Content uploaded by Göran Gerdin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Göran Gerdin on Apr 23, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
40th Anniversary of Studies in Symbolic Interaction
Boys’ Visual Representations and Interpretations of Physical Education
Göran Gerdin
Article information:
To cite this document: Göran Gerdin. "Boys’ Visual Representations and
Interpretations of Physical Education" In 40th Anniversary of Studies in Symbolic
Interaction. Published online: 09 Mar 2015; 203-225.
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0163-2396(2013)0000040012
Downloaded on: 23 April 2016, At: 05:36 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 58 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 42 times since NaN*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2013),"Ethnographic Practice(s) and Symbolic Interaction: Work from the
Contemporary Ethnography Across the Disciplines Hui", Studies in Symbolic
Interaction, Vol. 40 pp. 3-12 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0163-2396(2013)0000040004
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
emerald-srm:233789 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please
use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which
publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.
The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books
and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products
and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner
of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the
LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
BOYS’ VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS
AND INTERPRETATIONS OF
PHYSICAL EDUCATION
Go
¨ran Gerdin
ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the methodological underpinnings of a doctoral
study that examined boys’ performances of gender in physical education
(PE) at a single-sex secondary school in Auckland, New Zealand. Initial
findings are also presented; however, they only serve to demonstrate the
potential of such an approach and not as an exhaustive report of findings.
Using a participatory visual research approach involving video recordings
of boys participating in PE, the boys’ representations and interpretations
of the visual data were explored during both focus groups and individual
interviews. The boys’ visual representations and interpretations highlight
how their performances of gender are embedded in the design and
structure of the physical spaces and places associated with PE. Through a
Foucauldian (poststructural) lens the boys’ responses also illuminate
how the gendered self is performed in multiple, contradictory and fluid
ways involving particular technologies of the self. Visual research methods
that focus on young people’s visual representations and interpretations
might help identify (gendered) identity issues that are seen as important
to the students themselves. It creates a space for young people to critically
40th Anniversary of Studies in Symbolic Interaction
Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Volume 40, 203–225
Copyright r2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 0163-2396/doi:10.1108/S0163-2396(2013)0000040012
203
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
think about, reflect, articulate, and reason their lived experiences, their
relationships with their peers and more importantly themselves. The use of
such research approaches has the potential of realizing one of the key
aims of symbolic interactionism by opening up new analytical possibilities
for understanding young people’s lived experiences in both formal and
informal pedagogical contexts.
Keywords: Participatory visual research; boys; gender; Foucault;
physical education
BOYS’ VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND
INTERPRETATIONS OF PHYSICAL
EDUCATION – INTRODUCTION
Physical education (PE) researcher Laura Azzarito (2010) has recently called
for the inclusion of research methods, specifically visual research methods,
which ‘‘enable young people to ‘speak’ meaningfully about their experiences
and ways of knowing about the body in physical activity contexts’’ (p. 155).
In this chapter, I discuss how young people’s visual representations and
interpretations of their experiences in PE might further the study of gender
in PE and help researchers, teachers, and families understand how to
address enduring issues of gender stereotypes in physical activity contexts.
In doing so, I build on the idea that as young people are ‘‘experts in their
own lives [visual research methods] might allow them to express their ways
of seeing the world they inhabit in their everyday lives’’(Prosser & Burke,
2008, p. 411). In accordance with Pink (2007), I suggest that visual research
methods create a ‘‘context where ethnographers/authors can create or
represent continuities between [these] diverse worlds, voices or experiences,
and describe or imply points in the research at which they meet or collide’’
(p. 144). The use of such an approach has the potential of realizing one of
the key aims of symbolic interactionism by opening up new analytical
possibilities for understanding young people’s lived experiences, such as
performances of gender.
Further, I explore how participatory visual research methods can be used
as a way of foregrounding young people’s own narratives in educational
research. Indeed, Mead (1934) insisted that an understanding of the self
is formed through the social processes of lived experiences. Moreover,
Blumer (1969) suggested that people act based on their representation and
GO
¨RAN GERDIN204
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
interpretation of the social and physical world around them, resulting in
symbolic actions and reactions that shape personal narratives and the self.
Thus, I focus on one of the strengths of symbolic interactionism that lies in
its perspective of theorizing as an active process produced by social actions
and interactions (Charon, 1979). In other words, it is an understanding
of the boys’ lived experiences of gendered performances in PE through
their visual representations and interpretations that is of concern to this
chapter, in contrast to offering any full explanations of such phenomena
(Hammersley, 1990; Prus, 1996).
To demonstrate this, I discuss the methodological underpinnings of
my doctoral study that examined boys’ performances of gender in PE using
a ‘‘participatory visual research approach’’ (Pink, 2001; Prosser, 2007).
Moreover, although in this chapter the framework is tested out in relation
to performances of gender in PE, the wider implication is that such an
approach might also be used to understand lived experiences in other
formal and informal pedagogical contexts. Thus, the aim of this chapter is
twofold: to reflect on my own participatory visual research to demonstrate
the benefits of this methodological approach; and to indicate the
implications of such an approach for the interpretations of performances
of gender in both PE and other educational contexts.
VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND
INTERPRETATIONS – BOYS ‘‘SPEAKING FOR
THEMSELVES’’
My work is situated within what Fine (1990) calls the ‘‘Post-Blumerian Age’’
of symbolic interactionism. In particular, it is aligned with those more ‘‘neo-
pragramatic’’ symbolic interactionists who have taken a stronger post-
modern turn (e.g., Denzin, 1997) rather than those who can be considered
more ‘‘formalist’’ symbolic interactionists (e.g., Prus, 1997). Drawing on
Denzin’s (1997, p. xv) ‘‘humanistic commitment to study the social world
from the perspective of the interacting individual,’’ I am particularly
concerned with bringing young people’s representations and interpretations
to the fore in my research. Symbolic interactionism asserts that human
social worlds cannot be studied like physical worlds; that to know means a
deep intersubjective reflexivity that must make the researcher’s under-
standings link to those of the researched (Plummer, 2000). My use of
participatory visual research methods in this study was an attempt to
Boys’ Visual Representations and Interpretations of Physical Education 205
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
actively involve the students themselves and bridge the gap between the
researcher and the researched since through a poststructural lens reality is a
co-construction.
Symbolic interactionists have long found that theory and method are
closely intertwined. Since their prime task has been to detect and assemble
theories of specific features of the empirical world, they are clearly charged
with inspecting that world (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). That is, ‘‘unlike many
other social theories which can soar to the theoretical heavens, symbolic
interactionists stay grounded on earth’’ (Plummer, 2000, p. 194). Symbolic
interactionists thus advocate methodologies that explore and inspect the
rich variety of social experience as it is lived and that produce theories
directly grounded in the empirical world (Plummer, 2000).
This research project was conducted over a 12-month period at a
multicultural single-sex boys’ secondary school in Auckland, New Zealand
with a total of 61 Year 10 (age 14–15) boys from two PE classes. In my study
I adopted visual research methods to enable the boys to ‘‘speak for
themselves’’ (Prosser & Burke, 2008, p. 408). However, the intention of
using visual methods in my research was not to somehow reveal the ‘‘truth’’
about boys’ performances of gender in PE, but rather to highlight how
representations and interpretations of the visual allows for the creation of
multiple truths and multiple meanings (Eisner, 2005; Pink, 2001). One of the
key assumptions of the symbolic interaction tradition is that meaning is
never fixed and immutable; rather, it is always shifting, emergent, and
ultimately ambiguous (Plummer, 2000). Though we may regularly create
habits, routines, and shared meanings, these are always open to reappraisal
and further adjustment (Perinbanayagam, 1985; Rochberg-Halton, 1987;
Wiley, 1994). It is through my Foucauldian poststructural lens, which
centers around the contested nature of truth and meaning, that I wanted to
use visual representations and interpretations to challenge stereotypes and
generalizations of boys’ behavior and experiences in PE (Togman, 2011;
Whyte, 1997). Through a research process based on visual research methods
I particularly aimed to empower the boys to creatively make sense of
themselves and to reflect on the ways they create meaning, identities, and the
self (Gauntlett & Holzwarth, 2006). Another central concern for interac-
tionist sociology is with the manner through which human beings go about
the task of assembling meaning and how such meanings are constantly being
built up through interaction with others (Perinbanayagam, 1985; Rochberg-
Halton, 1987; Wiley, 1994).
In my study the participatory visual research approach involved PE classes
being recorded using video cameras, by both me as the researcher and
GO
¨RAN GERDIN206
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
the participating boys. According to Prosser (2007), the use of participatory
visual research methods in educational research is of importance since it
shifts the focus from doing research on students to research with and by
students. Participatory visual research can therefore provide a more intimate
representation of the students’ contextually embedded everyday experiences
(Prosser & Burke, 2008). In particular, this approach enables a more fluid
and open construction of perceived experiences, lending full ownership over
the construction and social-personal representation of those experiences
(Banks, 2001). Whereas using existing visual material in the form of photo
elicitation can provide valuable findings, more insights about the subjective
dimensions of people’s experiences may be generated by people’s reflection
upon their own visual representations of their experiences (Azzarito, 2010).
Although Pink (2007) has suggested that giving the video camera to the
participants right away might be useful to quickly gain the trust and
collaboration of the participants, I found it important to begin with an
observational period to familiarize myself with both the context and the
two PE classes. These initial observations were documented, with written
notes and video recordings. This also meant that the boys got used to the
presence of a video camera in the classroom. After an initial period of
recording observations in this way lasting a couple of weeks I then started
letting the boys being in control of the video camera. Each student got to use
the video camera for about 20–30 minutes resulting in a mixture`of longer and
shorter video clips. Their clips along with the ones I had recorded, in total
over 50 hours, were then copied across to my computer and without any
editing taking place used during the focus groups and individual interviews.
The video recordings were also transcribed comprising narratives and
still images.
The only instruction I gave the boys before handing over the video camera
was that they were supposed to produce a ‘‘mini-documentary’’ of their PE.
The ‘‘gaze’’ of the boys’ cameras were thus random, not systematic, but in
following Prosser and Schwartz (1998) these boys sought to use the camera as
way to ‘‘discover and demonstrate relationships that may be subtle and easily
overlooked’’ (p. 116). They were particularly encouraged to consider aspects
and situations of PE that they were interested in and wanted to bring to
the surface with their visual representations. By allowing the boys to create
‘‘mini-documentaries’’ of their experiences in PE the visual representations
became a medium of communication between me and the boys (Curry, 1986).
In this sense it also empowered the boys by encouraging them to commu-
nicate and express themselves in meaningful and contextualized ways
(Gauntlett & Holzwarth, 2006).
Boys’ Visual Representations and Interpretations of Physical Education 207
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
Participatory visual methods differ from the researcher making visual
representations mainly in terms of the participant-researcher relationship
since the participants and the researcher are creating something together.
Pink (2007) argues that creating something together reduces the ‘‘top-down’’
dynamic and any findings are therefore the result of both the researcher
and the participants’ representations and interpretations. In other words, in
my participatory visual research I wanted to reflect the boys as social agents
who are active meaning-makers in their own lives (Best, 2007). This
supposition thus aligns with symbolic interactionists’ active view of the social
world in which ‘‘human beings are constantly going about their business,
piecing together joint lines of activity, and constituting society through these
interactions’’ (Plummer, 2000, p. 194). Interaction is one of the major themes
of symbolic interactionism since meaning itself is seen as an interactive
process emerging out of interactions. In particular, it is concerned with
‘‘collective behaviour’’ (Wiley, 1994) and ‘‘how people do things together’’
(Becker, 1986). McCall (2003) asserts that symbolic interactionism studies
are often dedicated to understanding ‘‘who are we and what are we doing’’
(p. 329) and in order to conduct this type of research, the researcher must also
become a participant in the group, a part of the ‘‘we.’’ Hence, participant
observation played a key role in my participatory visual research approach.
Since the boys themselves were engaged in my visual research, they also
seemed to take pleasure in the process, suggesting that they were ‘‘getting
something out’’ of their participation. This investment in the research not
only by me as the researcher but also by the participating boys means that
both sides were rewarded by the result and there was less need for me to
somehow ‘‘compensate’’ the boys for the information that I had taken or
extracted from the research setting (Pink, 2007). In fact, when using this
form of collaborative visual approach, the visual material might remain in
the research setting, which in my research project ended up being in the form
of a ‘‘documentary-style’’ DVD. This helped produce an ethnographic
account that to some extent was ‘‘co-created’’ (Robinson, 2009).
One of the reasons why I decided to use video-based data is in its
permanence as a record and its accessibility/retrievability. In particular,
using digital video enabled the annotation of clips, making it easy to
retrieve, select, and edit for future use. However, Schuck and Kearney
(2006) argue that video-based data is prone to the same issue of subjectivity
as selection and analysis of non-video-based data. Visual data is therefore
never neutral, it is always literally and socially constructed (Schuck &
Kearney, 2006), though, O’Donoghue (2007) reminds us that these issues are
not confined to visual research and that exactly the same set of concerns
GO
¨RAN GERDIN208
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
about selection, processing, editing, and representation ‘‘apply equally to the
use of words and numbers: it is just that we are more used to working with
them’’ (p. 65). Nonetheless, O’Donoghue (2007) argues that the use of digital
technologies to manipulate images may enhance the deceptiveness of the
visual, it appears to capture social reality, but is in reality a manufactured
object. This typically occurs through the process of selection, processing, and
editing decisions that are made by the ‘‘producer’’ of the visual data. For
instance, Baker, Green, and Skukauskaite (2008) contend that:
A video record of an event represents not the event in its complexity, but rather, it is an
inscription of how the ethnographer chose to focus the camera. As a field note, therefore,
the video (re)presents an event selected by the ethnographer, making available for
analysis a particular range of discourse and actions among members. (p. 82)
Hence, by handing over the video camera to the participating boys I wanted
to avoid me as the researcher being exclusively responsible for the pro-
duction of the visual data. However, when analyzing the video data I was
aware that there is still the issue of what data will be used in the discussion/
analysis. In particular, when the visual material is edited and produced, a
level of distance between the participant, researcher, and the social context
is still maintained (Schuck & Kearney, 2006).
To increase the level of intimacy between the researcher, the image, and
the social context, Banks (2001) has suggested that the images produced by
the participants can be used as a form of ‘‘interview probing.’’ Shuck and
Kearney (2006) state that using data in form of video recordings can
stimulate good conversation and produce rich data and a number of
researchers have used this type of ‘‘stimulated-recall interviews’’ to generate
data (e.g., Byra & Sherman, 1993). This is why the visual data recorded by
both me and the participating boys was used during the focus groups and
individual interviews to help provide a more ethical and balanced
presentation of results by giving the boys the chance to provide an
interpretation of the visual data (Kaplan & Howes, 2004). Stimulated-recall
interviews, therefore, importantly redress the imbalance of power when the
researcher (exclusively) analyzes the data’s significance (Allen, 2008). In my
study, I particularly used visual data during the interviews to create a forum
for the active construction of meanings. By engaging the boys in both the
representation and interpretation of the visual material I attempted to
encourage meaning-making grounded in the boys own specific context
(Allen, 2008). Thus, visual representations are not only produced by the
maker, but is continuously produced and reproduced by anyone that
engages with it (Rose, 2007). In this sense, the same visual material can help
Boys’ Visual Representations and Interpretations of Physical Education 209
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
produce an endless number of active constructions of multiple meanings.
The boys’ visual representations together with their descriptions and inter-
pretations of these in the focus groups and individual interviews provided
thick and rich accounts of boys’ performances of gender in PE and
generated an array of meanings.
During the focus groups and individual interviews the boys were asked to
select video clips that either they or someone else had filmed. In order to
maintain some form of structure during the focus groups I let each student
spend a couple of minutes deciding on one video clip that they wanted to be
played. My decision to exclusively let the boys themselves decide what video
clips to look at was based on Azzarito’s (2010) concern that visual material
selected by me as the researcher might lead to a ‘‘displacement from the
personal to the social’’ (p. 156) where the boys might disavow strong
feelings, or issues of personal relevance, on the topic researched. The clips
were then played on my computer where I asked the boy(s) to talk about
what was happening in this particular clip. The student who had picked the
video clip also had the option of stopping, forwarding and rewinding the
video clip if he so chose to. Once we had stopped looking at the video clips
I then, based on the conversation taking place while watching the video
clips, attempted to facilitate a further discussion by asking the boys to
elaborate/negotiate their views, perceptions, and experiences of these
particular situations as represented by the video clips.
Throughout the interviews I also used a schedule of open-ended
questions/prompts in order to get them thinking and talking about issues
relating to performances of gender in these video clips. These questions/
prompts were developed in relation to my review of literature and themes/
issues that I had identified during the observations and video recordings.
The purpose here was to explore how boys conceptualize gendered
experiences in terms of their positive and negative experiences and their
construction and articulation of these during the interviews. By using video
clips I particularly wanted to encourage the boys’ critical engagement with
the gendered messages communicated/portrayed. However, it is important
to note that it was the boys’ own interpretations and discussion/negotiation
of these particular situations that formed the data of crucial importance in
answering my study’s research question. Consequently, the open-ended
questions/prompts were not introduced until after the video clips had been
played and then only provided when needed, so as not to overly influence
responses and to encourage the boys to elaborate on topics raised during
the conversations taking place while watching the video clips. All the
conversations were taped and later transcribed.
GO
¨RAN GERDIN210
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
In order to analyze these data I used a qualitative method known as
‘‘thematic analysis’’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006); a method that is compatible
with a Foucauldian poststructural approach. Thematic analysis involves
the identification, analysis, and presentation of themes within data to go
beyond commonsense accounts. A theme was defined as something that
‘‘captures something important about the data in relation to the research
question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning
within the data set’’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 82). I also used thematic
analysis as a form of Foucauldian analysis of discourse (Burman &
Parker, 1993). Gee, Michaels, and O’Connor (1992) articulate discourse
analysis as any study that ‘‘may be concerned with any part of the human
experience touched on or constituted by discourse’’ (p. 228). Based on this
assertion, discourse analysis is a good fit with symbolic interactionism,
which is interested in examining social practices and relations as
constituted by discourse. In my study I decided to use both thematic
analysis and discourse analysis since it provided a broad framework that
enabled me to focus on the practical implications of discourse, particularly
with regard to power relations.
In the analysis of the data focus was both on how they talked about
and interpreted the video clips but also on their performances of gender
during the actual interviews since these were also seen as important sites
of gendered performances. The boys’interpretations of the visual data
together with their performances of gender during the focus groups and
individual interviews were then put into themes. These themes were then
used in follow-up focus groups and individual interviews in order to have
a continued discussion around these issues asking for clarifications and
elaborations. This often involved going back to particular video clips that
they had selected and asking them to look at them again and either
reaffirming or amending their interpretations. Issues of more sensitive
nature that could not be addressed during the focus group interviews due
the risk of these boys being ridiculed or harassed was dealt with in the
individual interviews. The individual interviews particularly revisited
statements by the participants during the focus groups that were
interesting and that seemed contradictory or hesitant. The boys’ responses
in these follow-up interviews added another layer of analysis that were
also organized into themes. I will now present how the boys’ own
interpretations of the visual data helped explore three different themes
relating to the performances of gendered selves in order to demonstrate
the potential of adopting participatory visual research methods in PE
research.
Boys’ Visual Representations and Interpretations of Physical Education 211
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
THEME I – THE GENDERED SPACES AND PLACES
OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION
The boys’ visual representations and interpretations gave me an indication of
what they want ‘‘others to see and think about; they draw attention and
direct attention’’ (O’Donoghue, 2007, p. 66). The visual component of my
study in particular focused on the spaces and places that the boys had PE
where the boys present, and are presented with ways of performing and doing
gender, where learning about the self and the ‘‘other’’ occurs. O’Donoghue
(2007) argues that often the physical spaces in which gender is performed
‘‘tend to be viewed as mere settings, a backdrop or stage’’ (p. 66). However,
the boys’ visual representations and interpretations in my research highlight
how particular gendered identities and discourses of gender that shape boys
performances of gender are embedded in the design and structure of the
physical spaces associated with PE. Indeed, Pink (2011) has recently
suggested that visual researchers adopt a ‘‘theory of emplacement’’ that
recognizes how the ‘‘ecology of place’’ (p. 346) enable/restrict subjectivities.
Joseph’s and Randy’s visual representations and interpretations (Figs. 1
and 2), as selected by them for discussion in their individual interviews, draw
attention to ways in which performing gender in PE constitutes and are
constituted by a dominant discourse of gender inherent in the space/place
itself. When Joseph, one of the 14-year-old New Zealand born boys who do
not seem to like traditional masculine sports such as rugby and soccer but
instead prefer alternative activities such as ‘‘BMXing’’ and mountain biking,
talks about his video clips (represented by the two still images in Fig. 1) he
says:
Joseph: Well you know I hate being stuck inside these four walls of the gym.
Go
¨ran: What do you mean?
Fig.1. Inside the Gym.
GO
¨RAN GERDIN212
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
Joseph: Well I just don’t feel comfortable being trapped like this I rather be out in the
open, like when I go BMXing or mountain-biking with my friends on the weekend. Then
we just go anywhere we want, there are no stupid walls to keep us in!
Go
¨ran: So how does this affect your participation in PE?
Joseph: Well, I guess I don’t really get amongst it like some of the sporty boys who
like being all aggressive and competitive and stuff you know tackling each other. I mean
I don’t really have the right body for that anyway so why should I even try. I guess it also
means I am considered one of the non-sporty ones that doesn’t really like PEyummm
not like most of the other boys.
Go
¨ran: Being sporty and liking PE is important if you are a boy?
Joseph: Yeah.
In Joseph’s statements above, the physical space of being enclosed, or as
he calls it ‘‘trapped,’’ inside the gym is significant. Through physical and
geographical mechanisms this space becomes an uncomfortable place in
Joseph’s experience, which simultaneously enables and constrains certain
performances of gender. In particular, he experiences this space as providing
the ‘‘sporty’’ boys with an opportunity to exercise power through
performing dominant masculine ideals such as aggression, competition,
and physical dominance. By contrast he positions himself as one of the
‘‘non-sporty’’ boys and someone who does not have the ‘‘right body’’ and
dislikes aggression/competition in PE that are both seen as ideals not
compatible with ‘‘most of the other boys.’’ This is further highlighted when
the same video clips are discussed in one of the focus groups, where a group
of boys who can be said belong to the sporty group explains why they enjoy
having PE inside this gym:
Matthew: I love having PE in the gym!
Dominic: Yeah me too!
Fig. 2. Out on the Rugby and Soccer Field.
Boys’ Visual Representations and Interpretations of Physical Education 213
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
Go
¨ran: Why is that?
Matthew: Well I mean it is great being inside the gym compared to being outside on the
fields especially in winter when it gets too wet all the time. In here we can just focus on
playing games and competing without having to worry about the wind, cold or the rain
and getting injured from slipping in the mud and stuff.
Dominic: Yeah we can focus more on what we are supposed to do in PE?
Go
¨ran: And what is that?
Dominic: You know getting fit by competing and play lots of different sports. You know
doing what boys do.
Go
¨ran: And what if you don’t like competing or doing sports?
Matthew: Well then you might called a poofter hehe
[Laughter]
In contrast to Joseph’s experiences, Matthew and Dominic experience the
gym as a sheltered space removed from the potentially interruptive outdoor
environment where they can focus more on ‘‘getting fit,’’ playing sports, and
‘‘doing what boys do.’’ In this sense, the boys’ comments demonstrates how
this particular enclosed space constitute and are constituted by a dominant
discourse of gender related to the fit, competitive, and sporty boy (Swain,
2006) that regulates their performances of gender.
When I ask Randy to explain why he kept focusing the video camera on
the lines of a rugby field and a soccer field (represented by the two still
images in Fig. 2), he says:
Randy: Umm, wellywithin these damn lines I always get tackledypeople get really
aggressive.
Go
¨ran: Why
Randy: Well all the other boys like playing rough and tumbleybut I don’t really like
sports like rugbyythey are too violent.
Go
¨ran: So what do you then?
Randy: Well I guess me and some of the other boys we kind of stay away from the game
and hide in the corners and stuff. Especially when we are playing rugby.
In Randy’s experience the rugby field becomes a space congruent with the
performance of gender that is aggressive, physical and forceful. It also
becomes a space where particular dominant masculine embodiments are
privileged over others that simultaneously puts boys into either dominant or
subordinate positions. The physical space of the rugby field acts as a space
where certain ideas of male identities and proper ways of acting manly are
performed, enacted, and displayed ‘‘rough and tumble.’’ Randy’s statement
GO
¨RAN GERDIN214
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
also provides an example how PE spaces such as the rugby field becomes
divided into different areas where different boys in turn lay claim to
different places within spaces. Whereas the ‘‘sporty’’ boys are able to claim
dominant places by occupying both social and physical space (Connell,
1983), some of the other boys such as Randy are subjugated to places away
from the interaction of the other boys (Renold, 2004).
Furthermore, what is interesting about this particular space, the rugby
field, is that there are three designated fields at this particular school that are
often used for playing rugby and touch rugby during breaks. However,
boys, such as Joseph, who rather do other things such as ‘‘BMXing,’’ do not
have existing spaces for their recreational use. O’Donoghue (2007) argues
that ‘‘encoded in the designation of and provision of space for particular
activities and interests is the belief that ‘real boys’ like to do particular
things’’ (p. 68). That is, the way in which school and PE spaces are presented
and provided to these students therefore reinforces ideas about what ‘‘real
boys’’ like doing and therefore play an important role in (re)constructing
boys as a homogenous category (Armstrong, 2007).The management of
physical spaces in this way reproduces differences and hierarchies of being a
boy. It can therefore be argued that a school’s physical spaces are also
agents in the gendering of these boys. While, as Venkatesh’s (1997) puts it,
‘‘individuals produce their space by investing their surroundings with
qualitative attributes and specific meaning the formal qualities of a built
environment exert a powerful effect on individuals by shaping the possi-
bilities of their behaviors’’ (p. 90).
Moreover, despite ethical restrictions preventing me from documenting
certain spaces and places the boys found innovative ways of letting their
visual representations and interpretations engage with ‘‘off-limit’’ locations.
For example, one of the boys (James), included crossover footage jumping
from focusing on the PE lesson to recording the door of the changing rooms
(Fig. 3). When I asked James about his unusual visual representation he
said that:
James: Well it is the time [the changing rooms] when there is a lot of bonding going on
hehe
Go
¨ran: What do you mean by bonding?
James: You know boys doing boys stuff. You know talking about scoring girls, play
fighting playing practical jokes on each other and showing who is stronger or weaker you
know. Its bit like the survival of the fittest hehe
Go
¨ran: And who are the winners?
James: Well most of the time all of us rugby boys hehe
Boys’ Visual Representations and Interpretations of Physical Education 215
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
While no actual visual data existed of the inside of the changing rooms,
James’ comments highlight that the changing rooms is a site where gendered
and sexual identities are regulated and reinforced. This space also means
more freedom for the boys to negotiate these issues since teacher
surveillance is rendered more problematic in this context (Allen, 2008).
Indeed, negotiation and regulation of sexual cultures in schools often occur
in ‘‘unauthorised’’ spaces (Epstein & Johnson, 1998; Kehily, 2002). James’
statement in particular draws attention toward the type of gender
disciplinary and heteronormative work that takes place in changing room
spaces (Burstyn, 1999; Caudwell, 2006). As Farr (1988) argues, male
superiority and privilege are often won when men bond with the strong,
while avoiding and deriding the so-called weak. Typically, the boys who
were involved in this were those who possessed muscular builds and were
part of the school’s rugby team. Simultaneously, boys who are deemed too
fat, too thin, or generally not as physically capable as the dominant boys are
labelled as feminine or their sexuality questioned (Atkison & Kehler, 2010).
Heterosexuality then is the norm and homosexuality is an ‘‘othered’’
Fig. 3. Unofficial Spaces and Places.
GO
¨RAN GERDIN216
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
identity, one that is marginalized and often positioned as deviant (Epstein &
Johnson, 1998). The changing rooms is therefore a space in which boys’
performances of gender are negotiated where homophobia, fear of being
exposed or perceived of as gay and pressure of living up to ideal masculine
body types leads to the performances of heterosexual and hypermasculine
forms of gender(Atkinson & Kehler, 2010).
Another theme that emerged through the boys’ visual representations and
interpretations that also shape the boys’ performances of gender centered
around how the self is created through ‘‘technologies of the self’’ (Foucault,
1978).
THEME II – TECHNOLOGIES OF THE SELF
The picking of teams can be seen as one of those highly gendered moments
in PE where boys are picked according to their perceived ability and skills in
playing various sports. When picking teams it is in particular traditional
masculine values that are sought after. The ‘‘sporty,’’ ‘‘fit,’’ and ‘‘active’’
boys are picked before the ‘‘non-sporty,’’ ‘‘unfit,’’ and ‘‘passive’’ boys.
Norman Denzin (2010) recently stressed the importance of identifying key
moments where the ‘‘sting of memories’’ are felt and, although I can only
speak for myself, I think many of us can remember these kind of experiences
in PE. It is my belief that visual research methods can make these moments
visible so that we can engage in critical conversations about how these
moments influences our gendered selves in PE contexts. While watching a
video clip of the boys picking teams for a game of indoor soccer (Fig. 4) in
one of the focus groups the boy who had been behind the camera that day
yells out:
Mitchell: Ah look I’m zooming in on all the nerds who are being picked last!
(Laughter)
Go
¨ran: What do you mean?
Mitchell: Well look at them they are just sitting there! [He demonstrates how the boys
who are being picked last sit with their arms crossed, leaning against the wall of the gym
and with their heads facing the ground). No one wants them on their team because they
don’t really care about PE they rather be doing their homework.
Go
¨ran: So who gets picked first then?
Mitchell: All the popular ones, you know the sporty ones.
Duncan: Yeah the ones who actually like PE.
Boys’ Visual Representations and Interpretations of Physical Education 217
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
Go
¨ran: So if you rather do your homework than have PE you are considered a nerd then?
Mitchell: Yeah
In a follow-up interview with Mitchell (who had been doing most of the
talking during this interview), I asked him about how you become popular
and picked first in PE. He said:
Mitchell: As long as you play a lot of sport you become popular and once you have
become popular you can still do some nerdy things without being laughed at or called a
nerd.
Go
¨ran: So sport is way of being accepted then?
Mitchell: Yeah you know if you want to do well at school as well you just have to
find the right balance. I usually do all my school work at home after practice. That way
I don’t have to sit around and do nothing at school but can join in with all the other guys
when they play touch during breaks.
I later asked Hugo (who hade been in the same group interview as
Mitchell and the others but not said anything) what it is like trying to live up
to this privileged status associated with sporting ability:
Hugo: Trying to be one of the cool guys can sometimes be quite tiring. Sometimes you
might think that you should be spending more time on your school work but then you
Fig. 4. Boys Picking Teams for a Game of Indoor Soccer.
GO
¨RAN GERDIN218
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
don’t want to like you know sit and do school work at school. That just really uncool
and then all the other boys will laugh at you. That’s why I do all my school work at
home.
This highlights how the specific regimes of practice through which boys
learn to perform gender consist of both public and private gendered
categories of the self (Francis, Skelton, & Read, 2010). Mitchell and Hugo’s
negotiation of their peer groups involves specific techniques of the self that
are operationalized through a regime of practice involving specific
modalities of power (Foucault, 1978). The public performances of gender
serve to maintain social status in the peer group whereas the private gender
performances may, as in the case of Mitchell and Hugo, involve alternative
performances. They have successfully established that performances of
gender within each context that are considered as ‘‘normal’’ and which ones
are ‘‘unacceptable’’ or what Butler (1990) would call ‘‘abject’’ performances.
The boys’ visual representations and interpretations above thus helps make
visible how the creation of the self in multiple, contradictory and fluid ways
can be seen as a ‘‘work of art’’ (Foucault, 1983, p. 237). Indeed, this can be
related to symbolic interactionists’ argument that people’s selves are not
merely social products, but that these selves are also purposive and creative
(Plummer, 2000). I will now present a third theme that emerged from the
findings related to this notion.
THEME III – THE SELF AS A WORK OF ART
In one of the video clips the camera is zoomed in one of the boys (Randy)
when they are playing a game of badminton (Fig. 5). When this video clip
got picked for discussion in an individual interview with the boy (James)
who had been doing the filming I asked him to tell me something about his
visual representation:
James: Well you know the other guys they were on my back the whole timeyfilm this
and film thisyand then they wanted me to zoom in on Randyy
Go
¨ran: Why did they want you to do that?
James: Well he is not one of the sporty ones and people always make fun of himyHe is
not that good at PEyyou know rugby and socceryand he gets called fat and stuffya
bit like me I guess. We are both a bit afraid of getting hurt most of the time since the
sporty ones always get so aggressive when have PE.
Go
¨ran: Do you think that is why you decided to keep filming him then?
James: Yeah, I guess I feel for him in wayyyou know since I get to put up with the same
crap.
Boys’ Visual Representations and Interpretations of Physical Education 219
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
The first thing that is interesting about these comments from James is his
multiple and to some extent even contradictory reading of this particular
moment. Based on his statement it seems as if he is simultaneously justifying
his zooming in on Randy by claiming that it was an act of empathy but also
that he was forced to do so by the other boys. Nonetheless, through Randy’s
performances of gender James is also able to talk about how they both
perform gender in a way that is not congruent with traditional and
dominant discourses of masculinity, as they both performed and represented
gender lacking skills in traditional masculine sports, such as soccer and
rugby. Additionally, they engendered stereotypical notions of femininity
such as being afraid of getting hurt and disliking the aggressive nature of
playing sports in PE.
As the interview with James carries on we get into a discussion about
what types of physical activities he and his friends enjoy:
James: Well, me and my friends we usually go mountain biking on the weekends. None
of us are really that good, but we just hang out and relax together. That is the best thing
about it, hanging out together. It is also nice being out in the open and not closed in like
when we do sports in PE.
Fig. 5. A Group of Boys Playing Badminton.
GO
¨RAN GERDIN220
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
In contrast with the ‘‘non-sporty self’’ that lacks in sporting skills and does
not have the right body size, James also creates a different self through
physical activity participation in noneducational contexts; a ‘‘relaxed self’’
and a ‘‘relational self’’ (Sparkes, 2004). Among these identities, a ‘‘positive
self’’ and a ‘‘meaningful self’’ (Riessman, 2003) is created outside of PE and
away from traditional sports together with his friends. As mentioned earlier,
due to ethics restrictions I had to limit the videoing to school hours and
specifically PE class time. This not only prevented me from documenting
performances of gender taking place in unofficial spaces, during school
hours but also meant that I could not involve boys’ representations and
interpretations of their experiences in informal physical activity contexts,
such as James going mountain biking with his friends. In fact, Denzin (1997)
argues that ethnographers need to take their research into the public sphere
working alongside the new journalists, poets, filmmakers, and the like to
generate a new ‘‘public ethnography.’’ Disregarding the ethical challenges
researchers are faced with when wanting to conduct this type of out of
school research, future research projects that employ participatory visual
research methods to explore young people’s physical activity experiences
outside of school hours might provide further insights into the diverse lived
experiences of physical activity in young people’s lives. Such knowledge
could have important implications for both formal and informal physical
activity contexts.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
The use of visual research methods may provide an answer to the challenge
posed by Andrew Sparkes (1991) over twenty years ago to broaden the
paradigmatic stances available to researchers in PE, to contribute to the
‘‘polyvocality’’ in research by offering ‘‘new forms of interpretation and
insight’’ (p. 127). By adopting visual research methods, researchers might
provide new insights into young people’s gendered experiences and sense of
the self in PE that could potentially transform young people’s gendered
patterns of expectations. Using visual research methods and in particular
participatory visual methods can help identify gendered identity issues that
are seen as important to the students themselves. O’Donoghue (2007) argues
that participatory visual research methods can help ‘‘open up spaces where
we can engage meaningfully with issues of power, surveillance, segregation,
isolation, dominance, and subordination; places where we can situate these
issues’’ (p. 66). It creates a space for the students to address issues of
Boys’ Visual Representations and Interpretations of Physical Education 221
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
gendered performances and the fluidity of creating the self through PE that
might help highlight and challenge narrow conceptions of gendered selves
still inherent in this subject.
The boys’ visual representations in addition to their verbal narratives of
their experiences of PE presented in this chapter, for instance, suggest that
the practices and processes of performing gender are embedded in and
related to the material arrangements of the spaces and buildings themselves.
As a PE researcher I am therefore interested in the physical spaces that are
produced and presented to our boys (and girls) and in accordance with
O’Donoghue (2007) call for an inquiry into what these spaces say about
learning and where it occurs and how it occurs? But also for further research
that makes visible the importance of considering physical spaces in
sociological inquiries into gender in PE.
In general and based on the findings in my study, I continue to be
interested in devising visual research methods that provide young people
with a medium through that they can think about, reflect, articulate and
reason their lived experiences, their relationships with their peers and more
importantly themselves. The use of such research approaches has the
potential of realizing one of the key aims of social interactionism by opening
up new analytical possibilities for understanding young people’s lived
experiences in other both formal and informal pedagogical contexts. In
particular, I am interested in devising visual research methods based on
Michel Foucault and Judith Butler’s work on power and gender that can lead
to research designs that offer boys and girls more opportunities to critically
examine their conditions of (im)possible gendered identities. Encouraging
young people to engage in critical pedagogical conversations and reflections
on their own gendered identities as both multiple and fluid might lead to new
insights and knowledge that could assist teachers and teacher educators to
address enduring gendered issues in educational practice as a way of
improving educative outcomes and serving the public good.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Toni Bruce and Robert Rinehart for their comments
on earlier drafts of this paper. My thanks also go to the postgraduate
committee in Critical Studies in Education at the University of Auckland,
New Zealand, and in particular Airini and Maxine Stephenson for
organizing an internal postgraduate conference that later led to the
development of this paper.
GO
¨RAN GERDIN222
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
REFERENCES
Allen, L. (2008). Young people’s ‘agency’ in sexuality research using visual methods. Journal of
Youth Studies,11(6), 565–577.
Armstrong, F. (2007). Disability, education and space: Some critical reflections. In
K. N. Gulson & C. Symes (Eds.), Spatial theories of education: Policy and geography
matters (pp. 95–110). New York, NY: Routledge.
Atkinson, M., & Kehler, M. (2010). Boys, gyms, locker rooms and heterotopia. In M. Kehler &
M. Atkinson (Eds.), Boys’ bodies: Speaking the unspoken (pp. 73–90). New York, NY:
Peter Lang.
Azzarito, L. (2010). Ways of seeing the body in kinesiology: A case for visual methodologies.
Quest,62, 155–170.
Baker, D. W., Green, J. L., & Skukauskaite, A. (2008). Video-enabled ethnographic research: A
microethnographic perspective. In G. Walford (Ed.), How to do educational ethnography.
London: Tufnell Press.
Banks, M. (2001). Visual methods in social research. London: Sage.
Becker, H. S. (1986). Doing things together. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Best, A. (2007). Introduction. In A. Best (Ed.), Representing youth: methodological issues in
critical youth studies (pp. 1–38). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology,3, 77–101.
Burman, E., & Parker, I. (1993). Discourse analytical research. London: Routledge.
Burstyn, V. (1999). The rites of men: Manhood, politics, and the culture of sport. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge.
Byra, M., & Sherman, M. (1993). Preactive and interactive decision-making tendencies of less
and more experienced preservice teachers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,64,
46–55.
Caudwell, J. (2006). Sport, sexualities and queer/theory. London: Routledge.
Charon, J. (1979). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Connell, R. W. (1983). Which way is up?Essays on sex, class and culture. Sydney: Allen & Urwin.
Curry, T. J. (1986). A visual method of studying sports: The photo-elicitation interview.
Sociology of Sport Journal,3, 204–216.
Denzin, N. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (2010). A critical persformance ethnography that matters. Paper presented at the
contemporary ethnography across the disciplines, 17-19/11, 2010, Hamilton, NZ.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.
Eisner, E. (2005). Reimagining schools: The selected works of Elliot W. Eisner. London: Routledge.
Epstein, D., & Johnson, R. (1998). Schooling sexualities. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Farr, K. (1988). Dominance bonding through the good old boys sociability group. Sex Roles
(5–6), 259–277.
Fine, G. A. (1990). Symbolic interactionism in the post Blumerian age. In G. Ritzer (Ed.),
Frontiers of social theory: The new syntheses (pp. 117–157). New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Boys’ Visual Representations and Interpretations of Physical Education 223
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality, volume one. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1983). On the genealogy of ethics: An overview of work in progress. In
H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel foucault: Beyond structuralism and
hermeneutics (2nd ed., pp. 229–252). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Francis, B., Skelton, C., & Read, B. (2010). The simultaneous production of educational
achievement and popularity: How do some pupils accomplish it? British Educational
Research Journal,36(2), 317–340.
Gauntlett, D., & Holzwarth, P. (2006). Creative and visual methods for exploring identities.
Visual Studies,21, 82–91.
Gee, J. P., Michael, S., & O’Connor, M. C. (1992). Discourse analysis. In M. D. LeCompte,
W. L. Millory & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education
(pp. 227–291). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Hammersley, M. (1990). The dilemma of qualitative method: Herbert Blumer and the Chicago
tradition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kaplan, I., & Howes, A. (2004). Seeing through different eyes: Exploring the value of
participative research using images in schools. Cambridge Journal of Education,34(2),
143–155.
Kehily, M. J. (2002). Sexuality, gender and schooling: Shifting agendas in social learning.
London: Routledge Falmer.
McCall, G. J. (2003). Interaction. In L. T. Reynolds & N. J. Herman-Kinney (Eds.), Handbook
of symbolic interactionism (pp. 327–348). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
O’Donoghue, D. (2007). ‘James always hangs out here’: Making space for place in studying
masculinities at school. Visual Studies,22(1), 62–73.
Perinbanayagam, R. S. (1985). Signifying acts: Structure and meanings in everyday life.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Pink, S. (2001). Doing visual ethnography: Images, media and representation in research. London:
Sage.
Pink, S. (2007). Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage.
Pink, S. (2011). From embodiment to emplacement: Re-thinking competing bodies, senses and
spatialities. Sport, Education and Society,16(3), 343–355.
Plummer, K. (2000). Symbolic interactionism in the twentieth century. In B. S. Turner (Ed.),
The Blackwell companion to sociology (pp. 193–222). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Prosser, J. (2007). Visual methods and the visual culture of schools. Visual Studies,22(1), 13–30.
Prosser, J., & Burke, C. (2008). Image-based educational research. Childlike perspectives. In
J. G. InKnowles & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research
(pp. 407–419). London: Sage.
Prosser, J., & Schwartz, D. (1998). Photographs within the sociological research process. In
J. Prosser (Ed.), Image based research: A sourcebook for qualitative researchers. London:
Falmer.
Prus, R. (1996). Symbolic interaction and ethnographic research. New York, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Prus, R. (1997). Subcultural mosaics and intersubjective realties. New York, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Renold, E. (2004). Other’ boys: Negotiating non-hegemonic masculinities in the primary school.
Gender and Education,16(2), 247–266.
GO
¨RAN GERDIN224
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
Riessman, C. K. (2003). Performing identities in illness narrative: Masculinity and multiple
sclerosis. Qualitative Research,1, 5–33.
Robinson, J. (2009). There’s no place like home. Studies in Symbolic Interaction,33, 47–57.
Rochberg-Halton, E. (1987). Meaning and modernity: Social theory in the pragmatic attitude.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rose, G. (2007). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials.
London: Sage.
Schuck, S., & Kearney, M. (2006). Using digital video as a research tool: Ethical issues for
researchers. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,15(4), 447–463.
Sparkes, A. C. (2004). From performance to impairment: A patchwork of embodied memories.
In J. Evans & B. Davies (Eds.), Body knowledge and control. Studies in the sociology of
physical education and health (pp. 157–172). London: Routledge.
Swain, J. (2006). The role of sport in the construction of masculinities in an English independent
junior school. Sport, Education and Society,11(4), 317–335.
Togman, J. M. (2011). A home in Brick city. Studies in Symbolic Interaction,36, 183–199.
Venkatesh, A. (1997). The social organisation street gang activity in an urban ghetto. American
Journal of Sociology,103, 82–111.
Whyte, W. (1997). Creative problem solving in the field: Reflections on a career. Walnut Creek,
CA: Alta Mira Press.
Wiley, N. (1994). The semiotic self. Oxford: Polity.
Boys’ Visual Representations and Interpretations of Physical Education 225
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
This article has been cited by:
1. Göran Gerdin. 2015. ‘It's not like you are less of a man just because you don't
play rugby'—boys' problematisation of gender during secondary school physical
education lessons in New Zealand. Sport, Education and Society 1-15. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 05:36 23 April 2016 (PT)
