European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

ISSN: 1350-293X (Print) 1752-1807 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recr20

Parents’ views on male ECEC workers: a cross-

country comparison

Ramazan Sak, Tim Rohrmann, İkbal Tuba Şahin Sak & Gabriele Schauer

To cite this article: Ramazan Sak, Tim Rohrmann, İkbal Tuba Şahin Sak & Gabriele Schauer
(2018): Parents’ views on male ECEC workers: a cross-country comparison, European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal, DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2018.1556535

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2018.1556535

Published online: 09 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 24

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=recr20
EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2018.1556535

Parents’ views on male ECEC workers: a cross-country

comparison
Ramazan Saka, Tim Rohrmannb, İkbal Tuba Şahin Saka and Gabriele Schauerc
a
Department of Early Childhood Education, Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, Van, Turkey; bHildesheim University of
Applied Sciences and Arts, Germany; cInstitute of Teacher Training and Schools Research, University of
Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
A better gender balance is seen as an important factor for the future Male pre-school teachers;
development of the ECEC work force. But are parents willing to gender differences; parents;
accept men as teachers and carers for their children? What do cross-country comparison;
Austria; Turkey
parents expect from male ECEC professionals, and do attitudes of
parents differ in relation to cultural backgrounds? This cross-
cultural study analyses parents’ views from Austria and Turkey,
two countries with significant differences in cultural backgrounds
and male participation in ECEC. According to the results of the
quantitative study presented here, parents in Austria and Turkey
are generally positive towards male ECEC workers. Nevertheless,
results show significant differences between the countries which
are connected to cultural traditions regarding the role of men and
women in family and society. Turkish parents were more sceptical
and felt less comfortable with male workers, whereas Austrian
parents generally supported the aim of more men in ECEC. The
authors conclude that a better gender balance in ECEC cannot be
realized without taking into account, and sometimes confronting,
parents’ gendered views.

Introduction
For some decades now, international institutions and ECEC experts have promoted more
participation of men in the ECEC work force (Peeters, Rohrmann, and Emilsen 2015).
Nevertheless, research on attitudes of male and female workers, parents and other stake-
holders about the relevance of male workers for children’s development and ECEC quality
reveals a diversity of opinions and arguments. Many of these draw on simplifying assump-
tions on biological differences, socialization effects, or idealistic concepts of gender equal-
ity. As Lyons, Quinn and Sumsion state, they ‘show little awareness of contemporary
understandings about how children construct gender and negotiate their gender identities’
(2004, 10).
Despite this critique, experts support a better gender balance in ECEC in the context of
diversity and inclusion (Brownhill, Warin, and Wernersson 2015; Rohrmann and Emilsen
2015). Measures for more men in ECEC have shown results in some countries, such as
Norway and Germany. In many other countries, like Austria, the proportion of men

CONTACT Tim Rohrmann tim.rohrmann@hawk.de

© 2018 EECERA
2 R. SAK ET AL.

remains low (Schauer 2017). In contrast to this, an unexpected increase of male pre-school
teachers during the last decade is documented for Turkey (Sak et al. 2015). As men
working in ECEC seem to face similar difficulties in many countries worldwide (Rohr-
mann 2015), we ask how such differences could be related to cultural factors.
Cross-cultural research has been an important part of gender studies for decades,
showing a high degree of cross-cultural similarity in gender stereotypes and division of
labour, but also relevant effects of cultural influences (Best and Williams 2001; Saewyc
2017). At the same time, gender equality has become a global issue in the field of edu-
cation, often focusing discrimination of girls (UNESCO 2015), but paying less attention
to the pre-primary sector and especially the dominance of women in ECEC staff. Only
few cross-cultural studies on men in ECEC have been conducted so far (Brody 2015;
Brownhill et al. 2015; Xu 2018). We discuss the relevance of cultural factors regarding atti-
tudes on male involvement in ECEC by focusing on a perspective often neglected in
research in ECEC – the view of parents.

Status of gender equality, ECEC provision, and male involvement in ECEC

in Austria and Turkey
Attitudes towards the involvement of men in education have to be contextualized with
attitudes towards gender equality in societies on a larger scale. The Global Gender Gap
report compares 144 countries with four subscales (World Economic Forum 2017, 10f).
In the global index, Austria’s rank (59) is above global average, but distinctly lower
than many EU countries in Middle and Northwest Europe. Conversely, Turkey’s rank
(131) is close to the bottom of the scale, along with some Arab and African countries.
A closer look to the subscales reveals interesting details. In health and survival, Austria
is average, whereas Turkey ranks higher (72 vs. 59). On the other hand, Austria ranks
much higher in the field of political empowerment (54 vs. 118). Finally, both countries
are below average in the fields of educational attainment (101 vs. 84) and economic par-
ticipation and opportunity (128 vs. 80).
One reason for critical evaluations of the status of gender equality in Austria is the
gender divide in childcare in the family (Koch 2012). Although fathers are nowadays
more involved in families, childcare is still seen as ‘women’s work’. Similarly in Turkey,
care for children – especially young children – is seen as a responsibility of mothers,
and traditional notions of the roles of men and women in society and family are still domi-
nant (Akman et al. 2014, 29). Nevertheless, this has begun to change in both countries
because of societal and economic changes. As more mothers work outside the home the
need for institutional care and education has increased, leading to a strong increase of
ECEC provision in both countries.
Despite this similarity, the two countries show diverse developments in the field of
ECEC. Austria has a long tradition of kindergarten. In 2016, 94.6% of children aged 3–
6 and 27.9% aged 0–2 attended institutional ECEC (BMFJ 2017). Nevertheless, the qualifi-
cation level of ECEC workers remains low; practitioners are trained at secondary school
level. In practice, they work together with assistants who have no or very low qualification.
Recently, the need for an academisation of the field has been debated but, until now, only a
few workers in Austrian kindergartens have an academic degree (Krenn Wache, 2017).
 EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL 3

In Turkey, social changes have influenced ECE practices as well as the need for child-
care outside the family. A national childhood education programme was initiated in 1994
and extended in the following decade, leading to a remarkable rise in the enrolment of 3-
to 6-year-old children (Ministry of National Education 2006, 2013). The proportion of 5-
year-old children visiting pre-school reached 59% in 2016 (National Education Statistics
2017). Many teachers in pre-school classrooms have a 4-year university bachelor degree
in early childhood education, or child development and education.
Regarding men in the ECEC work force, the proportion of male workers in Austria is
2% (Schauer 2017, 34f). A nationwide research project on men and gender balance in Aus-
trian kindergartens (Aigner and Rohrmann 2012) gained positive public attendance and
was followed by other projects on the issue, but the proportion of male workers
remains low although some campaigns for more men were conducted in regions (Koch
and Farquhar 2015; Koch and Aigner 2016). In Turkey, the number of male teachers
grew rapidly during the last decade. The proportion of male workers was 5.75% in
2016, higher than in most European countries. Possible reasons for the relative high pro-
portion of male workers are good job opportunities because of the rapid growth of the
sector, higher salaries due to longer working hours, and the option of attaining an admin-
istrator position (Sak et al. 2015, 330).

Parents’ views on male ECEC workers

An essential element of Early Childhood Education is partnership with parents (Ward and
Perry 2018). Parents’ views are relevant for the aim of a better gender balance because this
issue is connected to attitudes regarding the role of women and men in the upbringing of
children in general. The inclusion of male workers into ECEC staff challenges traditional
notions of care and education as ‘women’s work’ (Van Laere et al. 2014), and this is also
relevant for parents as it can put into question traditional arrangements in the home.
Nevertheless, reports from many countries show that parents are in general positive
towards male childcare workers, especially when they have experienced men teaching
and caring for their children (Cameron et al. 1999; Cremers, Krabel, and Calmbach 2012).
In the Nordic countries, there is a general ‘consensus about the importance of men
taking part in young children’s lives’ (Peeters et al. 2015, 3). In Norway and in
Denmark this has led to strategies for recruiting men to the ECEC work force which
are widely appreciated in society. Similar results are reported from Germany (Cremers
et al. 2012). However, ECEC providers and administrators were more aware of the advan-
tages of gender-mixed staff compared to parents. The authors assume that many parents
still tend to regard ECEC as a place of care, ‘where children should feel comfortable and be
in safe hands’ (53), and this might be connected to traditional notions of femininity.
Surveys in the United Kingdom and Australia indicate as well that a majority of
parents are in favour of more men in ECEC (Lyons, Quinn, and Sumsion 2004; Rolfe
2005), although the proportion of male workers is lower in these countries.
Sak (2005) found that Turkish parents’ negative judgments changed to positive when
they had personal experience with men teaching their children, and parents with higher
educational level showed less negative judgements about male pre-school teachers. A
decade later Akman et al. (2014) found tendencies towards a more positive view of
male teachers, and although a considerable number of parents still regarded pre-school
4 R. SAK ET AL.

teaching as women’s work, the majority of parents did not consider their children’s tea-
chers’ gender as an important issue. Even in countries in which traditional gender roles
are prevalent in society and male workers are rare in ECEC, positive reactions of
parents are documented (e.g. Toth 2009; Rentzou 2011; Ho and Lam 2014; Tsigra 2016;
Ahmad et al 2018).
Although there is broad support for more male workers among colleagues, providers
and policymakers in many countries, the reasons for this generally positive attitude can
vary and even be contradictory. As Wernersson (2015) points out, different understand-
ings of feminity and masculinity, as well as gendered hierarchies, lead to different assump-
tions of the role of men in ECEC. These are ranging from men being a model for gender
equality to men adding complementary or even superior qualities to the lives of children.
For male workers, the diverse expectations towards their role in educational work can be
confusing and disturbing (Rohrmann 2015).
Such contradictions are mirrored by parents’ attitudes towards more men in ECEC.
Some studies mention that parents seem to support that men should engage in tradition-
ally masculine activities with children (Cameron et al. 1999; Peeters 2003), while other
studies find that according to parents, male workers should fulfil the same tasks as
their female colleagues (Cremers et al. 2012, 59). In the mentioned German study,
56% of parents agreed that men are ‘just as capable of caring, comforting and being con-
siderate as women’ (54), whereas a minority mentioned handcraft or technical skills as
specifically relevant for them (Cremers et al. 2012, 50f). Finally it has to be mentioned
that even in countries with strong support for men in ECEC, a minority of parents are
strictly against men as carers and teachers for little children. Such scepticism is often con-
nected to concerns about children’s safety, although Lyons et al. report that interestingly,
parents ‘appeared to be less concerned about child protection than were the students or
staff’ (10).
In summary, there is a substantial body of research on parents’ views on male carers
and teachers, generally supporting the view that parents are positive towards male
workers, although this might be connected to very diverse assumptions on the role of
men in education. Moreover, male workers can play a positive role for better cooperation
between ECEC centres and families. On the other hand parents’ scepticism and even dis-
trust can work as an obstacle against more men in ECEC. It can be concluded that it is
necessary to analyse views and attitudes in detail, with emphasis on ambiguous and con-
tradictory expectations of men, and possible cultural factors underlying parents’
attitudes.

Method
Within the context of research on men and gender balance in ECEC, the research pre-
sented here focuses on attitudes of parents regarding the participation of male workers in
everyday routines and in relation to children and families. A quantitative questionnaire
was used to compare Austrian and Turkish parents’ views. As individual attitudes
regarding gender issues are complex and sometimes inconsistent, the limitations of
quantitative approaches should be kept in mind, and they should be accompanied by
in-depth investigations (Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun 2015). However, in cross-country
research, a quantitative approach is much easier to conduct, and this may serve as a
 EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL 5

starting point for a more detailed investigation of political, institutional and cultural
aspects of the issue.

Structural differences of ECEC systems

Some structural differences between ECEC systems in Turkey and Austria have to be men-
tioned. Austrian kindergartens provide care and education of children for the whole range
of early childhood, including toddlers, whereas in Turkish pre-schools children usually are
3–5.5 years old. Moreover, in Turkey, there is usually only one teacher in a pre-school
class, so a child in a male-led class does not have contact with any female teacher.
Especially in public schools, there is only one teacher in the classroom and children inter-
act mostly with their own teacher. In contrast to this, in Austrian kindergartens, there are
usually two workers in the group. Even if the pedagogical leader of a certain group is male
there will be a female co-worker in class. Moreover, children have access to other groups
and are in contact with the female workers there. This distinction is relevant because Aus-
trian parents might be more sceptical if their child had only a male and no female teacher.
Men could be seen as enrichment as there are women around anyway.

Sample
The sample consisted of parents who had children in pre-school institutions in Austria
and Turkey. In total 455 parents participated in the study. The Austrian sample consisted
of 143 parents from nine kindergartens with diverse characteristics, provider structures
and pedagogical concepts in the Federal states of Tyrolia and Salzburg (83.7% mothers
and 14.7% fathers). The Turkish sample consisted of 312 parents (55.8% mothers and
44.2% fathers) from eight pre-schools in Eastern Anatolia. The two country samples
differed in several aspects. Turkish parents were younger than Austrian parents: half of
the Turkish sample were not older than 30, compared to only 12% of the Austrian
sample. On the other hand, children of Austrian parents were younger: more than 90%
of the Austrian children were 4 or younger, whereas nearly 70% of the Turkish children
were 5 or 6. Nearly half of the Austrian children, but only 5% of the Turkish children
were 3 years or younger. This means that close physical care, including changing
nappies, is a natural part of kindergarten work in Austria, but less relevant for pre-
school teachers in Turkey. Finally, in both samples, half of the parents visited a kindergar-
ten group/pre-school class with a male teacher.

Data collection tools

A quantitative questionnaire was used for cross-country comparison. The questionnaire
was developed in the context of the mentioned multi-method research project in
Austria (Aigner and Rohrmann 2012; Schauer 2017). The original questionnaire in
German language included twelve main questions, mostly consisting of several sub-ques-
tions or a list of items with 3- and 4-point rating scales, and a number of demographic
features, including gender, age, educational background and marital status. Moreover, it
included some items retrieved from surveys on general attitudes on the roles of men
and women in the family (Gille et al. 2006). For cross-country comparison, the
6 R. SAK ET AL.

questionnaire was translated to Turkish and revised in regard to the situation in Turkish
ECEC. Demographic features were gathered with a Personal Information Form including
information on parents’ gender and age, and number and characteristics of children. The
questionnaires sometimes used colloquial phrases difficult to translate; this has to be kept
in mind when interpreting the results. Not all questions and items of the original version
were used in the cross-country study.

Data collection and analysis

First, legal permissions were taken in both countries. In Austria, pre-schools were con-
tacted and asked for collaboration in the project by the research team. Questionnaires
were handed out to parents together with an information leaflet containing information
about the research project. In Turkey pre-school administrators and teachers were
informed, and the questionnaire and the Personal Information Form were distributed
to parents. In both samples, stakeholders were informed about the purpose of the
study, parents voluntarily completed the questionnaire, and anonymity of data was
ensured.
Collected questionnaires were checked for unanswered or multiple marks for the same
item. Therefore, sixteen questionnaires were not included in the analysis. The data were
analysed through SPSS 22 software. Descriptive statistics such as frequency and percentage
distributions were calculated, including analyses related to demographic variables. In the
reported percentages of the two country samples, the answers ‘fully agree’ and ‘rather
agree’ were summed up if not otherwise indicated. For calculation of significances,
initially, the normality of the data distribution was examined to decide which statistical
tests should be used. According to the results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, scores
obtained from the questionnaires did not show a normal distribution (n = 455, p <
0.05). Consequently, the Mann–Whitney U test was used.

Results
Although the results show some similarities between the samples, there are significant
differences in the attitudes of Austrian and Turkish parents towards male ECEC
workers. Asked if they would give their child to male caretaker/teacher (again), most Aus-
trian parents agreed, whereas more than half of Turkish parents disagreed (U = 7912, p <
0.05). Nevertheless, the majority of respondents in both countries appreciated having a
male teacher for their child (Austria: 88.8%, Turkey: 61.9%; U = 11,903, p < 0.05) and
reported feeling comfortable with them (Austria: 81.1%; Turkey: 64.5%; U = 15,538, p <
0.05). More Turkish parents agreed that gender of teachers doesn’t make a difference
(Austria: 50.4%, Turkey: 71.8%; U = 17,092, p < 0.05). But although most parents in
both countries would accept a male teacher for their child, a significantly higher
number of Turkish parents would not (Austria: 7.9%; Turkey: 22.1%; U = 9741, p <
0.05), and more Turkish parents were sceptical about a man taking care of their children
(Austria: 7.7%; Turkey: 22.1%; U = 10,957, p < 0.05).
Detailed analyses show that attitudes towards male workers are more positive when
parents already have had some experience with men in ECEC. Nearly all Austrian
parents with such experiences appreciated male workers, and only one parent was
 EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL 7

sceptical about a man caring for their child. However, attitudes in the Turkish sample were
divided, and although parents who had experienced a male teacher were significantly more
positive towards men in general, around 20% of these parents remained sceptical and
would not want a male teacher for their child. Not surprisingly, more Austrian than
Turkish parents strongly agreed that there should be more educated male workers (‘yes,
sure’ said 62.9% of Austrian, but only 17.3% of Turkish parents; U = 8973, p < 0.05).
Regarding possible arguments for more men in ECEC, the results reveal interesting
details. On the whole, Austrian parents express more consent with all arguments men-
tioned in the questionnaire, and more often rated ‘fully agree’, whereas Turkish parents
more often rated ‘rather agree’ (see Table A1 in Appendix). The statement ‘children
should have experiences with men and women in daily life in ECEC’ received the broadest
approval in both samples. Interestingly, the answers show similar approval of the items
men and women ‘have similar competences’, and ‘men and women are different and
can complement each other well’, although these statements could be understood as con-
tradictory. On the other hand, a majority of Turkish parents disagreed with the statements
that ‘men are especially important for boys’ and ‘men are also important for girls’, whereas
Austrian parents mostly agreed.
Similar tendencies were found regarding the assignment of specific tasks and activities.
A majority of respondents agreed that male workers ‘should do the same things as a female
colleague’, including taking care for emotional needs and responsibility for caring tasks.
Support for these statements was higher in the Austrian sample, although more than
half of Turkish parents agreed as well that men should be responsible for taking children
to the toilet or helping to wash (Austria: 63.6% ‘fully’ and 20.3% ‘rather’ agreed, Turkey:
19.2% ‘fully’ and 43.3% ‘rather’ agreed; U = 12,649, p < 0.05). On the other hand, a
majority of Turkish parents thought that a man should ‘especially focus on handicrafts,
physical education and sports’, and ‘should be responsible for financial issues and admin-
istrative tasks’, whereas Austrian parents mainly opposed these statements.
Asked if they perceive different behaviours of male and female workers in everyday rou-
tines and activities, in general, Turkish parents clearly saw more differences between the
sexes, whereas the majority of Austrian parents didn’t see differences in any of the men-
tioned situations (see Table A2 in Appendix). According to many respondents, female
workers are more ‘anxious’, more ‘controlling’, but also ‘patient’ with children, and ‘talk
more to children’. On the other hand, there was a tendency that men were said to ‘turn
a blind eye’ more often (e.g. when children are breaking a rule). In Austria, men were
also experienced as ‘playing outdoors’ with children more often, and to show more accep-
tance of ‘children’s autonomy’, whereas there were no such differences in the Turkish
sample. There are contradicting views on the question if women or men tend to avoid
conflicts: In the Turkish sample this was attributed to women more often than to men
(27.6% vs. 16.0%), while it was opposite in the Austrian sample (4.9% vs. 20.3%);
however, in both groups the majority of parents didn’t see any differences.
Asked for reasons for the low proportion of men in ECEC, there is a stunning difference
between Austria and Turkey related to the ways of qualification. In the Austrian sample,
65% of respondents stated that ‘the profession isn’t attractive for men because the vocational
training doesn’t fit for men’, whereas in Turkey, 77.6% disagreed. In interpreting this result
it has to be kept in mind that in Austria, vocational training is on secondary level, whereas
Turkish pre-school teachers receive a university Bachelor degree. Regarding other possible
8 R. SAK ET AL.

reasons, there are only minor differences between the samples. Only a minority of respon-
dents agreed that ‘parents don’t want male teachers’ (Austria: 29.4%, Turkey: 21.2%), that
‘job chances for men are less positive’ (Austria: 34.3%, Turkey: 24.7%), or that there is ‘a
general distrust that male workers could be pedophiles’ (Austria: 14.0%; Turkey: 23.1%).
Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that even if only a minority is expressing distrust
against men in ECEC, this may affect male students and teachers.
Furthermore, parents were asked what, in their view, would make working in kinder-
garten/pre-school more attractive for men. Here again, the answers show a lot of simi-
larities. Firstly, it was agreed that ‘at least one more male colleague’ would have a
positive effect (‘fully/rather agree’: Turkey 69.3%, Austria 73.2%). Regarding activities, a
majority in both samples – and especially Turkish parents – answered that ‘spending
much time outdoors’ and ‘more physical activities’ could make the workplace more attrac-
tive. ‘Experiments, a workbench, and technical utilities’ were supported as well. Finally,
parents agreed that men should ‘be allowed to deal with children in their own way’
(‘fully/rather agree’: Turkey 63.8%, Austria 60.2%).
Finally, questions on attitudes towards roles of men and women in family and society,
in general, revealed some striking differences between the two samples (see Figure 1).
While the vast majority of Austrian parents stated that ‘men are capable of raising chil-
dren as well as women’, the majority of Turkish parents didn’t support this view. A third
of Turkish parents, but only few Austrian parents ‘fully agreed’ that when having chil-
dren, ‘the man should go to work, and the woman should stay at home and care for
the children’. It has to be mentioned that half of Turkish parents disagreed, which indi-
cates conflicting opinions in Turkish society. Many Turkish parents also agreed that ‘a
man who stays at home and does the housework is not a real man’, a statement that
was not at all supported in Austria. However, a majority in both samples agreed that
mothers ‘should stay at home the first three years’, whereas a substantial minority in
both samples ‘fully disagreed’. On the other hand, the majority of both samples
agreed that ‘men and woman should share family work and employed work fairly’,
and fathers of young children ‘should work less and spend more time with the

Figure 1. Attitudes to gender roles in work and family. Upper bar of each item: Turkish sample, lower
bar: Austrian sample.
 EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL 9

family’. These results reveal controversial and inconsistent attitudes regarding gender
roles in society in both countries.

Discussion
In summary, the results show many similarities, but as well important differences in the
attitudes of Austrian and Turkish parents towards male workers. These results mirror
differences and inconsistencies in gender equality status of Austria and Turkey. In both
countries, persisting gender stereotypes can be found, for instance, that mothers should
stay at home and care for infants the first years after birth. At the same time, our
results show developments towards gender equality, support of shared responsibilities
for children in the family, and the acceptance of men working in ECEC.
Although the majority of respondents in both samples felt comfortable with male
workers, more Turkish parents were sceptical and expressed distrust towards men in
ECEC, even if they had experienced men working with their children. On the other
hand, more Austrian parents were in favour of more men in ECEC. Personal experience
with male workers results in more positive attitudes towards them, as other studies have
already showed (Cameron et al. 1999; Sak 2005; Cremers et al. 2012; Akman et al. 2014).
Nevertheless, a relevant part of Turkish parents remains sceptical. Scepticism among
Turkish parents might even be higher regarding children in the age of 1-3, as male teachers
seem to be more acceptable for older children.
It can be assumed that the reluctance of some Turkish parents to accept male teachers is
rooted in the traditional notion that caring for children is women’s work (Akman et al.
2014), while in Austria – as in many countries in Western Europe – public opinion has
shifted towards an appreciation of an active role of men in the lives of children.
However, it has to be kept in notion that Turkish pre-school classes have only one
teacher, whereas male workers in Austria work in gender-mixed teams. This means that
in Austria male workers are welcomed as complement to a female-dominated team,
while in Turkey children usually are educated by a male or a female teacher.
Our study supports the notion that rationales for the appreciation of men in the field of
ECEC are varied and contradictory (Cremers et al. 2012; Wernersson 2015; Rohrmann
2015, 2016). Many Turkish parents emphasized differences between behaviours of male
and female teachers, and agreed that men should especially focus on typical masculine
activities, pointing at underlying assumptions of masculinity and femininity as polarities.
Contrary to this, many Austrian parents reported few differences and rejected stereotyped
attributions, supporting the idea that men and women have similar qualities and abilities.
However, opinions were divided in both samples, and in some aspects, Turkish parents
downplayed the relevance of gender, while Austrian parents emphasized the role of
men for children. Moreover, it has to be emphasized that the majority in both samples
agreed that men should have the same responsibilities regarding everyday routines as
their female counterparts, including caring tasks.
Interestingly the appreciation of male caretakers in Austria hasn’t led to a relevant rise
in proportion of male ECEC workers, despite some attempts to develop strategies for more
men (Koch and Aigner 2016). In contrast, the number of male pre-school teachers in
Turkey is steadily growing although there are no policy debates on national level (Sak
2018). A possible explanation for this derives from the context of professionalization
10 R. SAK ET AL.

and academization of ECEC (Vandenbroeck, Urban, and Peeters 2016). The results show
that qualification levels of ECEC professionals are well recognized by parents. Austrian
parents agree that the vocational training doesn’t fit for men, supporting the critique of
the low standard of vocational training in Austria which is connected to the persistence
of gendered habits excluding males (Koch and Aigner 2016). On the other hand, the pro-
fession might be more acceptable for Turkish parents because of the university-based
Bachelor degree, which also results in higher salaries. In this context, gender of teacher
is less relevant compared with his or her professionality and career prospects.
What can be done to make work in ECEC more attractive to men? Our results support
previous research on this issue (Cameron et al. 1999; Aigner and Rohrmann 2012;
Cremers et al. 2012; Farquhar 2012). More male colleagues would reduce the token
status of being the only man in a female team (Sargent 2004), and more possibilities for
more outdoor and physical activities could attract more men (but also women) appreciat-
ing a broader range of activities in kindergarten (Koch and Farquhar 2015). Furthermore,
ECEC institutions should accept the individuality of male workers’ approaches to children.
This is true for women as well but might be even more relevant for men entering a female-
dominated field.
Finally, policymakers, providers and administrations have to take into account many
parents’ call for more men in ECEC, but as well reservations and doubts expressed by a
minority of parents. Recruitment strategies can take up the demand for a better gender
balance. To avoid isolation of male workers, gender issues have to be discussed with
parents, and teams need support in case of conflicts.
To conclude, a better gender balance in ECEC staff can play an important role for chan-
ging gender stereotypes in the wider society. As Toth (2009) argued, ‘having more men in
this job could cause less traditional gender role views among parents, a more balanced
development for children and it could result in a more egalitarian society both in the
labour market and in private life’ (Toth 2009, 2). Overcoming gender stereotypes in col-
laboration with parents can contribute to an increase of male professionals in ECE (Ho
and Lam 2014). At the same time, it is necessary to develop policies for gender balance
in the wider scope of gender equality policy.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Ahmad, J., E. Al-Zboon, M. F. Alkhwalhdeh, and A. Al Khatib. 2018. “Jordanian Mothers’ and
Female Preschool Teachers’ Perceptions of Men Working in Preschools.” The Journal of
Men’s Studies 26 (1): 77–91.
Aigner, J. C., and T. Rohrmann. 2012. Elementar: Männer in der Pädagogischen Arbeit mit Kindern.
Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
Akman, B., N. Taskin, Z. Ozden, O. Okyay, and C. Figen. 2014. “Parents’ Views on the
Appointment of Male Teachers in Turkish Pre-Schools.” Education as Change 18 (1): 21–32.
Best, D., and J. E. Williams. 2001. “Gender and Culture.” In The Handbook of Culture and
Psychology, edited by D. R. Matsumoto, 195–222. New York: Oxford University Press.
 EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL 11

BMFJBundesministerium für Familie und Jugend. 2017. “Statistik Kinderbetreuung.” Accessed

April 9, 2018. https://www.bmfj.gv.at/familie/kinderbetreuung/statistik.html
Brody, D. 2015. “The Construction of Masculine Identity among Men Who Work with Young
Children: An International Perspective.” European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal 23 (3): 351–361.
Brownhill, S., J. Warin, and I. Wernersson. 2015. Men, Masculinities and Teaching in Early
Childhood Education: International Perspectives on Gender and Care. London: Routledge.
Cameron, C., P. Moss, and C. Owen. 1999. Men in the Nursery: Gender and Caring Work. London:
Paul Chapman Publishing.
Cremers, M., J. Krabel, and M. Calmbach. 2012. Male Educators in Kitas. A Study on the Situation of
Men in Early Childhood Education. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens,
Women and Youth.
Farquhar, S. 2012. “Time for Men to be Invited into Early Childhood Teaching. The Findings of a
National Survey of Early Childhood Education Services and Teacher Educators.” Accessed
September 14, 2012. http://www.childforum.com/policy-issues/surveys-and-ece-sector-a-
family-data/787-are-men-wanted-in-ece-why-what-action-should-be-taken-a-2012-survey-of-
ece-services-and-teacher-educators.html.
Fraenkel, J. R., N. E. Wallen, and H. H. Hyun. 2015. How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Gille, M., W. Gaiser, S. Sardei-Biermann, and J. de Rijke. 2006. Jugendliche und Junge Erwachsene in
Deutschland: Lebensverhältnisse, Werte und Gesellschaftliche Beteiligung 12- bis 29-Jähriger.
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Ho, D., and H. Lam. 2014. “A Study of Male Participation in Early Childhood Education.”
International Journal of Educational Management 28 (5): 498–509. doi:10.1108/IJEM-02-
2013-0024.
Koch, B. 2012. Männer in Österreichs Kinderbetreuungseinrichtungen: Impulse für Eine
“Geschlechtsneutrale” Professionalität in der Elementarpädagogik. Innsbruck: Innsbruck
University Press.
Koch, B., and J. C. Aigner. 2016. Männerförderung im Kindergarten: Die Maschine Tuckert, Aber sie
Läuft Noch Nicht. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
Koch, B., and S. Farquhar. 2015. “Breaking Through the Glass Doors: Men Working in Early
Childhood Education and Care with Particular Reference to Research and Experience in
Austria and New Zealand.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 23 (3):
380–391.
Krenn Wache, M. 2017. “Austria: ECEC Workforce Profile.” In Workforce Profiles in Systems of
Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe, edited by P. Oberhuemer and I. Schreyer.
München. Accessed April 27, 2018. http://www.seepro.eu/English/pdfs/AUSTRIA_ECEC_
Workforce.pdf.
Lyons, M., A. Quinn, and J. Sumsion. 2004. “Gender, the Labour Market, the Workplace and Policy
in Children’s Services: Parent, Staff and Student Attitudes.” Australian Journal of Early
Childhood 30 (1): 6–13.
Ministry of National Education. 2006. Okul öncesi Eğitim Programı: 36-72 Aylık çocuklar Için.
Ankara: MEB.
Ministry of National Education. 2013. Okul öncesi Eğitim Programı. Ankara: MEB.
National, Education Statistics. 2017. National Education Statistics: Formal Education 2016-2017.
Accessed December 12, 2017. http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=270.
Peeters, J. 2003. “Men in Childcare: An Action-Research in Flanders.” International Journal of
Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood 1 (1): 72–83.
Peeters, J., T. Rohrmann, and K. Emilsen. 2015. “Gender Balance in ECEC: Why Is There So Little
Progress?” European Early Childhood Research Journal 23 (3): 302–314.
Rentzou, K. 2011. “Greek Parents’ Perceptions of Male Early Childhood Educators.” Early Years 31
(2): 135–147.
12 R. SAK ET AL.

Rohrmann, T. 2015. “Männer in der Elementarpädagogik: Ein Internationales Thema.” In Kinder

Brauchen Männer: Psychoanalytische, Sozialpädagogische und Erziehungswissenschaftliche
Perspektiven, edited by J. C. Aigner and G. Poscheschnik, 37–59. Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag.
Rohrmann, T. 2016. “Men and Women as Professionals in Early Childhood Education. An Issue of
Inclusion?” La Nouvelle Revue de L’adaptation et de la Scolarisation 73: 201–219.
Rohrmann, T., and K. Emilsen. 2015. “Editorial (Special Issue: Gender Balance in the ECEC
Workforce).” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 23 (3): 295–301.
Rolfe, H. 2005. Men in Childcare: EOC Report No. 35. Manchester: Equal Opportunities
Commission. Accessed November 15, 2008. http://www.eoc.org.uk/cseng/research/men in child-
carewp 35 full report.pdf.
Saewyc, E. 2017. “A Global Perspective on Gender Roles and Identity.” The Journal of Adolescent
Health 61: S1–S2.
Sak, R. 2005. “Erkek Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin Göreve Başladıklarında Karşılaştıkları Durumlar
ve bu öğretmenlerin Velilerinin Erkek Okul öncesi öğretmenleri Hakkındaki Düşünceleri.”
Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Gazi University.
Sak, R. 2018. “Gender Differences in Turkish Early Childhood Teachers’ Job Satisfaction, Job
Burnout and Organizational Cynicism.” Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10643-018-0895-9.
Sak, R., İ. T. Şahin Sak, and İ Yerlikaya. 2015. “Behavior Management Strategies: Beliefs and
Practices of Male and Female Early Childhood Teachers.” European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal 23 (3): 328–339.
Sargent, P. 2004. “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Men Caught in the Gender Bind of Early
Childhood Education.” The Journal of Men’s Studies 12 (3): 173–192.
Schauer, G. 2017. Die Sicht von Eltern auf männliche Fachkräfte in Österreichischen Kindergärten.
Dissertation an der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck. Innsbruck. Accessed December 17,
2017. http://diglib.uibk.ac.at/ulbtirolhs/content/titleinfo/2242097.
Toth, A. 2009. “Men as Nursery School Teachers.” Unpublished BA thesis, Institute of Sociology
and Social Policy, University of Budapest.
Tsigra, M. 2016. “Parents’ Views on Male EC Educators in Greek Pre-schools.” Paper presented on
the 4th SIG Gender Balance Research Conference, Dublin, Ireland, August 31.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2015. “EFA Global
Monitoring Report 2015. Gender and EFA 2015: Achievements and Challenges.” Accessed July
11, 2018. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002348/234809E.pdf.
Vandenbroeck, M., M. Urban, and J. Peeters. 2016. Pathways to Professionalism in Early Childhood
Education and Care. London: Routledge.
van Laere, K., M. Vandenbroeck, G. Roets, and J. Peeters. 2014. “Challenging the Feminisation of
the Workforce: Rethinking the Mind–Body Dualism in Early Childhood Education and Care.”
Gender and Education 26 (3): 232–245. doi:10.1080/09540253.2014.901721.
Ward, U., and B. Perry. 2018. “Editorial Special Issue: Working with Parents and Families.”
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 26 (2): 157–160.
Wernersson, I. 2015. “More Men? Swedish Arguments Over Four Decades about ‘Missing Men’ in
ECE and Care.” In Men, Masculinities and Teaching, edited by S. Brownhill, I. Wernersson, and J.
Warin. London: Routhledge.
World Economic Forum. 2017. “The Global Gender Gap Report 2017.” Accessed March 1, 2018.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2017.pdf.
Xu, Y. 2018. “A Cross-cultural Analysis of Gender and Practitioner-Child Interactions in Early
Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Settings in Scotland, Hong Kong, and Mainland
China.” PhD thesis, University of Glasgow. Accessed July 11, 2018. https://theses.gla.ac.uk/
30595/.
 EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH JOURNAL 13

Appendix

Table A1. Reasons for more men in ECEC. Why should there be more men in ECEC?
Fully Rather Rather Fully
agree, agree, disagree, disagree,
Item n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Mixed-gender teams are better than all-female or all- Turkey 72 (23.1) 140 (44.9) 70 (22.4) 30 (9.6)
male teams Austria 75 (56.0) 46 (34.3) 10 (7.5) 3 (2.2)
Children should have experiences with men and Turkey 74 (23.7) 150 (48.1) 58 (18.6) 30 (9.6)
women in daily life in ECEC Austria 109 (82.6) 21 (15.9) 2 (1.5) 0 (0.0)
Men are especially important for boys Turkey 36 (11.5) 101 (32.4) 130 (41.7) 45 (14.4)
Austria 64 (48.5) 47 (35.6) 19 (14.4) 2 (1.5)
Men are also important for girls Turkey 2 (0.6) 86 (27.6) 133 (42.6) 91 (29.2)
Austria 50 (39.4) 56 (44.1) 19 (15.0) 2 (1.6)
Children should see that men and women have Turkey 66 (21.2) 161 (51.6) 72 (23.1) 13 (4.2)
similar competences when working with children Austria 72 (55.4) 36 (27.7) 17 (13.1) 5 (3.8)
Men have a different approach to children Turkey 29 (9.3) 108 (34.6) 145 (46.5) 30 (9.6)
Austria 40 (31.3) 66 (51.6) 14 (10.9) 8 (6.3)
Men and women are different and can complement Turkey 53 (17.0) 169 (54.2) 78 (25.0) 12 (3.8)
each other well Austria 83 (63.4) 38 (29.0) 8 (6.1) 2 (1.5)
Nowadays many children grow up without a father Turkey 37 (11.9) 111 (35.6) 120 (38.5) 44 (14.1)
Austria 55 (42.6) 45 (34.9) 22 (17.1) 7 (5.4)

Table A2. Differences between men and women in behaviour and activities. What do you think: Do
male and female professionals differ in regard of the following aspects?
Item Rather women, n (%) Rather men, n (%) No difference, n (%)
Give clear directives Turkish parents 80 (25.6) 44 (14.1) 188 (60.3)
Austrian parents 11 (8.1) 22 (16.2) 103 (75.7)
Being more anxious Turkish parents 134 (42.9) 58 (18.6) 120 (38.5)
Austrian parents 45 (33.1) 5 (3.7) 86 (63.2)
Approach children actively Turkish parents 136 (43.6) 33 (10.6) 143 (45.8)
Austrian parents 25 (18.4) 3 (2.2) 108 (79.4)
Talk more to children Turkish parents 139 (44.6) 38 (12.2) 135 (43.3)
Austrian parents 48 (35.0) 0 (0) 89 (65.0)
Play outdoors Turkish parents 72 (23.1) 76 (24.4) 164 (52.6)
Austrian parents 0 (0) 35 (25.5) 102 (74.5)
Austrian parents 5 (3.7) 41 (30.1) 90 (66.2)
Avoid conflicts Turkish parents 86 (27.6) 50 (16.0) 176 (56.4)
Austrian parents 7 (5.1) 29 (21.3) 100 (73.5)
Control children Turkish parents 143 (45.8) 35 (11.2) 134 (42.9)
Austrian parents 41 (28.7) 3 (2.1) 93 (65.0)
Accept children’s autonomy Turkish parents 82 (26.3) 87 (27.9) 143 (45.8)
Austrian parents 8 (5.9) 25 (18.4) 103 (75.7)
‘Turn a blind eye’ Turkish parents 52 (16.7) 96 (30.8) 164 (52.6)
Austrian parents 7 (5.1) 38 (27.9) 91 (66.9)
More patience Turkish parents 159 (51.0) 51 (16.3) 102 (32.7)
Austrian parents 36 (26.5) 7 (5.1) 93 (68.4)