Content uploaded by Jan Peeters
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jan Peeters on Jun 18, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Jan Peeters]
On: 16 June 2015, At: 00:35
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recr20
Gender balance in ECEC: why is there
so little progress?
J. Peetersa, T. Rohrmannb & K. Emilsenc
a Innovations in the early Years, Department of Social Work and
Social Pedagogy, The Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
b Education and Nursing, University of Applied Sciences for Social
Work, Dresden, Germany
c Department for Social Science, Queen Maud University College
of Early Childhood Education (QMUC), Trondheim, Norway
Published online: 15 Jun 2015.
To cite this article: J. Peeters, T. Rohrmann & K. Emilsen (2015): Gender balance in ECEC:
why is there so little progress?, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, DOI:
10.1080/1350293X.2015.1043805
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2015.1043805
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Gender balance in ECEC: why is there so little progress?
J. Peeters
a
*, T. Rohrmann
b
and K. Emilsen
c
a
Innovations in the early Years, Department of Social Work and Social Pedagogy, The Ghent
University, Ghent, Belgium;
b
Education and Nursing, University of Applied Sciences for
Social Work, Dresden, Germany;
c
Department for Social Science, Queen Maud University
College of Early Childhood Education (QMUC), Trondheim, Norway
Social attitudes about male participation in the upbringing of children have changed
considerably over the past few decades. Men are now seen as important for
children’s development and learning. Research from many countries worldwide
shows that in early childhood care and education (ECEC), male workers are
welcomed by female colleagues and parents. In the last two decades there have
been initiatives for more men in ECEC in several European countries.
Nevertheless the proportion of male workers ECEC remains low worldwide.
This article questions the persisting gender imbalance in ECEC and analyzes
ambivalences regarding more men in the field. Based on recent gender theory,
efforts and limits of strategies for more male students and workers in ECEC in
Belgium, Norway and Germany are discussed. It is concluded that deeply held
gendered attitudes and practices in the field of care and educational work with
young children have to be put into question. More space in ECEC for embodied
subjectivities is needed to overcome essentialist conceptions of differences
between body and mind, women and men.
Keywords: gender; gender balance; men in ECEC; corporeality; diversity
Introduction
Social attitudes towards male participation in the upbringing of children have changed
in the past decades. The importance of fathers for the development of young children is
widely accepted (Lamb 1975,2004; Le Camus 2000). At the same time, ECEC remains
a female dominated field of work. The proportion of male workers remains low in most
European countries. Only in Norway, Denmark and recently Turkey, more than 5% of
the early years work force is male; in most countries, it is between 1% and 3% or even
below (Oberhuemer, Schreyer, and Neuman 2010; OECD 2014).
The care and education of young children has always been considered ‘women’s
work’(Cameron 2001; Cameron, Moss, and Owen 1999). But, over the past decade
calls for more men in education have increased the context of the so-called ‘boys
crisis’. Although empirical evidence of any relationship between teacher gender and
educational outcomes of boys is sparse (Carrington, Tymms, and Merrell 2005), this
call for male teachers is often extended to early childhood education (e.g. Hurrelmann
and Schultz 2012). Furthermore, a better gender balance in early childhood education
© 2015 EECERA
*Corresponding author. Email: jan.peeters@vbjk.be
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2015.1043805
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 00:35 16 June 2015
and care (ECEC) is seen as a means for gender equality in society in general (Farquhar
2008; Icken 2012; Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research 2008)
In the last two decades, there have been initiatives to attract more male ECEC
workers in several European countries. Norway and Germany have invested in exten-
sive projects and programs to increase the number of male students and workers in
ECEC. Despite these efforts, the proportion of male ECEC workers remains low com-
pared to the goal of 20% that was put forward by the European Commission Network
on Childcare nearly 20 years ago (European Network 1996).
Figure 1 presents timelines of the proportion of male ECEC workers from four
countries discussed in this article. As definitions of ‘ECEC’and ‘ECEC worker’
differ substantially between and even within countries, these tables do not aim to
compare proportions of male workers between countries.
1
Instead, they show similar
developments over time: a more or less slight increase of male participation in ECEC.
This increase is even higher if absolute numbers are taken into account. In
Germany, in 2014 there were more than 25,000 male workers in ‘Kitas’, around
three times as many as in 1998 (Statistisches Bundesamt 2014, own calculations). In
Norway, the number of male pedagogical workers tripled as well from 2210 in year
2000 to 6716 in 2013 (Statistisk sentralbyrå 2014, own calculations). In Flanders,
the number of men employed in childcare rose from 193 in 2002 to 875 in 2010
(Peeters 2003) In Turkey the increase was even more impressive: from 694 male
Early childhood teachers in 2003/2004 to 3.387 in 2013/2014. But because of the
general growth of the ECEC sector in many countries, even an impressive increase
Figure 1. Timelines of proportions of male workers in selected European countries. Flanders:
men employed in childcare sector (0 to 3 and out-of-school care) (Peeters 2003,2013).
Germany: Workers in “Kitas”(ECEC centers) incl. leaders and (few) administration, and also
after-school care (Statistisches Bundesamt 2014, own calculations). Norway: Leaders, pedago-
gical leaders and assistants in kindergartens (Statistisk sentralbyrå 2014, own calculations).
Turkey: Early childhood teachers (National Education Statistics 2014, 14, cf Sak, Sak, and
Yerlikaya 2015, in this issue). Note: Kitas (Kindertageseinrichtungen) in Germany provide
mostly early childhood education and care, sometimes combined with after-school care.
2J. Peeters et al.
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 00:35 16 June 2015
in the numbers of male workers did not lead to a substantial increase of the proportion
of male workers in the field.
As surveys in several countries have shown, men are welcomed by parents, female
colleagues, and ECEC providers (Aigner and Rohrmann 2012; Cremers, Krabel, and
Calmbach 2010; Daycare Trust 2003; Emilsen 2012; Lysklett and Emilsen 2007;
Peeters 2003). Measures promoting men’s participation in ECEC are widely appreci-
ated also in the media.
Despite the still low proportions of male workers, this openness can be interpreted
as a cultural shift toward gender equality in the field of care and education in general.
On the other hand, there is still a ‘general distrust’–skepticism and negative assump-
tions –against men working with young children. The fear of pedophilia has hampered
the aim of developing a diverse, gender-balanced work force (Farquhar et al. 2006;
Peeters 2013; Petersen 2014). In this introductory article we will analyze different
and often ambivalent views regarding more men in the ECEC field. By building on
recent gender theory we try to find new perspectives on how to change the gender
balance in ECEC.
Measures and projects for more men in ECEC –huge aims and poor results?
In some countries, long-term projects have been set up to increase the participation of
men in ECEC settings. The authors of this study have been engaged in some of these
projects in Norway, Belgium and Germany, and support the aim of increasing the pro-
portion of male workers towards a more gender-balanced ECEC work force. At the
same time, since the effects of these campaigns and actions have been somewhat dis-
appointing, they critically reflect on these strategies and the assumptions they are based
upon, and argue for more innovative views.
Norway: long-term measures for more men in ECEC
Compared to other countries, Norway has succeeded in recruiting more men to ECEC
centers. In a 20-year period, there has been a significant increase in the amount of male
ECEC workers (Baagøe Nielsen 2010; Emilsen 2012). Several actions were undertaken
to increase the number of men in ECEC centers. Funds for recruitment purposes were
assigned. Since 2001, four Governmental Action Plans for Gender Equality included
measures for recruitment of men. These action plans had binding obligations and
actions. Networks for Men in Kindergartens (MIB) were established in a number of
municipalities and regions. These networks have first and foremost been meeting
places for men working in ECEC centers in order to retain men in the field. Moreover,
it is expected that they play an active part in recruitment actions, as male ECEC workers
are seen as best promoters for more men.
The discourse in Norway about the importance of more men in ECEC can be put in
three categories of argument: (1) There is a consensus about the importance of men
taking part in young children’s lives; (2) The goal of gender equality is enshrined in
Norwegian laws, regulations and curricula. In this context, ECEC is seen as an impor-
tant contributor to the goal of an egalitarian society; and (3) In order to give young chil-
dren a stimulating and pedagogical environment it is important to provide gender
balance in ECEC. Young children should experience diversity, both in play and learn-
ing. Gender differences in interactions with children can provide a rewarding diversity
among the staff.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 3
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 00:35 16 June 2015
In spite of these positive attitudes and measures towards male participation in
ECEC, the proportion of trained male professionals is still below 10%. In many
regions, male ECEC workers are still a small minority. Moreover, there is no significant
research that explains why Norway has succeeded to employ more men, or why male
workers are relevant in care for the youngest children (Emilsen 2012; Kunnskapsdepar-
tementet 2010; Opheim et al. 2014).
Flemish community of Belgium: gender and professionalism
In 2001 within the Flemish Community of Belgium a proposal for a project, ‘Men in
Childcare,’was accepted by to the European Social Fund with broad partner
support, including the Flemish governmental organizations for employment and child-
care and various childcare organizations. In the framework of this project a media cam-
paign was launched to motivate more men to take a job in the childcare sector. As a part
of the project research was set up to get more information about the number of men
working in Flemish childcare, and the profile of men working in childcare and students
in initial childcare training. An analysis of interviews gave insights into the profile of
male childcare workers and students (Vandenbroeck and Peeters 2008).
Further studies within this ‘Gender and Professionalism’research exposed gender
bias within the ‘Childcare’training curriculum and pointed out the role careers
advice centers played in relation to the maintenance of gender segregation in childcare
work (Peeters 2012). The Flemish employment office also systematically keeps track of
the data that maps the number of men who train for professions in working with young
children. The Flemish employment office followed up the recommendations of the
‘Gender and Professionalism in ECEC’research and directed men who were previously
active in child and youth work but who were dissatisfied with their current jobs (‘career
changers’) to the opportunities offered by adult education training courses for working
with young children.
The studies that were supported by a media campaign, and moreover, were
managed by a broad group of stakeholders, have had a clear impact on the sector.
The noticeable increase of the number and also the proportion of men employed in
the sector (see Figure 1) is a success even if it is a far cry from what the European Com-
mission Network on Childcare had hoped for in 1996. The results of Flanders can be
attributed to the large amount of support that was created by the project ‘Men in Child-
care.’By involving important governmental organizations for childcare and vocational
guidance in the project, minor sustainable changes could be implemented.
Germany: a huge campaign for more men
In Germany, interest in the issue has been increasing since 2005, when first regional
measures for more men in social work and education were implemented, and some
regional studies were published. From 2008 on, the Federal Ministry of Family
Affairs initiated and funded several projects. Starting with a nationwide research
(Cremers, Krabel, and Calmbach 2012), a national coordination office was installed
in 2010. One year later the model program ‘MORE men in Kitas’was initiated,
financed with €13.5 million by the European Social Fund (Icken 2012; Rohrmann
2014a). In this program, 16 regional model projects developed various methods and
projects, including vocational orientation in schools, practical projects in ECEC set-
tings, in-house training
2
and conferences on gender sensitive education, working
4J. Peeters et al.
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 00:35 16 June 2015
groups for male workers (Emilsen and Rohrmann 2013), PR campaigns and inter-
national conferences. The national projects included several publications, covering a
wide range of issues (Cremers et al. 2012) as well as materials for practical measures
and initiatives in all related fields (Koordinationsstelle “Maenner in Kitas”2013/2014).
The results of all these projects were quite positive compared to related fields. While
the proportion of male workers in primary schools and in social work is decreasing
(Rose and May 2014; Rohrmann 2012a), in the growing field of ECEC the trend
towards more male workers continued with nearly 5% men in 2014 (see Figure 1).
This development is especially apparent in initial training in vocational schools,
where the proportion of male students is now around 20% (Koordinationsstelle
“Maenner in Kitas”2014).
There has been an increase in male workers mostly in urban regions with already
high proportion of men in ECEC. But, in many other regions of Germany men are
still rare in ECEC centers. Moreover, few ongoing measures were established by pro-
viders after the funded project ended in 2013. All in all, in Germany the proportion of
male workers still remains far from the goal of 20%.
Turkey: no measures, huge results?
The discussed developments in the three countries can be compared to a country in
which there has been nearly no public debate on gender balance: Turkey. As Sak
(2015) reports in this issue, the number of male workers has increased substantially
over the last decade –without any governmental actions. This can be interpreted in
the context of a developing country, where the growth of the ECEC sector is part of
a process of fast modernization. It is relevant that preschool teachers are academically
trained, are well paid and have good career options. Nevertheless, international com-
parison has made clear that good wages are not the only or even main reason for
low male participation in ECEC, as the proportion of men in ECEC is low also in
countries like France and Belgium where preschool teachers are paid well (Peeters
2013).
It could be concluded that neither governmental action nor better wages alone will
succeed in a substantial rise in male participation in ECEC. Although the programs in
Norway, Belgium, and Germany have shown many positive results, they often only
seem to scratch the surface of deeply held gendered beliefs and practices. ECEC and
childcare in particular remains as one of the most gender segregated occupational
fields. To understand this, it is necessary to open up new approaches or ways of
looking at gender issues in ECEC.
New perspectives from recent gender theories
The history of childcare
The historical development of ECEC, at least in the Western hemisphere, is connected
to the traditional gender order and the position of women in society (Hard and Jónsdót-
tir 2013; Van Laere, Peeters, and Vandenbroeck 2012; Van Laere et al., 2014). ECEC
builds on two traditions: care and education. A conceptual and practical division
between care and education was and is still common in many European countries
(Kaga, Bennett, and Moss 2010). Carers were traditionally recruited from women of
the lower classes and their profession was based on and legitimated by stereotypical
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 5
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 00:35 16 June 2015
constructions of the ideal mother (Van Laere et al. 2014). Simultaneously, kindergar-
tens for older children were developed to offer pre-primary educational activities and
cared for children’s moral well-being and preparation for primary school (Oberhuemer
et al. 2010). The education of young children was seen as an acceptable form of female
employment because it gave women the opportunity to have a social life and a job
outside the home, while still conforming to the traditional conception that women natu-
rally take care of children (Forrester 2005). The psychological theories of attachment
after World War II reinforced the ‘good mother’as the ideal childcare worker
(Burman 1994; Canella 1997). Professionalism in childcare was modeled after the sym-
bolic personification of a ‘loving mother’(Peeters 2008).
In the 1970s the second-wave feminist movement argued for more engagement of
fathers in the upbringing of young children and thus opened the way for more male par-
ticipation in care and education. But at the same time, feminist women were in search of
common characteristics and political aims for all women, for common projects that
unified women as a group. This led to essentialist views on what women and what
males ‘are’, and some feminists claimed that caring work was essentially feminine (Nod-
dings 1984). This reinforced the old idea that women are ‘naturally’better equipped for
caring for young children (Peeters et al. 2014). Moreover, childcare centers were impor-
tant for the feminist movement in relation to their labor market claims (De Smet et al.
1978;Farquharetal.2006). Childcare was not only important because it gave women
the possibility to work outside the home, but it also represented an important labor
market in itself, formed and developed by women.
The ‘gender regime’of ECEC
The described development of care and education for the youngest as a ‘feminine field’
resulted in a persisting ‘gender regime’of ECEC institutions which tends to keep men
out. With the term ‘gender regime’Connell describes specific ‘configurations of prac-
tice’: gendered arrangements of work, social and emotional relations within institutions
(Connell 2009, 72). Masculinity is –as is feminity –‘institutionalized in this structure,
as well as being an aspect of individual character and personality’(Connell 2000, 29).
This means that the issue of men in ECEC is not only a matter of gender of individuals,
but a matter of gendered structures in institutions.
The gender regime of ECEC centers can be characterized by a dominance of
women, rather flat hierarchies, a strong need for harmony, and ambivalent attitudes
towards male colleagues. The dominance of women characterizes the whole field of
ECEC, including leadership. As Fuchs-Rechlin states for Germany: ‘Although the pro-
portion of men in leading positions is above average, they are exceptional also in this
field of work’(Fuchs-Rechlin 2012,6, translation T.R.). This is as well true for higher
qualified positions in the field, e.g. consultants (Fuchs and Schilling 2006). Although
administrative structures in ECEC show many differences worldwide, in many
countries teams are often characterized by a tendency to minimalize the differences
in qualification levels between the staff, and the role of leading positions is de-empha-
sized. Research on leadership in ECEC shows that the importance of management in
ECEC often is denied because female workers associate leadership with ‘male’domi-
nance and control (Hard and Jonsdottir 2013).
In summary, ECEC centers can be characterized as a ‘female field’, not only regard-
ing the gendered socialization of female workers, but also apparent in team culture,
interior design, materials, educational activities, and reactions of workers on the
6J. Peeters et al.
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 00:35 16 June 2015
behavior of girls and boys (Friis 2006; Vandenbroeck and Peeters 2008). Rohrmann
and Thoma (1998) aptly called kindergartens ‘women’s gardens’. Wohlgemuth
speaks of an ‘Air of Care’as a set of signals including behaviors, speech and communi-
cation patterns, practical guidelines, and interior designs of care institutions. These are
‘not per se ‘female’, but characterized by women’s sheer dominance in numbers in
ECEC professions’(Wohlgemuth in this issue; see also Wohlgemuth 2012, 391).
Within the gender system of kindergartens men appear to be ‘different’and
‘strange’. This perceived ‘otherness’is connected to idealization of men as well as to
resistance against their participation in the lives of young children (Murray 1997;
Rohrmann 2014b). This can be understood in the context of traditional gender hierar-
chy and polar conceptions of male and female gender characters. At a first glance, the
‘otherness’of men is seen as an enrichment and supplement to the basic work of
women in ECEC contexts. As ‘male’qualities are deemed socially more valuable
than ‘female’qualities, this can lead to idealization of male workers even when they
lack experience and training. At the same time it raises suspicions when a man
‘lowers’himself to work with young children. As it doesn’t seem feasible for men to
be interested for this kind of work, other motives are presumed –last not least a ped-
ophile/pedosexual interest. As Petersen (2014) puts it: men are divided into ‘the good,
the bad and the ugly’. While some aspects of this ambiguity can be understood as a
result of traditional gender hierarchies, it is also relevant to reflect upon recent
changes in the social function of ECEC, as a background of gendered notions of
professionalism.
From care to education? Academization and gender
In recent decades, ECEC policies have substantially shifted from a context of care to
education. Under the influence of neuroscience (Shonkoff and Phillips 2000) and econ-
omic science (Barnett and Masse 2007; Heckman 2006) the early years are now con-
sidered as the best preparation for academic achievements in later years as well as
for a thriving labor market. In this perspective education can be connected with
more ‘masculine’conceptualizations of education and teacher professionalism (Dilla-
bough 1999; Forrester 2005). Some scholars argue that this development may lead to
a schoolification of the early years, whereas less attention is given to the caring and
the emotional nurturing dimension of ECEC (Dahlberg and Moss 2005; Van Laere
et al. 2014).
For Van Laere et al. (2014) it is striking that these results of the academization
process match what scholars consider as important steps to attract more in men in
ECEC: the renewed higher social esteem has led in many countries to higher qualifica-
tions as well as better salaries. One could argue that the new, more ‘masculine’notions
of education and teacher professionalism could be seen as an opportunity to challenge a
‘mother-like’conceptualization of education and care, and thus make the field more
attractive to men.
‘Remarkably, this hypothesis seems to be incorrect for the time being. ECEC
remains an almost entirely female workforce’(Van Laere et al. 2014, 6). A higher
degree of professionalism and better salaries do not automatically lead to an increase
of the number of men working in ECEC, as Cameron (2006) and Peeters (2007) con-
cluded before. Research on gender and academization in Germany has shown that the
proportion of male students in newly introduced university bachelor courses is not
higher than in traditional vocational schools for ECEC workers (Keil, Pasternack,
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 7
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 00:35 16 June 2015
and Thielemann 2013; Rohrmann 2012b). Rohrmann (2012b) argues that an academic
degree in ECEC can be seen as a possibility for good educated young women to link
intellectual achievement with a traditional conception of ‘natural’femininity.
Van Laere et al. (2014) also note that despite the introduction of a more rational,
masculine understanding of education in the context of ‘schoolification’of the early
years, caring jobs did not disappear in ECEC. The Core research project in 15 EU
member states (Van Laere et al. 2012) has demonstrated how in ECEC centers
caring activities are executed by low-qualified auxiliary staff, whereas teachers are in
charge of the educative activities. The results indicate that in many countries there is
a divide between highly qualified and better paid women, who are responsible for
the ‘mind’, and lower-qualified women with a more invisible position, who are respon-
sible for the ‘body’(Van Laere, Peeters, and Vandenbroeck 2012).
Body, mind and corporeality
By further analyzing this mind-body dualism Van Laere et al. (2014) aim to discover a
more in-depth understanding why the ECEC culture remains female. In third-wave
feminism, definitions of care are placed within broader social and political concerns
rather than within an essentialist, individual-gendered psychology (Cockburn 2010).
From a third-wave feminist perspective an ethics and politics of care implies an embo-
died ethics (Shildrick 1997), that is breaking down the modernist myth of the rational
(or becoming-rational) subject. Recent approaches challenge the Cartesian concept of a
dualism of mind and body, as the mind is always ‘embodied’or based in corporal
relations; the body is always social, and in-process rather than natural (Braidotti
2006). Van Laere et al. (2014) point out that the division in ECEC between ‘body’
and ‘mind’and the subsequent denial of the body creates a technical, distant pro-
fessional. But it is impossible to work with young children without a commitment
that could be described as ‘passionate’(Moyles 2001, 81). This leads us to rethink
the concepts of care/body and education/mind in ECEC services, which is materialized
in staff profiles and practices (Van Laere et al. 2012), and enables us to draw on a diver-
sity of embodied experiences of both men and women in the ECEC workforce.
The concept of corporeality can create new perspectives as a pedagogical concept
and an interpretation of professionalism. The Danish concept of ‘kropslighed’, for
example, refers to how one senses the body, and includes a strong element of experi-
encing the world through your body in ECEC practices (Jensen 2011). This is very
evident in the field of physical activity play. Especially rough and tumble play as an
often ‘neglected aspect of play’(Pellegrini and Smith 1998) is not only fun for those
who engage in it, but also important for the development of motor skills as well as
for social competences (Hauser 2013; Storli 2012). This form of play is not only
much more prevalent among boys (Hauser 2013; Reed 2005; Storli and Moser
2014), but also a common activity between children and men –fathers as well as
male ECEC workers (Aigner and Rohrmann, 2012, 272–275). Physical activity play
is perceived as an alternative for the more ‘feminine’kind of physical contacts that
are less accepted when done by men, like caressing or embracing.
Corporeality is also strongly linked to activities during outdoor play. In Norway, the
strong focus on bodily experiences in nature and outdoor play is one of the crucial
factors to explain why the proportion of male workers is higher than anywhere else
in Europe. According not only to men, but also to women working in outdoor kinder-
gartens, the opportunity to stay outdoors gives them more freedom to work with
8J. Peeters et al.
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 00:35 16 June 2015
children in their own ways, freeing themselves from traditional ‘feminine’notions of
caring in a mother’s home (Emilsen and Koch 2010). The described gender differences
are connected to a more relaxed attitude of many men towards risk-taking behavior,
apparent both in physical activity play and outdoor activities (Sandseter 2014). Never-
theless it has to be emphasized that although there is strong evidence for links between
outdoor play, physical activities and gender, we are not arguing for highlighting
‘natural’, essentialist distinctions between men and women. Instead, the perspective
of embodied experience shows that the dichotomy between ‘masculine’mind and ‘fem-
inine’body does not exist in reality.
Conclusion: towards a new understanding of gender, care and education
Measures for more men in ECEC have brought some good results. In this context, pro-
grams and publications on ‘more men’show a lot of similarities across countries and
make clear that it is important to address the issue from a variety of perspectives.
Gender-sensitive vocational orientation and career advice can open up the field of
care and education for boys and young men (Cremers et al. 2012). Campaigns can
play an important role for bringing more men to ECEC, if a wide range of institutions
and organizations is included and actively involved during longer periods of time
(Peeters 2012). Networks and support groups for male workers can be relevant to
retain men in the field (Emilsen and Rohrmann 2013). Governmental support, both
financially and legally, is substantial, as the examples of Norway and Germany show.
Although such measures are important, they are not sufficient for a substantial
change of the gender imbalance in ECEC. From recent gender theory we learn that
in order to make working in ECEC attractive for both men and women, we need to
change the ‘gender regime’of services for young children: we have to question gen-
dered (‘female’) arrangements of work, social and emotional relations within insti-
tutions (team culture), premises, materials and educational activities, and last but not
least gendered reactions of workers on the behavior of girls and boys. Changes are
also essential in vocational training, including screening of didactical materials for
gender-neutrality in order to avoid ‘gender bias’as much as possible (Vandenbroeck
and Peeters 2008). It becomes clear how important it is to create a male-friendly
culture in training institutions and workplaces. The presence of male colleagues and
active involvement of fathers in childcare settings are essential conditions for creating
a gender-sensitive construction of professionalism. The considerations on the current
process of professionalization in ECEC have made clear that academization alone
will neither attract more men, nor lead to a gender-neutral profession. Instead of
trying to ‘neutralize’gender in ECEC training and practice, it is necessary to
develop a gender-conscious understanding of professionalism that goes beyond tra-
ditional gendered notions. To achieve this, new perspectives on the concept of care
are needed.
Such a shift toward new interpretations of ECEC can draw on experiences in the
Nordic countries, where the culture in ECEC contains much space for embodied sub-
jectivities, avoiding essentialist differences between men and women and between
body and mind. This ‘corporeality’approach opens up new perspectives in ECEC prac-
tices by experiencing the world through the ‘body’and makes work in ECEC more
attractive for men and women. ECEC has to evolve towards recognizing the centrality
of body work and emotions in ECEC systems. This will lead to new understandings of
the body, of emotions and mind, and create opportunities for both staff and children to
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 9
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 00:35 16 June 2015
transform and reconfigure diverse aspects of their embodied subjectivities. It can be
concluded that we need sophisticated strategies not only for ‘more men’, but for a trans-
formation process that puts into question established gender-regimes in ECEC centers
as well as deep-held beliefs about men and women in society. In this sense, gender
balance in early childhood can open up perspectives for gender dialogues and a
shared responsibility for the future of our societies.
Notes
1. Different definitions result in remarkable different data. In Germany, the proportion of qua-
lified workers in centers for 0- to 6-year-old children is around one percent lower than the
data presented in the table, as the proportion of men is above average among interns, and
also in after school care. In Norway, for many years governmental statistics highlighted
the overall number of male employees in kindergartens, although many of them were
‘helpers’without any pedagogical tasks. When it was decided to focus on pedagogical
workers, it came out that the proportion of males was about 2% lower (see Rohrmann
and Brody, this issue).
2. A training course/workshop for the whole staff in a center
References
Aigner, J. C., and T. Rohrmann. 2012. Elementar –Männer in der pädagogischen Arbeit mit
Kindern. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
Baagøe Nielsen, S. 2010. Nordiske mænd til omsorgsarbejde. En forskningsbaseret erfaring-
sopsamling på initiativer til at rekruttere, uddanne og fastholde mænd efter finanskrisen.
Roskilde: VELPRO. Accessed March 16, 2011. http://www.skiftjob.dk/files/files/
antologi_nordiske_maend_til_omsorgsarbejde.pdf
Barnett, W. S., and N. L. Masse. 2007. “Comparative Benefit-cost Analysis of the Abecedarian
Program and its Policy Implications.”Economics of Education Review 26: 113–25.
Burman, E. 1994. Deconstructing Developmental Psychology. London: Routledge.
Braidotti, R. 2006. “Posthuman, all Too Human: Towards a New Process Ontology.”Theory
Culture and Society 23 (7–8): 197–208.
Cameron, C. 2001. Promise or problem? A review of the literature on men working in the early
childhood services. Gender, work and organisation 8 (4), 430–453.
Cameron, C. 2006. “Men in the Nursery Revisited: Issues of Male Workers and
Professionalism.”Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 7 (1): 68–79.
Cameron, C., P. Moss, and C. Owen. 1999. Men in the Nursery: Gender and Caring Work.
London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Canella, G. 1997. Deconstructing Early Childhood Education: social justice and revolution.
New York: Peter Lang.
Carrington, B., P. Tymms, and C. Merrell. 2005. “Forget Gender: Whether a Teacher is Male or
Female Doesn’t Matter.”Teacher: The National Education Magazine 12: 32–34.
Cockburn, T. 2010. “Children, the Feminist Ethic of Care and Childhood Studies: Is this the
Way to the Good Life?”In Children and the Good Life. New Challenges for Research on
Children, edited by S. Andresen, I. Diehm, U. Sander, and H. Ziegler, 29–39. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Connell, R. 2000. The Men and the Boys. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Connell, R. 2009. Gender. Polity Short Introductions. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Cremers, M., S. Höyng, J. Krabel, and T. Rohrmann, eds. 2012. Männer in Kitas. Opladen:
Barbara Budrich.
Cremers, M., J. Krabel, and M. Calmbach. 2012. Male Educators in Kitas. A Study on the
Situation of Men in Early Childhood Education. Berlin: Federal Ministry for Familiy
Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth. Published in German 2010.
Dahlberg, G. and P. Moss 2005. Ethics and Politics in early childhood education. London:
Routledge.
10 J. Peeters et al.
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 00:35 16 June 2015
Daycare Trust. 2003. Men and Childcare. Accessed March 21, 2011. http://www.ipsos-mori.
com/researchpublications/researcharchive/798/Men-And-Childcare.aspx
De Smet, C., R. Proesmans, I. Stasse, and R. Van Mechelen. 1978. Kleine kinderen, grote
zorgen. Gent: LEF-Masereel Fonds.
Dillabough, J. A. 1999. “Gender Politics and Conceptions of the Modern Teacher: Women,
Identity and Professionalism.”British Journal of Sociology of Education 20 (3): 373–94.
Emilsen, K. 2012. “Mehr Männer in norwegischen Kindergärten. Politische und strategische
Rekrutierungsmaßnahmen –ein voller Erfolg?”In Männer in Kitas, edited by M.
Cremers, S. Höyng, J. Krabel, and T. Rohrmann, 367–386. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
Emilsen, K., and B. Koch. 2010. “Men and Women in Outdoor Play –Changing the Concepts of
Caring Findings from Norwegian and Austrian Research Projects.”European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal 18 (4): 543–553.
Emilsen, K., and T. Rohrmann. 2013. “How do Working Groups of Male Educators Contribute
to Professionalism and Quality in ECE?”Presentation on the 23rd EECERA annual confer-
ence, Tallinn/Estonia, August 29.
European Commission Network on Childcare and Other Measures to Reconcile the
Employment and Family Responsibilities of Men. 1996. Quality Targets in Services for
Young Children: Proposals for a Ten Year Action Program. Brussels: European
Commission.
Farquhar, S. E. 2008. “New Zealand Men’s Participation in Early Years Work 1.”Early Child
Development and Care 178: 733–744.
Farquhar, S., L. Cablk, A. Buckingham, D. Butler, and R. Ballantyne. 2006. Men at Work:
Sexism in Early Childhood Education. Porirua: Childforum Research Network.
Forrester, G. 2005. “All in a Day’s Work: Primary Teachers ’Performing’and ’Caring’.”Gender
and Education 17 (3): 271–87.
Friis, P. 2006. Temaheftet om menn i barnehagen, om å rekruttere og beholde menn i barneha-
gen. Oslo: Kunnskapsdepartementet.
Fuchs-Rechlin, K. 2012. “Leitung –die unterschätzte Achillesferse der Kita-Landschaft?”
KomDat Jugendhilfe 2: 4–6.
Fuchs-Rechlin, K., and M. Schilling. 2006. “Wo sind die Männer? Zur Personalstruktur in der
Jugendhilfe.”KomDat Jugendhilfe 2: 2–3.
Hard, L., and A. H. Jónsdóttir. 2013. “Leadership is not a Dirty Word: Exploring and Embracing
Leadership in ECEC.”European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 21 (3): 311–
325.
Hauser, B. 2013. Spielen. Frühes Lernen in Familie, Krippe und Kindergarten. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer.
Heckman, J. J. 2006. “Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged
Children.”Science 312 (5782): 1900–02.
Hurrelmann, K., and T. Schultz, eds. 2012. Jungen als Bildungsverlierer. Brauchen wir eine
Männerquote in Kitas und Schulen? Weinheim: Beltz.
Icken, A. 2012. “Das Bundesprogramm, Männer in Kitas’–ein gleichstellungspolitischer
Ansatz.”In Männer in Kitas, edited by M. Cremers, S. Höyng, J. Krabel, and T.
Rohrmann, 17–28. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
Jensen, J. J. 2011. “Understandings of Danish pedagogical practice.”In Social Pedagogy and
Working with Children and Young People. Where Care and Education Meet, edited by
C. Cameron and P. Moss, 141–158. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Kaga, Y., J. Bennett and P. Moss. 2010. Caring and Learning Together. A cross-national study
on the integration of early childhood care and education within education. Paris. UNESCO.
Keil, J., P. Pasternack, and N. Thielemann. 2013. “Frauen und Männer in der Frühpädagogik.
Eine genderbezogene Bestandsaufnahme.”Gender, Zeitschrift für Geschlecht, Kultur und
Gesellschaft 5 (1): 129–137.
Koordinationsstelle „Maenner in Kitas”. 2014. Forschung. Trends und Prognosen. [Online]
Accessed September 2, 2014. http://www.koordination-maennerinkitas.de/
Koordinationsstelle „Maenner in Kitas”, eds. 2013/2014. MEHR Männer in Kitas. Analysen,
Erfahrungen und Strategien. Handreichungen für die Praxis. Berlin: Eigendruck.
Kunnskapsdepartementet. 2010. Nye barnehager i gamle spor? Hva vi gjør, og hva vi tror.
Status for likestillingsarbeidet i norske barnehager 2010. Statusrapport fra
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 11
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 00:35 16 June 2015
Handlingsplan for likestilling i barnehage og grunnopplæring (2008-2010). Oslo:
Kunnskapsdepartementet.
Lamb, M. E. 1975. “Fathers: Forgotten Contribution to Child Development.”Human
Development 18: 245–266.
Lamb, M. E., ed. 2004. The Role of the Father in Child Development. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley and Sons.
Le Camus, J. 2000. Le vrai rôle du père. Paris: Editions Odile Jacob. [German edition (2001):
Väter. Die Bedeutung des Vaters für die psychische Entwicklung des Kindes. Weinheim:
Beltz].
Lysklett, O. B., and K. Emilsen. 2007. De er mange, de er motiverte, de er menn i natur- og
friluftsbarnehage! Sluttrapport fra prosjektet “Menn i natur- og friluftsbarnehager“.
Trondheim: DMMH.
Moyles, J. 2001. “Passion, Paradox and Professionalism in Early Years Education.”Early Years
21 (2): 81–95.
Murray, S. B. 1997. “It’s Safer this Way. The Subtle and Not-so-subtle Exclusion of Men in
Child Care.”In Subtle Sexism –Current Practice and Prospects for Change, edited by
Nijole V. Benokraitis, 136–153. London: Sage.
National Education Statistics. 2014. National Education Statistics 2013/14. Ankara: Ministry of
National Education. Accessed January 14, 2015. http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/meb_
istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2013_2014.pdf
Noddings, N. 1984. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. 2008. Action Plan for Gender Equality in
Kindergarten and Basic Education. Oslo: Ministry of Education. Accessed January 14,
2015. http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/Vedlegg/Barnehager/likestilling/Gender_
Equality.pdf
Oberhuemer, P., I. Schreyer, and M. J. Neumann, eds. 2010. Professionals in Early Childhood
Education and Care Systems. European Profiles and Perspectives. Opladen: Barbara
Budrich.
OECD. 2014. Education at a Glance. Gender Distribution of Teachers. Accessed January 14,
2015. http://www.oecd.org/edu/Education-at-a-Glance-2014.pdf
Opheim, V., E. Waagene, K. V. Salvanes, C. Gjerustad, and S. Holen. 2014. Hvem skal trøste
Knøttet –hvem kan endre mønsteret? Statusundersøkelse –Likestilling i barnehagen.
Rapport 30/2014. Oslo: Nordisk institutt for studier avinnovasjon, forskning og utdanning.
Peeters, J. 2003. “Men in Childcare: An Action-research in Flanders.”International Journal of
Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood 1 (1): 72–83.
Peeters, J. 2007. “Including Men in Early Childhood Education: Insights from the European
Experience.”New Zealand Research in Early Childhood Education 10: 15–24.
Peeters, J. 2008. The Construction of a New Profession. A European Perspective on
Professionalism in ECEC. Amsterdam: SWP.
Peeters, J. 2012. “Can Research Realize a Bit of Utopia? The Impact of Action-research on the
Policy of Childcare in Flanders.”Early Years. An International Journal of Research and
Development 32 (2): 159–170.
Peeters, J. 2013. “Towards a Gender Neutral Interpretation of Professionalism in ECEC.”
Revista Espanola de Educacion Comparada. La Educacion Infantil en Perspectiva
Europea ano (21): 119–43.
Peeters, J., K. Van Laere, M. Vandenbroeck, and G. Roets. 2014. “Vers la fin de l’hégémonie de
la féminisation du travail. Repenser la dualité corps:esprit dans l’accueil et l’éducation de la
petite enfance.”In L’égalité des filles et des garcons dès la petite enfance, edited by F.
Hauwelle, M. N. Rubio, and S. Rayna, 85–106. Toulouse: Edition Eres.
Pellegrini, A., and P. K. Smith. 1998. “Physical Activity play: The Nature and Function of a
Neglected Aspect of Play.”Child Development 69 (3): 577–598.
Petersen, N. 2014. “The ‘Good’, the ‘Bad’and the Ugly’? Views on Male Teachers in
Foundation Phase Education.”South African Journal of Education 23 (1) (n.p.).
Accessed January 10, 2015. http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/article/
view/772/394. doi: 10.15700/201412120926.
12 J. Peeters et al.
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 00:35 16 June 2015
Reed, Th. L. 2005. “A qualitative Approach to Boys Rough and Tumble Play: There is more
than Needs the Eye.”In Play: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis, edited by F. F. McMahon,
D. E. Lytle, and B. Sutton-Smith, 53–71. Lanham, MD: University Press of America .
Rohrmann, T. 2012a. “Wo keine Männer sind, da hilft auch keine Quote.”In Jungen als
Bildungsverlierer. Brauchen wir eine Männerquote in Kitas und Schulen?, edited by K.
Hurrelmann and T. Schultz, 250–259. Weinheim: Beltz.
Rohrmann, T. 2012b. “Mehr Männer durch Hochschulausbildungen?”KiTa aktuell Ausgabe
NRW 9: 213–217.
Rohrmann, Tim. 2014a. “Davantage d’hommes dans les Kitas en Allemagne. Renforcement des
stérérotypes ou chance pour l’ègalité des sexes?”In L’ègalité des filles et des garçons dès la
petite enfance, edited by F. Hauwelle, M.-N. Rubio, and S. Rayna, 107–127. Toulouse:
édition érès.
Rohrmann, T. 2014b. “Männer in Kitas: Zwischen Idealisierung und Verdächtigung.”In
Männlichkeiten. Geschlechterkonstruktionen in pädagogischen Institutionen. Jahrbuch
Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung in der Erziehungswissenschaft, Band 10, edited by J.
Budde, Ch. Thon, and K. Walgenbach, 67–84. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
Rohrmann, T., and P. Thoma. 1998. Jungen in Kindertagesstätten. Ein Handbuch zur ges-
chlechtsbezogenen Pädagogik. Freiburg: Lambertus.
Rose, L., and M. May. 2014. Mehr Männer in die soziale Arbeit? Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
Sak, R. Şahin Sak, I.T. and Yerlikaya, I. 2015 Behavioral management strategies: Beliefs and
practices of male and female Early Childhood teachers. European Early Education research
Journal. accepted for publication
Sandseter, E. B. 2014. “Early Childhood Education and Care Practitioners’Perceptions of
Children’s Risky Play: Examining the Influence of Personality And Gender.”Early Child
Development and Care 184 (3): 434–449.
Shildrick, M. 1997. Leaky Bodies and Boundaries. Feminism, Postmodernism and (Bio)ethics.
London: Routledge.
Shonkoff, J. P., and D. Phillips. 2000. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early
Childhood Development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Statistisches Bundesamt. 2014. Statistiken der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe. Kinder und tätige
Personen in Tageseinrichtungen und in öffentlich geförderter Kindertagespflege am
1.03.2014. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.
Statistisk sentralbyrå. 2014. Ansatte i barnehager, etter stilling og kjønn. Accessed January 12,
2015. https://ssb.no/utdanning/statistikker/barnehager/aar-endelige/2014-04-25?fane=
tabellandsort=nummerandtabell=173801
Storli, R. 2012. “‘Vil du være med på leken, får du tåle steken’: om boltrelek og lekeslåssing i
barnehagen.”Første steg 2: 10–13.
Storli, R., and T. Moser. 2014. “Boltrelek og lekeslåssing i et utviklingsperspektiv.”In
Utvikling. Lek og læring i barnehagen. Forsking og praksis, edited by V. Glaser, I.
Størksen, and M. B. Drugli, 127–140. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Vandenbroeck, M., and J. Peeters. 2008. “Gender and Professionalism: A Critical Analysis of
Overt and Covert Curricula.”Early Child Development and Care 178 (7–8): 703–15.
Van Laere, K., J. Peeters, and M. Vandenbroeck. 2012. “The Education and Care Divide: The
Role of the Early Childhood Workforce in 15 European Countries.”European Journal of
Education 47 (4): 527–41.
Van Laere, K., M. Vandenbroeck, G. Roets, and J. Peeters. 2014. “Challenging the Feminisation
of the Workforce: Rethinking the Mind-body Dualism in ECEC.”Gender and Education 26
(3): 232–245.
Wohlgemuth, U. G. 2012. “Motivation von Männern in sozialen Berufen –Förderung von
Quereinsteigern in Dänemark.”In Männer in Kitas, edited by M. Cremers, S. Höyng, J.
Krabel, and T. Rohrmann, 387–403. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 13
Downloaded by [Jan Peeters] at 00:35 16 June 2015
