Review of Strategies to Address Gender Inequalities in Scottish ...

grounds that they are based upon assumptions about the ‘natural’ predispositions of boysthat emphasise their tendency to behave, think and learn in particular ways.Jackson (2002) argues for a multi-dimensional conceptualisation of masculinity, morecomplex than typical stereotyping acknowledges, and discusses how boys protect theirself-worth in school settings where academic achievement is the single most importantcriterion in judging the worth of pupils. Caught between two competing influences ontheir sense of themselves – the need to conform to hegemonic masculinities and thedesire to value one’s own worth – Jackson identifies four strategies commonly employedby boys to protect their masculine identities: procrastination; withdrawal of effort andrejection of academic work; avoidance of the appearance of work; and disruptivebehaviour.He identifies four benefits to disruptive behaviour. In the first instance, it can increase aboy’s status with his peer group, who may see him as demonstrating ‘appropriate’ formsof masculinity. Second, it can deflect attention away from academic performance and onto behaviour. Third, failure to achieve can be attributed to poor behaviour rather than tolack of ability and, fourth, it may sabotage the academic efforts of classmates outwith themasculine hegemony. Such explanations go some way to explaining the disproportionatenumber of behaviour referrals and exclusions accorded to boys.Theories of masculinity offer a better understanding of boys’ attitudes and experiences ofschool and facilitate a critical appraisal of the strategies used by schools to addressgender inequalities. Where strategies are based on a simplistic, one-dimensionalconceptualisation of masculinity, the actual effect may be to reinforce particular ways ofbeing masculine and to ignore and undermine other ways:Strategies ‘designed to motivate under-achieving boys throughfootball study centres and ‘boy-friendly’ texts’ embrace the discourseof academic study as ‘non-masculine’ and ‘feminine’ and can onlyoperate to make life more difficult for those who take up nonhegemonicidentities.(Renold, 2001)Skelton (2001) criticises the widespread trend in schools and education authoritiestowards producing support materials designed to make classrooms more ‘boy friendly’ byendorsing one kind of masculinity – that which is aggressive, active and dominant.However, she acknowledges that research into masculinities has not been influential indeveloping the practical approaches so much demanded by schools.Strategies intended to enhance the educational prospects of boys may limit the capacityof schools to value and support the growth of other, and different, forms of genderedidentity. This is a significant challenge to implementing such strategies: gains made forone group may have a negative impact on the experience of others.iii. Gender and wider social factorsA number of commentators (e.g. Archer and Yamashita, 2003) contend that genderinteracts with other aspects of social being, such as class, culture, ethnicity and sexuality,to create multiple forms of identity and to ensure that within the whole group of boys (orgirls) there is a range of quite different relationships to schools and schooling. Otherresearchers, e.g. Mac an Ghaill, (1988) and Blyth and Milner (1996) deal with race andracism and show how schools create alienation and disaffection in unintentional butpotent ways. Arnot (2003) describes how working class boys’ engagement with themental activity of schoolwork diminishes their sense of their own masculinity through theresponses and views of their peer group, their family and their community. Not only isthe pursuit of academic attainment an act of disloyalty, it is also a form of emasculation.______________________________________________________________________________________Review of Strategies to 6 University of StrathclydeAddress Gender Inequalitiesand University of Glasgow