PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice Vol. 13, No. 5, October 2007, pp. 521–538 Gender in teaching: a literature review Elien Sabbe a * and Antonia Aelterman b a Department of Educational Affairs, Ghent University, Belgium; b Department of Educational Sciences, Ghent University, Belgium CTAT_A_256029.sgm 10.1080/13540600701561729 Teachers 1354-0602 Original 2007 Taylor 5000000October ElienSabbe elien.sabbe@ugent.be and & Article and Francis (print)/1470-1278 Teaching 2007 (online) Downloaded By: [University of Gent] At: 10:19 5 March 2009 Internationally, both in popular and scientific media, debates occasionally emerge concerning the possible (negative) consequences of feminisation tendencies in the teaching staff. In these discussions, various assumptions about the ‘nature’ of male and female teachers and masculinity and femininity are expressed. Male and female teachers are often presumed to differ in teaching styles, capacities and effects on both the teaching profession and the pupils. The arguments used in these debates only seldom refer to particular theoretical grounds or to empirical evidence. Moreover, apart from Sandra Acker’s essay ‘Gender and teachers’ work’ in 1995, educational research lacks an up-to-date review of teacher gender. Therefore, this article aims to provide insight into contemporary theoretical gender perspectives. It also intends to connect these with empirical research that takes teacher gender into account. Most of the research studies referred to in this article do not explicitly state their underlying theoretical principles. Yet, since these studies have distinct research foci, research questions, methodologies and conclusions, they appear to depart from a variety of gender conceptualisations. Therefore, in this article the differences between these conceptualisations will be examined and the divergent theoretical assumptions underlying these studies will be revealed. The two most widespread and disparate perspectives in gender theory are the essentialist perspectives on the one hand and the constructionist perspectives on the other. The differences between them are made up by the degree to which explanations are deterministic and focused on the individual rather than on the social and cultural level. Drawing upon this theoretical contrast, we divided the body of research on teacher gender into two divergent research traditions: sex differences research and gender dynamics research. The research questions, underlying theoretical principles and methodologies of these two traditions are examined. Keywords: Gender issues; Literature reviews; Sex differences; Teaching; Theories Gender theory A puzzling assortment of gender theories can be observed in scientific literature. Authors such as Aries (1996), Howard and Hollander (1997) and Risman (1998) *Corresponding author. Department of Educational Affairs, Ghent University, St. Pietersplein 7, 9000 Gent, Belgium. Email: Elien.Sabbe@UGent.be ISSN 1354-0602 (print)/ISSN 1470-1278 (online)/07/050521–18 © 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13540600701561729
522 E. Sabbe and A. Aelterman distinguish different theoretical approaches to gender. In most cases, the opposing perspectives can be identified as essentialist and constructionist. Essentialist perspectives Downloaded By: [University of Gent] At: 10:19 5 March 2009 Biological essentialist approaches to gender claim that innate differences between the sexes shape divergent social behaviours and characteristics. Maleness and femaleness are viewed as oppositional traits and are assumed to be inherent properties of, respectively, men and women (Anselmi & Law, 1998; Stanley, 2002). These biological perspectives got contested and the focus shifted from biology towards socialisation. According to socialisation models, individuals are not born with certain behavioural and personality characteristics, but learn role expectations imposed by a particular society (sex roles) through processes such as modelling, imitation and applications of rewards and punishments. In this sense, socialisation models can be considered a first step away from an individual and internal approach to gender towards the inclusion of social and societal factors. Yet, some variants of these models were seen as still being too deterministic because of their refutation of individual agency in the enactment of gender roles on the one hand (Francis, 1999; Skelton, 2001; Davies, 2002; Jackson & Scott, 2002; Stanley & Wise, 2002) and their emphasis on stability and continuity on the other hand (Risman, 1998; Edley, 2001; Stanley & Wise, 2002). Howard and Hollander (1997) conclude that the distinction between innate and learned characteristics is in some sense merely semantic. In spite of theoretical developments away from deterministic perspectives, essentialist thought is still firmly embedded in present-day habits, thoughts and social institutions (Howard & Hollander, 1997). The influence of these essentialist ideas— as we intend to show—is even present in contemporary scientific essays on male and female teachers. Constructionist perspectives To provide a less deterministic conceptualisation of gender, theoreticians turned to poststructuralist (Butler, 1990; Francis, 1999, 2001; Scott, 1999; Paechter, 2001; Davies, 2002), social-psychological (Deaux & Major, 1998), and ethnomethodological (Kessler & McKenna, 1978; West & Zimmerman, 1987) approaches to gender. Since we, like Jackson and Scott (2002), can conclude that the scholarship of the poststructuralist authors mentioned before strongly resembles the ethnomethodological theories and the social-psychological approaches of Deaux and Major (1998), we discuss these approaches together. Following Hacking’s (2000) distinction and explanation of constructionalism, constructivism and constructionism, we decided to use the latter label. After the so-called ‘cultural turn’ in the human and social sciences, meaning is thought to be produced (constructed) through human action and the interpretations of these actions, rather than being inherently found in the objects or behaviours. In
Page 1: This article was downloaded by: [Un
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 and 12: 530 E. Sabbe and A. Aelterman Downl
Page 19: 538 E. Sabbe and A. Aelterman Downl

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?