

challenging aspects of the project. Holloway and Wheeler (2013) highlight the iterative nature of interpretative research and state that it is necessary to move backwards and forwards with the data in order to make sense of it and to present comprehensible findings.

Undertaking this particular aspect of the process provided me with new insights to possible approaches I could adopt with my own research students, who might need support when working with their data. As such this has implications for my professional practice and will be discussed below.

Finally, the results from this project were analysed, presented and discussed in Chapter 6 and 7; the iterative nature of interpretative research continued throughout, as the process of managing the findings resulted in the themes being revisited and compared with each other. The findings from the project indicated areas for future practice and related research possibilities, which will be presented below. However, prior to this, it is necessary to consider the limitations of the project that could influence the findings.