Thread by @luminatus1

Of the increasing number of initiatives setting out in recent years to challenge heteronormativity in education, the 2006-2009 No Outsiders project has arguably been one of the #MostInfluential
Conducted across 15 primary schools in England, #No Outsiders

Conducted across 15 primary schools in England, No Outsiders was an action research project that sought to disrupt heteronormativity through critical pedagogy, gaining widespread academic and media attention in the process

In spite of its prominence, though, there has been a lack of research exploring the ways in which #children have incorporated this work into their everyday understandings and doings of #gender and #sexuality.

Made worldwide news…practitioners & policy makers across UK

This thesis draws on data from a year-long ethnography conducted across2 primary schools in the North East of England – one that was & one that was not involved in No Outsiders – 2explore the extent 2which children’s negotiations of gender & sexuality differed across these sites

Informed by feminist poststructuralist, queer & symbolic interactionist theory, alongside Francis’ (2012) concepts of ‘gender monoglossia & heteroglossia’, it reveals doings of gender across both schools to be broadly similar, with almost all children working to maintain

it reveals doings of gender across both schools to be broadly similar, with almost all children working to maintain an impression of gender’s ‘fixity’ in the face of evident transgression

Regarding ‘#sexualities’, however, attitudes are revealed as differing markedly across these sites, with the perceived conceivability of non-heterosexualities informed profoundly by the presence, or otherwise, of a formal school #ethos on ‘#equalities’.

From 2006 to 2009 – and led jointly by Elizabeth Atkinson1 and Renee DePalma – the No Outsiders project was conducted across 15 primary schools in England. Informed by a participatory action research methodology and led by both academic- and teacher- researchers, the project

led by both academic- and teacher- researchers, the project set out ‘not only to interrogate the heteronormativity implicit in schools but to explore how these processes might be interrupted through critical pedagogic practices’ (DePalma and Atkinson, 2009a: viii).

With the use of various non- traditional and otherwise ‘troubling’ (Butler, 1990) resources, No Outsiders posed a direct challenge to both common-sense notions of ‘#schooling’ and ‘#sexuality’, and to the still prevalent legacy of Section 282, seeking fundamentally to disrupt the

seeking fundamentally to disrupt the heteronormative structures & logics of primary education
Inspired by this work, I conducted a small-scale ethnographic research project in June- July 2013 that investigated the ways in which children ‘did’ gender and sexuality in two No

I conducted a small-scale ethnographic research project in June- July 2013 that investigated the ways in which children ‘did’ #gender and #sexuality in two No Outsiders schools (see Atkinson, 2013)

etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/22221/1/Cather…

The findings from this research revealed #children to be #negotiating their schools’ ‘equalities’ ethos broadly via the production of ‘pro-equality’ and ‘pro-normativity’ subject positions in formal & informal spaces respectively, resisting formal school culture through

resisting formal school culture through the recuperation of heteronormativity in the playground and peer group.
As a result of this project, I became concerned to investigate what I saw as two key research problems arising from its findings.

First, I wondered how, or whether, children’s negotiations of gender and sexuality might differ in schools where no comparable equalities work was taking place.
And second, I was interested in the form that equalities work in No Outsiders schools took

Elizabeth Atkinson is my mother. However, this research was conducted entirely independently of any personal connection to No Outsiders, with no assistance provided in relation to access or analysis.

No Outsiders schools took; the related tensions in practical/political approach; and the attitudes of teachers and project members towards ‘effective’ gender and sexualities pedagogy.

The crucial questions that arose for me were: what was the impact, or otherwise, of No Outsiders on children’s understandings and ‘doings’ of gender & sexuality? And how do teachers and project members conceptualise, enact & experience gender & sexualities pedagogy and practice?

Drawing on data from a year-long ethnography in two UK primary schools – one involved in No Outsiders, the other not – this thesis seeks to answer some of these questions. It is important for me to note here that despite having a personal relationship to No Outsiders’ principal

that despite having a personal relationship to No Outsiders’ principal investigator (see footnote 1, above), this was incidental to my research & is thus not expanded on in the coming pages. Much like any other researcher interested in issues around gender, sexuality, &education,

Much like any other researcher interested in issues around #gender, #sexuality, & #education, my interest in #NoOutsiders developed through academic study and a political concern with educational inequalities, with the current research conducted independently of any personal

with the current research conducted independently of any personal connection to the No Outsiders project (indeed, if there had been a significance to this connection, I would have been profoundly interested to reflect on this in my methodology, as I do in relation to other

personal ‘self’). Rather, this relationship exists separately to my research, and my criticality towards No Outsiders – and openness to both ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ findings in the field – can be seen throughout my thesis, as well as in my pilot study (Atkinson, 2013)

The remainder of Part I (Chapters 2 and 3) situates the research in relation to empirical/theoretical and methodological frameworks, beginning in Chapter 2 with a discussion of the broader field of childhood-gender-sexuality research.

I then move in this chapter to a more in-depth discussion of No Outsiders – looking in particular at the epistemological and ontological tensions that suffused this work – before outlining my own theoretical framework, which is informed by poststructuralist/queer and symbolic

before outlining my own theoretical framework, which is informed by poststructuralist/queer and symbolic interactionist thinking, alongside Francis’ (2008; 2010; 2012) concepts of ‘gender monoglossia and heteroglossia’.

Chapter 3 details the methodological framework of the project, beginning with a discussion of research design. Following a consideration of some of my early fieldwork experiences
and the impact of these on my shifting methodological approach,

I move to an exploration of my methods (participant observation, discussion groups, story groups, and interviews), and consider the value of these for in-depth, comparative research around #gender, #sexuality and #childhood.

The second half of this chapter then focuses in some depth on issues around power and positionality in childhood research, and considers in particular the value of Nancy Mandell’s (1988) ‘least adult role’ for ethnographic research with children.

Part II focuses on my research findings, beginning in Chapter 4 with an introduction to analysis that positions the ‘gender binary’ as central to children’s understandings and doings of gender/sexuality in school. Key to this discussion, though, is a recognition of gendered

analysis that positions the ‘gender binary’ as central to children’s understandings and doings of gender/sexuality in school. Key to this discussion, though, is a recognition of gendered and sexual doings as fundamentally fluid and contradictory

and of children as working to maintain an impression of ‘fixity’ in the face of (their own) evident transgression. It is this understanding of gender’s ‘heteroglossic’ (see Chapter 2) reality that shapes the analytical discussion of the following chapters.

Chapter 5 opens by exploring the various ways in which ‘boyhood’ was understood across my two research schools, with boys’ productions recognised as working simultaneously to define ‘masculinity’, and repudiate abject, feminine ‘girlhood’. I begin here with a discussion of boyhoo

I begin here with a discussion of boyhood’s ‘material’ constructions – both normative and subversive – before moving to an exploration of boyhood as produced, policed, and transgressed through various forms of (counter/normative) friendship and play.

Chapter 6 then investigates productions of ‘girlhood’, beginning with a consideration of the perceived inextricability of ‘femininity’ & ‘looks’. Following a discussion of girlhood communities as informed largely by (albeit contested) gendered understandings of looks and ‘beauty’

I then move to a consideration of girls’ (inter)actions more broadly, considering in particular the complex relationship between friendships, play, & (looks-based) ‘communities of practice’ (Paechter, 2007).
Following this focus on gender,

Following this focus on gender, Chapter 7 moves to an exploration of sexualities, and their constructions across my two research sites.

Chapter 7 moves to an exploration of sexualities, and their constructions across my two research sites. I begin here with a discussion of heterosexualities, and in particular their centrality to productions & regulations of gender. Following this, I consider how non-heterosexuali

Following this, I consider how non-heterosexualities were conceptualised, negotiated & policed, & demonstrate that whilst homophobia permeated peer group culture across both schools, its perceived acceptability differed markedly according to formal school discourse on ‘equalities

Finally, Chapter 8 draws on interview data to explore teachers’ conceptualisations of gender, sexualities, and equalities pedagogy, beginning with a consideration of the ways in which ‘gender’ and ‘sexuality’ were understood and regulated by teachers across both schools.

Following this, I consider the ways in which teachers characterised and enacted ‘equalities pedagogies’ in particular, and highlight their comparative ‘conceivability’ for those involved – or otherwise – in No Outsiders.

The findings from this research reveal productions of gender as having been broadly similar across my research sites, with children working to maintain an impression of gender’s ‘fixity’ in the face of their own, and others’, evident transgression

However, productions of sexuality are revealed as differing markedly according to involvement or otherwise in No Outsiders, with non-heterosexualities revealed as significantly more conceivable for children involved in formal school ‘equalities work’

My conclusion (Chapter 9) thus highlights the significance of these findings for future research and praxis3, particularly in relation to arguments around the ‘relevance’, or otherwise, of gender/sexualities pedagogy (see Payne and Smith, 2017).

Indeed, with complaints around ‘LGBT curricula’ and inclusive education appearing almost as rife now as they were ten years ago (see BBC News, 2017; Weale, 2017; Bloom, 2018), findings that reveal the comparatively damaging effects of silence are as vital as ever.

Having introduced #NoOutsiders as a project that sought to #disrupt normative constructions of schooling (& thus #childhood) & #gender/#sexuality, I begin this chapter with an exploration of the particular ways in which Western societies have constituted & reified understandings

I begin this chapter with an exploration of the particular ways in which Western societies have constituted and reified understandings of ‘the Child’. Following a discussion of ‘childhood innocence’ discourses, and their contribution to children’s continued disempowerment

I identify some key theoretical and empirical works that have revealed children as active and competent ‘gendered’ and ‘sexual’ beings.
I then move to a more in-depth exploration of No Outsiders, before delineating the theoretical framework of my own research,

before delineating the theoretical framework of my own research, which is informed by poststructuralist/queer and symbolic interactionist thinking, as well as by Becky Francis’ concepts of gender monoglossia and heteroglossia.

The relationship of childhood to sexuality is fraught with difficulties, controversies, and complexities; it is one openly & officially based on exclusion, with children constituted as requiring protection from sexuality, considered an ‘adults’ only’ domain. (Robinson, 2012: 257)

In recent years, an increasing number of theorists have challenged the enduring discourses of childhood innocence that have for over three centuries positioned children as fundamentally ‘innocent, vulnerable, immature & irrational’ (Ullman and Ferfolja, 2015: 148)

challenged the enduring discourses of childhood innocence that have for over three centuries positioned children as fundamentally ‘innocent, vulnerable, immature & irrational’ (Ullman and Ferfolja, 2015: 148) & in need of protection from the ‘dangerous knowledges’ of adult life

As well as revealing such discourses to be fundamentally historically and culturally formed – stemming in particular from developmentalist (Piaget, 1973 [1929]) & romantic (Rousseau, 1992 [1762]) constructions of ‘the Child’ – these critiques have also highlighted the social and

and romantic (Rousseau, 1992 [1762]) constructions of ‘the Child’ – these critiques have also highlighted the social and political normativities that constitute and are constituted through such hegemonic (and indeed, heteronormative, ‘raced’, and classed) constructions

In her analysis of childhood and sexual citizenship, forexample, Kerry Robinson (2012) identifies #childhood #innocence discourse as central to the constitution and governance of the ‘good, normative adult #citizenship subject’, positioning children as the symbolic regulators of

positioning children as the symbolic regulators of ‘normative life markers...family structures, behaviours, morals, and values’ (2012: 258). She writes:
The perpetuation and regulation of the heteronormative sexual subject and the good citizen subject is dependent on the perpetua

regulation of the heteronormative sexual subject and the good citizen subject is dependent on the perpetuation of hegemonic discourses of childhood and childhood innocence... Children have ultimately become markers of the heteronormative status quo. (2012: 262)

As well as working to reproduce and govern social normativities, discourses of childhood innocence have worked also to deny children access to a range of purportedly ‘dangerous’ knowledges, particularly in relation to gender and sexuality.

Debates around the need for and ‘appropriateness’ of sex and relationships education for young children (‘Would you want YOUR seven-year-old to see this model vagina at school?’ (Linning, 2017)), and media coverage around the teaching of ‘non-normative’ relationships &identities

(Parents accuse teachers of ‘brainwashing their children when teaching about homosexuality’’ (The Telegraph, 2016)) demonstrate clearly the perceived incommensurability of childhood and sexuality, and position children ‘outside of’ (gendered and) sexual worlds

As well as contradicting a wealth of research revealing their active engagements in gendered and sexual cultures, such conceptualisations also fail to acknowledge the role played by ‘innocence’ discourses in reifying children’s disempowerment and vulnerability.

As Levine (2002: 19) asserts:
...censorship is not protection. Rather, to give children a fighting chance in navigating the sexual world, adults need to saturate it with accurate, realistic information and abundant, varied images and narratives of love and sex

Nonetheless, the hegemonic status of ‘innocence’ constructions – ‘congealed over time’ (Butler, 1990: 33) in the Western imagination – has rendered them almost unquestionable, and ensured that they continue to structure and delimit contemporary understandings of ‘the Child’. T

This is particularly evident within the space of the primary school, which is widely understood in terms of neutrality, protection, and asexuality: ‘a cultural greenhouse for the nurturing and protection ochildren’s (sexual) innocence’ (Renold, 2005: 1).

Contrary to such constructions, however, a wealth of research has revealed the primary school as a ‘key site for the proliferation, modification, and incessant inscription of [heteronormative] discourses’ and relations of power (Youdell, 2004: 482).

Through, inter alia, projects about (heterosexual) families and weddings, open disclosures of teachers’ own (heterosexual) relationships, and the centrality of (hetero) sexual and homophobic discourse to peer group culture

culture (see e.g. Epstein and Johnson, 1998; Rasmussen, 2006; DePalma and Atkinson, 2009a; Meyer, 2010; Stonewall, 2017a), both children and teachers contribute to the construction of the primary school as a heterosexualised institution, structured by what Epstein and Johnson

the primary school as a heterosexualised institution, structured by what Epstein and Johnson (1994) term ‘the heterosexual presumption’. As well as permeating the formal and informal school curriculum (Best, 1983) and delimiting understandings and ‘doings’ of sexual identity,

the ‘presumption’ of heterosexuality works also as ‘a key matrix through which gender is understood by children, teachers, and other adults in the primary school’ (Epstein, 1997: 38, my italics). As Robinson (2012: 268) notes:
...despite the prevalence of the perception that

despite the prevalence of the perception that children are innocent, asexual and too young to understand sexuality, the construction of heterosexual identities and desire in early childhood is a socially sanctioned integral part of children’s everyday educational experience.

This process of heterosexualisation is rendered invisible through the heteronormativity that discursively operates and is especially naturalised within constructions of gender.
This assertion is corroborated strongly throughout Renold’s (2005) Girls, Boys and Junior Sexualities,

is corroborated strongly throughout Renold’s (2005) Girls, Boys and Junior Sexualities, which draws on data from ethnographic research with final-year primary school children to demonstrate ‘the salience of sexuality in children’s accounts of being and becoming ‘girls’ and ‘boys’

For the children in Renold’s study, the primary school represented a key site for the production of (hetero)sexuality, wherein doings of ‘normal’ gendered identity were inextricable from the ‘projection of a coherent and abiding heterosexual self’ (2005: 5).

For all children, ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ (Rich, 1980) was central to the production of femininity and masculinity, and projected through what Renold describes as a ‘complex interactive and daily...network of heterosexual performances’ (Renold, 2005: 9) within which

within which un/intelligible gendered identities were continually created and policed.
The primacy of the primary school as a site for such normative constructions has been revealed by theorists across a range of geographical sites

ii. No Outsiders
It was with the express intention of disrupting such conflations that the 2006-2009 No Outsiders project was conducted (DePalma and Atkinson, 2009a). Working across 15 English primary schools, No Outsiders was an academic- & teacher-researcher led action research

No Outsiders was an academic- and teacher-researcher led action research project that sought to disrupt the ways in which ‘gender, sex and sexuality are conflated in the process of constructing ‘appropriate’ gendered behaviours and preferences for boys and girls’ (2009b: 1).

With the use of ‘videos, posters and books depicting gay and lesbian characters, same-sex parents, and non gender-conforming protagonists’, the project set out ‘not only to interrogate the heteronormativity implicit in schools but to explore how these processes might be

how these processes might be interrupted through critical pedagogic practices’ (2009a: viii). Fully acknowledging the culture of fear that continues to surround sexualities work with children, No Outsiders sought to create and support ‘a community of practice within which teacher

No Outsiders sought to create and support ‘a community of practice within which teachers [could] develop effective approaches to addressing sexualities equality within the broader
context of inclusive education’ (ibid).

Central to this was a conviction of the need to move away from ‘anti-bullying discourses of tolerance in the form of quiet acceptance’ (DePalma & Atkinson, 2009b: 9) and towards the proactive incorporation of gender & sexualities equalities work into the primary school curriculum

Whilst #trailblazing in its criticality and scope, No Outsiders was not without its challenges. Perhaps the most documented of these were the ontological & epistemological tensions – specifically, between ‘queer uncertainties and emancipatory practice’ (2009b: 2) –

– that characterised the project’s work, and at times divided its and academic- and teacher-researchers across broad lines of ‘theory’ and ‘practice’. ‘Framed expressly by queer conceptual tools’ (Youdell, 2009: 54), No Outsiders sought at its outset to destabilise the normative

No Outsiders sought at its outset to destabilise the normative categories of sex, gender & sexuality that work to delimit selves and subjectivities (Foucault, 1978; Butler, 1990), & to ‘permit a complex interrogation of how [these categories] intertwine in heteronormative proces

complex interrogation of how [these categories] intertwine in heteronormative processes’ (DePalma and Atkinson, 2009b: 2). For many of the project’s teacher-researchers, though, such queer framing was perceived, somewhat understandably, as ‘over-theoretical, the preserve of acad

preserve of academia, & not easily or straightforwardly translated in2 classroom practice’ (Cullen, 2009: 22), standing at odds with the more identity-based human rights approaches tht informed their own relationships 2social justice & equalities pedagogy. In DePalma& Atkinson’

In DePalma and Atkinson’s (2009b: 3-4) own words:
Within the project team...we share the view...that teachers need to reach beyond passive and disingenuous tolerance of ‘those LGBT people’ to proactively incorporate discussions of sexuality and gender into the curriculum.

We do not, however, agree on how this should be done. Whether tolerant silences and invisibilities can best be disrupted by highlighting lesbian and gay histories and attacking hetero-gender stereotypes or by troubling the binaries implicit in the very categories of lesbian/gay,

best be disrupted by highlighting lesbian and gay histories and attacking hetero-gender stereotypes or by troubling the binaries implicit in the very categories of lesbian/gay, boy/girl is a question that remains alive and unresolvable in our research.

From its beginning, then, No Outsiders was characterised by dissensus, working within ‘twin frameworks roughly described as equalities/social justice/human rights on the one hand, and on the other the exploration of queer in terms of theory, pedagogy and curriculum’ (Nixon, 2009:

One of the key ways in which this tension between broadly ‘queer’ & ‘liberal pluralist’ approaches was bridged was via the appropriation of what Gayatri Spivak (1988; 1993) has termed ‘strategic essentialism’: the tactical and temporary deployment of fixed identity categories for

has termed ‘strategic essentialism’: the tactical and temporary deployment of fixed identity categories for the purpose of advancing particular political aims (see DePalma and Atkinson, 2009c).

? still remained as2 whthr & whn strategic essentialism might collapse in2 simple collusion w heteronormatvty (Nixon, 2009), as well as the extent 2which liberal pluralist discourse may ‘on occasion promote a degree of homophobia/heterosexism by insisting on essentialist binaries

Notwithstanding such profound concerns, the classroom-based practices of No Outsiders can be understood as having worked broadly within an ‘LGBT rights-based epistemological framing’ (Cullen, 2009: 33), with queer theorisations ‘tend[ing] to be used...as an analytical tool

with queer theorisations ‘tend[ing] to be used...as an analytical tool in exploring data from the field rather than as an on-going legible pedagogic intervention in the classroom’ (2009: 23). This was perhaps inevitable, given the profoundly difficult political, personal, & publi

This was perhaps inevitable, given the profoundly difficult political, personal, and public spaces in which No Outsiders was working. Indeed, as Youdell (2009: 46) argues:

Youdell concludes the the project might be read ‘simultaneously as both critical (& potentially normative) social action & queer troubling’ (2009: 35), w neither interpretation taking precedence over the other, but representing instead the inevitably hybrid outcome of a project

but representing instead the inevitably hybrid outcome of a project situated at the intersection of multiple political & personal goals & practical limitations.
With regard to interpretations of Tango, in particular, she suggests that whilst a child-rearing penguin couple might

whilst a child-rearing penguin couple might, indeed, ‘be read as a relatively conservative inscription of enduring unitary subjects and the normative heterosexual nuclear family’, it equally ‘render[s] intimate same-sex relationships and parents/families visible, intelligible and

it equally ‘render[s] intimate same-sex relationships and parents/families visible, intelligible and legitimate...in a place where they have been invisible, unintelligible and illegitimate’ (2009: 44). Thus, the book might be understood as at once ‘part of a performative politics

Thus, the book might be understood as at once ‘part of a performative politics [and] part of a citational chain that inscribes heteronormativity’ (ibid), with the job of teachers & researchers being to recognise this multiplicity & think tactically about its effects

Equally, Atkinson and Moffat recognise the simultaneously queer & recuperative implications of #pedagogic ‘role model’ approaches – oft-used by the project’s teacher- researchers, who felt a profound need to provide children with the sorts of affirmative gay identities that

the presence of ‘impossible bodies’ [Youdell, 2006] in educational spaces can disrupt dominant discourses...and making some of these impossible bodies visible can forge new echo-chains of connotation which, whilst always vulnerable to recuperation by heteronormative discourses

open up possibilities for the performative resignification of (wounded) gay identities. (2009: 95)
Indeed, the introduction of previously invisible and unintelligible bodies into the classroom might itself be read as a powerful act of ‘degrounding’ (Butler, 1994),

in that ‘to recognise similarities & normalities within the everyday is to undermine the subtle balance through which the absent Other marks & maintains the heteronormative centre: ‘the avowal of different but equal...is much less threatening than the avowal of similar but equal

Further, given the restrictive educational context within which such introductions were being made, Youdell (2009) recognises that it may be useful to think of these necessarily compromised interventions in terms of what Michel de Certeau (1988) has called ‘tactics’ of power –

Michel de Certeau (1988) draws a useful distinction btw the strategies...that are encoded in #policy & #legislation & #embedded in the structure of institutions, & the #tactics of everyday life which people #deploy, often tacitly, in order to survive & make the best of their dail

the tactics of everyday life which people deploy, often tacitly, in order to survive & make the best of their daily existence... In the face of different circumstances & demands, and in pursuit of particular effects, we might deploy politics of opposition, recognition, resistance

politics of opposition, recognition, resistance, deconstruction, reinscription & performative practice..

when [these tactics] are elaborated & critically interrogated we are able to consider the forms they might take under particular conditions, even when the ‘right’ tactic will

when [these tactics] are elaborated and critically interrogated we are able to consider the forms they might take under particular conditions, even when the ‘right’ tactic will remain undecidable and we know that we cannot guarantee effects. (Youdell, 2009: 65)

It was precisely these unguaranteed effects – as an outcome of productive complexities and queer/liberal tensions – that I found myself compelled to explore in the current research, and the implications of No Outsiders’ multiple approaches can be seen throughout my analysis

Central to Foucauldian poststructuralist theorising is a recognition of the fundamental interrelationship btw #knowledge & #power in the construction and maintenance of ‘truth’, whereby ‘#
truth’ is always culturally & historically specific, ‘linked in circular relations with

knowledge and power in the construction and maintenance of ‘truth’, whereby ‘truth’ is always culturally and historically specific, ‘linked in circular relations with systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which extends it’

Thus, what we perceive to be true at any one time is always a political fiction, inseparable from power relations & ‘express[ing] the politics of knowledge of the time & place’ Thus, truths that are politically & institutionally sanctioned combine 2create discourses and ‘regimes’

power relations & ‘express[ing] the politics of knowledge of the time & place’
Thus, truths that are politically & institutionally sanctioned combine to create discourses & ‘regimes of truth’ within which intelligible ways of being & knowing are defined & regulated

truths tht are politically & institutionally sanctioned combine2 create discourses & ‘regimes of truth’ within which intelligible ways of being & knowing are defined & regulated; a process tht can be understood as a violence ‘tht privileges homogeneity/marginalises diversity’

a process that can be understood as a violence ‘that privileges homogeneity and marginalises diversity’ (2005: 28) through the silencing and sanctioning of marginalised and powerful truths respectively
P 28

etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/22221/1/Cather…

Far from natural or universal constructs, therefore, sexuality and sexual subjectivity can be understood as produced, regulated and naturalised within continually shifting discursive formations,

and it is within these nexuses of power – where power is understood as a circular,

where power is understood as a circular, omnipresent and productive force that operates at every level of social existence (Foucault, 1980) – that subject positions and identities are created.
However, due to the multiple, shifting, and politically competitive nature

However, due to the multiple, shifting, and politically competitive nature of discourse, such identities are always fundamentally non-unitary, (re)created differently within different and competing regimes.
One of the central premises of feminist poststructuralism, therefore,

One of the central premises of feminist poststructuralism, therefore, is tht dualistic conceptualisations of gender & sexuality – male/female, gay/straight – are constructed within truth regimes that produce & naturalise un/intelligible ways of being. Thus, ‘maleness & femaleness

within truth regimes that produce & naturalise un/intelligible ways of being. Thus, ‘maleness & femaleness [alongside hetero- & homo-sexuality] don’t have be discursively constructed in the way they currently are’ (Davies, 1989: 12). By understanding gendered & sexual categories

By understanding gendered/sexual categories as constituted/maintained within shifting truth regimes, we reveal not only the power of discourse2 create/regulate un/acceptable actions & identities, but also its potential2 destabilise existing power relations thru the generation of

By understanding gendered and sexual categories as constituted and maintained within shifting truth regimes, we reveal not only the power of discourse to create and regulate un/acceptable actions and identities, but also its potential to destabilise existing power relations

we reveal not only the power of discourse to create and regulate un/acceptable actions and identities, but also its potential to destabilise existing power relations through the generation of new and competing ‘truths’.

Drawing on these tenets of poststructuralism, queer theory hs interrogated the role of heterosexuality in the production/regulation of ‘normal’ gendered/sexual identity, positing tht ‘the concept of genderedness becomes meaningless in the absence of heterosxlity as an institution

has interrogated the role of heterosexuality in the production and regulation of ‘normal’ gendered and sexual identity, positing that ‘the concept of genderedness becomes meaningless in the absence of heterosexuality as an institution’ (Blaise, 2005: 22).

For queer theorists, ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ is central to the constitution of a binary & oppositional gender order wherein ‘femininity’ & ‘masculinity’ are mapped onto the (hetero)sexed bodies of ‘women’ & ‘men’, & it is the conflation of sex-gender- sexuality within this

compulsory heterosexuality’ is central to the constitution of a binary & oppositional gender order wherein ‘femininity’ & ‘masculinity’ are mapped onto the (hetero)sexed bodies of ‘women’ & ‘men’, and it is the conflation of sex-gender- sexuality within this framework that

that constructs ‘femininity’ as both the gendered expression of ‘woman’ and the sexual ‘Other’ of ‘masculine/man’: its subject of desire.
Butler (1990: 194) describes this constitutive framework as the ‘heterosexual matrix’: ‘[a] model of gender intelligibility that assumes th

the ‘heterosexual matrix’: ‘[a] model of gender intelligibility that assumes that for bodies to cohere and make sense there must be a stable sex expressed through a stable gender...oppositionally and hierarchically defined through the compulsory practice of heterosexuality’.

For Butler, it is within this ‘grid of cultural intelligibility’ that un/intelligible identities are established & policed, with individuals only becoming intelligible thru the
appropriation of a gendered identity that ‘[maintains] relations of coherence & continuity along sex,

appropriation of a gendered identity that ‘[maintains] relations of coherence & continuity along sex, gender, sexual practice & desire’

This notion of (gendered) ‘intelligibility’ (see also Goffman, 1969) is elucidated throughout Bronwyn Davies’ Frogs & Snails & Feminist Tales

Frogs and Snails and Feminist Tales, which identifies ‘the incorrigibility of the male-female binary and its construction as a central element of human identity’ (1989: xi) as fundamental to children’s productions and understandings of gender.

For the children in Davies’ study, ‘part of being a competent member of society as it is currently organised derives from our capacity to attribute 2others, & aid others in attributing 2us, the ‘c correct’ gender’ (ibid), rendering the projection of a normative gendered identity

projection of a normative gendered identity ‘morally imperative’ to the constitution of a culturally intelligible ‘self’.
For this reason, children conceptualised gender as fundamentally collectively owned, requiring ‘category maintenance work’ 2ensure the necessary continuation

the necessary continuation of the gendered social order (1989: 31). This was perhaps most clearly evidenced in children’s readings and negotiations of Munsch’s (1980) The Paper Bag Princess, in which the female protagonist, Princess Elizabeth, saves her would-be husband,

which the female protagonist, Princess Elizabeth, saves her would-be husband, Prince Ronald from being killed by a dragon, and in the process loses her fine clothes and is forced to wear a paper bag. Ronald, on being reunited with the disheveled Elizabeth, demands that she ‘come

Ronald, on being reunited with the disheveled Elizabeth, demands that she ‘come back and rescue [him] when [she’s] dressed like a real princess’ (1980: 20), in response to which Elizabeth decides that she no longer wants to marry him, and skips off into the sunset.

For many of the children in Davies’ study, Princess Elizabeth was conceptualised as a ‘bad princess’, immoral & wrong for ‘[stepping] out of her female place’ (1989: 29). The power of the male-female binary to constitute & delimit gendered intelligibility was such that for many

that for many children, who had come to understand gender as inarguably and hierarchically oppositional, ‘there was no place in the narrative structure...for a feminist hero

As well as providing further evidence of children’s active engagement in the creation and regulation of (sexuality and) gender, Davies’ work demonstrates the capacity of gendered discourse to constitute and regulate social intelligibility.

However, by conceptualising the male-female binary as discursively upheld, Davies argues, we provide a framework within which gender’s constructed nature can be revealed and destabilised.

is that gender should be understood as a performative and contingent construction; a ‘regulatory fiction’ that is ‘constituted by the very “expressions” that are said to be its results’ (1990: 33).

Butler writes:
Because there is neither an essence that gender expresses or externalises nor an objective ideal to which gender aspires, and because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender create the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all

Thus, it is precisely this fundamental contingency that makes gender open to rearticulation, & it is for many queer theorists through the practices of ‘hyperbole, dissonance, internal confusion & proliferation’ that gender’s contingent stylisations can be exposed and ‘troubled’

ii. Poststructuralist and queer applications: benefits and critiques
The application of feminist poststructuralist and queer theorising to analyses of gender and sexuality has led to a wealth of rich empirical works (see e.g. Davies, 1989; Reay, 2001; Youdell, 2004; Renold, 2005;

DePalma &Atkinson, 2009a), & I continue 2find it a valuable framework for the current research, elucidating as it does the constructedness & contingency of truth regimes, their productive capacity 2define & regulate un/intelligible subjectivities, & their potential for disruption

A valuable framework for the current research, elucidating as it does the constructedness and contingency of truth regimes, their productive capacity to define and regulate un/intelligible subjectivities, and their potential for disruption via the formation of new echo-chains

and their potential for disruption via the formation of new echo-chains (Butler, 1993) and commensurabilities.
Notwithstanding these strengths, though, such frameworks have faced criticism on the grounds of some arguable inconsistencies

Becky Francis examines three of these in particular in her exposition of ‘gender monoglossia & heteroglossia’ (2008; 2010; 2012) as more thorough frameworks for empirical analyses of (sexuality & ) and) gender.
I look here at each of these critiques in turn, before considering

I look here at each of these critiques in turn, before considering in more depth the notions of monoglossia/heteroglossia, & their applicability to the current research.

1. Multiple masculinities/femininities
Notwithstanding the analytic nuance offered by poststructural & queer

poststructural & queer accounts, Francis (amongst others, e.g. Hawkesworth, 1997; Hood-Williams, 1997; Halberstam, 1998; McInnes, 1998) has identified a problematic tendency in some of these works 2reify sex-gender linkages via the analysis of ‘‘girling’ (Butler, 1997b) & ‘boyin

has identified a problematic tendency in some of these works to reify sex-gender linkages via the analysis of ‘‘girling’ (Butler, 1997b) and ‘boying’ as performed by ‘gender-appropriate’ bodies’ (Francis, 2010: 478).

This is particularly evident, she argues, in works that draw on Connell’s (1987) notion of ‘multiple masculinities’ to analyse productions of gender, but that misuse this originally more nuanced concept by reducing diverse gendered performances to ‘different documented ‘types’’

Indeed, a theoretical move towards ‘multiple masculinities and feminine’ not only reduces gender analysis to a simplistic focus on ‘typologies’, but is also effectively ‘founded on gender essentialism [in that] all that such different ‘sorts’ of masculinity have in common is

not only reduces gendersimplistic focus on ‘typologies’, but is also effectively ‘founded on gender essentialism [in that] all that such different ‘sorts’ of masculinity have in common is possession of a penis’ (Francis, 2010: 477).

Empirical analyses that identify boys/men and girls/women as producing various ‘types’ of masculinity and femininity respectively, Francis argues, work to reify a the gender-sex conflation, and reflect what Hawkesworth (1997) has termed the ‘base/superstructure’ model,

has termed the ‘base/superstructure’ model, where sex continues to operate as the ‘base’ in analyses of ‘gendered’ performance.
This raises the issue of ‘identification’ with regard to productions of gender, which Francis addresses in her second critique.

2. Essentialising categories via analyses of ‘performance’
With the express intention of challenging empirical works that position boys/men and girls/women as the necessary performers of masculinity/ies and femininity/ies, respectively (see also Delphy, 1984),

(see also Delphy, 1984), Jack Halberstam (1998) has posited ‘female masculinity’ – as performed notably by Drag Kings – as a means by which to ‘sever the umbilical link between sex and gender’ (Francis, 2012: 2) and counter analyses that have read diverse gendered productions as

read diverse gendered productions as ‘inevitably tied to the ‘appropriate’ sexed body’ (ibid).

Whilst representing a profound contribution to gender theory, the analysis of gender via the identification of discrete (albeit female) ‘masculinities’ is not without its problems

and indeed, ‘risk[s] replacing the problem of essentialising bodies (via categorisation as male/female) with the problem of essentialising expressions (via categorisation of particular aspects of performance as masculine or feminine)’ (Francis, 2008: 214).

Further to this, the concept of ‘female masculinity’ has been critiqued for its simultaneously romanticised and vague definition of masculinity (see Paechter, 2006), as well as for its insufficient recognition of the relationship between ‘performer’ and ‘audience’, and relatedly,

relationship between ‘performer’ & ‘audience’, & relatedly, ‘the impact of the sexed body on issues of authenticity & power’ (Francis, 2008: 215).
As Francis (ibid) notes:
While Halberstam’s Drag Kings may be accepted as as females doing masculinity in their circle of friends &

circle of friends and fans...they still risk refusal of their gender identification outside this circle if dissonance is identified between their gender identification/production and their sexed body... That ‘passing’...is so consequential for those outside gender dualisms

That ‘passing’...is so consequential for those outside gender dualisms illustrates the purchase of sex-gender dualisms in terms of power to include/exclude, normalise/pathologise.
It is precisely this excluding/pathologising power of the sex-gender dualism

pathologising power of the sex-gender dualism that makes it so that productions of gender cannot be understood solely in relation to the intention of the individual, and it is to this interrelationship between performer, audience, & material/discursive context that Francis turns

….. Central to symbolic interactionist thinking is the notion of ‘scripting’ – the construction of cultural resources or guidelines for behaviour – which occurs at interactional, individual, and cultural levels and both constrains and enables sexual and social possibilities

It is at the level of interpersonal scripting that the negotiation, reworking and/or contestation of cultural scripts takes place, with interpersonal scripts understood as ‘emerging from and deployed within everyday interaction’ (2010b: 815), constituted and negotiated through

negotiated through fundamentally relational practices. It is this level of scripting that lends itself well to the current research, providing a framework for understanding gendered & sexual scripts as co-constructed within the relational spaces of the school, classroom,

providing a framework for understanding gendered and sexual scripts as co-constructed within the relational spaces of the school, classroom, and peer group.

Indeed, in its recognition of of selfhood as both ‘constrained and enabled by the cultural resources available to us’

cultural resources available to us’ (Jackson, 2010: 133), symbolic interactionism provides a particularly useful framework for comparative analyses of gender & sexuality.

Differing primarily with regards to their involvement or otherwise in ‘equalities’ pedagogy, my research

Differing primarily w regards 2their involvement or otherwise in ‘equalities’ #pedagogy, my research schools represent distinct sites shaped by local & contextual scripts, the particularities of which inform the nature of students’ interactional (& possible) gender-sexuality

shaped by local and contextual scripts, the particularities of which inform the nature of students’ interactional (and possible) gender-sexuality (re)workings.
Finally, intrapsychic scripting occurs at the level of ‘reflexive internal dialogue’ (Jackson and Scott, 2010b: 815),

Finally, intrapsychic scripting occurs at the level of ‘reflexive internal dialogue’ and reflects the processes by which individuals draw on and make sense of the interpersonal and cultural scripts available to them. As Jackson and Scott (ibid) assert:

vi. Conclusions: Literature, theory, praxis
Throughout this chapter, I have sought to situate my research in relation to both empirical works and theoretical perspectives, beginning with an exploration of contemporary and historic understandings of ‘the Child’.

Here, I highlighted (still prevalent) discourses of ‘childhood innocence’ as fundamentally historically & culturally constructed, & identified a number of key empirical works that have revealed children as active ‘gendered’ and ‘sexual’ beings.
P.41

Central to many of these analyses has been a challenge to perceptions of the school as inherently ‘neutral’ and ‘asexual’, with schools revealed as key sites for the production and governance of (normative) sexuality and gender. Subsequently, the school has been exposed as key to

schools revealed as key sites for the production & governance of (normative) sexuality & gender. Subsequently, the school has been exposed as key to the continued ‘Othering’ of (non-normative) relationships & identities, with a no. of contemporary in-school initiatives seeking to

a number of contemporary in-school initiatives seeking to challenge such inequalities.

Whilst significant, though, many such initiatives have been criticised for reinscribing a so-called ‘discourse problematique’ (Ullman and Ferfolja, 2015) around gendered and sexual ‘Otherness’

gendered and sexual ‘Otherness’, which positions ‘non-conformity’ as an individualised problem to be addressed.
It was in response to such arguably recuperative efforts that the No Outsiders project was conducted, seeking to disrupt heteronormativity through critical pedagogy.

Whilst trailblazing, the project was nonetheless characterised by profound epistemological and ontological tensions, the complexities of which represent part of the theoretical impetus for my research.

Following this, I discussed my project’s theoretical framework, and argued that the application of poststructural/queer and interactionist frameworks to Francis’ concepts of mono/heteroglossia has the potential to account for both the material and discursive workings of gender,

and the workings (and limits) of individual agency. As well as accounting for the variously embodied/discursive and agentic/constrained ways in which children produced gender and sexuality across my research sites, such a framework also goes some way to addressing what Robyn

such a framework also goes some way to addressing what Robyn Weigman (2001) identifies as one of the key challenges in contemporary feminist theory: ‘not simply to address the divide between genetic bodies and discursive gender but to offer a political analysis of the socially

between genetic bodies and discursive gender but to offer a political analysis of the socially constructed afflictions between the two’ (2001: 376).
I am convinced that this approach goes some way towards achieving this.

In June-July 2013, I conducted the pilot study for the current research, investigating the ways in which children negotiated discourses of gender & sexuality in two No Outsiders schools.

As a result of this project I became concerned to investigate what I saw
P.44

As a result of this project I became concerned to investigate what I saw as 2 key research problems arising frm its findings
First, I was interested in the question of how, or whether, children’s negotiations of gender & sexuality might differ in schools where no comparable equal

how, or whether, children’s negotiations of gender and sexuality might differ in schools where no comparable equalities work was taking place.
And 2nd, I was interested in the form that equalities work in No Outsiders schools took; the related tension between ‘liberal pluralist’

related tension between ‘liberal pluralist’ and ‘queer’ approaches, discussed in the previous chapter; and the attitudes of teachers and project members towards ‘effective’ gender & sexualities pedagogy. I wondered: what was the effect, or otherwise, of No Outsiders on children’s

I wondered: what was the effect, or otherwise, of No Outsiders on children’s understandings and ‘doings’ of gender and sexuality? And how do teachers and project members conceptualise, enact and experience gender and sexualities pedagogy and practice?

Informed by these questions, my initial project design delineated a year-long comparative ethnography – comprising participant observation, discussion groups, & story groups w children – in 2primary schools in the North East of England, 1 that was & 1 that wasn’t involved in NO’s

Through a comparison of these schools, it was my intention to investigate the differing ways in which children understood and negotiated gender and sexuality, and to come to a related conclusion about the ‘#effects or otherwise’ of #NoOutsiders.

In addition to this ethnographic focus, the project also sought to gain insight into broader conceptualisations of gendered and sexual workings in education through in-depth interviews with head/teachers and No Outsiders project members.

Overall, my aim was to go some way towards extending current (academic and public) understandings, and thus strengthening practical ‘doings’, of equalities work in primary education.

The study therefore set out with the following key research question:
• How are children ‘doing’ gender & sexuality in the primary school, & what difference does/might a critical gender & sexualities pedagogy make?

etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/22221/1/Cather…

Further, it asked:
• How do children (co-)construct, negotiate and regulate gender and sexuality within both formal (classroom, assembly) and informal (playground, peer group) sites?

Further, it asked:
• To what extent, & how, do teachers interact with, conceptualise, &/or trouble children’s in-school productions of gender/sexuality?
• How do children’s productions compare in schools that do vs. do not incorporate gender/sexualities work in2their curriculum

• How has gender and sexualities equalities work been employed (or not), and what epistemological, political and methodological convictions/assumptions have underpinned this?

• To what extent, and how, do teachers and No Outsiders project members conceptualise ‘effective’ gender and sexualities pedagogy, and how have these conceptualisations informed their work? (Later removed)

Being a fundamentally flexible and iterative-inductive project, though (see O’Reilly, 2012), it was not long before changes were made to this initial design. One such change – which impacted on the final of the above research questions – was the decision to narrow the scope of my

which impacted on the final of the above research questions – was the decision to narrow the scope of my No Outsiders-interview ‘sample’ to include only those project members who were teachers at Newhaven4 (and thus not the project’s investigators, academic-researchers, or teache

and thus not the project’s investigators, academic-researchers, or teacher-researchers from other schools). This was a decision informed by three factors. The first of these related to the risks involved in ‘data overload’, and the fact that multiple No Outsiders interviews

fact that multiple No Outsiders interviews alongside a year- long ethnography, discussion groups, story groups, and interviews with head/teachers at both schools, was likely to amass more data than was workable over the course of a single PhD

Newhaven4

One of my two research schools. All schools’ and participants’ names are pseudonyms

This was a decision informed in part, then, by a concern with ‘quality over quantity’, and the related desire to conduct a focused qualitative exploration of two particular sites.
Second, I became aware on further consideration that interviews with No Outsiders teachers

with No Outsiders teachers from other schools would make for a somewhat decontextualised set of data when compared with those collected at Newhaven, where interviews were located within the broader context of an ongoing participatory ethnography

Finally, there is an already comprehensive body of published work from the No Outsiders team – and in particular, its academic-researchers – that explores precisely the queer/liberal tensions and practical/political complexities that I was concerned to investigate (see for exampl

see for example DePalma and Atkinson, 2006b; 2007; 2008; 2009a; 2009d; De Palma and Jennett, 2007; No Outsiders Project Team, 2010).
Representing an already rich source of secondary data, these writings made it possible to gain a depth of insight into the perspectives of other

possible to gain a depth of insight into the perspectives of other No Outsiders members without further (possibly superfluous) data collection.
Indeed, given the comprehensive and reflexive nature of these works, it is likely that further interviews would have yielded broadly

broadly replicative findings that corroborated already stated positions.
In light of these considerations, I withdrew ‘other’ No Outsiders members from my interview sample, and removed the final of my research questions, above, which I recognised as broadly restating the question

restating the question preceding it (but with the addition of further interviewees). The result of this change was a more focused qualitative research design, which had at its centre an in-depth exploration of the complex multiple workings of two distinct primary school cultures

two distinct primary school cultures (one of which, Newhaven, represents just one of multiple manifestations of No Outsiders’ work).

iI. Access, sampling, research design
In the interest of drawing on existing contacts and gatekeepers, & enabling follow- up research with previous participants, I decided to contact Newhaven (one of the 2 schools from my pilot study) in the hope of returning there for fieldwork

After an exchange of emails with the Headteacher (George/Mr Graham), and a full explanation of the research (see Appendix B), access was easily granted. However, access to the second (non-No Outsiders) school was slightly more complex. Whilst it was relatively easy to describe

Whilst it was relatively easy to describe the focus of the project to George – who continues to be involved in gender & sexualities work – I felt significantly more wary about giving a full description to Headteachers who were less likely 2be familiar with (or perhaps more likely

more likely to be resistant to) what are often deemed risky and controversial pedagogies (see e.g. Jackson, 1982; Epstein, 2000; Allen et al, 2012; Phillips and Larson, 2012).
As such, I wrote emails to six other Headteachers in the area that included a more general description

As such, I wrote emails to 6 other Headteachers in the area that included a more general description of the project, focusing on ‘gender equalities’ and excluding any mention of ‘sexuality’ (see Appendix C), and decided that a fuller explanation would

and decided that a fuller explanation would be given in person once access had begun to be established. In response to the six emails sent, I received three replies: one rejection and two expressions of interest.

Of the two interested schools, one – Eastfield – had a similar pupil demographic &was within the same collaborative Learning Trust as Newhaven, whilst the other had a slightly different pupil demographic, was not so closely linked with Newhaven, and was a First School as opposed

to a Primary. As it was initially my intention 2draw ‘valid’ conclusions about the effects of No Outsiders through a comparison of two schools that were demographically similar (aside from their involvement in No Outsiders), Eastfield became the obvious choice for a second school

Eastfield became the obvious choice for a 2ndschool, with the whole process of site-selection having epitomised the ‘more or less haphazard combination of theoretical/research interests, pragmatic approaches & personal personal networks’ tht is typical of most qualitative researc

Having selected Newhaven and Eastfield as research sites, I met separately with each school’s Headteacher to discuss in more detail the nature and practicalities of the project. At this stage it was agreed that I would spend one to two days per week at each school
P 48

agreed that I would spend 1-2days per week at each school (concurrently) over the course of 11months, participating in & observing a range of school activities, conducting a series of discussion & story groups with children, & later carrying out informal interviews with teachers

In the interest of gaining insight into children’s cultures of gender and sexuality across a range of ages, and enabling a more rounded impression of the school as a whole, it was agreed that my time be split evenly across years one, three, and five: representing a broad ‘cross-

representing a broad ‘cross-section’ of year groups. Significantly, this was not a decision based on any notion of ‘age’ as a fixed developmental category or sure indicator of certain ‘knowledges’ (see Christensen and James, 2008b) but rather one informed by a desire to explore

explore the social organisation and varied social experiences of schooling, as well as the in/formal learning that accompanies these. In other words, part of what I was seeking to investigate was: ‘what are children of these ages permitted to know?’ as opposed to ‘what are

In other words, part of what I was seeking to investigate was: ‘what are children of these ages permitted to know?’ as opposed to ‘what are children of these ages capable of knowing?’
In particular, though, my decision to conduct research with children in year five as

my decision to conduct research with children in year 5 as opposed to year 6 who in their final year of primary school might be considered a particularly rich ‘sample’ (see e.g. Renold, 2005)) was informed by a desire to follow up some of the same children and friendship groups

that I had worked with in my pilot study. Specifically, I had been struck during this study by the gender production of one child, Finn – who was outspoken and confident in his love of ‘girly’ things and rejection of normative masculinity (see Chapter 5) – and was interested

– and was interested to see whether & how his counter-normativity had continued. As such, it was agreed that my time with year five at Newhaven would be spent with Finn’s class, specifically6: a decision that was theoretically and pragmatically informed, but that also inevitably

inevitably ‘impose[d] a structure on events’ and shaped what I was able (and chose) to see and hear (O’Reilly, 2012: 99). However, in light of my understanding of all research as reflecting only some of many contingent and changing realities (see Atkinson, 2003), I am not concern

I am not concerned that this decision ‘skewed’ or otherwise negatively impacted my data

6 Newhaven has two-form entry (two classes per year group) and Eastfield has three-form entry (three classes per year group).

Finally, during these early negotiations, I also provided a more detailed explanation of the research to Eastfield’s Headteacher, Andrew/Mr Stuart, during which I explained that part of the focus of my project would be on ‘young sexualities and relationships’

Whilst this went beyond my initial explanation, it still positioned ‘sexuality’ as a sub- focus – rather than central concern – of the research, betraying a somewhat unacknowledged reticence on my part to be explicit about the project’s exact nature with non-No Outsiders teachers

Whilst providing an altered project description to #gatekeepers is not necessarily atypical, I was nonetheless concerned that in doing this I had given weight to – rather than challenged – the notion that sexualities research with children is necessarily ‘controversial’.

Indeed, during a more candid discussion with Andrew later in the fieldwork process – which included mention of No Outsiders & sexualities equality more generally – he was wholly positive in response& admitted to feeling that the school should be doing more to address these issues

Although my initial reticence may have been ill-founded, then, it is also possible that it was at least in part as a result of the good relationship I developed with Andrew that he responded so well to this description, and it is not possible to know whether he would have agreed

he would have agreed to the research had I provided this explanation initially. This is a possibility that I would justify in terms of the political importance of the project (Epstein, 1998) & the necessity, at times, of being ‘semi-overt’ with more powerful institutional bodies

and the necessity, at times, of being ‘semi-overt’ with more powerful institutional bodies in order to bolster the narratives of less powerful, marginalised groups (O’Reilly, 2012).

….I began to feel increasingly uncomfortable with the ‘quasi-experimental’ turn that the research had taken. I realised that despite the project’s largely poststructuralist framing, I had nonetheless managed to develop a methodological design that set out to draw conclusions

managed to develop a methodological design that set out to draw conclusions about No Outsiders’ ‘effects’ through an almost pseudo-scientific lens, with Newhaven and Eastfield as ‘experimental’ and ‘control’ school respectively.

iv. A note on demographics
Newhaven and Eastfield are two inner-city, state funded primary schools in the North East of England with a pupil roll of 420 and 636, respectively. The majority of pupils at both schools are of White British origin, though Eastfield has a higher

though Eastfield has a higher than average percentage of pupils whose first language is not English8 (21.6%), compared to a lower than average percentage (9.5%) at Newhaven. Both schools serve areas of relatively high social deprivation, though Newhaven has a higher than average

Newhaven has a higher than average percentage of pupils who are currently eligible for free school meals9 (19.5%) compared to a lower than average percentage (9.4%) at Eastfield. As free school meals data was not available for individual classes, ‘relative social deprivation’

classes, ‘relative social deprivation’ was calculated for my particular sample via an assessment of pupil postcodes (which should be recognised as reflecting national measures: the city in which the schools are located ranks lower than the national average on income).

This is 346 pages long

P.61 wherein my position as researcher became secondary to my role as (honorary) peer/classmate/friend. Through this positioning, I was able to gain valuable insight into children’s formal and informal worlds in school, both observing & participating in

observing & participating in multiple rich & shifting ethnographic moments. A key example of such shifting/situated conduct is tht of Obasi (age 5) at Newhaven (discussed in Chapter 5), who behaved within the classroom & friendship group in a distinctly ‘normative’ masculine mann

masculine manner, &
was perceived by teachers & children as a typically ‘rough, boyish’ boy. Within small discussion groups, though, & during passing moments w me on the playground or field, Obasi talked about loving 2wear dresses &makeup & wishing that he could be a mermaid

Without having developed a relationship with Obasi over a number of weeks spent in his class – or, indeed, having extended my methods beyond ‘detached’ observation in the classroom to participation in friendships and the conduct of informal discussion groups – I am convinced that

I am convinced that I would not have been made privy to this somewhat secret aspect of his personality. Thus, I consider my role as participant observer to have been critical in enabling insight into children’s situated doings of gender and sexuality in school, which differed

critical in enabling insight into children’s situated doings of gender and sexuality in school, which differed markedly across time, space, and context.
iv. Discussion groups
...small focus [/discussion] groups are one of the best ways to obtai

obtain data from children, because they replicate a natural and familiar form of communication in which children talk together with peers. (Gibson, 2012: 150)

In order to gain further insight into children’s collective, peer group negotiations of gender and sexuality, a series of informal discussion groups were conducted with children in each of the six classes that I worked with. I describe these purposefully as ‘discussion groups’

purposefully as ‘discussion groups’ rather than ‘focus groups’ to reflect the ‘naturally occurring’ relationship between those involved, the relative fluidity of the resulting discussion, and the familiar (school) context in which they were conducted (see O’Reilly, 2012: 131-5).

Whilst a number of childhood researchers have discussed the benefits of children selecting their own groups for research (see e.g. Christensen and James, 2008a), I made the decision to compile groups myself in order to avoid facilitating peer group exclusions, and to ensure that

ensure that all children had a chance to participate. During my first few days in each class, I would make a note of identifiable friendship groups, then corroborate these by asking children (informally, during class or playtime) who their ‘best friends’ were and/or who

and/or who they usually played with. Drawing on this information, I organised discussion groups that comprised pre-existing friendship groups of 3 to 6 participants, and that lasted 20 to 40 minutes. In the case of children with few identifiable friends, I would ask the child in

ask the child in question to tell me who they’d like to be in a group with, enabling their participation alongside a classmate whom they liked and felt comfortable with. Whilst discussion groups did not set out to be ‘single-sex’, children largely identified ‘same sex’ classmates

identified ‘same sex’ classmates as their ‘best friends’, with the exception of four groups at Eastfield, & five at Newhaven. Thirty-eight discussion groups (20 at Eastfield & 18 at Newhaven) were conducted in total, & carried out in relatively informal ‘pods’ or activity rooms,

Each discussion group began with a reiteration of the project, an opportunity to ask questions, and the recording of verbal consent. It was made clear to all participants that their involvement was voluntary and that they could leave at any time and for any reason (and that

P 63 that no reason had to be given). In line with Chambers’ (1994) ‘tell me’ approach, I then asked children to simply ‘tell me about being a boy/girl’, at which point conversation would usually flow freely with little need for intervention.