Participants

Individual semi-structured interviews were carried out with 14 early childhood educators working in and around Lisbon: six men and eight women, aged between 21 and 61 years (M = 41.29; SD = 12.44), with a male average age of 49 (SD = 10.35) and 46 years for women (SD = 11.02). In relation to academic qualifications, two interviewees hold master’s degrees, one has a doctoral degree while the others have undergraduate degrees with the exception of one female interviewee who attained a professional qualification equivalent to the female educator undergraduate degree. The length of their careers ranges from 1 to 40 years, with an average of 18 years of professional activity. Finally, as regards interviewee nationality, there was only one Cape Verdean male early childhood educator with all the other respondents being Portuguese citizens.

Procedure

In order to carry out these interviews, we contacted some already known male and female early childhood educators through e-mail, telephone and Facebook, informing them of the interview contents and the study objective before requesting their participation. The interviews took place according to the positive responses received and according to the availability of early childhood educators. We then deployed the “snowball” technique (^{Lewis-Beck et al., 2004)}, thus, as the interviews took place, the interviewees were asked to contact colleagues available to collaborate in the study.

All interviews were conducted in the workplace contexts of each male and female early childhood educator in order to facilitate their accomplishment. The interview duration varied between 25 minutes and 1 hour and 35 minutes. That one of the authors had carried out his curricular internship in a school grouping and had learned about the functioning and dynamics of schools facilitated the interviews in enabling a more proximate approach to the interviewees.

In accordance with the ethical procedures, prior to each interview, all participants signed an informed consent form which contained the study objectives and guaranteed the total anonymity and confidentiality of their identities. This consent authorised the audio recording of the interviews for the purpose of the subsequent reliable transcription of all the information collected and its application for academic study and subsequent dissemination and publication. Finally, all the interviews were transcribed and analysed in full.

Instrument

Data collection took place through individual, semi-structured interviews, following a script that also determined the sociodemographic characteristics of the interviewees (e.g., sex, age and marital status) and contained questions oriented by the theoretical framework. There were specific and different scripts prepared for the male and female early childhood educators participating. Although with some different questions for the different genders, both scripts are divided into two to focus on major stages in the professional trajectory: entry into the profession, thus, to identify possible obstacles, particularly those experienced by males; and the current professional context, thereby addressing possible gender imbalances and inequalities and exploring the experiences of the interviewees regarding the dynamics of tokenism.

Data analysis

The corpus composed of the material from the 14 interviews was subjected to thematic analysis (^{Braun Clarke, 2006}). We chose thematic analysis as a methodology that enables “identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (^{Braun Clarke, 2006}, p. 79) as well as identifying sub-themes within the themes under analysis. We followed the six steps proposed by the authors: familiarisation with the data, which includes transcribing the interviews, reading the data and noting down initial ideas; coding interesting features and gathering relevant data for each code; creation of themes through the initial codes, bringing together all the revealing data for each theme; revision of the themes, seeking to verify this work done on the codes and the set of data, generating a thematic “map” of analysis; definition and naming of the themes, refining the specificities of each theme and their definitions; and producing the analysis report by selecting examples related to the research question. We started out with mostly deductive analysis in keeping with the previous engagement with the literature on the topic (^{Braun Clarke, 2006}) of tokenism from a gender perspective but also containing a partially inductive approach in accordance with our openness to the likelihood of identifying unexpected themes taking into account the literature review.

Findings

The thematic analysis allowed us to identify six major themes in the discourses of the interviewees, which we designated as follows: external judgements on the choice of profession; integration into the profession: supports and obstacles; visibility of male early childhood educators; differences and (in)equalities between female and male early childhood educators; attributions and assimilation of male stereotypical roles; and men’s strategies for managing the situation.

External judgements on the choice of the profession

A first theme identified related to the reactions of others to the choice of profession. Both female and male interviewees referred to the support and encouragement of their families and close friends when deciding to study early childhood education. This seems particularly significant in the case of the men, considering the predominance of women in the profession, as seen above. However, despite the support shown, the families questioned the option the most in the case of men, especially because it was a “women’s profession” causing some expressions of strangeness. In turn, the socially established linkage between being an early childhood educator (man) and having a homosexual orientation may also have generated doubts and concerns among those stating the intention of taking up this profession:

Everyone supported me and thought I did very well. The fact I have both early childhood educators and teachers in the family also helps. (I13, woman).

There was always that thing everyone asks me, which was if I was having confusion, in terms of my sexual orientation because people would say “he must be gay if he’s an early childhood educator”. (I2, man).

Integration into the profession: support and obstacles

Another theme identified concerns the obstacles or barriers to the processes of integration and adaptation to the profession. In this theme, there was a gender discrepancy in the discourses with clear differences in the acceptance and integration of male early childhood educators when embarking on their careers. The male interviewees alluded to various obstacles, specifically the fact of not being accepted by others in their profession (i.e., the school community in general, both female early childhood educators and auxiliaries) and ways of being at work, with several participants also mentioning they had had job applications rejected on their grounds of their gender and were openly questioned about their motives for early childhood education.

These interviewee narratives reported the various forms of questioning they experienced regarding their abilities and competences for exercising the profession in comparison with women. The effects of the association between being a (male) early childhood educator and likely homosexuality was also mentioned with fathers and mothers expressing fear that this situation would harm the learning and development process of their children.

In contrast, female interviewees always emphasised the positive aspects of their integration and having benefited greatly from support provided by all the people around them, which facilitated their process of adaptation to the working context:

When I started, the first questions I was asked in interviews was precisely: “A male early childhood educator in pre-school education, a man, why?” I can say that in the 10 or 12 interviews I did, it was a recurring question in 90% of them. . . . They still think, perhaps, a little bit like, a man, at such a tender stage for the children, is still not seen with very good eyes . . . . They look at you a bit like “A man here, really!”. (I6, man).

It went well. I started with a professional internship, so I was very well accompanied, and I always had the support of my colleagues, as well as my bosses. So, it was easy to integrate. (I8, woman).

Visibility of male early childhood educators

The third theme identified refers to the greater visibility of male early childhood educators in the pre-school context. In fact, with the exception of three women, all the interviewees stated that men are more visible and the focus of greater attention than women, and therefore feel certain pressures and needs to prove their competences. However, in their words, this was particularly true at the beginning of their careers as this pressure eased over time through the work developed and the self-confidence the (male) early childhood educators gained.

Respondents mentioned that the greater visibility of male early childhood educators as from their initial training relates to their low level of representation, particularly symbolised by the ease with which their names are recognised. Although the need to demonstrate professional competences when beginning their careers is referenced as a common experience for male and female early childhood educators, the interviewees highlighted the existence of a differentiating nuance. In fact, the narratives report that men’s mistakes or successes are more noted than those of women, thus placing higher expectations for excellent performance or else deemed a failure due to the inherent inaptitude of their sex. However, the interviewees seem to agree that this specific facet does not affect the performance and competence of male early childhood educators:

I think that men . . . are [more visible], because we are few, it’s just because we are a rare species. [Have you ever felt the need to prove your competencies or pressure to perform better?] Curiously, only in initial training . . . I remember the pressure was very great in initial training. Because then it was the other way round, it was the fact that there were only two of us, only two male trainees. There was great pressure and we had to show we knew what we were doing. (I4, man).

The men, of course [are more visible], they are far fewer than us. They are always a novelty when they appear . . . [Do you think they feel the need to prove their competencies or pressure for better performance?] I don’t think they feel that need, because they are professionals like us. They have learnt the same as us and are able to do the same things as us. But I think they do feel some pressure to perform excellently because it can’t be easy to enter a world of women. They must be subject to a lot of people always coming to check what they are doing and, if they are doing it right, how they are doing it, it can’t be easy or very comfortable to be subject to this kind of thing. (I12, woman).

Differences and (in)equalities between female and male early childhood educators

The fourth theme to emerge interlinks with the polarisation of differences between male and female early childhood educators and the relationship to existing situations of gender inequality. The discourses diverge between the male and female interviewees, with only the males identifying differentiated treatment of males and females with the women correspondingly rejecting the existence of gender inequalities in the workplace context:

Comparisons [between men and women] yes, without a doubt. This is a world of women, suddenly a man appears in the middle of it and there are always comparisons: if he does it like us, if he has the same approaches, if the way of working is the same. I don’t believe there are any differences in treatment. [Have you ever felt that they were excluded by their colleagues?] Not from what I have experienced, no. I never knew of any episode like that. And also because, as the only man, it is difficult to be ignored by colleagues as there is always that thing of something new. (I14, woman).

Although the male interviewees identify differentiation in their treatment due to being a numerical minority, they also mention that in certain situations this differentiation may prove advantageous, reinforcing their self-confidence through overcoming the obstacles mentioned. On the other hand, most male respondents mentioned not having experienced exclusion from the conversations of their female colleagues or otherwise ignored by them, suggesting that relational processes facilitated their integration into workplaces, benefiting from the inclusive attitudes of their female colleagues.

Male early childhood educators, however, refer to frequent comparisons between men and women in the profession, interpreting these as a result of the physical and biological characteristics of both sexes and the male minority status. Both male and female interviewees tend to classify these comparisons as normal and do not perceive them as an effect of gender ideologies but rather as relating strictly to the professional performance of male and female early childhood educators:

When they tell me that I’m going to do an internship in a certain place because I’m a man, there is, in fact, a differentiation . . . . Occasionally, this comparison may happen. In my case, I make a plea that this should not be possible, that it should not happen. Because there is no possibility of comparing because we are necessarily different. (I2, man).

I worked . . . . I’m working this year with João and I’ve worked with Vítor and I never felt... I never felt that they were treated differently, always equally [Have you ever felt that men were excluded?] No, I never felt that. They were always very present; they were always very much with us . . . . No. It was always really equality. (I10, woman).

When we deal with an area marked by gender, in this case female, whenever there is a minority, there is always the tendency for us to compare everything that is done. . . . [Have you ever felt that men were excluded or ignored by their colleagues?] No, I don’t think so. Women, in these cases, are even quite inclusive. They like to have a man in the group to give the masculine opinion and so on [laughs]. (I12, woman).

Attributions and assimilation of stereotypical male roles

Another theme identified relates to the attribution and assimilation of stereotypical male, demonstrating how male early childhood educators are in some way “attached” to the roles associated to their belonging group. This theme is organised by the discourses about equality between professionals, independently of their sex and, simultaneously, of their differences. On the one hand, respondents state that being a man in the pre-school education context is to be a male educator, to be a good professional, to fulfil the proposed objectives and to possess the necessary competences to carry out the profession in the best way as is expected of female educators and therefore no gender-based differences are valued or signalled.

On the other hand, however, and in comparison with female early childhood educators, both male and female interviewees mentioned that men are perceived as professionals who venture and risk more, adopt more practical and relaxed postures and ways of working in moments of tension, stress or demanding greater care, which ultimately facilitates the management of the work carried out. Male educators are also perceived as physically stronger than female educators as well as deemed more rational, less emotional, more objective and with greater ability to simplify and solve problems.

The fact that men are a small minority, in a context mainly dominated by women, means they are portrayed as persons with enormous resilience and courage as they have to cope with embarrassing situations and social pressures due to the perceived likelihood of them showing paedophilic behaviours, which may cause them discomfort and inhibition in their relationships with both children and their parents. However, according to the interviewees, they deal well with this situation and manage to create an excellent relationship with the children.

The women interviewed mainly perceive men as being different, recognising they have different ways of working to women but that the results of their work are not any different. In short: men carry out their profession in the same way as women but according to different processes that return similar results. It is generally agreed that because they work in a feminine context, male early childhood educators do not assume feminine postures and are praised for this. These differences of men are seen as advantageous for them as professionals even while the male and female interviewees argue this does not result from the effects of gender construction but rather the individual personalities that they each have:

Being a man is undoubtedly a challenge, always. As is being a woman . . . . There may be [advantages or disadvantages], taking into account the context. Again, if the father figure, the male figure, is really not very marked, it can be a facilitator or a hindrance . . . . Logically, some of them [characteristics generally associated with men] end up being [associated with male early childhood educators]. The uncomplicating factor that is associated with us, simplifying is often associated with us . . . . The question of strength, it ends up being, well, if it is necessary to put the heaviest thing up there, “Hey, João, come here”, but, well, that is not a negative aspect . . . . It is like this, I have my way of being and my way of acting, I have no need to go and adopt a feminine posture. (I6, man).

I think [being a man] is the same as being a woman, they are just a bit more practical and more relaxed than us . . . . The fundamental thing is to be good professionals, gender comes after . . . . We know that they have different ways of working. It doesn’t mean that they practice differently. The end result is the same. The path may be different. But I think this is an added value. This difference, if it is shared, can bring immense benefits for all male and female early childhood educators, for children and for the evolution of early childhood education itself in Portugal. . . . Men are more rational, we are more emotional, we react immediately as if it were the end of the world . . . . What is required of them is that they are good professionals and have those competences I have already mentioned. Then, if they are stronger or more rational, these are secondary characteristics, they may help but they do not define them either as professionals or as men. (I12, woman).

I think they can and should do both. Accepting stereotypes doesn’t mean that you agree with them. They can accept them and then in their daily work, through their work, combat them, making these roles disappear. I think that men in early childhood education combat and deal with this situation very well, they are quite intelligent [laughs]. (I12, woman).

Men’s strategies in managing the situation

The sixth and last theme identified aggregates the ideas expressed by the male and female respondents about the strategies adopted by male early childhood educators for their inclusion in the specific professional context. Our analysis brought out two interrelated sub-themes: men’s strategies in relating to female colleagues; and men’s strategies in relating to children and families.

Men’s strategies in relation to female colleagues and society

Among the strategies that the men and women interviewed refer to having adopted in their relationships with their female colleagues is the ability to manage these situations very well, with great calm and tranquillity, demonstrating skills to immediately resolve any situation that occurs. Another of the strategies listed by both male and female early childhood educators is the ability of men to be impartial, to listen to all colleagues without creating any friction, always trying to promote team spirit, through positive attitudes and dialogues about the roles they each have in that working context. The courage and determination to face some of the prejudices existing in society, focusing only on their work, were other characteristics identified by women as regards male early childhood educators:

I think it takes some patience and courage, not exactly to put up with us, but to still face the prejudices that exist in our society. (I14, woman).

Look, with a lot of intelligence [laughs]. With a lot of patience, a lot of resilience, a lot of willpower, a lot of calm and reflection, but, mainly, I think that if they are determined and focused on what they want, they can deal well with any adversity they may face and manage in the best way this world that still remains very feminine. (I12, woman).

With a lot of fair-play; with a lot of management, a lot of acceptance and a lot of questioning . . . . “Questioning” is questioning, helping people, women, in this case, or whoever is working with me, helping them question each other’s role and each other’s performance. (I1, man).

The male interviewees emphasized the importance of their presence in the specific professional context of early childhood education due to the contribution towards the social deconstruction of the associated gender stereotypes. They perceive that men work strategically to dismantle the roles and gender stereotypes existing in society, seeking to counteract them, through the quality of their work and their results, based on a model of education. They view the situation as a challenge, wishing to show they can do as well as their female colleagues, with the same value and quality. This requires changing people’s mentality, through pedagogical skills, working strategies and good human values, thus combating gender roles and stereotypes through work and intelligence, and showing that they cope well with this situation:

They are stereotypes. When you talk about stereotypes, you have to change people’s minds. . . I don’t think this profession requires any special characteristics from men or women. It requires them to be good human beings, to be competent in what they do, to know well what they are doing. (I5, man).

Men’s strategies in relating to children

This subtheme aggregates the ideas about the care that male educators should take in the relationships they establish with children due to the issues of sexual abuse and paedophilia,¹ and how this conditions their work. This care is especially important regarding physical touching between male educators and children and the boundaries, in other words, how far male educators can and should go without risking suspicions of inadequacy or abuse. According to the men interviewed, after the emergence of judicial processes, they had to adopt self-protective measures, eliminating behaviours such as holding children on their laps, hugging or kissing them, which had hitherto been perceived as normal, but which were now assumed as potentially cause for questioning as to the intentions, especially by the families of children.

Even though they consider it irrational to respond to such thoughts and change practices, the men interviewed said they had adjusted to the situation while trying to transmit the attention and affection to children as they had always done and consider inherent to the profession and important to creating trusting and friendly relationships with the children but careful of any negative effects of their behaviours as perceived by professional peers and family members:

Fifteen years ago, we had the Casa Pia case and any man in education, any man in activities where we were in contact with children, we were under intense scrutiny, right under the spotlight. There are behaviours that we dropped out of self-defence. There are colleagues who say they even stopped sitting the kids on their laps because they were always looking. I didn’t drop any behaviours but it’s clear that we have to pay attention. There are things we would do unconsciously, in terms of gestures, hugs, kisses, maybe, for a while, there was a kind of self-censorship and self-management of behaviour. (I2, man).

Yes, nowadays people can be a bit more afraid of that, can’t they? And I think that men in particular . . . . if it’s a woman, it’s nothing, but if it’s a man he’s already “going to kiss her”. This is probably the prejudice of women. If it’s a woman kissing the child, it’s OK, but if it’s a man, it’s probably not OK. I don’t know. Nowadays, there’s even a lot of care . . . . And there’s a prejudice there. Nowadays, for example, in the Nordic countries, teachers are not allowed to show a lot of affection . . . . I read an article about this, and I was a bit shocked, a bit because of the stories that have been read lately about paedophilia. (I7, woman).