Men in the Nursery: Gender and Caring Work
Publication Year: 1999
Hightly Commended ( Third prize) in the Standing Conference on Studies in Education book prize for books published in 1999. `It was a breath of fresh air to see 'contentious' issues dealt with in an enlightened and informative way. We are certain it will move the debate on years!' - Chrissie Meleady, Sheffield Childrens' Centre `Looks most interesting and will certainly be very useful' - Bronwen Cohen, Director, Children in Scotland `It's a challenging and exciting book and I hope it is widely used' - Margy Whalley, Director, Pen Green Research, Development and Training Base, Pen Green Centre for Under 5's and Their Families
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: Childcare Work and Gender – An Introduction
- Chapter 2: Mapping and Sourcing
- Chapter 3: How Do Men and Women Come to Be Childcare Workers?
- Chapter 4: The Institution: Gendered Practice
- Chapter 5: Practice with Parents
- Chapter 6: Parents' Response to Men Childcare Workers
- Chapter 7: Child Protection and Equality: Dilemmas and Solutions
- Chapter 8: Men in the Nursery: Throwing Light on Gender in Childcare Work
Copyright © 1999 Claire Cameron, Peter Moss and Charlie Owen
First published 1999
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing from the Publishers.
Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd
A SAGE Publications Company
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU
SAGE Publications Inc
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
32, M-Block Market
Greater Kailash - I
New Delhi 110 048
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 1 85396 431 X
ISBN 1 85396 388 7 (pbk)
Library of Congress catalog card number available
Typeset by Dorwyn Ltd, Rowlands Castle, Hants
Printed and bound in Great Britain
The authors would like to thank the workers and parents who took part in the study and the managers of centres who permitted us to interview staff on the premises. Without them the study would not have been possible. We would also like to thank colleagues at Thomas Coram Research Unit and readers who included Peter Aggleton, Bronwen Cohen, Chrissie Meleady and staff, children and parents at Sheffield Children's Centre, Margy Whalley, and Robin Wright. They did not all agree with all of our views and conclusions, and as authors we take responsibility for the contents of the book, including any mistakes it may contain. The authors would also like to thank Susan McQuail who conducted interviews for the study, and Caroline Bell who helped in innumerable ways. This work was undertaken at Thomas Coram Research Unit which receives support from the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors and not necessarily those of either Department.[Page viii]
When we began the work on which this book is based our starting point was what happens when men are employed in nurseries and similar early childhood services, and the traditional gender composition of childcare work was altered. As the work proceeded, and in particular as we interviewed workers and parents – both men and women – it evolved to become a study of gender and caring work. If one of our main starting questions was ‘why are there so few men in childcare work?’, a main question by the end was ‘why are there so many women in childcare work?’.
Specific childcare institutions have a critical role in the book. We argue that a central feature of virtually every childcare institution is that it is gendered: not just because the workforce is nearly always women, but because the way the work is thought about by parents, workers, government policies, colleges who train workers, managers and policy makers and, not least, wider society, assumes childcare to be ‘women's work’. Within the broad equating of caring work of all sorts with women's work, childcare is particularly equated with, and considered akin to, one form of caring – mothering. Yet despite the gendered nature of childcare work, gender is regularly ignored, a taken-for-granted assumption, so self-evident it is rendered invisible. One of the important consequences of studying the experiences of men childcare workers, and comparing them with those of women, is that it makes visible the gendered nature of the work and opens up possibilities for exploring and questioning this phenomenon.
The study on which this book is based was undertaken in 1997 and 1998. It was part of a larger investigation entitled ‘Men and Women Working in Day Care’ and carried out by us at Thomas Coram Research Unit at the Institute of Education University of London. The work was initially funded by the Department of Health (1996–1998), and subsequently by the Department for Education and Employment (1998–1999) as responsibility for day care services was transferred from one Department to another. The larger study was concerned with describing and analysing the characteristics of staffing of day care services for young children as we detail in Chapter 2. Because of the funding arrangements, the study took place in England. In that respect it is an English study, although some of the data sources on which we rely refer to Britain (e.g., the [Page x]Labour Force Survey) or parts of the UK or Britain (e.g., studies in Scotland). In the book we will use the convention of referring to Britain, while bearing in mind that there may be local variations in circumstance.
Our interest in gender in these services for young children stemmed in part from earlier work by the European Commission Childcare Network. This expert working group provided support to the Commission's Equal Opportunities Unit between 1986 and 1996 on the broad subject of reconciling employment with the care and upbringing of children. The European Union has long recognised the importance of men assuming more responsibility for the care of children as one condition of achieving gender equality in employment, and the childcare network made the theme of men as carers one of its priorities. This theme covered both men as fathers and as workers in services for young children and the Network produced reports investigating the implications and possibilities of employing more men in childcare services (Ghedini et al., undated; Jensen, 1996).
Through this earlier work, together with visits and an international seminar undertaken as part of the study, we noted the different approaches adopted to the issue of men's employment in childcare in Britain as compared with Scandinavia. In Denmark and Norway, for example, the idea and practice of men childcare workers is widely accepted, if still not yet widely implemented. In Britain, there is much more ambivalence and caution. One of our aims was to question and understand these national differences.
This book begins by giving voice to childcare workers, through presenting the stories of six men and women working in childcare centres of various kinds. It shows them to be a heterogenous group, with differing origins and routes into childcare and education work and differing ideas about the effect of having a more mixed gender workforce. This introduces a major theme of the book – diversity, not only between men and women, but among men and women. Their working lives and their gender identity in their work, as recounted in their stories, provide a way of relating the theoretical material which follows to the substance of ‘real lives’.
In the remainder of Chapter 1 we set out the literature, ideas and debates that we have found particularly relevant to our exploration of gender in childcare institutions. We use the term ‘gender’ to mean a socially constructed, rather than a fixed, category, that is a source of individual identity and which is constructed and makes sense in relation to others and in relation to circumstance. Various debates about the ways in which gender is analysed across the study of work, organisations, and identity have proved helpful to the present study. But two have been particularly important to our analysis and are outlined at the end of Chapter 1: the relation between mothering, fathering, the self and work; and the purpose and ethos of childcare institutions.
Chapter 2 considers matters of mapping and sourcing. It gives a brief account of early childhood services and the early childhood workforce in Britain, making some comparisons with other European countries, in part to make visible the ‘taken-for-granteds’ in the British set up. It outlines the [Page xi]current policy context for early childhood services, and the statistics on men in caring work both in Britain in some countries overseas. Chapter 2 also provides an account of the research context and process. We detail the methods adopted in the study and the various data sources drawn upon. There is a brief introduction to the centres where we interviewed workers and from which our sample of parents was drawn, and the chapter ends by noting the evolutionary processual character of our analysis.
In Chapter 3 we begin to use the experiences of our informants to document how and why men and women become workers in childcare institutions. Their educational and work backgrounds reveal many different ways into childcare. The idea of childcare as a linear career is less apparent than a series of work moves structured by opportunity and circumstance. Men workers seemed to receive less support and more ambivalence from their families and friends for their choice of work than women workers did. The critical work of the institution in valuing its workforce not just for being there, but also as a body of skills that require extension and stimulation, emerged as a central theme.
The working environment for staff as a group of adults and in their practice with children is examined in Chapter 4. It considers the job conditions of childcare work, including a comparison of salaries with the national average. Both formal and informal ways of working and being together as ‘men’ and ‘women’ are examined. We discuss various exclusionary practices by staff, which potentially cast the man worker as in a position of being on the margins of institutional life – the man worker as Other (and here it is important to note that in the minority of childcare centres which employ men workers, there are almost invariably just one or two). Issues about whether the work with children is the same or different for men and women workers are considered along with issues of difference between girls and boys. Tensions between gender difference and individuality are explored. Finally, the issue of role models, one of the most frequent justifications offered for wanting more men childcare workers, is critically questioned.
Chapter 5 analyses the interaction of the institution with the outside world, through staff practice and relations with parents. It considers both the development of an ideology of parent involvement across early years services and how the men and women workers we spoke to went about establishing their relations with parents. We elicit differences in workers' relations with mothers and fathers, and question the common assumption that men workers will encourage more involvement by fathers.
The views of mothers and fathers themselves are discussed in Chapter 6, drawing on interviews we undertook as part of the study. Again, the national picture on parental views about early childhood services is reviewed before examining findings for the light they throw on parental support for, and reservations about, the practice of employing men workers. Differences between men, and between men in varying work contexts, recur as an important theme in the parents' accounts.
[Page xii]Issues of risk and protection are considered in Chapter 7. A link between men workers and potential sexual abuse of children in childcare institutions is often claimed: we set out to analyse the evidence. We situate the British and North American debate in relation to Scandinavia, contrasting the different approaches adopted in policy and practice. We provide workers' perspectives on issues of physical contact with children and give an account of how allegations against workers are interpreted and managed by childcare institutions. We argue that the issues of men's employment and the issues of protection from risk of sexual abuse are both important but should be uncoupled and viewed as distinct.
The book is drawn to a close in Chapter 8. We review the evidence we presented and revisit and explore further four central themes of the book: these are caring work as mothering work; incorporating the self and gender identities; gender visibility and reflexive institutions; and gender equality and resistance to men. Finally, we reconsider the case for changing the gender composition of the childcare workforce, and suggest steps that might be taken to effect such change. The links between making gender visible and the reflexivity of the institution's practice are reiterated and considered central.Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education University of London
Appendix 1[Page 175]
Further details of the male and female workers interviewed:Table 1: Duration in post and gender of childcare workersTable 2: Job titles of men and women childcare workers in rough order of seniorityTable 3: Gender, marital and parenting status
Table 4: Childcare workers' household arrangements N = 21 Male and Female Married/cohabiting with own children 8 Married/cohabiting with step-children 1 Married/cohabiting with no children 3 Single parent with child 1 Single, divorced, own children + step-children 1 Single, living with parents/family 3 Single, living independently 4 Total 21 Table 5: Childcare workers by gender, age and seniority Average age (years) for group of posts Men (n = 11) Women (n = 10) ‘Basic’ 37 28 Senior posts 38 34
‘Basic’ included the following job titles: nursery officer, nurse and assistant, project and support worker, family aide and family care worker.
‘Senior’ included the following job titles: senior teacher, teacher plus supervisor, manager, deputy, owner, headteacher.
Appendix 2[Page 177]Details of the Centres Visited
The criteria for the inclusion of centres in the study were:
- Half the sample to be in London, half to be from outside.
- A mix of types of institution.
- Half the sample of men to be ‘new recruits’, in post for around two years; half to be ‘old hands’, in post five years or more.
- A woman member of staff who had been in post a comparable length of time to the man/men.
Using professional contacts in local authorities and the private and voluntary sector, the following centres were found with at least one male employee. They reflect the diversity of England's group childcare provision, although they over-represent the public sector.
- Private sector: two day nurseries that were part of a chain; one in the City, one on the northern fringe of London. One Montessori nursery school in west London.
- Public sector: three local authority day nurseries, one run by the social services department, two run by the education department, all in London. One family centre run by the social services department of an eastern county.
- Voluntary sector: two family centres run by a national children's charity, one to the west of London, the other to the north. One children's centre workers' co-operative, in a northern city.
All the centres were visited between March and August 1997.[Page 178]
Appendix 3[Page 179]Some Characteristics of the Parent SampleHousehold Organisation
Seventy-seven parents took part in the survey of parents' views. This represented 52 mothers/co-mothers and 25 fathers from 51 households. Thirty-five were from couple households, and 16 from lone mother households. In all the lone mother households, the father was not pursued for interview, because of the possibility of encroaching on sensitive post-marital issues or disputes. In nine couple households, the fathers did not make themselves available for interview.EmploymentTable A2.1: Mothers and fathers and employment status
Mothers' employment: of 52 mothers/co-mothers, 27 were not earning their own income: of these two were sick or disabled; one was doing voluntary work; four were students; and 20 were unemployed.
Of the 25 mothers who were employed, 19 of whom worked full-time, these job titles were given:
1. high status: consul-general; money market dealer; assistant director of fund management company; personnel officer; legal negotiator; principal officer (social services department); tutor in law; bookshop business manager; charity business manager; photographer/lecturer; administrator; neonatal nurse; coordinator of social work education (university); teacher; social worker; nursing lecturer; nursery teacher; manager of theatre company.
[Page 180]2. low status: medical receptionist; care assistant; supermarket display assistant; supermarket provisions assistant; administrator (social work).
Fathers' employment: of 25 fathers, only three were not earning an income; one was a student, the others were unemployed. The remaining 22 gave the following job titles, 21 of whom worked full time:
- high status: senior software engineer; head of structured finance in an international bank; global business manager; chartered surveyor; project manager; supermarket deputy manager; quantity surveyor; youth and community worker; development officer for ethnic minorities; assistant psychologist; photographer; personal tax manager; community worker; day centre manager; artist; principal officer (SSD); freelance tutor and translator; maintenance manager.
- low status: carer; electronics panel wiring; agricultural worker.
Women were much more likely to be not earning a living themselves, and more likely to be in low status occupations. Some of the women not earning were part of a household with a high earner; and some families had no earners. Of the 16 lone mothers, ten were unemployed.Access to Centres
Household composition was broadly related to the type of centre their children attended. Children of lone mothers were much more likely to be attending public and/or priority access centres such as family centres or local authority day nurseries than to be attending private centres.Table A2.2: Household composition and access to childcare centres
In summary, the families came from across the range of employment status and household types. There were couple families whose job titles and whose access to private centres suggested an affluent lifestyle; there were lone mothers who were unemployed and whose attendance at priority access centres suggested they were at a material disadvantage. There were also couple families and lone parents whose job title suggested a broad middle range income. Most striking, though, was the concentration of disadvantage, of income and household status, among those attending the family centres and public day nursery with priority access.[Page 181]Table A2.3: Age of parent respondentsChildren of Parent Respondents
Altogether, the parents interviewed had 97 children between them: three-quarters of the 51 households had one or two children; and only 13, or one quarter, had three or more children. As would be expected, most of the children were under school age: this was the case for two-thirds of the households, although a small minority did have children of over 17 years of age. Of the total of 97 children, 57 were boys, and 40 were girls.
Table A2:4 Ages of children and proportion of the total who were preschool age Age of children Number Proportion under 5 Under 1 4 1–2 year olds 27 3–4 year olds 33 64 (66%) 5–16 years old 27 17+ 6 Total 97 97
37% parents had used the centre for one year or less; 25 or 49% had used it for one or two years, and 7 or 14% had used the centre for three or more years.[Page 182]
References[Page 183]1991). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. In S.Lorber and J.Farrell (Eds), The Social Construction of Gender. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Inc.(1994) Gendered Education: Sociological reflections on women, teaching and feminism. Buckingham: Open University Press.(1998). Training and recruiting men to work in services for young children: Is it possible to move towards a more mixed-gender workforce? In Owen et al. (Eds). op.cit.(1983). A cloud over co-education: An analysis of the forms of transmission of class and gender relations. In S.Walker and L.Barton, Gender, Class and Education. London: Falmer Press.(1987). Political lip service or radical reform? Central government response to sex equality as a policy issue. In M.Arnot and G.Weiner (Eds), Gender and the Politics of Schooling. London: Hutchinson.(1991). Women and community care – reflections on a debate. In M.Maclean and D.Groves, Women's Issues in Social Policy. London: Routledge.and (1992). Careers and Identities, Buckingham: Open University Press.et al., (1998). Abuse in Early Years: Report of the Independent Inquiry into Shieldfield Nursery and Related Events, Newcastle Upon Tyne: Newcastle City Council., , and (1998). Child protection, risk and allegations. In Owenet al. (op.cit).(1993). Postmodern Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.(1997). Postmodernity and its Discontents. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1983). The Second Sex. Harmondsworth: Penguin ((original edition, 1949).1992). Child abuse in care settings, paper given at 9th International Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect. Chicago: August/September.and (1952). Maternal Care and Mental Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.(1988). New Mothers at Work: Employment and childcare. London: Unwin Paperbacks.and (1997). replace with Holterman, et al. (1998).(1991). Managing Mothers: Dual earner households after maternity leave. London: Unwin Hyman.and (1994). Parent management committees and pre-school playgroups: The partnership model and future management policy, Journal of Social Policy, Vol 23, No 2, 161–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279400021619(1992). Playgroups in Practice: Self help and public policy. London: HMSO., and (1995). The stunted careers of the carer sex. Times Educational Supplement, 5 May.(1996). Men and their Children: Proposals for public policy. London: Institute for Public Policy Research., and (1993). Community response to child sexual abuse in day care settings, Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, May, 268–281.and ([Page 184]1997a). A review of staffing in childcare centres in Six Countries, Early Child Development and Care, Vol 137, 47–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443971370104(1997b). Men Wanted, Nursery World, 15 May.(1997c). A Man's Place?Nursery World, 22 May.(1995). The Children Act 1989 and early childhood services, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, Vol 17, No 4, 417–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09649069508410164and (1998). Men as carers for children: An Introduction, in Owenet al., (op.cit.).and (1995) Should men work with young children? In NSPCC Conference Report, op.cit.and (1995). Should men work with young children? In The Abuse of Children in Day Care Settings, Leicester: NSPCC National Training Centre.and (1994). Head Start Male Role Model Child Development Associate Credentialing Curriculum Project, Community and Economic Association of Cook County, Chicago, ED 374 901.(1998). I'm just a bloke who's had kids: Men and women on parenthood. In J.Popay, J.Hearn and J.Edwards (Eds). Men, Gender Divisions and Welfare. London: Routledge., and (1989). Who is the odd man out: Men in early childhood settings, Early Child Development and Care, Vol 52, 93–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443890520107(1994). The Attitude of Female Early Childhood Workers in Australia to Male Colleagues, paper presented to the AERA Conference, New Orleans, April.(1987). Two-Track Training: Sex inequalities and the YTS. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.(1995). Masculinity, Law and the Family. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203421543(1996). Betrayal of Trust: Sexual abuse by men who work with children in their own words. London: Free Association Books., and (1987). Gender and Power: Society, power and sexual politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1995). Masculinities, Cambridge: Polity Press.(1997). Women and Work in Modern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1997). Images of the Child, Knowledge and Learning, lecture given at a Summer Institute of the School of Child and Youth Care, University of Victoria, BC, July., (1999). Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: Postmodern perspectives. London: Falmer Press., , and (1978). Imperialism and Motherhood, History Workshop Journal5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hwj/5.1.9(Department for Education and Employment (1998). Meeting the Childcare Challenge: A framework and consultation document (Cm 3959). London: DfEE.Department for Education and Employment (1997). Pupils Under Five Years of Age in Schools in England – January 1996 (Statistical Bulletin, 2/97). London: DfEE.Department of Education and Science (1972). Education: A framework for expansion. London: HMSO.Department of Education and Science (1967). Children and their Primary Schools (the Plowden Report). London: HMSO.Department of Health (1991). The Children Act 1989, Guidance and Regulations Volume 2; Family Support, Day Care and Educational Provision for Young Children, HMSO.Department of Health (1995). Child Protection: Messages from Research. London: HMSO.Department of Health (1997). Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March 1996, England (AF96/6). London: DoH.Department of Health and Social Security (1980). The Needs of the Under Fives in the Family (the Brimblecombe Report). London: HMSO.[Page 185]1998). State of the Art Review on the Reconciliation of Work and Family Life and the Quality of Care Services. London: Department for Education and Employment, Research Report 44., , and (1997). What Difference Does Difference Make? Sexuality and Gender Accountability, Sociological Research Group, Social and Political Sciences, University of Cambridge.(1989). Pre-school home visiting projects: A case study of mothers' expectations and experiences, Gender and Education, Vol 1, No 2, 165–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954025890010206(1994). Parental Views on the Development of Day Care and Education Services for Children Under Eight in England. London: National Children's Bureau.(1997). A Law unto Themselves? A survey of appeals and prosecutions under Part X of the Children Act 1989, concerning childminding and day care provision. London: National Children's Bureau., and (Equal Opportunities Commission (1998). Facts About Women and Men in Great Britain 1998. Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission.1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1998). At all costs, Nursery World, 29 October.(1988). The spectrum of sexual abuse in daycare: An exploratory study, Journal of Family Violence, Vol 3, No 4, 283–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00989978(1988). Nursery Crimes: Sexual abuse in day care, Newbury Park: Sage., , with (1988). Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and other writings, 1977–1984. (L.Kritzman, ed.), New York: Routledge.(1995). Fathers, Nurseries and Childcare. European Commission Equal Opportunities Unit/EC Childcare Network., , , and (1982). Male Teacher Effects on Young Children: A Theoretical and Empirical Consideration. Sex Roles, Vol 8, No 5, 493–513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00287715and (1983). A labour of love. In J.Finch and D.Groves (Eds). A Labour of Love: Women, Work and Caring. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1996). Key Issues in Women's Work. London: Athlone Press.(1996). Introduction: Who needs identity? In S.Hall and P.du Gay (Eds), Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446221907(1982). Capitalism, patriarchy and job segregation by sex. In A.Giddens and D.Held (Eds), Classes, Power and Conflict: Classical and contemporary debates. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.(1998). A Norwegian Perspective, paper presented to a fringe event at the ENSAC Conference, October.(1999). A Norwegian Perspective. In Men and Childcare Scotland, unpublished working paper, January.(1992). Gender and organizations: A selective review and a critique of a neglected area in A. J.Mills and P.Tancred (Eds). Gendering Organizational Analysis. Newbury: Sage., and (1998). Nursery staff ran paedophile ring, The Guardian, 13 November.(1990). Involving men in the caring and educational services, Local Government Policy Making, Vol 17, No 3, 36–39.(1991). Boys will be boys – won't they?: The attitudes of playgroup workers to gender and play experiences, Gender and Education, Vol 3, No 3, 311–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954025910030307(1998). Lone Parents and the Labour Market: Results from the 1997 labour force survey and review of research. Report prepared for the Employment Service – draft., , , and (1993). Should men care?, Co-ordinate, May, 5–6.(1994). Report of the Independent Inquiry into Multiple Abuse in Nursery Classes in Newcastle Upon Tyne. Newcastle Upon Tyne: City Council of Newcastle Upon Tyne.([Page 186]1996). Men as Workers in Childcare Services: A discussion paper. European Commission Network on Childcare and other measures to reconcile Employment and Family Responsibilities for Women and Men. Brussels: European Equal Opportunities Unit.(1991). British Social Attitudes – the 8th report. London: Social and Community Planning Research., , and (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York, Basic Books., (1994). Abuse of children in day care centres: Characteristics and consequences, Child Abuse Review, Vol 3, 15–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/car.2380030105(1998). Men as childcare workers: Are the risks worth the benefits? In Owenet al., (op.cit.).(1993). Sexual abuse of children in day care centres, Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol 17, 71–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134%2893%2990010-3, and (1994). Uncommon Caring: Primary Males and Implicit Judgements, conference paper, ED 375 086.(1993). The Leicestershire Inquiry 1992. Leicester: Leicestershire County Council.(1991). Getting Smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. London: Routledge.(1998). Minister promises to act on boys' failure, Times Educational Supplement, 9 January.(Local Government Management Board (1999). Independent Day Nursery Workforce Survey 1998 England. London: Local Government Management Board.1991). The Social Construction of Gender. Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications.and (1998). Improving our gender equity ‘tools’. In N.Yelland (Ed), Gender in Early Childhood. Sydney: Routledge.(Malaguzzi (1993). For an education based on relationships, Young Children, No 11, 9–13.1993). In their parents' absence, Violence Update, Vol 3, No 9, 1–8.(1995). A man's job?, Scottish Child, November/December, 12–13.(1996). Children, Health and the Social Order. Buckingham: Open University Press.(1997). Why is childcare women's work?Co-ordinate, November, 4–5.(1994). Day Care Services for Children. London: HMSO.(1997). Research and Policy in Early Childhood Services: Time for a new agenda. Institute of Education: University of London.and (1995). Survey of day care providers in England and Wales, a working paper from the TCRU Children Act Project. Institute of Education: University of London., , , , and (1996). Transforming Nursery Education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing., and (1996) ‘We all love Charles’, Men in child care and the construction of gender, Gender and Society, Vol 10, No 4, 368–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124396010004002(National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (1995). The abuse of children in day care settings, conference report. Leicester: NSPCC Training.National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (1997). Protecting children from sexual abuse in the community: A guide for parents and carers. London: NSPCC.1998). Masculine care: The nursery school as a man's workplace. In Owenet al. (Eds) (op.cit.)., and (1997). Physical punishment of childrem in two-parent families, Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol 2, No 2, 271–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359104597022007and (1998). Are men good for the welfare of women and children? In J.Hearn et al. (Eds) (op.cit.).and ([Page 187]1998). Please Sir! Where are you?, Times Educational Supplement, 1 May.(1997). Parents' Perspectives. In M.Candappa (Ed), Policy into Practice: Day care services for children under eight, London: The Stationery Office.(1996). Newspaper Evidence of Sexual Abuse in Day Care (in preparation).and (Owen, C., Cameron, C. and Moss, P. (Eds) (1998). Men as Workers in Services for Young Children: Issues of a mixed gender workforce. Bedford Way Papers, Institute of Education: University of London.1997). Learning from Vouchers. An evaluation of the four year old vouchers scheme, 1996/7, a Summary. ECU Occasional Papers series.and , (1995). The relationship of private daycare and nursery education in the UK, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, Vol 3, No 2, 29–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13502939585207751(1996), Three men and a baby, Nursery World, 19 September.(1996). Childcare as a Gendered Occupation, report for the DfEE/OECD., and (1997). Comparing Nurseries: Staff and children in Italy, Spain and the UKLondon: Paul Chapman Publishing.(1998). Summary: Men as workers in services for young children. In Owenet al. (op.cit.).(Preschool Learning Alliance (1998). Minimum wage, under five contact, October, 14.1995). Men, Masculinities and Social Welfare. London: UCL Press Ltd.(1998). Men and childcare: Policy and practice. In J.Hearn et al. (Eds) (op.cit.).(1985). Parents and professionals in partnership: Issues and implications. In G.Pugh and E.De'Ath (Eds), Parent Involvement: What does it mean and how do we achieve it?Partnership Paper 2, London: National Children's Bureau.(1996). A policy for early childhood services. In G.Pugh (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in the Early Years. London: National Children's Bureau.(1998). Flexing their muscles, Nursery World, 15 October, 12–13.(1996). Working with Parents. In G.Pugh (Ed.) (op.cit.).(1993). The emergent curriculum and social constructivism. In C.Edwards, L.Gandini and G.Forman (Eds), The Hundred Languages of Children. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.(1995). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research In A.Bryman and R.Burgess, Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge.and (1992). What's He Doing at the Family Centre?: The dilemmas of men who care for children. London: National Children's Homes.(1996). Women who Sexually Abuse Children. Chichester: Wiley.(1998). Men as workers in services for young children. In Owenet al. (op.cit.).(1974). Some problems of men in child care center work. In S.Pleck and J.Sawyer (Eds), Men and Masculinity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.(1984). Career Experiences of Men who Teach Young Children, AERA Conference, New Orleans.(1995/6). Putting purchasing power into parents' hands, Child Care Now, Vol 3, 3.(1995/6). Vouchers – What they mean for Preschool Education, ChildCare Now, 3.(1993). Shared care for children, Theory and Psychology, Vol 3, No 4, 429–449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354393034003(1996). Why understanding cultural differences is not enough. In G.Pugh (Ed.) (op.cit.).(1991). A study of the career perspectives of male teachers of young children, Gender and Education, Vol 3, No 3, 279–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954025910030305([Page 188]1997). Men on the margins: Male student primary teachers, Changing English, Vol 4, No 2, 217–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1358684970040204(1998). Men Working with young children: A natural development? In Owenet al. (op.cit.).(1993). Safe from Harm – A Code of Practice for Safeguarding the Welfare of Children in Voluntary Organisations in England and Wales. London: Home Office.(1980). Parents and Preschool. London: Grant McIntyre.(1996). Family Centres. London: HMSO.(Suffolk County Council (1998). HERA 2 Interim Report: Child care training in the United Kingdom. Suffolk County Council.1998). What happens when men move into female-dominated occupations. In Owenet al. (Eds) (op.cit.).(1997). Vetting workers: Selecting volunteers and paid staff to work with children, Childright, No 141, November.(1995). Paternalism or Partnership: Family involvement in the child protection process. London: HMSO., and (1993). Gender and Play: girls and boys in school. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.(1981). Involving Parents in Nursery and Infant Schools. London: Grant McIntyre.(TobinJ. (Ed.) (1996). Making a Place for Pleasure in Early Childhood Education. New Haven: Yale University Press.1994). Day Nurseries at a Crossroads: Meeting the challenge of childcare in the nineties. London: National Children's Bureau., and (1995). A man about the place, Times Educational Supplement2, 13 October.(1996). Working as a team. In G.Pugh (Ed.) (op.cit.).(Whalley, M. (Ed.) (1997). Working with Parents. London: Hodder and Stoughton.1987). So happy together? The impact of gender segregation on men at work, American Sociological Review, Vol. 52, 574–587. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095595, and (1993). Paying the Price: An analysis of staff turnover in long day care and preschool services in NSW – 1990. Community Child Care Co-operative Ltd.(1989). Who Cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America. Oakland, CA: National Child Care Staffing Study, Final Report., , and (1993) National Childcare Staffing Study Revisited. Four Years in the Life of Center-Based Child Care, Child Care Employee Project, Oakland, CA., and (1998). Worthy Work, Unlivable Wages: The National Child Care Staffing Study 1988–1997. Washington: Center for the Child Care Workforce., and (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the ‘female’ professions, Social Problems, Vol. 39, No 3, 253–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.1992.39.3.03x0034h(1995). Still a Man's World: Men who do ‘women's work’. Berkeley: UC Press.(1998). Troubled masculinities in social policy discourses: Fatherhood. In J.Popay, J.Hearn and J.Edwards (Eds), Men, Gender Divisions and Welfare. London: Routledge.(1997). Gender equity and the boys debate: What sort of challenge is it?British Sociology of Education, Vol 18, No 3, 337–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142569970180302(1990). White Mythologies: Writing history and the West. London: Routledge.(