Trio-Ethnography
Overview
Background Stories Prologue Method Hour 1 Hour 2 Hour 3 So What? Reference List
* Links to Other Supplemental Documents are embedded as relevant in the main documents listed above.
* Links to Other Supplemental Documents are embedded as relevant in the main documents listed above.
This is the first official ‘trio’ethnography. This project began as a duoethnography in which we -- two men – wanted to
examine our understanding of the relationship between early gender identity construction and the atypical decision to
become elementary teachers. More specifically, the conversation began as an attempt to explore the extent to which
early gender identity construction (Erickson, 2001) might influence a man’s atypical decision to become an elementary
teacher (Sugg, 1978; Wrigley, 1992). The conversation and continued reading of the literature on gender and profession,
took us in the direction of investigating the relationship between our early gender construction and the ability to negotiate
the primarily female world of both preservice and inservice teacher education (Henson & Rogers, 2001). We decided to
add a third, female, voice when it became evident that our shared gender and our unquestioned perceptions of efficacy
(DeCorse & Vogtle, 1997; Williams & Heikes, 1993).
As a result of the new voice the conversation was redirected in at least three constructive ways. Her generally negative
experiences with male colleagues and view of them as less than effective challenged the self-congratulatory and
romanticized direction our own examination was taking. Second, unintentionally, we (the two male participants) had found
that our own personalities and experiences were so similar in some ways that our conversation risked becoming redundant
and simply reaffirming. Our female partner was able to reframe some of the same questions we asked ourselves in ways
that suggested new lines of inquiry. Finally, we invited this particular women into the conversation because she fit our original exploration of “difference” within an occupation in that she perceived herself as very different -- more critically reflective, more
of a risk-taker (often considered more “male” traits) -- from her female peers. We felt this was important in order to maintain
the integrity of the duoethnographic process. The female voice prevented the emergence of a master narrative from the two
male teachers and kept the dialogic nature alive (Bakhtin, 1981) but yet brought a similar self-perception to the table that
added another layer of complexity to the topic.
Bakhtin, N. (1981). the dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press.
DeCorse, C.J. Benton, & Vogtle, S.P. (1997). In a complex voice: The contradiction of male elementary teachers’ career choice and professional identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 48, 37-46.
Erickson, R.J. (2001). Play contributes to the full emotional development of the child. Education, 105, 261-263.
Henson, K.D., & Rogers, J. Krasas. (2001). “Why Marcia you’ve changed!” Male clerical
temporary workers doing masculinity in a feminized occupation. Gender & Society, 15, 218-238.
Sugg, R.S. (1978). Motherteacher: The feminization of American education. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Williams, C.L., & Heikes, E.J. (1993). The importance of researcher’s gender in the in-depth interview: Evidence from two case studies of male nurses. Gender & Society, 7, 280-291.
Wrigley, J. (Ed.). (1992). Education and gender equality. Washingto, DC: Falmer.