Early Child Development and Care

ISSN: 0300-4430 (Print) 1476-8275 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

Male caregivers in child daycare: why so few?

Noam Shpancer, Jessica Fannin, Jordan L. Rush, Katie Rosneck, Mariel

Montgomery, William Hove & Maya Venkataraman

To cite this article: Noam Shpancer, Jessica Fannin, Jordan L. Rush, Katie Rosneck, Mariel
Montgomery, William Hove & Maya Venkataraman (2019): Male caregivers in child daycare: why so
few?, Early Child Development and Care, DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2019.1651307

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2019.1651307

Published online: 07 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 547

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gecd20
EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2019.1651307

Male caregivers in child daycare: why so few?

Noam Shpancer, Jessica Fannin, Jordan L. Rush, Katie Rosneck, Mariel Montgomery,
William Hove and Maya Venkataraman
Psychology Department, Otterbein University, Westerville, OH, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Attitudes about male caregivers in child daycare were explored in two Received 5 July 2019
studies. In Study 1 participants (N = 301) read a written vignette asking Accepted 30 July 2019
them to imagine themselves as parents who are choosing a daycare
KEYWORDS
centre for their infant. Using a 2 × 2 between-subjects design, the sex of Male caregivers; child
the caregiver and that of the child were randomly manipulated in the daycare; attitudes; bias
vignette. Participants were then asked about whether and why they’d
choose the centre for their infant. Study 2 involved semi-structured
interviews with daycare centre professionals (N = 10) about their
attitudes regarding male caregivers. The interviews were analyzed
qualitatively for emerging themes. Results from the two sets of data
converge to suggest that a negative social bias is widely perceived to be
a barrier to the inclusion of men in daycare work. At the same time,
empirical evidence directly demonstrating such (explicit or implicit) bias
remains elusive.

In the US today, a majority of mothers of children under one year old are in the workforce (Shpancer,
2018). Consequently, most US children spend some time in nonparental care before age six (Zero to
Three, 2017). The childcare system in the US is complicated and diverse, made up of a hodgepodge of
licensed and unlicensed facilities, varying in quality, size, and scope. Rules and regulations pertaining
to nonparental child care also vary greatly by state. Amid all this diversity, one primary unifying
characteristic remains: Men are virtually absent from the caregiving workforce. Nonparental child
care in the US is dominated by women (Peeters, Rohrmann, & Emilsen, 2015), with men constituting
only six percent of the workforce (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017).
The picture is not much different elsewhere around the globe (see Heikkilä & Hellman, 2017; Joseph
& Wright, 2016; van Polanen, Colonnesi, Tavecchio, Blokhuis, & Fukkink, 2017). For example, in Turkey
7% of preschool teachers are male; in New Zealand, less than 1%. (Sak, Sahin, & Sahin, 2012). This
pattern holds even in the most egalitarian nations such as Sweden and Norway (6% and 9% respect-
ively, see Wernersson, 2015), and has been notoriously resistant to change. For example, The European
Commission Network on Childcare has in 1996 set a target of having 20% male workers in child care by
2006. Campaigns and initiatives were launched in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the UK, and Belgium, yet
no European country has reached the target (Peeters, 2007).
In this sense, it appears that the societal push toward gender equity, inclusiveness, and diversity has
skipped daycare (Farquhar, Cablk, Buckingham, Butler, & Ballantyne, 2006). As Willett (2008) had noted,
Men may write popular books on child rearing, publish in professional journals, head trade unions, and even on
occasion be a kindergarten cop. But holding, touching, and embracing small children, the fundamentals of care,
often seem unacceptable and precisely when the need for childcare has become so commonplace. (p. 288)

CONTACT Noam Shpancer Nshpancer@otterbein.edu Otterbein University, Westerville, OH 43081, USA

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 N. SHPANCER ET AL.

The potential benefits of male caregivers

The paucity of male representation in the rank of daycare caregivers is of concern because increased
male presence may provide multiple benefits. For example, research has shown that children’s
gender concepts develop in infancy through the preschool years, and that these concepts are
shaped in part by the child’s proximal environment (Aina & Cameron, 2011). The childcare system
may benefit from the presence of male caregivers as males may bring unique qualities and experi-
ences to their work (Rolfe, 2006) and serve as role models to the children, demonstrating how
gender should not limit one’s occupational options and choices. Integrated daycare environment
including both male and female role models may help children to learn that caring is part of mascu-
linity as well as femininity.
Moreover, research has consistently shown that daycare boys in particular tend to experience
lower quality interactions and attachment relationships than girls, and manifest more externalizing
behaviour problems than girls. This may be due in part to the feminization of caregiving (Ahnert, Pin-
quart, & Lamb, 2006; Foster, Kimmel, & Skelton, 2001; Timmerman & Schreuder, 2008), which creates a
mismatch between boys’ interests and tendencies and those of the staff (see Wardle, 1991, 2012). The
absence of male caregivers may decrease the opportunities for boys to establish close relationships
with appropriate gender role models (Bullough, 2015). In this context, male caregivers have may
reinforce not only positive ‘masculine’ traits but also positive ‘feminine’ traits (Robinson & Hobson,
1978). A recent study from Austria (Huber & Traxl, 2018) found that mixed-gender childcare teams,
‘produce significantly greater social mobility among children than do female-only teams’ (p. 452).
In addition, clear gender-specific effects were found in children’s behaviour towards educators.
Boys, especially, were drawn significantly more frequently to a male caregiver.
Moreover, attachment research has shown convincingly that both male and female caregivers and
parents can form secure attachments with children (Bretherton, 2010). Indeed, some research
suggests that father–child attachment may be more predictive of child outcome than mother–
child attachment (Grossmann et al., 2002). Father absence, on the other hand, has long been
shown to predict child behaviour problems (Flouri, Narayanan, & Midouhas, 2015; McLanahan,
Tach, & Schneider, 2013). It is possible, therefore, that male absence may constitute adversity for chil-
dren across care contexts, extending into the daycare environment. Paquette (2004) theorized that
the father–child attachment is a relationship that teaches children to take chances and overcome
obstacles. The presence of male caregivers may likewise serve to teach daycare children to build resi-
lience, and may be of particular compensatory value for children who are growing up without fathers
in the home (Mistry & Sood, 2013).
In addition, the benefits of male caregivers may extend to daycare fathers as well, as they may feel
more at ease and comfortable interacting with a male caregiver. This in turn may encourage greater
father participation in the child’s life (Spence & Clapton, 2018). Such participation has been shown to
improve developmental outcome for children (see Bernadett-Shapiro, Ehrensaft, & Shapiro, 1996;
McMunn, Martin, Kelly, & Sacker, 2017).
Finally, within the US recent years have seen a growing acceptance of the value of labour force
diversity, and an attendant effort to advocate for and allow equal career access across the board
to individuals of all genders. Historically, this effort has focused on making predominantly male pro-
fessions accessible to everyone. But what holds true for predominantly male institutions should, in
fairness, hold true for all female ones (Wardle, 2012). Thus, a strong principled argument for inclusive-
ness can be made for desegregating the daycare context, so that children can grow up in an environ-
ment that resembles the one into which they are being socialized (see Rohrmann, 2016).

Why men do not become daycare caregivers

The absence of men in daycare is not well explained by inherent gender differences in competence
regarding child caregiving tasks. Research comparing male and female caregivers has tended to
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 3

show that both sexes are capable of interacting effectively with children in their care. Oppenheim,
Mason and Kuhlthau (1989) found that mothers trusted fathers most to take care of their children
if they were not available for the task. Recently, van Polanen, Colonnesi, Tavecchio, et al. (2017)
observed male and female professional caregivers and assessed them on their levels of sensitivity
and stimulation towards three-year-old children. Overall, male and female caregivers showed
similar interaction styles with the children in their care. Canadian researchers Besnard and Letarte
(2017) found no significant gender differences in educational practices of male and female caregivers,
and less internalizing difficulties for children in mix gender caregiver groups.
Overall, the literature appears to support the notion that men can (and probably should) work as
daycare caregivers, to the benefit of children and their families. And yet they are by and large absent
from this line of work. So, what gives? The literature to date has pointed out two main potential
reasons for this gender imbalance in the field of nonparental child care:

Traditional stereotypes, stigma, and fear

One reason may be the traditionalist stereotype (and historical reality) framing childcare as a
women’s domain and the attendant stigma surrounding males in caregiving roles (see Farquhar
et al., 2006; Sanders, 2002). Traditionally, our society has taken sex-role stereotypes regarding the
interaction of men with children in the home and extended them into the work setting (Weinbach,
1987). Child care is viewed as a women’s work, and men who enter the field do so in violation of
societal gender norms. Men may hence be socially discouraged, both directly and indirectly, from
entering the field (Anliak & Beyazkurk, 2008; Joseph & Wright, 2016).
Moreover, in addition to negative stereotypical judgments about their competence and ‘manli-
ness,’ male caregivers may face more sinister questions about their motives. For example, parents
may fear that a male caregiver is a potential danger to their children (see Cameron, 2001). The
climate of suspicion has in the past been reinforced by media reports of sexual abuse perpetrated
by male caregivers (Lindner, 1985). Thus, although parents may generally support the employment
of men in the field to serve as positive role models, there may also be a level of concern about poten-
tial abuse from male caregivers (Wolfe, 2003). For example, caregivers interviewed by Rodriguez
(1997) reported that winning parents over was their most difficult task. Petersen (2014) analyzed
answers from male students in early education teacher programmes in South Africa. One theme
emerging from the texts was the dominant perception of males as threats of sexual abuse and
molestation.
The suspicion and negative perceptions may be enough to deter some men from entering the
profession. Murray (1996) found that men who choose to do child care work immediately become
suspect:
This suspicion manifests in restriction of men’s access to children in child care centers. Restricted access of men workers
to children (compared with the access of women workers to children) implies men’s desire for access to children is
pathological. In these and other ways, the organization of child care and the accountability of persons to sex category
systematically push men away from nurturing responsibilities and bind these responsibilities to women workers.
(p. 368)

Low status and pay

Another reason for the absence of men in daycare appears to be the profession’s low pay and status
(Cooney & Bittner, 2001). In general, women who enter traditionally male careers can expect a rise in
pay and status. Yet for men, the equation is often reversed, as they have much to lose and less to gain
in both pay and status, in addition to the questions they may face about their masculinity and motiv-
ations. Daycare is a vivid case in point. According to the Economic Policy Institute, child care workers
earn a median hourly wage of $10.31, which is 39.3% below the $17.00 median hourly wage of
workers in other occupations (Gould, 2015). According to the website Datausa.io (2016), childcare
4 N. SHPANCER ET AL.

workers earn an average of $15,473, less than crossing guards, and $34,740 less than the average
national salary. Since men in the US are more often than not the primary earner in two-person
families, the prospects of such meagre earnings is doubly dim for them (and their families).
Low pay may deter men from entering the caregiving profession. At the same time, those who do
enter are often perceived (and perceive themselves) as ‘leaders in training’ and are channelled quickly
into leadership positions in the profession. This process, referred to as the ‘glass escalator’ (see Wil-
liams, 1992), has been documented to exist in several female dominated fields such as elementary
school teaching (Cognard-Black, 2004).
In sum, while the issue of male absence from daycare caregiving work has received considerable
scholarly attention over the years, several gaps persist. First, much of the current empirical work is
being undertaken outside the US, with non US samples, while much of the US work is dated (e.g.
Murray, 1996; Robinson, 1979; Robinson & Canaday, 1978; Robinson, Skeen, & Coleman, 1984;
Skeen, Robinson, & Coleman, 1986). Moreover, while the existence of anti-male bias in this area is
widely reported, efforts to demonstrate it experimentally have been absent from the literature.
Finally, the voices of actual, experienced daycare workers are not often heard within this male care-
giver literature. Thus, we still know relatively little about current cultural attitudes regarding this issue
in the US, as well as the ‘insider’ perspective of caregivers and centre directors themselves. The goal of
the present research is to help address this gap.
Study 1 explored potential implicit and explicit societal biases against male caregivers. Its main
contribution was the use of an experimental manipulation that has been employed previously by psy-
chology researchers to demonstrate how attitudinal biases exist below an awareness threshold as
components of individuals’ information-processing strategies (see Ross, 2008). This approach origi-
nated in Goldberg’s (1968) classic study, which manipulated the gender of the author’s names on
the same article to expose unconscious gender bias (see also, Hesselbart, 1977). It has been since
applied to the study of various aspects of the daycare issue (McCartney & Phillips, 1988; Shpancer
& Britner, 1995; Shpancer, Melick, Sayre, & Spivey, 2006). Most pertinently, Gordon and Draper
(1982) asked two randomly assigned groups of participants to rate a similar description of a hypothe-
tical high quality day care centre in which the lead teacher’s gender was manipulated (John vs. Joan).
Participants rated male teachers as providing lower quality care than female teachers.
We likewise hypothesized that participants’ response patterns to the vignettes will demonstrate
the existence of an implicit bias against male caregivers, particularly when it comes to the care of
female infants. More specifically, we hypothesized that participants would report lower rates of
intent to enrol their (hypothetical) child in the male caregiver condition and rate caregiver character-
istics as factoring more highly in their choice under this condition (main effect of caregiver). In
addition, we also expected to find interaction effects, whereby participants’ intent to enrol will be
lowest, and their ratings of caregiver importance highest, in the male caregiver/female child con-
dition. In contrast, we hypothesized that participants’ responses to direct questions about their atti-
tudes regarding male caregivers will mask these biases. We anticipated that self-reported attitudes
toward men in daycare will be neutral or skewed in a positive direction.
Study 2 involved a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with caregivers and centre
directors. It was designed to get the ‘insider scoop’ regarding attitudes about men in daycare and
augment the currently scarce literature on the matter. Research appears to suggest that the attitudes
of caregivers and centre directors may not constitute a primary hurdle for the inclusion of male care-
givers. While communicating with male peers may pose difficulties for some female caregivers (see
Neugebaurer, 1999), others may welcome the help. For example, the majority of female Turkish care-
givers interviewed by Sak et al. (2012) expressed positive attitudes regarding the inclusion of men on
staff (Sak et al., 2012). We predicted that caregivers and daycare directors will be on the whole open
to employing male caregivers, with few concerns regarding their professionalism and potential for
positive contribution. We hypothesized further that their own explanations for the absence of men
in daycare will mirror the themes identified in the literature, namely social stigma and pay and
status concerns.
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 5

Study 1
Method
Participants
Participants in this study (N = 301; 81% females; 36% college freshmen) were recruited via online plat-
forms. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 78 years old (mean = 21.9), and 70% of them were cur-
rently employed. Eighty-six percent of them were single, and 66% came from intact families of origin.
Sixty-five percent of participants reported some experience in nonparental care as children, 75%
reported being open to having children in the future, and 75% were completely or somewhat
open to placing their children in nonparental care, with 5% regarding it as, ‘not an option.’

Materials

(1) A written vignette was created for this study, depicting the participant as a parent who’s visiting
a neighbourhood daycare centre in order to decide whether to place their child there. The vign-
ette had four versions, manipulating the caregiver’s and child’s sex (see Appendix A). Participants
were instructed to read the vignette and indicate whether they would place their child in the
centre, and the reasons for their decision.
(2) The Attitudes toward Male Caregivers (AMC) questionnaire, created specifically for this study,
included 11 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1-strongly agree; 5-strongly disagree; see
Table 1). Positive items were reverse-scored so that high mean scores denote a more positive
attitude toward male caregivers. The questionnaire possesses high face validity and showed ade-
quate inter-item reliability (Cronbach α = .84).
(3) Participants also answered several standard demographic questions, as well as questions about
their future plans regarding parenthood, their own childhood experiences in nonparental
daycare, and their own beliefs about whether pay and prejudice concerns may factor into
male absence from daycare work (see Table 2).

Procedure
All participants received an invitation to participate and a consent form via email. Participants were
informed about the general purpose of the study and advised of their rights. Participants read a
short vignette asking them to imagine themselves with their (hypothetical) child visiting a daycare
centre in which they may enroll. Caregiver and child sex were manipulated randmoly in each vignette.
Participants were then asked to indicate whether they would enrol their child in the centre, and which

Table 1. Attitudes about male caregivers questionnaire (AMC; R = reversed scored).

Rate the following questions on the scale below:
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
1. Men do not belong in early childhood education
2. I would not enrol my child in a daycare centre if I find out that the caregiver would be a man
3. Children would benefit from having men as their daycare caregivers (R)
4. Finding out that a daycare centre employs male caregivers would make me less likely to place my child there
5. Women and men are equally capable of providing quality care to infants and children (R)
6. I’d be suspicious of a man who chose to become a daycare caregiver
7. Men should be allowed to work as daycare caregivers if they choose to do it (R)
8. Increasing the proportion of men in early childhood education will benefit children, and society as a whole (R)
9. Most parents will not enrol their daughters in a daycare centre where men are employed as caregivers
10. The societal prejudice against male daycare caregivers is unjustified and unfair (R)
11. Having a caregiver of the same gender identity as a child is important for the child’s development. (R)
6 N. SHPANCER ET AL.

factors influenced their choice. Finally, participants were administered the AMC questionnaire, the
standard demographics sheet inquiring about their background, including age, year in school, GPA,
employment status, family of origin, childcare history, parental education, and questions about their
future plans regarding parenthood, their own childhood experiences in nonparental daycare, and
their thoughts on whether pay and prejudice may factor into males’ absence from daycare work.

Results
A two-way between-groups ANOVA was conducted to explore the link between caregiver and child
sex and participants’ enrolment decisions. Because Levene’s test of equality of error variance was sig-
nificant (p = .02), the significance criterion for this analysis was set at p = .01 (as recommended in
Pallant, 2013). The interaction effect between caregiver and child sex was not significant (F(1, 297
= 1.8); p = .17). Main effects for caregiver sex (F(1, 297) = 2.3; p = .13) and child sex (F(1, 297) = .5;
p = .4) were also non-significant.
A second two-way between-groups ANOVA was conducted to explore the link between caregiver
and child sex and participants’ evaluations of the importance of caregiver characteristics to their
enrolment decision. Because Levene’s test of equality of error variance was significant (p = .03), the
significance criterion for this analysis was set at p = .01. The interaction effect between caregiver
and child sex was not significant (F(1, 297 = .01); p = .91). Main effects for caregiver sex (F(1, 297) =
1; p = .75) and for child sex (F(1, 297) = 3.4; p = .065) were also non-significant. These findings did
not support our hypothesis.
Given that our sample was heavily skewed female, and given the particular dearth of data in the
literature regarding attitudes of men toward male caregivers, we decided to conduct secondary ana-
lyses to test whether male participants would, as a group, reveal a distinctive results pattern. A third
two-way between-groups ANOVA was thus conducted with only the male participants (N = 50), to see
whether vignette conditions elicited differences in these participants’ enrolment decisions. Levene’s
test of equality of error variance was non-significant (p = .26), and the significance criterion for this
analysis was set at p = .05. The interaction effect between caregiver and child sex was not significant
(F(1, 46 = .3); p = .6). However, the main effect for caregiver sex was statistically significant (F(1, 46) =
6.7; p = .013). Male participants rated themselves as more likely to enrol a child (male or female) in

Table 2. Demographic, daycare history, parenting intention, and beliefs questions.

Your age: ______
GPA range (circle one): 4.0-3.5 3.4-3.0 2.9-2.5 2.4-2.0 Below 2.0
Gender (circle one): Male Female Other
College year (circle one): 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Are You Currently Employed? Yes No
Mother’s Education:
__Partial High School__High School__Some College__Completed College__Post Graduate
Parents’ Marital Status:
__Married __ Single __ Divorced __ Widowed __ Other (specify):
Your Marital Status:
__Single __ Married __ Cohabiting __ Divorced __ Widowed
Have you received any non-parental care during the first 5 years of your life?
YES NO
Do you plan to have children in the future?
YES DON’T KNOW NO
If YES or DON’T KNOW: How open would you be to the possibility of placing your child in a non-parental care arrangement during
the child’s first five years?
a. completely open; b. somewhat open; c. not very open; d. I don’t consider it an option
Rate the following questions on the scale below:
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
1. The reason we don’t have many men working as daycare caregivers is because the job has low pay and low status
2. The reason we don’t have many men working as daycare caregivers is because of social prejudice
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 7

daycare if the caregiver was female rather than male. Main effect for child sex (F(1, 46) = .1; p = .93)
was non-significant. A fourth ANOVA conducted on male participants only, with the ratings of the
importance of caregiver characteristics to the enrolment decision as dependent variable, yielded
no significant findings.
Mean score for the AMC questionnaire was 4.1 (on a 1–5 scale). Thus, in line with our hypothesis,
participants overall reported positive attitudes toward male caregivers in daycare. A simple linear
regression was performed to predict AMC scores from several attitudinal and demographic predictors
(including participant’s gender, age, employment status, mother’s education, plans to have children,
and experience in nonparental care). A significant regression equation was found F(5, 257) = 5.25; p
< .001; R 2 = .09. Employment (β = −.15; t = −.25; p < .05) and openness to placing future children in
childcare (β = −.26; t = −.41; p < .001) were the only significant predictors of attitudes toward male
caregivers. Participants who were open to enrolling their future children in daycare and those who
reported being employed reported more favourable attitudes toward men in daycare.
Finally, we analyzed the two additional items that inquired specifically and directly about partici-
pants’ beliefs regarding the reasons for males’ absence from the daycare caregiver workforce. Partici-
pants endorsed social prejudice but did not endorse low status and pay (1-strongly agree to 5-
strongly disagree Likert scale; Mean = 2.2, 3.3 respectively; p < .000).

Discussion
Study 1 constituted a dual attempt to test quantitatively the hypothesized existence of an anti-male
prejudice with regard to childcare work. Results failed to document such bias in the full sample, as par-
ticipants neither demonstrated nor self-reported a bias against male caregivers. For the full sample, the
presence of a male caregiver did not significantly predict participants’ intentions to place their (hypoth-
esized) child in the centre, nor did it predict changes in how participants evaluated the importance of
caregiver characteristics to their placement decisions. One caveat here is that a secondary analysis of
men in our sample did detect a statistically significant negative bias toward male caregivers. This
finding, however, did not generalize into significant gender difference in general attitudes about
men in daycare, as denoted by AMC questionnaire scores. Absent further research, it is impossible
to ascertain with confidence the robustness of this potential bias, not to mention its causes. One specu-
lation warranting further investigation: Perhaps the male participants felt more threatened by – and
suspicious of – other men (like caregivers) who fail to adhere to accepted male role expectations.
Two demographic variables contributed significantly to the prediction of AMC scores. Participants
who were employed, and who expressed an openness to place their future children in daycare were
more positive about the idea of male caregivers. Here too, we can only speculate about the reasons
for this results pattern. It’s possible that employed participants are more aware of workplace politics
and the importance of fairness and open access to all. It is possible that those who are open to send
their future children to daycare are more invested in, and hence more tuned into, the complexities of
this issue. Yet the meaning of this finding remains unclear absent further inquiry.
In line with our hypothesis, the AMC scores showed a high level of approval of male caregivers, par-
ticularly in those participants who were employed and those who had the intention to place their future
children in nonparental care. At the same time, participants did indicate that they believed prejudice
against male caregivers exists as a reason for their absence from daycare. In other words, participants
in this study reported that an anti-male bias exists, yet failed to demonstrate or endorse it themselves.

Study 2
Method
Participants
Participants in this study included three female directors (mean age: 42.5) and seven female care-
givers (mean age: 33) recruited from daycare centres in Columbus, Ohio and New York City.
8 N. SHPANCER ET AL.

Participants’ ages ranged from 22–66 years old. Five participants had children of their own. The par-
ticipants had a variety of educational backgrounds but all had at least some college education. Par-
ticipants reported work experience of 20 years on average in the daycare field (range: 7–43).

Materials
Two sets of interview questions were created specifically for this study (see Appendix B). The ques-
tions were designed to inquire about issues that have been previously raised in the literature. They
were conceptualized as open ended prompts, forming the basis for conversation and reflection,
where participants may speak (and write) openly and at any length about their attitudes and
experiences.

Procedure
This study used a qualitative interview design. All participants received an email with an invitation to
participate and a consent form. Interviews were conducted in person or via email. Participants in this
study were given a choice to enter into a raffle to win gift certificates. The interviewed were reviewed
independently by members of the research team (advanced undergraduates; N = 5), who were
instructed to identify up to five emerging themes in the data. A theme was defined as an issue,
concern, or topic that shows up in at least five (i.e. half) of the interviews. The research team then
met together with the principle investigator to discuss their findings. Themes that were identified
independently by three or more of the team members were selected to be reported here.

Results
Three main themes emerging from the data were dubbed by the research team as, ‘the three P’s:’ Pay,
Prejudice, and Positive impact. Notably absent from the transcripts we evaluated were participants’
concerns over low job status as a hindrance to male entry into the profession; missing too were any
negative comments toward potential male colleagues on part of the participants.
Pay. Regarding pay, participants frequently mentioned low pay as a barrier for male entry into the
field of daycare caregiving work. Replying to a question about the reasons for the absence of male
caregivers, one director wrote:
Hourly wages in the field of child care are simply not great. While no formal education is required for staff members to
begin, there are also so many other entry level jobs in more ‘male dominated fields’ that would start a new employee
at probably double what we pay our staff. So even if the societal aspect wasn’t an issue, the pay doesn’t exactly entice
men to enter the field.

Another director wrote ‘I think the number one is because of pay. Most of the females in our pro-
fession already have to have a second income in their home to be able to sustain their families.’
Another director wrote: ‘Raising the average pay and benefits for these positions would also make
a big difference.’ A caregiver wrote: ‘Pay also needs to shift … Until we prioritize funding for edu-
cation, including salaries, the field will continue to be predominantly women. The glass ceiling is
real.’ Some expressed the notion that low pay is uniquely problematic for men, as they expect,
and are expected, to be primary earners in their families. A caregiver mentioned: ‘Men are more
likely to choose a better paying career as many still they need to be the main breadwinner.’ One
director explained how the business model of daycare forces the suppression of caregiver’ wages:
The obvious answer to draw in a better applicant pool (again, man or woman) WOULD be to increase hourly wages.
This is where things become particularly difficult. When operating a child care program, one quickly finds out how
broken the system is. The money to run our private pay program comes 100% from the families paying tuition.
Many people complain about the prices of child care as it is, but the only way to increase staff pay would be to increase
parental contribution. It’s a pretty vicious and unattainable situation. We can’t hike prices even more because then
nobody would be able to afford it (not everybody can afford it as it is). With overhead costs and all of our other
expenses, the staff wages need remain where they are until a better approach to the child care system can be deter-
mined and implemented.
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 9

Notably, while the issue of pay was raised spontaneously and directly by multiple participants, the
notion of low professional status emerged only once, and indirectly. A director commented: ‘There is
also still a societal belief that child care teachers are not ‘real’ teachers, so if men desire to be teachers they
tend to go to the elementary or higher level.’
Prejudice. The second theme emerging from the data was the perception that an anti-male
prejudice exists in the culture and hinders male access to the field. A caregiver raised the issue:
‘The real question is whether inherently men don’t see the appeal in that nurturing sort of role, or
whether we have socialized men to believe that is not a manly job to pursue?’ Another concurred:
‘Men could possibly feel that it is a more feminine job.’ A caregiver agreed: ‘I think our society
degrades men that find themselves in a caregiving role. They are as too “soft” or less masculine.
Our culture has the idea that childcare should be left up to females.’ ‘As a society,’ another caregiver
wrote, ‘we need to stop putting labels on jobs and saying what is masculine and feminine. If some-
body has the passion and ability to do a job well then they shouldn’t be discriminated because of their
gender.’ Another wrote:
I think our society degrades men that find themselves in a caregiving role. They are seen as too ‘soft’ or less masculine.
Our culture has the idea that childcare should be left up to females, which I think is absurd. It takes a male and a
female to create a baby, but for some reason once its born it’s only the females responsibility. I believe if a male
told his friends he got a job as a toddler teacher, he would be laughed at. I blame toxic masculinity.

Participants also commented on how the social stigma may play into the experience of men in
daycare. A caregiver wrote: ‘I definitely hear a lot more questioning of male caregivers motives by
parents, even if compared to a female teacher who I feel is less qualified compared to an exemplary
male teacher.’
Positive impact. A third theme focused on the uniqueness of male perspective, and the positive
impact male caregivers can have on daycare children. When asked, ‘What in your opinion would be
the impact (on children) of having male caregivers in daycare?’A caregiver answered:
It gives children different support from a male perspective. I think it helps them interact with both men and
women. Don’t just see women as caregivers. I have only positive feelings of men in child care. If we can
provide surroundings demonstrating that care, safety, and comfort can come from any gender, then I believe
we are providing a well-rounded environment. Additionally, I believe having a male staff member would be
helpful in the case of single mother families by providing additional positive male figures. Even in the event of
a typical nuclear family unit, it would still be beneficial. I think in this situation, it would open the child’s eyes
to seek care from both parents.

Another wrote:
Having a male staff member would greatly improve a child’s experience in child care. Why would we intentionally
want to limit a child’s perspective of who is deemed appropriate to provide care? Ideally, to provide caregivers of
both genders would set a wonderful example in a childcare setting.

Another answered:
I could only see it as being beneficial. I believe having $ masculine father figure to comfort the children would only be a
good thing for them. Some kids miss mommy, some kids miss daddy. A male caregiver would fill that daddy role and
comfort the children differently than a female. I also think it would be good for discipline and listening purposes.
Usually males are the ‘harsher’ one in the household and the children may tend to listen to them more when
given directions.

A centre director, who had experienced working with a male caregiver, commented: ‘Children
have been drawn to the few men in the building. They anticipate a more active and silly kind of
play.’ Asked about whether having male caregivers helps or hinders the child’s experience in
non-parental care, a caregiver said: ‘I would say that it definitely helps the child’s experience. They
provide a different perspective, tone and energy to the classroom. It also helps children see males
in non-typical gender roles.’
10 N. SHPANCER ET AL.

Discussion
The results of this qualitative investigation into daycare workers’ own perceptions of, experiences
with, and attitudes toward male caregivers align well with our hypotheses (and the existing litera-
ture). In looking to explain the absence of male caregivers from daycare field, our participants
raised spontaneously both low pay and social prejudice. It is useful to note here that while acknowl-
edging the role of prejudice and negative judgment in keeping men away from the caregiving career
path, participants did not report any negative prejudices of their own in this matter. To the contrary
(and in line with our hypothesis), caregivers and directors were on the whole open and positive
toward the possibility of men becoming involved in childcare work. All the participants said they
would place (or have placed) their own child with a male caregiver.

Summary and concluding discussion

In summary, this paper provides both quantitative and qualitative data exploring possible reasons for
the absence of men from the child daycare workplace. Taken together, the results of the two studies
presented here converge on the notion that negative social bias about men as daycare caregivers is
widely perceived to exist as a chief hindrance to men’s entry into the childcare field. Demonstrating
empirically the extent of this purportedly widespread stigma, however, has proven elusive. In fact,
participants in both studies, while acknowledging the existence and importance of social stigma
in this context, nevertheless failed to endorse or demonstrate such stigma themselves. In our
sample, we found suggestive evidence for an unconscious bias against male caregivers only
among male participants.
Another potentially useful finding has to do with the role of low pay in the absence of male care-
givers. Here, our two samples appear to diverge. Study 1 participants did not endorse the idea that
low pay are important in this context, while caregivers and directors in Study 2 spontaneously
brought up the subject to explain the current situation in their field. The difference may have to
do with the two samples’ differing experience and perspectives. Or it may be an artifact of the
studies’ different methodologies. Future research may address itself to further delineating the
nature and implications of this divergence.
The data presented here contain several limitations that should be taken into account when the
results are interpreted. First, both studies used convenience samples that may or may not represent
the population at large. Second, both samples were skewed in potentially meaningful ways. Study 1
involved mostly young university students who are not parents themselves. Study 2 included pro-
fessionals mostly from the Midwest, and the sample size was small. Data from larger and more
diverse samples are needed in order to allow more conclusive interpretations of the present
findings. Moreover, our failure to find evidence of a bias in the vignette portion of study 1 may
attest to the weakness of our manipulation or, alternately, the savvy of participants in figuring it
out. Using a stronger manipulation (such as videotaped simulations of caregiving situations) in a
similar design may indeed produce different results. In addition, questionnaire answers, as well as
interview answers from participants in Study 2, may have been influenced by social desirability bias.
Future research would benefit from involving larger and more representative samples in order to
improve the generalizability (as well as the reliability) of the results. Of particular interest in this
context is the question of whether the finding presented here, that men are biased against male care-
givers, can be replicated elsewhere. Future research may also benefit from inquiring (both qualitat-
ively and quantitatively) about the perspectives of the other ‘insiders’ to the daycare system, namely
parents of daycare children.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 11

Notes on contributors
Dr. Noam Shpancer is a professor of psychology at Otterbein University.
Jessica Fannin is an advanced undergraduate student majoring in psychology at Otterbein University.
Jordan L. Rush is an advanced undergraduate student majoring in psychology at Otterbein University.
Katie Rosneck is an advanced undergraduate student majoring in psychology at Otterbein University.
Mariel Montgomery is an advanced undergraduate student majoring in psychology at Otterbein University.
William Hove is an advanced undergraduate student majoring in psychology at Otterbein University.
Maya Venkataraman is an advanced undergraduate student majoring in psychology at Otterbein University.

References
Ahnert, L., Pinquart, M., & Lamb, M. E. (2006). Security of children’s relationships with nonparental care providers: A meta-
analysis. Child Development, 77, 664–679. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00896.x
Aina, O., & Cameron, P. A. (2011). Why does gender matter? Counteracting stereotypes with young children. Dimensions
of Early Childhood, 39, 12–20.
Anliak, S., & Beyazkurk, D. S. (2008). Career perspectives of male students in early childhood education. Educational
Studies, 34, 309–317. doi:10.1080/03055690802034518
Bernadett-Shapiro, S., Ehrensaft, D., & Shapiro, J. L. (1996). Father participation in childcare and the development of
empathy in sons: An empirical study. Family Therapy: The Journal of the California Graduate School of Family
Psychology, 23, 77–93.
Besnard, T., & Letarte, M. J. (2017). Effect of male and female early childhood education teacher’s education practices on
children’s social adaptation. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 31, 453–464. doi:10.1080/02568543.2017.
1319445
Bretherton, I. (2010). Fathers in attachment theory and research: A review. Early Child Development and Care, 180, 9–23.
Bullough, R. V. (2015). Differences? Similarities? Male teacher, female teacher: An instrumental case study of teaching in a
head start classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 13–21. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.001
Cameron, C. (2001). Promise or Problem? A Review of the literature on Men working in early childhood Services. Gender,
Work & Organization, 8, 430–453. doi:10.1111/1468-0432.00140
Cognard-Black, A. J. (2004). Will they stay, or will they go? Sex-atypical work among token men who teach. The
Sociological Quarterly, 45, 113–139.
Cooney, M. H., & Bittner, M. T. (2001). Men in early childhood education: Their emergent issues. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 29, 77–82.
DataUSA. (2016). Retrieved from https://datausa.io/
Farquhar, S., Cablk, L., Buckingham, A., Butler, D., & Ballantyne, R. (2006). Men at work. Sexism in early childhood education.
Porirua: Child Forum Research Network.
Flouri, E., Narayanan, M. K., & Midouhas, E. (2015). The cross-lagged relationship between father absence and child
problem behaviour in the early years. Child: Care, Health and Development, 41, 1090–1097. doi:10.1111/cch.12236
Foster, V., Kimmel, M., & Skelton, C. (2001). What about the boys?’ An overview of the debates. In W. Martino, & B. Meyenn
(Eds.), What about the boys? Issues of masculinity in schools (pp. 1–23). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Goldberg, P. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction, 5, 28–30.
Gordon, T., & Draper, T. W. (1982). Sex bias against male workers in day care. Child Care Quarterly, 11, 215–217. Retrieved
from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF01115555.pdf
Gould, E. (2015). Child care workers aren’t paid enough to make ends meet. Issue Brief #405. Economic Policy Institute Press
release. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, H., Scheuerer-Englisch, H., & Zimmermann, P. (2002). The
uniqueness of the child-father attachment relationship: Fathers’ sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in
a 16-year longitudinal study. Social Development, 11, 301–337. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00202
Heikkilä, M., & Hellman, A. (2017). Male preschool teacher students negotiating masculinities: A qualitative study with
men who are studying to become preschool teachers. Early Child Development and Care, 187(7), 1208–1220.
Hesselbart, S. (1977). Women Doctors Win and male Nurses lose. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 4, 49–62. doi:10.
1177/009392857741003
Huber, J., & Traxl, B. (2018). Pedagogical differences and similarities between male and female educators, and their impact
on boys’ and girls’ behaviour in early childhood education and care institutions in Austria. Research Papers in
Education, 33, 452–471. doi:10.1080/02671522.2017.1353674
Joseph, S., & Wright, Z. (2016). Men as early childhood educators: Experiences and perspectives of two male prospective
teachers. Journal of Education and Human Development, 5, 213–219.
Lindner, E. (1985). Child carelessness: Sexual abuse in day care. Christian Century, 102, 271.
12 N. SHPANCER ET AL.

Mason, K. O., & Kuhlthau, K. (1989). Determinants of child care ideals among mothers of preschool-aged children. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 51, 593–603. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/352159
McCartney, K., & Phillips, D. (1988). Motherhood and child care. In The different faces of motherhood (pp. 157–183). Boston,
MA: Springer.
McLanahan, S., Tach, L., & Schneider, D. (2013). The causal effects of father absence. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 399–
427.
McMunn, A., Martin, P., Kelly, Y., & Sacker, A. (2017). Fathers’ involvement: Correlates and consequences for child socio-
emotional behavior in the United Kingdom. Journal of Family Issues, 38, 1109–1131. doi:10.1177/0192513X15622415
Mistry, M., & Sood, K. (2013). Under-representation of males in the early years. Management in Education, 27, 63–69.
doi:10.1177/0892020612470961
Murray, S. B. (1996). “We all love Charles”: men in child care and the social construction of gender. Gender and Society, 10
(4), 368–385. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/189677.pdf
Neugebauer, R. (1999). Recruiting and retaining men in your center. In R. Neugebauer (Ed.), Inside child care trend report
2000 (pp. 151–154). Redmond, MA: Exchange Press.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (4th ed.). Crows Nest, NSW:
Allen & Unwin.
Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes. Human
Development, 47(4), 193–219.
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., Rohrmann, K., & Emilsen, K. (2015). Gender balance in ECEC: Why is there so little progress? European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal, 23, 302–314. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2015.1043805
Petersen, N. (2014). The ‘good’, the ‘bad’ and the ‘ugly’? Views on male teachers in foundation phase education. South
African Journal of Education, 34, 1–13. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=
S0256-01002014000100002&lng=en&tlng=en
Robinson, B. E. (1979). A two-year followup study of male and female caregivers. Child Care Quarterly, 8, 279–294. doi:10.
1007/BF01554886
Robinson, B. E., & Canaday, H. (1978). Sex-role behaviors and personality traits of male day care teachers. Sex Roles, 4, 853–
865. doi:10.1007/BF00287705
Robinson, B. E., & Hobson, C. M. (1978). Men in day care: You’ve come a long way buddy!. Child Care Quarterly, 7, 156–163.
Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01554723
Robinson, B. E., Skeen, P., & Coleman, T. M. (1984). Professionals’ attitudes towards men in early childhood education: A
national study. Children and Youth Services Review, 6, 101–113. doi:10.1016/0190-7409(84)90027-6
Rodriguez, E. (1997). What does gender have to do with it? Male teachers in early childhood education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Services No. ED415979).
Rohrmann, T. (2016). Men and women as professionals in early childhood education. An issue of inclusion? LaNouvelle
Revue de L’Adaptation et de la Scolarisation, 1, 201–218.
Rolfe, H. (2006). Where are the men? Gender segregation in the childcare and early years sector. National Institute of
Economic and Social Research, 195, 103–117. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/
0027950106064038
Ross, H. (2008). Exploring unconscious bias, Diversity best Practices, CDO Insight.
Sak, R., Sahin, I. T., & Sahin, B. K. (2012). Views of female preschool pre-service teachers about male teaching colleagues.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 586–593.
Sanders, K. (2002). Viewpoint: Men don’t care? Young Children, 57(6), 44–48.
Shpancer, N. (2018). Daycare. In T. Shackelford & V. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological
science (pp. 1–5). Cham: Springer.
Shpancer, N., & Britner, P. A. (1995). Biases in quality attribution to mother-child and caregiver-child interaction.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10(2), 249–259.
Shpancer, N., Melick, K. M., Sayre, P. S., & Spivey, A. T. (2006). Quality of care attributions to employed versus stay-at-home
mothers. Early Child Development and Care, 176, 183–193. doi:10.1080/03004430500039531
Skeen, P., Robinson, B. E., & Coleman, M. (1986). Gender-role attitudes of professional female educators toward men in
early childhood education. Psychological Reports, 59, 723–730. doi:10.2466/pr0.1986.59.2.723
Spence, K., & Clapton, G. (2018). Workforce: Why having more men in childcare is important. The Child’s Curriculum:
Working with the Natural Values of Young Children, 179.
Timmerman, G., & Schreuder, P. (2008). Gendered constructions of professionals in daycare. Sex Roles, 59, 199–213.
Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-008-9444-0
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor. (2017). Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey.
Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm
van Polanen, M., Colonnesi, C., Tavecchio, L. W. C., Blokhuis, S., & Fukkink, R. G. (2017). Men and women in childcare: A
study of caregiver–child interactions European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25, 412–424. doi:10.1080/
1350293X.2017.1308165
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 13

Wardle, F. (1991). Are we short-changing boys? Child Care Information Exchange, 79, 48–51.
Wardle, F. (2012). Men in early childhood: Fathers and teachers. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 268–288.
Weinbach, R. W. (1987). Refeminization of child care: Causation, costs and cures. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare,
14, 31–40.
Wernersson, I. (2015). More men? Swedish arguments over four decades about ‘missing men’ in ECE and care. In Men,
masculinities and teaching in early childhood education (pp. 31–43). London: Routledge.
Willett, J. A. (2008). “A father’s Touch:” Negotiating masculinity and sexual Subjectivity in child care. Sexuality & Culture, 12,
275–290. doi:10.1007/s12119-008-9033-y
Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in the “female” professions. Social Problems, 39,
253–267. doi:10.2307/3096961
Wolfe, D. A. (2003). Elder abuse intervention: Lessons from child abuse and domestic violence initiatives. In National
Research Council (US) panel to review risk and prevalence of elder abuse and neglect, R. J. Bonnie, & R. B. Wallace
(Eds.), Elder mistreatment: Abuse, neglect, and exploitation in an aging America. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK98783/
Zero to Three. (2017). Infant-toddler child care fact sheet. Retrieved from https://www. zerotothree.org/resources/2012-
infant-toddler-childcare-fact-sheet

Appendices

Appendix A: study 1 vignette (one of four in which Alex and Roni’s sex was manipulated)
Assume you are a parent. You (and your partner, if you have one) are looking to place your 2-year-old girl, Alex, in a
daycare centre. You visit a centre in your neighbourhood, The Sunshine Kids, that is both affordable and has a good repu-
tation. There you meet Roni, the primary caregiver of the toddler group, to which Alex will be assigned. Roni is a pleasant
and friendly young woman who has a degree in early childhood education and five years experience on the job. The
director of the centre, with whom you’ve met earlier, described her as a warm, responsive, and sensitive professional,
who is overall, ‘great with the children.’

Please answer the following questions about the scenario:

How likely are you to enrol Alex in this daycare centre?
1 2 3 4 5
No way; bad fit Maybe, in a pinch unsure Probably enrol Definitely enrol
Rate each of the following factors in terms of how important it is to your decision to enrol or not to enrol Alex in this
centre:
1 2 3 4 5
Irrelevant quite unimportant unsure important very important
______Centre’s reputation
______Centre’s affordability
_____Caregiver characteristics
Other (specify): __________________________________________________________________

Appendix B: director and caregiver interview questions

Director Questions:

1. What is your experience with hiring and employing male caregivers?

2. Do you think having male caregivers helps or hinders the child’s experience in non-parental care? Explain.
3. What are your feelings on male caregivers in child care?
4. What has been your experience with parents’ opinions on male caretakers?
5. Why do you think so few men work as daycare caregivers?
6. How do you think gender impacts the overall role as a caregiver in a daycare centre?
7. Would you put your infant in daycare with a male caregiver?
8. In your opinion, should we have more men working as caregivers in daycare centres? If so, how do you think we as a
society could go about it?
14 N. SHPANCER ET AL.

Caregiver Questions:

1. What, in your opinion, would be the impact (on children) of having male caregivers in daycare? Explain.
2. What is your experience working with male caregivers?
3. What are your feelings on male caregivers in child care?
4. What has been your experience with parents’ opinions on male caregivers?
5. Why do you think so few men work as daycare caregivers?
6. How do you think gender impacts the overall role as a caregiver in a daycare centre?
7. Would you put your infant in daycare with a male caregiver?
8. In your opinion, should we have more men working as caregivers in daycare centres? If so, how do you think we as a
society could go about it?