POSITIONALITY.

I hold a deep feeling for the subject being studied. It is acknowledged that research cannot be unbiased and value-free (Becker, 1967) therefore it is the responsibility of the researcher to identify the position held (Wellington, 2000, p.41). It is by examining and explaining my beliefs, values and ideologies that the impact upon this empirical research can be made explicit. Social research is persuasive, purposive, positional, and consequently political (Clough and Nutbrown, 2012, p.4). I embarked upon this thesis with that intent. Childminders provide an essential service for families, however, literature has shown that research has tended to portray practitioners in a very poor light (Owen, 2007; JRF, 2001). My personal experience of childminders, as carers of my son, practitioners, colleagues and students has been of a dedicated group within the early years workforce; this has not been evident in research findings. This empirical study sets out to present a realistic representation of the work childminders do in order to persuade the reader that there is a misconception and underestimation of the role. Ideally

56

I would want this research to bring about change. In the current climate of government cut-backs and with the proposals suggested, there are factors that will limit the possibility. My research is very strongly positioned; making a positive difference to children and adults with whom I have worked has always been my objective. Finally, I seek to influence change (Pring, 2000, p.20) and thus acknowledge the political intentions of my work. Examining and articulating the theoretical assumptions underpinning the decisions made throughout the research process proved to be part of my learning journey.

The perspective I adopt views “society as a structure of inequality” (Jones, Bradbury and Le Boutillier, 2011, p.10). Times in which I grew up changed from a truly patriarchal construct to a fairer arrangement, though I recognise that the lens through which I observe social order is privileged insomuch as I am white, professional and advantaged in comparison to many in this country and infinitely more worldwide. In the first years of my life I experienced “traditional ways of living” (Jones et al., 2011. p.196); from a working class family brought up on a council housing estate, I was part of a secure and loving family. My mother worked as an auxiliary nurse from the time I was six. In the last year of primary school I passed the 11+ examination which was the selection process that determined many people’s life chances. My secondary education was in a ‘High’ school which automatically enabled me to take GCE examinations at Ordinary and Advanced level, thereafter entering Higher education at the age of 18; the majority of my primary school peers spent their secondary years in a Secondary Modern school, leaving at 15 years of age and unable to access the examinations needed for Further or Higher education. Happenstance meant that I had a very different life trajectory to my siblings and most of my early childhood friends; at the time I was not aware of the impact of the disparity of opportunities that would be available to us. Teaching, my career choice, was unusual insomuch that the salary paid to women was equal to that of men. However, I recall that my salary was ineligible in mortgage negotiations because I was a woman – there was a “life-script” (Jones et al.,

57

2011, p.196) considered acceptable. This was my then view of the world, the boundaries limited by personal experience, the radio and newspapers; my family had no television until I was in my mid-teens, during the early years of our marriage we had none and the internet and the World Wide Web had not been invented. Questioning the tolerance of women to the situation in which they found themselves, Jones et al. (2011) suggest that it was through controlled socialisation, by overt and covert means (p.15). My ontological position was, at that time, reflecting Weber’s typologies of action and power – “I do this because I always have done” following “the rules” because “this is what people have always done” (Jones et al., 2011, p.86). Looking back, I held a blinkered and unquestioning view of the world, greatly influenced by the fact that I had a secure and comfortable life that was far more privileged and prosperous than that of my parents who had lived through two World Wars. I feel saddened that I took emerging opportunities for granted, especially when I consider that just a generation earlier my parents had to leave school at fourteen with no prospects of Higher education; universal suffrage was just becoming established; and they had created our secure family unit when there was no National Health Service or Welfare support. I will now consider how my thinking has developed.

New technologies precipitated a ‘time of questioning’ (Schostak, 1991) and the emergence of, amongst other things, feminism to challenge the inequity that perpetuated the social structure in the 1960s and 1970s. Feminist theory is evolving (Lather, 2006; hooks, 2005; Green and Griffiths, 2000; Stanley and Wise, 1993; Lather, 1991) the epistemology being woven from differing strands of “richness and thought” (Crotty, 2003, p.170) into a more expansive paradigm. Chafetz (2004) argues that inherent to all feminist theory should be a consensus of working to eliminate the unjust gender inequality, the consequence of females being regarded as of lesser value than males both socially and culturally.

Green and Griffiths (2000) assert that feminism is “more a perspective, a lens, a handle on the world and its ideas, a way of acting and speaking”

58

(p.77). This suggests a dynamic position, one that evolves with new experiences and understanding and echoes my learning journey. The focus of my study is a group of practitioners whose work is often unrecognised and frequently undervalued, reflecting Lather’s (1991) assertion that gender is central to the structure of society (p.71), one I believe, which has failed to appreciate the role of childminders. hooks (2005, p.61) emphasised the blinkered views of feminists whose emancipation depended upon the servitude of other women; an observation that resonates with my research. The outcome of increased opportunities for some women to develop careers has resulted in demands being placed upon other women in order to achieve individual freedom, creating an unjust system that challenges feminists to consider the position of carers (Page, 2011; Tronto, 2002; Noddings, 2001). The “social feminism” Griffiths (1998) endorses, and which underpins my work, is “a passion for justice for human beings, all of them, whatever their needs” (p.81).

This underlying premise links to critical theory, which looks beyond a situation to seek emancipation and redress inequality (Cohen, Mannion and Morrison, 2000). Emanating from the work of Marx who argued that the power and wealth held by a few is sustained by the domination and labour of the majority (Jones et al., 2011; Giroux, 1983) critical theorists examined the structures that perpetuate oppression. The education system is such a vehicle (Apple, 2006; Friere, 1998; Carr and Harnett, 1996; Apple, 1979; Bordieu and Passeron, 1970/1977; Bernstein, 1975; Friere, 1968/1972). By adopting a critical perspective towards research I am seeking not only to understand the position of the childminder participants but to highlight the inequalities this group of workers face.

The epistemological stance I have adopted in my research emanates from my reading and understanding of the literature of social theory (Jones et al., 2011; Blake, Smeyers, Smith and Standish, 2000; Green and Griffiths, 2000;

59

Griffiths, 1998); my awareness has grown enormously and has been lived since the early 1970s but with no underpinning theoretical knowledge.

I have discussed the underpinning rationale, recognising that research cannot be value-free; indeed, the childminding interviewees were people with whom I engaged, not simply “respondents to research instruments” (Bryman, 2004, p.23). I will now turn to examining the approach taken.