PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Gender in teaching 531 handle difficult male pupils. To this end, they make use of masculine symbols (such as heavy metal music, macho imagos that are derived from competitive sports). From the perspective of constructionist gender theories, these men are distancing themselves from all that is regarded as feminine as a kind of compensation for their feminine subject in order to be able to represent themselves as sufficiently masculine. Relating the two research traditions Downloaded By: [University of Gent] At: 10:19 5 March 2009 A significant observation concerning relations between the two groups of research (sex differences research and gender dynamics research) is that the two traditions have so far developed in isolation from one another. A citation analysis shows this distinctiveness: none of the theoretical texts in the ‘Constructionist Perspectives’ section of this article or the research studies included in the ‘Gender Dynamics Research’ section have been cited by studies that can be classified under the sex differences studies. The majority of the articles that cited gender dynamics studies were the gender dynamics studies or discussion papers that draw upon gender constructionist theory. However, despite the differences between the two research traditions, it is possible and even necessary to relate both traditions theoretically, methodologically and with regard to their conclusions. Theoretically, a multilevel perspective that integrates both essentialist and social constructionist approaches is widely accepted among gender theorists like Aries (1996), Howard and Hollander (1997), and Risman (1998). Although these researchers are particularly critical of strictly essentialist or deterministic understandings of gender, they all plead for an integration of the individual and social-structural level in gender theory development. Methodologically, an integration of both traditions leads to research that does not restrict itself to an individual-objective level (contrastive to differences research). It also directs itself to the subjective and societal level, which is an asset. Contrary to sex differences studies, gender dynamics research pays extensive attention to how power relations, social interaction patterns, and society’s dominant discourses shape the personal subjectivities of individuals who are being studied in a specific situation at a specific moment. The individual-objective approach of sex differences research only gives an insight into the resulting (sometimes different) behaviour, effects, identities, etc. of males and females involved in education. Since both research traditions study similar facets of the professional lives of teachers, they provide findings that can be interrelated. Whereas sex differences research can map possible likenesses and differences between male and female teachers and can have a kind of signalling function, gender dynamics research can provide deeper insight into explaining sex differences between male and female teachers through its analysis of ‘gendered’ dynamics in the teaching profession. Bringing together the findings of both research traditions yields a range of new understandings of gender dynamics in teachers’ professional lives and can raise questions that have not been adequately addressed to date in teacher research. Such integration can cause a shift in the research questions being posed in gender research on
532 E. Sabbe and A. Aelterman Downloaded By: [University of Gent] At: 10:19 5 March 2009 teachers (cf. feminisation debate). It can evolve from the narrow focus of looking for differences between male and female teachers towards revealing and deconstructing persistent gender discourses in teachers’ professional identities and well-being, career decision-making processes and professional opportunities, task allocations, and ways teachers are perceived by stakeholders in education and in society as a whole. Moreover, such integration could also reveal the possibility that gendered discourses can be part of the explanation of observed tendencies in sex differences research such as slightly lower well-being scores of male teachers, different decision-making processes to becoming a teacher, divergent education-related opinions, different perceptions of pupils, parents and others involved in education on male and female teachers and varied working conditions. Applying a gender lens on every aspect of teachers’ professional lives, however, will not be relevant. Yet, it can be argued that mainstream research on segments of teachers’ lives including subjectivity, personal understanding and perception such as teachers’ well-being, professional identities, etc. should take gender dynamics into account. Conclusion The intention of this article was to identify and analyse existing studies on teachers and teaching in which attention was paid to teacher gender. Two opposed theoretical gender perspectives, that is, essentialism and constructionism, are applied as ‘theoretical lenses’ to examine these teacher gender studies. Contemporary teacher gender research was classified into two divergent traditions: sex differences research and gender dynamics research. In spite of the fact that few studies make their theoretical starting points explicit, we believe that we have demonstrated that the goals and research questions these two traditions formulate, the ways in which they conceptualise and operationalise gender, the methods they use and their interpretations and explications of the research results run parallel to, respectively, essentialist and constructionist perspectives. It is made obvious that teacher research on gender lacks an integration of the theoretical frameworks, methodologies and findings of both groups. With regard to the feminisation debate, it can be concluded that the assumptions made about possible differences between male and female teachers in their teaching styles, capacities, and effects on pupils’ achievement, well-being and attitudes, do not hold theoretically nor empirically. Sex differences research could not expose—apart from some weak tendencies—essential male and female ways of teaching or straightforward divergent effects on pupils. On the contrary, no or only small and mainly inconsistent differences between male and female teachers were discovered. Constructionist gender theory analogously points out that strictly focusing on the sex of teachers in the feminisation debate is too simplistic. Nevertheless, teaching should not be considered gender neutral either since the tradition of gender dynamics research clearly showed that teaching is imbued with gender. In fact, these studies
Page 1 and 2: This article was downloaded by: [Un
Page 3 and 4: 522 E. Sabbe and A. Aelterman disti
Page 5 and 6: 524 E. Sabbe and A. Aelterman is po
Page 7 and 8: 526 E. Sabbe and A. Aelterman empha
Page 9 and 10: 528 E. Sabbe and A. Aelterman autho
Page 11: 530 E. Sabbe and A. Aelterman Downl
Page 15 and 16: 534 E. Sabbe and A. Aelterman Downl
Page 17 and 18: 536 E. Sabbe and A. Aelterman Downl
Page 19: 538 E. Sabbe and A. Aelterman Downl

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?