Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The social construction of gender in a physical education programme Dewar, Alison MacKenzie 1986

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A2 D48.pdf [ 11.83MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054666.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054666-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054666-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054666-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054666-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054666-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054666-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054666-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054666.ris

Full Text

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER IN A PHYSICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMME BY ALISON MACKENZIE DEWAR B . E d . ( H o n s ) . , Dunferml ine Co l l ege of P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n , 1979 M . P . E . , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1983 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Centre f o r the Study of Cur r i cu lum and I n s t r u c t i o n ) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming %o the r e q u i r e d s tandard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1986 0 ALISON MACKENZIE DEWAR, 1986. 7 8 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Cugtti C D L U M AM£> \u.S~r^L>CTior^, FACUUTY O f cZoudfl The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 - ) F _ f i ( 7 /7Q) Abstract This dissertation examines the social reproduction of gender cate-gories in one Canadian university physical education programme. The research was conducted over a ten month period and used three primary data collection techniques; participant observation, ethnographic inter-viewing, and documentary analysis. The data were analyzed as an ongoing process during the study and themes were modified and developed during the time i n the f i e l d . The study found that the curriculum in this programme i s organized around a distinction between biological and behavioural courses on the one hand, and socio-cultural courses on the other. Each type of course provides students with alternative views of gender. When gender i s taught i n biological and behavioural courses i t is examined as a personal attribute and the focus of attention i s on how differences between males and females explain the gap in their performance levels. When gender i s taught i n socio-cultural courses i t i s viewed as a social issue, and the focus of attention i s upon analyses of the ways in which play, games and sport have been s o c i a l l y constructed to produce and legitimize male hegemony. Despite this diversity i n the curriculum students' definitions of important knowledge lead them to view knowledge from biological and behavioural courses as "really useful" and knowledge from socio-cultural courses as peripheral. Students see biological and behavioural explana-tions of sex differences i n performance capabilities as information they can use to improve performance. Information about the social construction i i i o f gender i s s u e s i s seen as p e r i p h e r a l as i t does n o t h e l p them t o f u n c t i o n w i t h i n t h e e x i s t i n g s o c i a l frameworks. S t u d e n t s n e g o t i a t e t h e meanings o f gender and d e v e l o p t h e i r gender i d e n t i t i e s by accommodating t o , r e s i s t i n g and a c c e p t i n g t r a d i t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f gender. These a c t s o f a c c e p t a n c e , accommodation and r e s i s t a n c e a r e i l l u s t r a t e d t h r o u g h t h e e x p e r i e n c e s o f f o u r d i f f e r e n t g r oups o f s t u d e n t s , l a b e l l e d t h e "super j o c k s " , " o r d i n a r y j o c k s " , "women j o c k s " and "non j o c k s " . Each o f t h e s e groups d e v e l o p e d d i f f e r e n t e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e i r gender i d e n t i t i e s b u t a l l t e n d e d t o r e p r o d u c e r a t h e r t h a n t r a n s f o r m p a t r i a r c h i a l gender r e l a t i o n s . iv >Table of Contents I. Social Reproduction in Physical Education and Sport: An Introduction 1 A. The Problem ' 8 B. Organization of the Document 8 II. The Social Reproduction of Gender in Physical Education: A Review of Related Literature 12 A. Women in Education 12 1. Sex Differences Research 13 2. Equality of Opportunity and Sexism 16 B. Distributive Analyses of Gender and Schooling 20 C. Relational Analyses of Gender and Schooling 23 1. Socialization and Gender Stereotyping in Schools 23 2. Ideology, Gender and Schooling 26 D. Research on the Social Construction of Gender and Class Identities 30 E. Gender, Physical Education, and Sport 36 III. Ideological Production and 'Lived* Experience: The Problem of Method 46 A. The Qualitative Research Tradition 47 B. Feminist Research in the Qualitative Tradition 52 C. The Study 54 1. The Research Process 55 D. The Setting 55 1. Gaining Access 58 E. Data Collection Techniques ' 60 1. Participant-Observation 60 1.1 Observation of Courses 63 1.2 Observation of Social Events and Non-Class Time 65 1.3 Observation of Two Small Groups of Students 66 2. Interviews 68 2.1 Student Interviews 70 2.2 Faculty Interviews 72 3. Document Analysis 73 4. Informants in the Study 77 F. The Research Experience 78 IV. The Social Production of Knowledge and Gender in the Physical Education Programme 83 A. Canadian University Physical Education Degree Programmes 83 B. The Case: A Physical Education Degree Programme 91 1. Theory Courses 92 2. Performance Courses 97 V C. Faculties' Definitions of Important Knowledge in Physical Education 98 1. "Really Useful Knowledge" and Skills 99 2. Interesting Interpretive Knowledge 103 D. Outside the Core: Socio-Cultural and Interpretive Perspectives 104 E. The Treatment of Gender in Physical Education Theory Courses 106 1. Gender as a Variable in Biological and Behavioural Theory Courses 106 2. Gender as Sex Differences in Biological and Behavioural Courses Ill 3. The Treatment of Gender in Socio-Cultural Theory Courses 117 F. Knowledge and the Treatment of Gender: Alternative Views 125 G. Performance Courses and the Social Construction of Gender " 127 H. Knowledge and Gender in the Programme: A Concluding Statement 131 V. Knowledge and Gender: Students' Perspectives 135 A. Students' Orientations to Physical Education 136 1. Students' Reasons for Choosing Physical Education 136 1.1 Physical Education as a Logical Choice 137 1.2 Physical Education as a Second Choice 138 1.3 Physical Education as a Useful Programme of Studies 141 B. Physical Educat ion Students' Choices: The Search for Applied and Useful Knowledge 145 C. Students' Expectations of the Degree Programme 147 1. Learning How to Teach 147 2. Learning How to Perform 148 3. Learning How to Improve the Performance of Others 150 D. Performance Excellence and Applications: to Practice: Students' Expectations of Physical Education 151 1. Students' Definitions of Important Knowledge in Physical Education 152 2. Biological and Behavioural Theory Courses as "Applied" and "Really Useful Knowledge" 152 3. Socio-Cultural Theory Courses as "Non Applied" or Peripheral Knowledge 155 E. Performance Courses and "Really Useful" Skills 158 F. Important Knowledge in Physical Education: Students' Views of "Applied" and "Really Useful" Knowledge 161 v i G. Students' Perspectives on Gender 164 1. Gender as Sex Differences 164 2. Gender as a D i s t r i b u t i v e Issue 168 3. Gender as a Re l a t i o n a l Issue 170 H. Knowledge, Performance and Gender: Students' Reactions to Alternatives 173 VI. Accommodation, Resistance and the So c i a l Construction of Gender i n Physical Education Students' Lives 177 A. Groups Defined by Gender i n the Degree Programme 178 B. Jocks 178 1. The "Super Jocks" 179 2. The "Women Jocks" 188 3. The "Ordinary Jocks" 210 4. The "Non Jocks" 222 C. The S o c i a l Construction of Gender: Concluding Remarks 237 VII. Knowledge, Gender and S o c i a l Reproduction i n Physical Education: Concluding Comments 242 A. Summary of the Research Findings 242 B. Accommodation, Resistance and S o c i a l Reproduction: A F i n a l Note 252 C. Suggestions f o r Further Research 255 Bibliography 257 Appendix A 266 Appendix B 269 v i i List of Tables Table I: Summary of the Physical Education Degree Course Requirements by Academic Units 57 Table II: Summary of Year and Sex of Informants 76 vii i List of Figures Figure One: Summary of the Research Process 59 Figure Two: Students Enrolled in the Degree Programme During the 1984-85 Academic Year 75 ix Acknowledgement I would l i k e to thank my supervisor, Dr. Jane Gaskell, for her constructive criticisms, help, encouragement and patience during the writing of the dissertation. I would also li k e to thank Dr. Donald Fisher and Dr. Richard Gruneau for their comments, criticisms and support. Special thanks go to the faculty and student informants who gave so w i l l i n g l y of their time and ideas through the data c o l l e c t i o n phase of the study. I am also indebted to the Isaak Walton Killam Trust for the finan-c i a l support that allowed this project to become a reality. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to acknowledge the support of my friends Tracy Defoe, Connie Edwards, Micheal Grant and Claire Young whose help, criticisms and encouragement made a d i f f i c u l t task easier. 1. Chapter One Social Reproduction in Physical Education and Sport: An Introduction Play, games and sport have been conceptualized and theorized i n a number of different ways. To some they are independent, frivolous and enjoyable a c t i v i t i e s . To others they are U t o p i a n , unproblematic a c t i v i -ties that are beneficial to both individuals and society. They are also viewed as a c t i v i t i e s that are determined and dominated by c a p i t a l i s t forces and instruments of class exploitation and domination. Fi n a l l y , there are those who see them as constitutive social practices that are involved in the production and reproduction of social relations in society. It i s this last view of play, games and sport that forms the basis for the analysis i n this dissertation. When play, games and sport are viewed as constitutive social prac-tices, they are seen as h i s t o r i c a l l y produced, s o c i a l l y constructed cultural forms that are linked to the relations of power and domination that exist i n the society of which they are a part. It i s the nature of the links between play, games and sport, and the social reproduction of the relations of power and domination in society that are pivotal in analyses of this kind. Play, games and sport are not assumed to be entirely determined by the material conditions of the society. Rather, they are seen as cultural forms that have been created and produced by human agents in ways that contribute to and oppose social reproduction. It i s recognized i n this framework "that sports seem to be implicated in social reproduction and hegemony but only i n a way that constantly threatens to break apart and become transformed" (Gruneau, 1983, p.152). 2. Important questions i n analyses of play, games and sport as consti-tutive social practices are those that ask not only how they have been constituted i n ways that contribute to social reproduction but, also, how they oppose and provide the potential for the transformation of social relations. These questions focus on the contradictions and paradoxes that exist i n sport, individuals' interpretations and attribu-tions of meaning to their experiences in sport and link them to the production and reproduction of social relations and hegemony. As Gruneau (1983) says, i t i s important that we have to be "more sensitive to the d i a l e c t i c a l relationships between s o c i a l l y structured p o s s i b i l i -t i e s and human agency" (p.51). Typically, analyses of the relations between sport and social reproduction and hegemony have focussed on class, rather than on gender (see. e.g. Beamish, 1982; Gruneau, 1983; Hargreaves, 1982). These analyses have generally been concerned with theoretical issues and, as such, have l a i d the foundation for further empirical work. 1 The work that i s being done on the social reproduction of class relations in sport i s important because i t i l l u s t r a t e s that social reproduction i s an active, ongoing process involving a complex relationship between social structure and human agency. Although gender has generally been neglected by those interested in social reproduction i n sport, there i s an increasing interest in analyses of the social reproduction of gender relations in physical education and sport (see. e.g. Bray, 1984; H a l l , 1985; Lenskyj, 1983). The framework that i s used for analyses of class relations i n sport i s suitable for 3. analyses of gender. I t provides a means of l i n k i n g ideology, gender and s o c i a l reproduction, and i n d i c a t e s the importance of understanding t h i s process i n terms of women's and men's experiences i n p h y s i c a l education and sport. W i l l i s ' (1982) work i s an example of a t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the r o l e that sport plays i n the production of p a t r i a r c h i a l i d e o l o g i c a l messages, and the ways i n which these messages are r e a l i z e d i n the reproduction of gender r e l a t i o n s . His a n a l y s i s i s a t h e o r e t i c a l explo-r a t i o n of the ways i n which sport produces and reinforces i d e o l o g i c a l d e f i n i t i o n s of gender r e l a t i o n s that assert, at the l e v e l of common sense, men's n a t u r a l , b i o l o g i c a l s u p e r i o r i t y . He a l s o explores, i n h i s essay, the ways i n which women's reactions to these i d e o l o g i c a l messages help to reproduce the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s of gender. W i l l i s (1982) begins h i s a n a l y s i s by arguing that i n order to understand how "ideology works" i t i s important to examine how i t mani-f e s t s i t s e l f within i n d i v i d u a l s ' common sense views of the world. Ideology i s defined by W i l l i s (1982) as the process of l e g i t i m a t i o n , i n i t s d i f f e r e n t forms within a l l e x i s t i n g s o c i e t i e s , whereby a c e r t a i n organ-i z a t i o n ... system of order and power and access to reward i s constituted as the only possible, or the only f a i r pattern of human r e l a t i o n s . (p.124). He argues that ideology i s only e f f e c t i v e i f i t can "dissemble i t s own nature" (p.124). This i s a c r u c i a l point i n h i s a n a l y s i s . W i l l i s (1982) contends that we can only understand t h i s dissembling nature of ideo-logy i f we r e a l i z e that the general notion of ideology i s an abstraction, and that ideology proper e x i s t s only through i t s manifestation at the l e v e l of apparently 4. concrete circumstance within the zone of common sense, within what is taken to be reality. (p.124). Thus, for Willis, the task is not only to examine the contents of ideological messages, or what the ideology says but to show how these are understood by individuals in the social world. Willis (1982) suggests that the operation of ideology can be repre-sented in three stages. These stages are: (1) The ideological force of definition, (2) the re-interpretation of discrepancies in social sub-regions, and (3) the located rebirth of ideology. In the first stage, Willis (1982) suggests that it is important to identify the contents of an ideology, that is to identify what the ideology says. An example of this in our society is the belief in the natural competitiveness and aggressiveness of men and the corresponding weakness and emotional nature of women. Willis (1982) argues that it is these beliefs about the nature of reality that provide a powerful force of definition of the ideology; powerful, because it "seeks to define reality, to find in reality what will satisfy itself, and to neutralize or change what seems to contradict itself" (p.124). Thus, if men show themselves to be more competitive and aggressive than women in their everyday lives, this presents itself as evidence, within our common sense understanding of the world, that men are naturally stronger than women. This is seen as a biological fact rather than an ideological construction and it is this that represents the "powerful force of definition of ideology". In the second stage of his framework, the re-interpretation of discrepancies in social sub-regions, Willis (1982) argues that it is 5. important to explore the ways i n which ideological definitions enter into individuals' common sense views of the world. He suggests that when ideology becomes a part of our common sense definitions of r e a l i t y then i t i s well equipped to neutralize or redefine any challenges to, or alternative views of, reality. For example, W i l l i s (1982) states that i f "ideology can penetrate [sic] into an area that appears to be autonomous, natural or the biolo-g i c a l " (p.12) then i t i s i n a strong position to counter any challenges or alternative explanations that may be put forward. This makes sport an ideal area for ideological infusion. Sport, which i s generally assumed to be an autonomous a c t i v i t y that i s r e l a t i v e l y free from ideo-l o g i c a l manipulation, provides us with apparently incontrovertable evidence that, because of their biology, men are naturally superior to women. For example, in head to head competition men can be seen to be faster, stronger, and go higher than women. This display of men's biological superiority provides patriarchial ideology with a powerful force of definition. When an ideological definition becomes part of a culture's common sense, i t i s i n a strong position to counter alternative definitions. Thus, when the definition of women's biological differences are tran-slated into proof of women's natural infe r i o r i t y to men, women who show themselves to be superior athletes risk placing themselves in a "catch 22" situation as their performances provide evidence to challenge pa-t r i a r c h i a l definitions of their natural capabilities. The performances of strong, competitive women are countered by raising questions about 6. the femininity of the women athl e t e s . When i t i s b e l i e v e d that women are not n a t u r a l l y strong, competitive or aggressive, women who are a l l of these are dismissed as threats on the grounds that they are not t r u l y feminine women. Thus by defi n i n g these women as i d i o s y n c r a t i c and unrepresentative of women g e n e r a l l y the i d e o l o g i c a l d e f i n i t i o n remains i n t a c t . The r e a l dynamic of the i d e o l o g i c a l process occurs, f o r W i l l i s (1982) i n the t h i r d stage. I t i s i n t h i s stage that i d e o l o g i c a l mes-sages are r e a l i z e d i n the production of the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s of gender. He argues that i n the t h i r d stage the concrete s o c i a l elements invested with ideology take on an i d e o l o g i c a l l i f e of t h e i r own and give a genuine r e b i r t h to those b e l i e f s with which they have been invested. (p.127). This i d e o l o g i c a l r e b i r t h occurs as soon as i n d i v i d u a l s accept the under-l y i n g d e f i n i t i o n of the s i t u a t i o n . I n d i v i d u a l s may not n e c e s s a r i l y agree with t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of r e a l i t y , but i f t h e i r challenges to the contents of t h i s r e a l i t y do not take the form of a counter r e d e f i n i t i o n , the i d e o l o g i c a l d e f i n i t i o n of r e a l i t y w i l l have been accepted. In the case of women i n sport W i l l i s (1982) notes that women tend to react to the b e l i e f that women are b i o l o g i c a l l y i n f e r i o r to men i n two ways. They e i t h e r c o l l u d e with the i d e o l o g i c a l d e f i n i t i o n and show overt signs of t h e i r femininity and s e x u a l i t y both on and o f f the f i e l d , or they challenge t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , but do so t o t a l l y within the terms of the i d e o l o g i c a l d e f i n i t i o n . Thus, women who take on men i n head to head competition to prove t h e i r equivalence serve only to re i n f o r c e the notion that women's sport i s evaluated i n r e l a t i o n to only one c r i t e r i o n 7. - the performance of men. In attempting to redefine their position in this way women accept the very standards that they are trying to fight against. It is in this way that challenges to ideological definitions can have reproductive rather than transformative effects and in essence give patriarchial gender relations a "rebirth". Willis' (1982) analysis is useful as a framework for examining social reproduction in physical education for two primary reasons. First, it suggests that ideological reproduction is a complex and con-tradictory social process that is "realized" at the level of the individual. Secondly, it emphasizes that individuals are actively invo-lved in the process of the social production and reproduction of gender relations. Thus, Willis' (1982) framework indicates that it is impor-tant to understand not only how ideological messages about gender are constituted but also how these messages are experienced, interpreted, and accommodated to and resisted by women and men. Although Willis' (1982) analysis focusses on sport, it is useful for understanding social reproduction in physical education, where there is a large emphasis on sport. The value of this analysis for an exami-nation of the social reproduction of gender relations in physical education is that it suggests that it is important to understand the relationship between ideological messages that are presented to students in physical education programmes and their reactions to these as they produce and reproduce the social relations of gender in their daily lives. 8. The Problem The purpose of this study i s to examine the production and reproduc-tion of gender relations within one university undergraduate physical education degree programme. The study explores the relations between the nature of knowledge i n the degree programme and the production and reproduction of gender relations within the programme. It examines the ways i n which patriarchial ideology enters into the subject matter of this programme and explores the ways in which students define and create their gender identities within this structure. Organization of the Document This dissertation i s organized into seven chapters. The second chapter draws on the literature on women and education, social repro-duction i n education, and gender and physical education and sport i n order to develop a framework for an analysis of the social reproduction of gender relations in physical education. The chapter begins with a discussion and critique of the research on women and education and moves on to consider the work on the reproduction of class and gender r e l a -tions i n the education literature. I argue in this section that the concepts of accommodation and resistance are important as they place individuals and human agency at the centre of the inquiry. The review continues with a discussion of the research on gender and physical education and sport and provides a critique of sex differences research and discussion of feminist scholarship i n this area. The third chapter is the methods chapter. It outlines the research 9. method and data c o l l e c t i o n techniques used in the study. This study i s located within the feminist qualitative research tradition and the chapter presents an account of both the research method and process. The data collected i n the study are presented i n three chapters. Chapter four examines the nature of knowledge in the degree programme. This chapter shows that the programme i s structured around two different approaches to the analyses of play, games and sport. In the majority of courses knowledge from the biological and behavioural sciences i s used to analyze performance. In this approach faculty define important knowledge as knowledge that can be applied to performance. The second approach i s one where knowledge from the social sciences and humanities i s used to examine play, games and sport as h i s t o r i c a l l y produced, s o c i a l l y constructed cultural practices. Important knowledge in this approach i s viewed by faculty as knowledge that contributes to an under-standing of the role of play, games and sport i n the production and reproduction of social inequality. This structure is one that provides students with alternative, sometimes contradictory views of play, games and sport. The chapter explores the link between the nature of knowledge and the treatment of gender i n the programme. It shows that when gender is viewed within an applied framework i t i s presented as a biological category and treated as a variable that affects performance. This treatment of gender emphasizes sex differences and explains them as individual traits rather than as s o c i a l l y produced, c u l t u r a l l y defined categories. When gender i s taught i n socio-cultural courses i t i s 10. presented i n ways that challenge and contradict biological and behavi-oural definitions of gender that focus on individuals and instead define differences as a problem that i s located within individuals themselves. The chapter concludes by showing that the diversity that exists i n the degree programme ensures that students are presented with different views of gender. Chapter f i v e examines physical education students' definitions of important knowledge i n physical education and explores their reactions to the ways i n which gender i s taught in the programme. The chapter shows that students' strong applied orientations, in which important knowledge i s defined as knowledge that can be applied to performance, f a c i l i t a t e the acceptance of patriarchial definitions of women's capabilities i n sport. However, this acceptance i s not total as many students are exposed to alternative explanations of gender issues and they react to these i n different ways. Chapter six i s the focal point of the study. It examines the ways in which physical education students create their gender identities within the programme. This chapter outlines the ways i n which four groups of students, the super jocks, the ordinary jocks, the women jocks, and the non-jocks accommodate to and resist patriarchial ideolo-g i c a l messages. It examines how these groups of students create their gender identities i n ways that lead to the reproduction of patriarchial gender relations. The f i n a l chapter of the dissertation presents the conclusions that have been drawn from the study. This chapter considers the implications of these conclusions and presents recommendations for further research. 11. Endnotes The e m p i r i c a l work t h a t has been done i s l a r g e l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h h i s -t o r i c a l a n a l y s e s o f s p o r t and s o c i a l r e p r o d u c t i o n . There i s a d e a r t h o f e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s e s t h a t examine t h e r e l a t i o n s between i n d i v i d u a l s ' e x p e r i e n c e s as " p l a y e r s " and " s p e c t a t o r s " and t h e s o c i a l r e p r o d u c t i o n o f c l a s s and gender r e l a t i o n s . 12. Chapter Two The Social Reproduction of Gender in Physical Education: A Review of Related Literature This chapter draws on three different literatures i n i t s discussion of the production and reproduction of gender relations in physical education. The chapter begins with the literature on women and educa-tion and discusses and critiques research on sex differences, equality of opportunity and sexism. Following from this the research literature on the production and reproduction of class and gender relations i s discussed and I argue that the concepts of accommodation and resistance are important as they place individuals and human agency at the centre of the inquiry. The chapter moves on to discuss the literature on gender and physical education and sport and I argue that physical educa-tion i s an important site for exploring the social construction of gender relations. Women and Education The most pervasive themes i n the literature on women and education concern the issues of sex differences, equality of opportunity, and sexism. Each of these themes w i l l be discussed as ways of understanding the social reproduction of gender relations. It w i l l be argued that a focus on any one of these issues reflects an author's theoretical con-cerns and p o l i t i c a l leanings. 13. Sex Differences Research A major theme i n the research on women and education i n v o l v e s sex differences. * This work attempts to quantify and e m p i r i c a l l y study differences between males and females i n a b i l i t i e s and behaviours. I w i l l argue that t h i s work tends to view gender r e l a t i o n s as based i n differences i n i n d i v i d u a l t r a i t s , rather than i n s o c i a l l y and h i s t o r i -c a l l y produced patterns of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s . There i s a massive l i t e r a t u r e on sex differences, of which Maccoby and Jacklin's (1974) i s the most comprehensive review. Researchers interes t e d i n sex differences look at the average differences between men and women, boys and g i r l s , i n p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , s o c i a l competence, co g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s , etc. The research documents sex differences and seeks to e x p l a i n t h e i r existence i n terms of both b i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s and s o c i a l i z a t i o n . For example, the fact that women are underrepresented i n science and mathematics, and findings that they perform l e s s w e l l than men i n these subjects are often explained i n terms of women's poor s p a t i a l perception. This kind of research defines sex differences i n a framework that focusses on i n d i v i d u a l t r a i t s and provides explanations of differences that r e i n f o r c e that problem as an i n d i v i d u a l one rather than one that has been s o c i a l l y developed and h i s t o r i c a l l y produced. In a d d i t i o n to focussing on i n d i v i d u a l t r a i t s , the sex differences research l i t e r a t u r e stresses i t s s c i e n t i f i c and "objective" character. I t s purpose i s to document c a r e f u l l y whether sex diff e r e n c e s do indeed e x i s t , whatever popular b e l i e f holds. As J e r i Wine (1982) argues The " s c i e n t i f i c methods" that are predominately used i n psychology require removal of the i n d i v i d u a l s under 14. study from the contexts of t h e i r n a t u r a l human environ-ments, reduction of the units of observation to r e a d i l y c l a s s i f i a b l e simple behaviours of i n d i v i d u a l s , a detached r a t i o n a l worship of c o n t r o l and " o b j e c t i v i t y " , an extremely narrow a h i s t o r i c a l , non-contextual space and time frame-work, and reverence for q u a n t i f i c a t i o n and f o r s o - c a l l e d "basic" (meaning ph y s i c a l ) l e v e l s of a n a l y s i s . Though psychology i s purported to be concerned with understanding the i n d i v i d u a l i t i s an abstracted, i d e a l i z e d i n d i v i d u a l based on group averages. (p.69). Thus, the " s c i e n t i f i c " nature of t h i s work and i t s focus on the measure-ment of i n d i v i d u a l t r a i t s leads to explanations of sex di f f e r e n c e s that have separated i n d i v i d u a l s ' behaviours from the s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l contexts of t h e i r l i v e s . Sex differences research not only focusses a t t e n t i o n on the d i f f e -rences rather than s i m i l a r i t i e s that e x i s t between men and women, and boys and g i r l s , but i t tends to measure t r a i t s that are g e n e r a l l y valued i n the society, and those where men can be shown to be superior (Wine, Moses, and Smye, 1978). There are many differences that e x i s t between people i n the world, yet sex di f f e r e n c e s research tends to focus on t r a i t s that are viewed as important. As W i l l i s (1982) suggests the a n a l y t i c s o c i o - c u l t u r a l task i s not to measure these differences p r e c i s e l y and e x p l a i n them p h y s i c a l -l y , but to ask why some differences, and not others, are taken as so important, become so exaggerated, are used to buttress s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s or prejudice. (p.120). Questions about the s e l e c t i o n of the t r a i t s that are to be measured and analyses of why these p a r t i c u l a r t r a i t s are deemed important remain unasked and unanswered i n sex differences research. The r e s u l t i s that the t r a i t s that are studied i n t h i s research appear to be measures that are v a l u e - n e u t r a l because questions about t h e i r s e l e c t i o n , importance 15. and relationship to ideology are masked. As a result this research can be used as a legitimation of patriarchial ideology, and a justification for the social inequality that exists i n society. The purpose of this critique of sex differences research i s not to deny the existence of sex differences, but to question some of the assump-tions underlying this work. Sex differences research focusses on differences in individual t r a i t s and seeks to explain them in terms of biology and socialization. This view of gender relations defines the problem of differences as a personal trouble for women. When the pro-blem i s located inside individuals then solutions to these problems are also viewed in these terms. This research focusses on individuals rather than on social issues and suggests that individuals themselves have to change i f differences are to be reduced and equality achieved. This way of framing gender relations i s problematic because i t is based on, and leads to the production of assumptions about the i n f e r i o r i t y of women. For example, in a f i e l d l i k e physical education where there i s an emphasis on the body and human performance, sex differences i n per-formance can be used as evidence of men's natural, biological superiority. The focus of this work on individuals and human performance outcomes draws attention away from questions about how play, games and sport have been s o c i a l l y constructed and h i s t o r i c a l l y produced, and turns i t towards differences in individuals' biological and behavioural tra i t s . The result i s that this work reproduces cultural stereotypes of women and men and presents them as personal troubles located within women and men themselves. Thus, in sex differences research the combination of the assumptions 16. about the r e l a t i o n s h i p that e x i s t s between i n d i v i d u a l s and s o c i a l s t r u c -ture, and the assumptions about the v a l u e - n e u t r a l i t y of the t r a i t s being measured combine i n ways that present i d e o l o g i c a l messages about gender r e l a t i o n s as s c i e n t i f i c f act. I f these assumptions remain unexamined, the findings of t h i s research can be used to suggest that s o c i a l inequa-l i t y i s a problem that i s located within i n d i v i d u a l s , rather than i n the structures that e x i s t i n society, which helps to l e g i t i m i z e and repro-duce p a t r i a r c h i a l ideology. Equality of Opportunity and Sexism The issues of e q u a l i t y of opportunity and sexism i n the women and education l i t e r a t u r e i n v o l v e s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l analyses of sexual i n e q u a l i t y and sexism. Researchers interested i n e q u a l i t y of opportunity u s u a l l y examine, using q u a n t i t a t i v e measures, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of males and females at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of ,the educational system. This approach aims to i d e n t i f y and document, s t a t i s t i c a l l y , incidences of i n e q u a l i t y i n education. In a review essay of current developments i n the sociology of women's education Arnot (1985) makes the f o l l o w i n g d i s t i n c t i o n between the issues of e q u a l i t y of opportunity and sexism. Most such research ( e q u a l i t y of opportunity) i s empiri-c a l rather than t h e o r e t i c a l , using q u a n t i t a t i v e methods and concentrating l a r g e l y on what could be provided for g i r l s rather than f i n d i n g out what g i r l s want for them-s e l v e s . I t i s as i f ethnographic research had never existed and the projects which feminist teachers have developed by working d i r e c t l y with g i r l s i n schools had never happened. (p.124) 17. This quotation is helpful to the extent that it exemplifies the kinds of tensions that exist between these two approaches to women's education. Although Arnot (1985) does not hide her disapproval of quantitative re-search that focuses on equality of opportunity, she makes explicit her assumptions about the difference that exists between the two approaches. She assumes that individuals who focus on sexism rather than inequality in education begin with women's and girl's experiences as teachers and students in a male defined educational system. Following from this she believes that research that focusses on women's interpretations of their experiences in male defined and controlled educational systems will enable a greater understanding, and ultimately lead to a redefinition, of the sexist structures that exist in them. The difference between equality of opportunity and anti-sexist approaches to studying women's education outlined by Arnot (1985) might be viewed as differences in theory and method. I would argue that it is inadvisable to write off one group as atheoretical and empiricist as Arnot (1985) does or to identify individuals concerned with equality of opportunity as "egalitarians" and individuals who believe in anti-sexism in education as "feminists" (Weiner, 1984). This approach is problematic in two ways. First, it confuses the distinction between "egalitarian" and "meritocratic" and, secondly, it dichotomizes the work on women's education and effectively dismisses the work on equality of opportunity on the grounds that it does not qualify as "feminist" or theoretical. It is more useful to view both of these approaches to women's education as valuable contributions to understanding women's education. 18. They both contribute to our understanding i n d i f f e r e n t ways. On the one hand, i n d i v i d u a l s who are concerned about e q u a l i t y of opportunity focus on the ways i n which the education system d i s t r i b u t e s i t s resources among the sexes. D i s t r i b u t i v e questions such as the numbers of women teachers i n p o s i t i o n s of authority i n education systems i n comparison to men, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of sexes i n d i f f e r e n t subject areas i n the school curriculum and a comparison of the achievement scores of boys and g i r l s i n these subjects are the kinds of questions that might be asked from an e q u a l i t y of opportunity standpoint. Research into such questions has provided important evidence of an i n e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n of educational resources and opportunities to males and females i n the educational systems of western s o c i e t i e s . On the other hand i n d i v i d u a l s who are concerned about sexism, Weiner's (1984) "feminists", ask d i f f e r e n t kinds of questions. These i n d i v i d u a l s view sexism as a r e l a t i o n a l question rather than a d i s t r i b u -t i v e question. The d i s t i n c t i o n between d i s t r i b u t i v e and r e l a t i o n a l questions i s that d i s t r i b u t i v e questions seek to i d e n t i f y the underlying material and symbolic factors that contribute to s o c i a l ranking and i n e q u a l i t y and r e l a t i o n a l questions examine the ways " i n which i n d i v i -duals d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by these c r i t e r i a are r e l a t e d to each other within a system of groups and categories" ( B e t e i l l e , 1969, p.13). 3 p o r these i n d i v i d u a l s the educational system i s seen as s e x i s t because i t presents male assumptions about the world as normative and unquestioned truths. Spender (1982) adopts such a view of sexism i n her work and i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s approach i n her lengthy statement that 19. i n our current education system i t i s no longer neces-sary to make blatant r a c i s t and s e x i s t statements i n order to teach members of oppressed groups about t h e i r own i n f e r i o r i t y and, hence, the ' j u s t i f i c a t i o n ' f o r t h e i r oppression. The issues can be managed i n a much more detached manner. A l l that i s needed i s to present students with the idea that there i s 'truth', and 'proven' and 'objective' knowledge, and then to teach them anything from h i s t o r y to biology from l i t e r a t u r e to science, as they are presently constructed, and students w i l l almost i n v a r i a b l y l e a r n that oppressed groups are i n f e r i o r and therefore j u s t i f i a b l y excluded from positions of i n f l u e n c e and power. (p.4) In t h i s approach to sexism i n d i v i d u a l s seek to understand the ways i n which men's a b i l i t y to c o n t r o l and define educational experiences means that both women and g i r l s and men and boys are educated i n ways that l e g i t i m a t e and j u s t i f y male hegemony as n a t u r a l and just. I n d i v i d u a l s who ask r e l a t i o n a l questions about sexism i n education attempt to deconstruct p a t r i a r c h i a l ideology by focussing on women's and g i r l s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of, and experiences i n , the education system. In exploring women's experiences i n a male defined educational system researchers are l e d to consider s o c i a l r e a l i t y from the standpoint of women (Smith, 1975) rather than from the p a t r i a r c h i a l standpoint often implied i n s e l f - c o n s c i o u s l y "objective" analyses. The assumption that d i s t r i b u t i v e and r e l a t i o n a l analyses of women's education are mutually e x c l u s i v e i s misleading. This i s not always the case. D i s t r i b u t i v e analyses of i n e q u a l i t y i n education may lead to r e l a t i o n a l questions. Once researchers have documented where i n e q u a l i t y e x i s t s they may then wish to explore why i t e x i s t s , how i t i s experi-enced, reproduced and p o s s i b l y a l t e r e d . Conversely, researchers who begin with women's experiences i n education may ask d i s t r i b u t i v e 20. questions, about, perhaps, course enrollment or student achievement, as a means of understanding the structures and organization within which women's experiences are constituted. For example, one might begin by analyzing q u a n t i t a t i v e measures of g i r l s and boys career choices and use t h i s information as the basis f o r q u a l i t a t i v e empirical work that ex-plores students' reasons f o r t h e i r choices and t h e i r perceptions of the p o s s i b i l i t i e s and l i m i t a t i o n s of the choices a v a i l a b l e to them. Thus, researchers may use information from d i s t r i b u t i v e questions i n r e l a -t i o n a l analyses as a means of creating a greater understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between i n d i v i d u a l agency and structure. The d i s t i n c t i o n between r e l a t i o n a l and d i s t r i b u t i v e approaches to research on women's education i s u s e f u l to the extent that i t provides a point of reference f o r understanding and l o c a t i n g the d i v e r s i t y that e x i s t s i n t h i s work. This d i s t i n c t i o n w i l l be used to organize the work that e x i s t s i n t h i s area, which has been described by Walker and Barton (1983) as "diverse, heterogeneous and, sometimes, unrelated to a main t h e o r e t i c a l p l a t f o r m " (p.2). D i s t r i b u t i v e Analyses of Gender and Schooling Many of the researchers who are interested i n the issue of equal r i g h t s f o r women i n education have located t h e i r work within an equal opportunity model, and used t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i a l science methods to con-duct t h e i r research. There i s considerable d i v e r s i t y i n the focus of t h i s work. For example, researchers have examined women's and g i r l s ' l o c a t i o n s i n the educational system and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards higher 21. education, and the relationships between subject selection, examination results and the career choices of boys and girls in schools. Work by Deem (1978), Byrne (1978), and more recently Hamid Don (1984), Hamilton and Leo-Rhynie (1984), and Acker and Warren Piper (1984) are examples of this kind of analysis. It is clear from this work that girls often make different subject choices than boys. These differences are made clear by Hamilton and Leo-Rhynie (1984) who concluded from their work on secondary education in Jamaica contrasting images persist of an active, responsible, analytically thinking confident male, preparing himself for work in an age of science and technology, versus that of a girl who may be strongly motivated academi-cally, but is also anxious and uncertain she is thus more likely to select a 'safe* course of study than a challenging traditionally male dominated one. (p.135) The 'safe' course of study referred to in the preceding quotation is one that involves arts rather than the sciences. These differences, and others that have been documented in this research have shown that gender inequality, along with class and racial inequality, is a problem within the educational system. This research is important as it documents the extent and nature of the inequality that exists for women at a l l levels of the educational system. An example of research that begins with a distributive question, course enrollment in the high school, but views it within a relational framework is Gaskell's (1985) work on working class females perspectives of gender segregation in school tracking. This research begins with the issue of course enrollment patterns in high school, which are usually assumed to be produced by the school rather than the students and 22. "reconceptualize(s) the issue in a way that incorporates both the orientation of the student, i.e., individual consciousness, and the organization of the school, i.e., social structure" (p.49). Gaskell's (1985) study did not employ the kinds of social science research methods that have typically been used to gather data on course enrollment (survey, questionnaires) in schools. Instead, students were interviewed in ways that were "loose enough to allow the students' own categories and assumptions to emerge" (Gaskell, 1985, p.50). The re-sults of this study and this approach to course enrollment stress the importance of individual agency in understanding the ways in which class and gender categories are .reproduced in schools. Girls do not make the choices they do simply because the school structure dictates those choices for them. The process is more complex than that. The relation-ship between women's consciousness and social structure is complex and cannot be explained by simple correspondence. As Gaskell (1985) con-cludes in her study They (the girls) knew, for their own good reasons, what the world was like, and their experience acted as a filter through which any new message was tested, confirmed, rejected, challenged, and reinterpreted. Changing their minds would have meant changing the world they experienced, not simply convincing them of a new set of ideals around equality of opportunity and the desirability of a different world. (p.58). Therefore, the issue of equality of opportunity is not simply a distri-butive question but a more complex one that involves the relationship between human agency and structure. 23. Relational Analyses of Gender and Schooling Relational analyses of gender and schooling seek to understand the role of the school in the reproduction of the sexual division of labour and patriarchial power structures that exist in society. This work can be located within the larger body of work in education that focusses upon social reproduction (e.g. Apple, 1982; Apple and Weis, 1983; Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977; Young, 1971). Apple (1982) suggests that education needs to be viewed as part of a larger economic and ideological configuration. (p.7) and goes on to say that the real issue for researchers interested in reproduction is to understand how education is "related to class, race and gender and the control of the production and distribution of economic (and cultural) power." (Apple, 1982, p.7). The majority of the work by educational theorists interested in social reproduction has focussed on ideology and socialization. Relational analyses of gender and schooling have also focussed on ideology and socialization in the school. These two issues have dominated the rela-tional research on gender and schooling. Socialization and Gender Stereotyping in Schools i A major focus of feminist research on gender and schooling has been on the ways in which schools reinforce and reproduce the culturally developed gender appropriate behaviours that exist in society. Re-searchers' concerns, in this work, are about the ways in which schools provide students with experiences that socialize them in ways that 2 4 . reproduce the gender differentiation that exists in society. Walker and Barton (1983) describe this research in the following way research into this area has been prolific. Its main direction has been towards demonstrating how culturally created differentiations among gender-appropriate traits, conduct and roles which find expression in the world outside school are either reproduced or rein-forced in classrooms or, even, subtly transformed by edcuators to construct new bases for gender stereo-typing. (p.6). Some examples of work that focusses on gender stereotyping in schools are Delamont's (1980) reader on sex roles and the school, King's (1978) work on infants' classrooms, Sue Sharpe's (1976) research on how girls learn to be women and more recently Minn's (1985) discussion of sex-typing in the primary school, and Barrett's (1985) exploration of the structuring of stereotyping in education. The findings from this research, although diverse, show that gender stereotyping occurs in schools in a number of ways. Researchers have found evidence to show that teachers' expectations about pupils' be-haviours, academic interests and achievements, and future career choices reflect gender stereotypes. They have also found that classroom prac-tices (seating arrangements, management strategies, work and play activities) and school rituals (assemblies, uniforms, etc) are frequently organized and structured around gender stereotypes. Although the findings of this work are important, as they i l l u -strate the ways in which schools may contribute to the reproduction of gender categories, the research is not without criticism. This work tends to adopt a mechanistic model of socialization in which It is 25. assumed that if schools create gender differentiated categories then students will automatically be socialized into them. This is not always the case. Pupils, and teachers resist and counteract the messages they receive in subtle and often complex ways. Anyon (1983) in a critique of mechanistic analyses of socialization argues that individuals rarely completely accept or reject sex-role appropriate attitudes and behaviour. She contends that gender development involves not so much passive imprin-ting as active responses to social contradictions. (p.19). Based on Genovese's (1972) analysis of black American slaves responses to their enslavement, Anyon (1983) suggests that women and girls respond to social contradictions using strategies of both accommo-^  dation and resistance. In other words, most women and girls neither totally accept nor reject patriarchial definitions of femininity. Rather, they act in ways that both accommodate to and are resistant of these definitions. She suggests that women who appropriate the ideology of femininity and then shape it to their own ends are accommodating by accepting a feminine role. Yet, they are also resisting by using their femininity to gain power in their relationships with men. The use of both accommodation and resistance provides women with a means of actively coping with and gaining security in a patriarchial social world. These actions, because they are individual rather than collective and enacted within the existing patriarchial social order, are reproductive rather than transformative. Anyon (1983) contends that the accommodation and resistance to that (a paterna-listic dependency on men), by individual females, is often a defensive action (no matter how creative) that 26. is aimed not, at transforming patriarchial or other social structures, but at gaining a measure of protec-tion within these. (p.34). She goes on to argue that while accommodation and resistance as modes of daily activity provide most females with ways of negotiating individually felt social conflict or oppression, this individual activity of everyday life remains just that: individual fragmented and isolated from group effort To change these relations of power, not only is individual activity necessary, but it will be necessary for women to join together to take collective action. (p.34). Thus, for Anyon (1983), the transformative potential from these indivi-dualized actions of accommodation and resistance can be realized through the collective efforts and actions of women to change the power rela-tions in society. Anyon's (1983) critique raises two important points. First, the messages that students receive in schools about gender appropriate behaviours are rarely unified or complete. Most often they are contra-dictory and inconsistent. Secondly, individuals react to these messages by acts of accommodation and resistance. Thus, the reproduction of gender categories is not a simple process of socialization. Rather it is a complex and often contradictory process of individual and collec-tive acts of accommodation and resistance. Ideology, Gender and Schooling The second major focus of the research on gender and schooling has been on the relationships between patriarchial ideology, social structure and schooling. This work is characterized by its diversity. 27. Feminist theorists and researchers who are interested in the social reproduction of gender relations are faced with many of the same pro-blems that face researchers interested in the social reproduction of class in education. Namely, that they must produce analyses that are sensitive to the subleties and complexities of the power relations that exist in society and their impact upon social reproduction. Walker and Barton (1983) reiterate this point in their statement that the 'male hierarchical ordering of society' works through a variety of forms and modes. Any crude depic-tion of this ordering in terms of a simple sexual division of labour would result in analysis which seriously misrepresents a subtle and shifting reality and which would be blind to quite crucial ways in which male cultural and economic power is exerted. (p. 5) The challenge for feminists examining patriarchial ideology and schooling is to develop analyses that are sensitive to the complexities of the social production and reproduction of gender relations. In order to understand the ways in which ideology orders social relations in society, and how women have been excluded from positions of influence and control in ideological structures a number of feminists have focussed their attention on theoretical issues (e.g. Arnot, 1980; Barrett, 1980; Deem, 1980; Kuhn and Wolpe, 1978; Keohane, Rosaldo, and Gelphi, 1982; Smith, 1975). In their work these writers have examined the ways in which ideology has been conceptualized in different sociological traditions and have used their analyses as the basis for the development of conceptual frameworks that are sensitive to the fact that women's perspectives, interests and experiences are often excluded from positions of power in institutions where ideological forms are 28. produced and distributed. The basic premise of this theoretical work is that patriarchial ideology cannot be understood using theoretical frame-works that take for granted the silence of women. The purpose of this work is to develop frameworks that are sensitive to women's experiences and interests (Smith, 1975). Feminists have also been interested in examining the ways in which knowledge has been socially constructed so that patriarchial definitions of reality are presented as objective, universal, truths about human experience. Duelli Klein (1984) in an analysis of women's studies describes the focus of this work in the following way WS (women's studies) takes issue with the separation of knowledge and politics, theory and practice, mind and body, public and private, and other dichotomies. (p.294). She goes on to state that By endorsing the feminist principle that 'the personal is political' WS (women's studies) declares itself as an overtly political alternative to man-made education and is determined to produce and transmit knowledge in which women's intellectual activities as much legitimi-zation and recognition by society as are men's. (p.294). Examples of researchers who have challenged the ways in which knowledge has been socially constructed by men to serve the interests of men.are Spender and Sarah's (1980) edited collection on sexism and education, Spender's (1982), and Weiner's (1985) analyses of sexism in schooling, and Culley and Portuges's (1985), Thompson (1983), Sherman and Beck's (1977), Spender (1981), and Smith's (1975) critiques of the production of knowledge in higher education and discussions of the impact of feminism on the academic disciplines. 29. This work on sexism i n education has been focussed on two major areas. On the one hand i t has presented a feminist c r i t i q u e of the s o c i a l construction of knowledge. Researchers have argued, f o r example, that 'objective' knowledge about the world i s , frequently, knowledge that has been produced by men, for men, about men, that i s then genera-l i z e d to a l l humans. Feminists have argued that claims of u n i v e r s a l i t y and o b j e c t i v i t y are simply used to mask the f a c t that much of the knowledge taught i n schools and u n i v e r s i t i e s i s s e x i s t because i t as-sumes that men are the norm and that male knowledge i s then u n i v e r s a l , and representative. The second major focus of the work on sexism i n education has been to develop and construct knowledge about women that r e f l e c t s women's orienta t i o n s to and experiences of the world rather than men's i n t e r p r e -tations of women's experiences. This, work i s described by Spender (1981) who argues that t h i s knowledge i s not merely a mirror image of male organization but an attempt to forge a new way of thinking about the world which i s more consistent with women's experience. (p.7). She goes on to state that because t h i s approach i s s t i l l being formed that i t i s d i f f i c u l t to define. However, Spender (1981) does suggest that what can be s a i d i s that i t i s personal and p o l i t i c a l , and t h i s constitutes a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e. Rather than separate the personal and p o l i t i c a l from the pro-duction of knowledge, feminists are attempting to bring them together and i n t h i s synthesis they are s t r i v i n g to construct more accurate, adequate and comprehensive explanations than those which emerged under the r e i g n of o b j e c t i v i t y and male supremacy. (p.7). 30. Therefore, in this work, feminists have been engaged in research that aims at challenging patriarchial definitions of women and their experi-ences i n the world. Although the theoretical and empirical work that examines the relations between ideology and gender i s important, much of i t is limited because of i t s narrow focus. The majority of this work has examined the production and distribution of ideological messages in schools. However, this i s only one part of the process of the repro-duction of gender relations. The missing link, or perhaps the under-developed link, i n this work i s research that explores the ways i n which women and g i r l s , and men and boys interpret, accomodate to, and resist the ideological messages they encounter as students or instructors in educational institutions. Patriarchial ideology i s not created and reproduced i n a vacuum. It is modified, challenged and reproduced by the actions and reactions of individuals as they interpret and respond to their daily experiences i n educational institutions. Understanding the ways in which ideological messages are accomodated to and resisted by individuals i n crucial i f we are to understand the reproduction of gender relations. Research on the Social Construction of Gender and Class Identities There are few examples of research on gender relations i n education that have examined the ways i n which individuals' choices and decisions are structured by, but also challenge, modify and reproduce patriarchial ideology. 31. The majority of this work has focussed on white working class adole-scent males (e.g. Corrigan 1979; Willis, 1977). This research is important because it examines and attempts to explain the ways in which working class "lads" create and express their class and gender identi-ties in school and how such forms of class and gender expression can be implicated in the reproduction of class relations. Willis' (1977) analysis of working class culture provides valuable insights into the processes of cultural and social reproduction. Willis (1977) argues very strongly against analyses of cultural forms that are "too reductive" and warns against a "crude materialist notion of the cultural level" (p.171). He goes on to claim that in a more general sense it cannot be assumed that cultural forms are determined in some way but as an automatic reflex by macro determinations such as class location, region, and educational background .... we need to understand how structures become sources of meaning and determinants on behaviour in the cultural milieu at its own level (italics). Just because there are what we can call structural and economic determi-nants it does not mean that people will unproblematically obey them. (p.171). The way that Willis (1977) views the cultural is not simply as a set of transferred internal structures (as in the usual notions of socialization) nor as the passive result of the action of dominant ideology down-wards (as in certain kinds of marxism), but at least in part as the product of collective human praxis. (p.4). Willis (1977) manages, in his work, to illustrate that social reproduc-tion is an active and ongoing process involving a complex relationship between social structure and human agency. Unfortunately, there have been few studies that have explored the 32. ways in which girls or women make sense of the social structures that bound their lives and seek to understand how these girls and women, through their interpersonal relationships, interpret, modify, challenge or reproduce the patriarchial gender relations that exist in society. The research that has explored the reproduction of gender relations has focussed on young or adolescent girls. The most notable of these are McRobbie's (1978) analysis of "working class girls and the culture of femininity", Fuller's (1985) examination of black girls in a London comprehensive school, Anyon's (1983) exploration of working class and affluent girls responses to contradictory sex role ideologies in the United States, Davies's (1984) exploration of deviance and gender in an English, midlands comprehensive school and Stanworth's (1983) study of sexual divisions in the classroom. The four studies cited in the preceding paragraph although quite different in many respects share a common goal. They aim at under-standing the ways in which girls in different class locations and of different racial and cultural backgrounds make sense of their gender identities in the social world. McRobbie (1978), in her research, concentrated on the contradictions and apparently unresolvable con-flicts which the girls' culture had to deal with and somehow accommodate; (p.97). As a result of her work McRobbie (1978) found that working class girls, like Willis' (1977) "lads", articulate their femininity in often para-doxical ways. McRobbie (1978) found that the lives of the girls she studied were clearly bounded by an acceptance of their class and gender 33. positions. She discovered that the picture which was r e v e a l e d displayed a remarkable, i f complex homogeneity. The r e p e r t o i r e of responses was t y p i f i e d by an ultimate i f not wholesale endores-ment of the t r a d i t i o n a l female r o l e and of femininity, simply because to the g i r l s these seemed to be per-f e c t l y ' n a t u ral'. (p.97). Yet, despite t h i s acceptance of the t r a d i t i o n a l female r o l e , the g i r l s used t h e i r femininity as a means of gaining a t t e n t i o n i n school. Thus the g i r l s opposed the school's t r a d i t i o n a l expectations f o r g i r l s (pas-s i v i t y , neatness, d i l i g e n c e , and passive femininity) and replaced i t with one that was more o v e r t l y feminine and sexual. The paradox i s , simply, that i n t h e i r opposition to the school's d e f i n i t i o n of appropriate behaviour for g i r l s , the g i r l s i n McRobbie's (1978) study used t r a d i t i o n a l l y feminine ways of gaining power and c o n t r o l . They used t h e i r "female" s e x u a l i t y to do so. Thus i n opposing the p a t r i a r c h i a l ideology of the school they i n f a c t reproduced t r a d i -t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s of femininity. As McRobbie (1978) so a p t l y concluded i n her study working c l a s s g i r l s are "both saved by and locked within the c u l t u r e of femininity" (p. 108). The few researchers who have studied the ways i n which g i r l s deve-lop t h e i r gender, c l a s s , and c u l t u r a l and r a c i a l i d e n t i t i e s i n t h e i r everyday l i v e s have recognized that the process of s o c i a l reproduction i s f a r from straightforward. G i r l s may, f o r example, encounter i d e o l o -g i c a l messages that are inconsistant. Their reactions to these messages may appear to be o p p o s i t i o n a l , yet u l t i m a t e l y , have reproductive conse-quences. For example, g i r l s receive contradictory messages about 3 4 . appropriate behaviour when they are at school. They are expected to work hard to maximize their chances for success i n the labour market. Yet, they are also presented with strong messages that g i r l s are expected to be successful wives and mothers and should place a higher priority on achieving success i n domestic rather than waged labour. If g i r l s conform to the expectations of the school that they work hard and be good students, they often have to act i n ways that are seen as t y p i c a l l y "feminine", and be passive, neat and well behaved. Thus, by concentrating on the attainment of credentials for success i n the labour market, a choice that i s potentially oppositional to the p a t r i -archial definition of women as domestic labourers, g i r l s often assume roles that correspond to very traditional definitions of "feminine" behaviours. G i r l s , on the other hand, who do oppose the schools' expec-tations that they be passive and well behaved often do so by exaggerating and emphasizing their feminine sexuality. Thus, these g i r l s use tradi-t i o n a l l y "feminine" methods to counter the schools' definitions of appropriate "feminine" behaviour but do so in ways that are reproductive. The complexity of the process of social reproduction has created problems for researchers who have attempted to analyze gender relations in education. Social reproduction cannot be adequately explained with-out considering the ways in which individuals experience and respond to the patriarchial ideologies that they encounter i n their social l i v e s . The concepts of 'contradiction', accommodation, and resistance pro-vide a useful framework for analyses of social reproduction. Gidden's (1979) defines contradictions as principles [which] operate i n terms of each other but 35. at the same time contravene one another. (p.14). The notion of contradiction is important in analyses of social reproduc-tion as it illustrates that ideological messages are never entirely consistant and unified. The contradictions that exist in social life are central to analyses of social reproduction as they emphasize the dynamic nature of this process and stress the importance of resistance and the potential for challenges to the social order. Anyon's (1983) discussion of accommodation and resistance are close-ly alligned to Gidden's (1979) definition of contradiction. In her analysis of students responses to ideological messages, Anyon (1983) recognizes that individuals actively respond to ideological contradic-tions in acts of accommodation and resistance. The concepts of accommodation and resistance are important for analyses of gender relations in education as they place individuals and human agency at the centre of the inquiry. This is crucial because it provides researchers with a framework that is sensitive to the fact that individuals, through their experiences in social systems, can become critical of social practices and act in ways that illustrate how ideolo-gical hegemony can be opposed and, ultimately, transformed. Yet, these concepts also point to the necessity of examining the unintended conse-quences of certain forms of opposition. For example, Willis' (1977) "lads" or McRobbie's (1978) "girls" discussed earlier, illustrate the ways in which certain forms of opposition create the unintended conse-quences of the reproduction of class and gender relations. My argument is that if we are to understand the ways in which 36. patriarchial ideology is produced and reproduced in educational settings it is essential to examine the ways in which individuals experience social practices in specific settings and the actions that they take (both to accommodate and resist) in order to cope with this social world. Analyses of gender relations in education, then, must explore both the patriarchial structures and ideology that exists in the system and students' experiences of and reactions to contradictions in this social order. It is at the level of individual action that ideology is experienced and where social relations are reproduced or transformed. Gender, Physical Education and Sport Feminist writers have generally neglected physical education and sport as areas of interest to consider the issues of the social con-struction and reproduction of gender relations. This lack of interest is somewhat surprizing given that historical importance of physical education and sport as mechanisms for the development of 'manliness' in young Victorian and Edwardian 'gentlemen' (See e.g. Connell, 1983; Mangan, 1983). The pivotal role that physical education and sport have played, historically, in the development and social construction of masculinity would seem to make them important sites for exploring the social construction of gender relations. It is perhaps the close associations of physical education and sports close associations with masculinity that have contributed to them being overlooked by feminists. The dismissal of both physical education and sport as unimportant by many feminist writers seems to me to reflect a clear lack of understanding of their significance i n the reproduction of gender relations i n western societies. I believe that this lack of interest i n physical education and sport i s consistent with the silence that exists i n the feminist literature with respect to the social con-struction of masculinity and i t s relations to the production and reproduction of male hegemony. The fact that physical education and sport play a significant role in the reproduction of masculinity make them important areas for analyzing the production and reproduction of male hegemony. Although physical education and sport have not received much atten-tion i n the feminist literature, there is a literature on women and sport. The work that has been done on women and sport can be catego-rized i n the same way as the work on women and education. This work i s concerned with the issues of sex differences, equality of opportunity, and relational analyses of gender. Most of the work that has been done on women and sport has focussed on sex differences. ^  This research f a l l s into three broad categories: femininity studies, sex-role socialization studies, and androgyny stu-dies. The f i r s t category of research, the femininity studies, have attempted to show that women athletes are s t i l l psychologically feminine despite their participation and involvement in "masculine" a c t i v i t i e s or sport (see. e.g. Landers, 1970; Metheny, 1964; Money and Ehrhardt, 1972). The problem with this research i s that i t assumes that sport i s a "naturally" masculine a c t i v i t y and that women (who are not "naturally" masculine) athletes risk losing their femininity by participating i n sport. The biological explanations for the sex differences that are 3 8 . implied in this research are based on a set of questionable assumptions. This work implies that it is unnatural for women to be involved in sport and in so doing provides explanations that reproduce patriarchial definitions of women's inferiority and presents them as natural and inevitable. The second category of studies, sex-role socialization research, focusses on the differential effects of gender on sport involvement. (See. e.g. Felshin, 1974; Lewko and Greendorfer, 1977; Hart, 1976). This work examines' the role conflicts that occur for women athletes who perceive their roles as women and athletes to be contradictory and attempts to explain these in terms of sex differences in socialization. The problem with this research is that it reinforces and reproduces stereotypes about the incompatibility between being a women and an athlete. These studies attempt to explain any conflicts they find as personal problems located within women athletes, which draws attention away from analyses of the ways in which sport serves to reproduce these cultural stereotypes of women. The third category of research, the androgyny studies, differ from the femininity and sex-role studies in so far as they use measures of "psychological androgyny" (the possession of both masculine and feminine characteristics) rather than measures of "masculinity" and "femininity" (see. e.g. Duquin, 1977). Despite this difference, androgyny studies reflect many of the same problems as the femininity and sex-role studies. This work continues to focus on the characteristics of indivi-duals and attempts to explain sex differences in these terms. This 39. not only serves to reinforce a view of sport as a "natural" phenomenon, rather than as a socially constructed historically produced cultural form, but also implies that women who are involved in sport are anoma-lies. The portrayal of women athletes as androgynous is problematic as this work has simply changed the nature of its measures but has not questioned any of the assumptions on which they are based. These stu-dies reinforce and reproduce the same stereotypes of women as both the femininity and sex-role stereotyping studies. The sex differences research on women in sport shares many of the same assumptions and problems as its counterpart in the women and educa-tion literature. In an area of study such as physical education and sport that focusses so extensively on the body this research reproduces cultural stereotypes and presents them as natural and immutable. My position is that this work is based on a set of assumptions that provide support for and legitimation of the gender relations that exist in society and for this reason the validity of the framework that it is based on ought to be seriously questioned and critiqued. Research that has moved away from biological and psychological explanations for sex differences in sport has been concerned with the issues of equality of opportunity, and the social and historical produc-tion and reproduction of gender relations in physical education and sport. The work that exists on the issue of equality of opportunity for women in sport has generally viewed the problem of inequality as a distributive one (see. e.g. Riordan, 1985; Theberge, 1984; Vickers and Gosling, 1984). This research has documented and described the extent of the inequality that exists for women athletes and coaches in sport 40. and has focussed i t s attention on the problems that exist within physical education and sport rather than on individuals. Questions such as the numbers of programmes, the funding, f a c i l i t i e s , and opportunities for mobility to leadership positions available to men and women i n sport are typical of the concerns that are studied i n this research. Although these analyses are important because they document and describe the nature and extent of the inequality that exists i n physical education and sport they do not and cannot explain why and how this inequality i s produced and reproduced. Researchers who have moved away from distributive analyses of sexual inequality and sex differences have begun to focus on relational analyses of gender i n sport. H a l l (1985) defines gender relations i n the following way gender relations, l i k e class relations, are i n essence power relations whereby men, as a social group, have more power over women than women have over men since they are s o c i a l l y constructed, not b i o l o g i c a l l y given, they are not fixed; rather, they are subject to his t o r i c a l change and can be transformed. (p.27). She goes on to argue that in order to answer our sociological questions about gender inequality i n sport we must abandon our i n s i s -tence that gender i s a dichotomous category. To see gender i n this way, rather than as a system of r e l a -tions, means that our questions remain distributive rather than relational. For instance we continue to ask what factors, what barriers, prevent women from achieving f u l l equality i n sport rather than to examine the nature of the social relations both past and present, which determine gender inequality. It i s important to ask how sport came to embody and recreate male power and domination. (p.27). In attempting to shift the'terrain of analysis from distributive to 41. relational issues i n physical education and sport considerable attention has been paid to the methodological basis for a feminist sociological analysis of gender issues i n sport. For example, Ann Hall's (1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985) work has played a central role in this i n i t i a t i v e . In a review of the sociological research on women i n sport H a l l (1978), noted that most of the literature concerning gender stratification i n sport has been either conceptual, polemical or characterized by rhetoric. (p.36). She went on to suggest that one could probably take this a step further and state that l i t t l e i f any of the conceptual literature has been grounded in a theoretical perspective regardless of the sociological paradigm. (p.36). In her more recent work H a l l (1984, 1985) has argued for analyses of women in sport that are grounded in feminist social theory. She has drawn upon her knowledge of the theoretical and methodological debates in the feminist literature to challenge "the androcentric assumptions which have shaped our sociological knowledge about women in sport" (1984, p.84) and to provide guidelines for feminist social analyses of sport. Hall's work does not stand alone. There are other notable discus-sions of the theoretical issues i n feminist analyses of sport (see. e.g. Beamish, 1984; Bray, 1984; Boutilier and San Giovanni, 1983; W i l l i s , 1982). Although these a r t i c l e s are diverse in their orientations they do however a l l share a commitment to social analyses of gender issues in 42. sport that help us understand the ways i n which sport produces and maintains male hegemony. They suggest that the key to understanding the way i n which sport produces and reproduces p a t r i a r c h i a l gender r e l a t i o n s i s to examine women's experiences i n sport and trace the ways i n which they i n t e r p r e t , experience and challenge p a t r i a r c h i a l i d e o l o g i c a l messages. Despite t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l work there are few examples of empirical studies that have explored women's int e r p r e t a t i o n s of and reactions to t h e i r experiences as p a r t i c i p a n t s i n p h y s i c a l education and sport. There are a number of h i s t o r i c a l analyses of the ways i n which p h y s i c a l education and sport reproduced gender r e l a t i o n s i n society and women's reactions to t h i s (see. e.g. Atkinson, 1985; Fletcher, 1985; Hargreaves, 1985; Lenskyj, 1983). This work has provided some important and v a l u a b l e i n s i g h t s into women's reactions to p h y s i c a l education and sport i n the l a t e 19th and e a r l y 20th century. However, h i s t o r i c a l analyses, by t h e i r very nature, cannot examine women's int e r p r e t a t i o n s of and reac-tions to t h e i r experiences as they are being l i v e d . H a l l (1985) only found three examples of such empirical work. They are, Fritschner's (1978) study of how the weakest (women, c h i l d r e n and u n a t h l e t i c males) s u r v i v e i n karate, an exaggerated p h y s i c a l environment, Prendergast's (1978) exp l o r a t i o n of the ways i n which women used t h e i r experiences i n s t o o l b a l l to develop and maintain a sense of s o l i d a r i t y , and Imray and Middleton's (1983) examination of the ways i n which c r i c k e t i s used to mark the boundaries between the p u b l i c and p r i v a t e spheres of the l i v e s of women i n a Yorkshire, E n g l i s h v i l l a g e . This work i s important as i t / 43. begins with women's experiences as subordinate "players" and uses these as the bases for analyses of the ways in which sport structures are constructed to keep them in this position. There are few theoretical or empirical relational analyses of gender in physical education. The h i s t o r i c a l work mentioned earlier are the best examples of this work. This lack of interest i n physical education i s somewhat surprising given the distinctions that exist between physical education and sport. Physical education programmes, especially for women, do not consist of just sport. The ways in which these programmes have been constructed and students' reactions to them are important i n understanding the social reproduction of gender r e l a -tions. The empirical work that has been done on physical education has been largely atheoretical and has not attempted to locate g i r l s ' expe-riences of their physical education classes within a larger framework of social reproduction. Although this work represents a f i r s t step as i t begins with g i r l s ' descriptions of their own experiences as p a r t i c i -pants in physical education classes i t does not view these experiences in relation to the production and maintainence of male hegemony. For example, Evan's (1984) and Griffin's (1983, 1984) research findings suggest that physical education i s viewed by many g i r l s as irrelevant and boring. Their findings show that g i r l s are not passive i n these classes but that they develop a variety of ways of managing their pa r t i -cipation i n class to ensure that their involvement i s minimal. Evan's (1984) and Griffin's (1983, 1984) observations suggest that physical education i s being actively resisted by a number of g i r l s in schools and this resistance needs to be viewed in relation to the 44. p r o d u c t i o n and r e p r o d u c t i o n o f gender r e l a t i o n s i n p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n . I m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n s t h a t need t o be answered a r e : i n what ways do t h e s t r u c t u r e and o r g a n i z a t i o n o f p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n programmes embody and c r e a t e p a t r i a r c h i a l gender r e l a t i o n s ? How do g i r l s r e a c t t o t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s i n p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n ? And do t h e a c t i o n s and r e a c t i o n s o f g i r l s i n p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n h a v e r e p r o d u c t i v e o r t r a n s f o r m a t i v e p o t e n -t i a l ? Answers t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s w o u l d h e l p us t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e complex and c o n t r a d i c t o r y ways i n w h i c h t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f s p o r t w i t h i n t h e e d u c a t i o n a l s y s t e m s e r v e s t o p r o d u c e , r e p r o d u c e o r t r a n s f o r m p a t r i -a r c h i a l gender r e l a t i o n s . 45. Endnotes This is not just true for research on women and education but reflects a larger trend in the social sciences (see Griffiths and Saraga (1979) for a discussion of this). Gruneau (1975) provides a discussion of the differences between egali-tarian and meritocratic critiques of social inequality in sport and argues that they are not only different but irreconcilable. 3 See Beitile (1969) for a general discussion of the distinction between distributive and relational analyses, and Gruneau (1975) for an appli-cation of these distinctions to the social analysis of sport. ^ Ann Hall (1981) provides a detailed discussion and critique of this research in sport. 46. Chapter Three Ideological Production and 'Lived' Experiences: The Problem of Method There are numerous debates i n the social sciences about the r e l a -tive merits of qualitative versus quantitative research methods. Rather than repeat the arguments, which create a rig i d dichotomy between these methods, I w i l l adopt the position taken by Howe (1985) that "the merit of a given piece of research depends on how i t responds to the f a l l i b i -l i t y of the question at issue, the f a l l i b i l i t i e s of relevant background beliefs, the nature of the question, and the broad practical and ethical constraints under which the investigation must be conducted" (p.17). Therefore, the important question becomes one of establishing the appro-priateness of the research method in relation to the theoretical issues being discussed, and not one of pitting one research method against another. The issues with which this study i s concerned involve problems of meaning and interpretation. The study examines a single case, students in one university physical education programme, and i t addresses ques-tions about gender identities and the social production of knowledge. Qualitative research methods are best suited to addressing such ques-tions. Much more, however, needs to be said about the application of qualitative methods and their use i n the study at hand. This chapter b r i e f l y discusses the qualitative research tradition i n the social sciences; including a brief review of some issues raised by feminists about research methodology. The chapter concludes with a more detailed discussion of the research process for this particular case study. 47. The Qualitative Research Tradition. Qualitative research i s used by researchers who wish to study phenomena in their natural settings. Researchers using qualitative methods assume that human actions are best understood in relation to the social contexts i n which they occur, and i n relation to the meanings that actors impute to their actions and experiences i n different con-texts. In other words, qualitative research allows researchers to examine the ways i n which individuals interpret events and to explore how these interpretations affect peoples' actions in their worlds. Research within the qualitative tradition begins with the assumption that individuals are active agents i n the social construction of r e a l i t y (Berger and Luckmann, 1967). It i s , therefore, of central importance that researchers develop an understanding of the meanings that people impute to their actions and behaviours, develop an "insiders" perspec-tive, and understand the world from the perspectives of the individuals being studied (Blumer, 1969). A number of different research techniques are employed by re-searchers who do qualitative research. Most commonly, researchers enter the f i e l d as participant-observers (see Junker, 1960) and c o l l e c t data from their observations of, and participation in, events that occur i n the social setting that i s being studied. Techniques that are frequently used by researchers to c o l l e c t qualitative data are the recording of f i e l d notes, in-depth interviews and documentary analysis. Researchers use these techniques to allow themes to emerge from their data. Data is analyzed inductively and researchers use their experiences as participant -48. observers in the field in order to understand the meanings that people attribute to the actions and events that occur in their worlds. There is considerable debate among researchers working within the qualitative tradition on the purposes of qualitative research. On the one hand it is argued that the primary purpose of qualitative research is "thick description" of the cultures that are being studied (Geertz, 1973). In this view, researchers do not attempt to explain cultural forms. Rather, they attempt to "construct an account of the culture under investigation that captures it as external to, and independent of, the research, in other words as a natural phenomena" (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983, p.8). On the other hand, it has been argued that researchers must recog-nize that they are a part of the social worlds that they are studying (Gouldner, 1970; Hammersley, 1983; Stoddart, 1977). The essence of qualitative research is its reflexivity. That is, researchers must do more than simply describe settings. They must reflect upon their expe-riences in the setting and use these to develop and test ideas and hypotheses against other information gained from the setting. For example, Glaser and Strauss (1975) and Denzin (1971) suggest that qualitative research allows individuals to systematically compare and test the themes or hypotheses that emerge from research in the field. For Glaser and Strauss (1975) qualitative research proceeds as a process of inductive reasoning that leads researchers towards the development of "grounded theory". This view of qualitative research is one that allows researchers to develop and test theory by systematically organizing 49. their experiences as participants in the social worlds that they are examining (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983). The last decade has seen a growth in qualitative research in educa-tion. Researchers have increasingly turned to qualitative methods in their attempts to understand what is happening inside school classrooms. This research has been developed in response to the recognition that quantitative, process-product research methods have been unable to fully explain the complexities of the classroom (Bogdan and Biklen, 1982). One of the problems that is encountered when one begins to consider the educational literature on qualitative research is a confusion and lack of clarity over terminology. The terms ethnography, case study, naturalistic research, participant-observation and field studies are often used synonymously. Although these terms are not mutually exclu-sive, they cannot always be used interchangeably. In so doing researchers have confused methods of inquiry with data collection tech-niques. It is important to define these terms. First, participant-observation is a strategy that researchers use to examine social settings. It refers to the role that the researcher adopts within the research setting. Junker (1960) and Gold (1958) have represented the nature of this role on a continuum that ranges from "complete participant" at one end to "complete observer" at the other. The role that researchers adopt during their investigations depends on the.nature of the research questions that are being asked and the indi-viduals and social settings that are being studied. It is not, however, unusual for researchers to adopt different roles at different times during their studies. They may act as complete observers in certain 50. situations and then in others take on the role as participant-observers. The important point about participant-observation is that it is a tech-nique that is used by researchers to collect data in natural social settings. This data collection technique allows researchers to examine the actions and behaviours of individuals within the context in which they are occurring. The terms ethnography and participant observation are often assumed to be different terms for the same thing. For example, Wenkert (1980) suggests that participant observation is a label that is conventionally used by sociologists, whereas, ethnography is the label used by social and cultural anthropologists. He suggests that field work is the generic term that is used by both. Although ethnographic research almost always involves participation-observation, they are not one-in-the same thing. Ethnography is more than a technique for data collection. It is a method of inquiry, which may include several data collection techni-ques. For example, participant-observation, in-depth interviewing and documentary analysis can be used as data collection techniques in ethno-graphy . The term ethnography, from the Greek roots "ethnos" and "graphy", literally means "writing about the nations". The unit of analysis in ethnography, the "ethnos", can be "any social network forming a corpo-rate entity in which social relations are regulated" by custom" (Erickson, 1984, p.52). Thus, ethnographic research may focus on whole communities, school districts within a community, a single schools or single class-rooms within a school. Ethnography is, however, more than a unit of 51. analysis. Its purpose is to "grasp the native's point of view, his [sic] relation to life, to realize his vision of the world" (Malinowski, 1922, p.25). Ethnography, was developed by cultural and social anthropologists in the early part of this century as a means of understanding culture from the point of view of its members (Wax, 1971). The purpose of this research was "thick description" (Geetz, 1973) rather than explanation. Ethnography has been used by researchers from different disciplines as a powerful method for understanding the complexity of the social world. The power of this method is that it can go beyond description and allow researchers to develop (Denzin, 1971; Glazer and Strauss, 1967) and test (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983) theory. Thus, ethnography is a research method that allows researchers to describe and explain the ways in which individuals view their social worlds. The term 'case study' is also one that has been surrounded by confusion. Yin (1981) suggests that case studies are often confused with a specific type of data collection technique: participant observation... not al l case studies are based on this technique, nor does participant observation always result in a case study. (p.99). Dyer (1979) suggests that case studies involve "intensive, detailed investigation of a single unit: an individual, a classroom, a school system" (p. 188). Stake (1978) identified a case as a "bounded system" and suggests that a case study involves studying what is happening within the boundaries of the system. Walker (1981) views case studies in a similar vein. He claims that case studies are "marked attempts to get 52. beyond i l l u s t r a t i v e examples of more general phenomena to the p a r t i c u l a r s and i d i o s y n c r a c i e s of the instance" (p.1). These examples i l l u s t r a t e the general nature of case study d e f i n i t i o n s . However, these examples suggest that "case study" i s a mode of inquiry rather than a technique f o r data c o l l e c t i o n . Case study research then i s a method that a l l o w s researchers to gain an in-depth understanding of phenomena i n a p a r t i c u l a r setting. The value of t h i s method i s that i t allows researchers to view and describe phenomena as they occur within t h e i r n a t u r a l settings. The d e t a i l e d examination of one s p e c i f i c case leads to the generation of t h e o r e t i c a l propositions that can be studied i n other cases i n d i f f e r e n t 'settings. Feminist Research i n the Qual i t a t i v e T r a d i t i o n There are c e r t a i n p a r a l l e l s between the arguments that researchers have used to j u s t i f y q u a l i t a t i v e research methods and the arguments that feminists have used to describe a feminist methodology. Both argue that the experiences of pa r t i c i p a n t s (i.e. women) must be c e n t r a l , and that understanding phenomena i n t h e i r n a t u r a l s e t t i n g i s what research should be about. There i s a growing l i t e r a t u r e on feminist research methodology (e.g. D u e l l i K l e i n , 1984; E i c h l e r , 1980; Roberts, 1981; Stanley and Wise, 1983). This l i t e r a t u r e i s diverse, but r a i s e s epistemological and methodological questions and issues about research that focusses upon women and t h e i r l i v e s . There i s no one appropriate or correct feminist 53. methodology, but there i s some agreement about the nature of this metho-dology. First i t i s assumed that feminist methods must "begin from women's experience as women describe i t " (Jaggar, 1983, p.384). Beginning with women's descriptions of their l i v e s or "taking the standpoint of women" i s assumed to be essential i f patriarchial definitions of r e a l i t y are to be demystified. In other words, feminist methodology, like qualitative research, places women's interpretations and descriptions of their l i v e s at the centre of the research enterprise. Closely aligned to the principle of placing women's experiences at the centre of feminist research i s the necessity for the development of a non-hierarchical relationship between the researcher and the i n d i v i -duals in the research (Mies, 1983; Oakley, 1981). The development of an egalitarian relationship between the researcher and the individuals i n the research setting i s crucial i f researchers are to be able to view the social world from the standpoints of the people who are actively engaged in i t s production and reproduction. The role of feminist researchers i s to allow women and men to describe r e a l i t y i n their own terms and i n relation to their own experiences. This can only come about through the development of trust, and a sharing of experiences between the researcher and the individuals in the study. The preceeding assumptions about the nature of feminist methodology are entirely consistent with research methods i n the qualitative tradi-tion i n educational research. The work that has begun to discuss the epistemological basis for feminist methodology (see e.g. Bowles and Due l l i Klein, 1983; Eichler, 1980; Roberts, 1981) has arisen largely in 54. response to the dominance of logical positivism in social science research. Stanley and Wise (1983) in discussion of the construction of feminist research methods state quite clearly that few of our objections, if any, are unique to us and derive from a flourishing critique of positivism within the social sciences. (p.194). They go on to say that we reject the idea that scientists, or feminists, can become experts in other people's lives. And we reject the belief that there is one true reality to become experts about. We feel that feminism's present renais-sance has come about precisely because many women have rejected other people's (men's) interpretations of our lives. Feminism insists that women should define and interpret our own experiences, Each of these aspects of feminism stands in opposition to the basic tenets of positivism. (p.194). They are, however, entirely consistent with the basic tenets of research in the qualitative tradition. The Study This study uses qualitative methods that are consistent with femi-nist methodology. The study is a single case study of one university physical education programme that uses ethnographic data collection techniques. These are: participant observation, in-depth interviewing and document analysis. This research method and the data collection techniques were selec-ted as they allowed the researcher to examine the social construction of gender relations in a natural setting. The data collection techniques allowed the researcher to adopt different roles in the setting and, as 55. such, enabled the development of an understanding of the production of gender relations from both the men and women physical education stu-dents' points of view. The Research Process Qualitative research is dynamic and circular rather than linear and sequential. Frequently the research process is depicted as a linear sequence of events where data collection techniques are described as discrete and independant parts of the study (Burgess, 1984). Accounts of the "how to's" of qualitative research (see e.g. Bogdan and Biklen, 1982; Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983; Spradley, 1979) are important as they deal with the formal procedures in the research. However, the nature of qualitative research is such that the formal procedures occur within natural social settings and, as such, are modified and changed as a result of the social contexts in which they are being used. It is this aspect of qualitative research, the interaction of the formal and informal procedures that is often missing in the methodological litera-ture 1. in order to present a description of both the formal and the informal procedures that were used in this study, the research process will be described under four sub-headings; the setting, the data collec-tion techniques, the informants, and the research experience. The Setting The study focussed on a single case, an undergraduate physical education degree programme in a large Canadian university. Canadian 56. physical education undergraduate degree programmes are characterized by diversity rather than homogeneity (Godbout, 1980). They include: pro-fessional programmes that are primarily school based, disciplinary degree programmes that are based on the study of physical education as an academic discipline, and programmes of kinesiology, kinanthropometry and others that focus on the sc i e n t i f i c analysis of human movement. The school of physical education and the undergraduate degree programme that was the focus of this study f a l l into the second category of physical education programmes. The decision to study this programme was made for two reasons. First, i t i s a typical example of a Canadian physical education pro-gramme that i s based on the study of physical education as an academic discipline. Secondly, the researcher was familiar with the programme' and was granted complete access to classes, documents and students. The study focussed s p e c i f i c a l l y on the f i n a l two years of the programme. This decision was made for a number of reasons. First, students take the highest concentration of physical education courses i n the f i n a l two years of the programme. They select courses from a common pool and are frequently in classes together. Secondly, students who are i n the f i n a l stages of their programmes can provide retrospective accounts of their experiences i n the f i r s t two years. These individuals have had more exposure to and experience in a wider range of physical education courses. Finally, this group of students are together more often than f i r s t and second year students and form a more easily identifiable group. The physical education degree programme that i s the focus of this 57. TABLE I Summary of The Physical Education Degree Course Requirements By Academic Units* If 1f Physical Education Courses II. Other Non-PhysicalU 11 11 . ; ^ II II 11 11 Theory 11 Performance/Activity 11 Education Courses 11 II 11 If II II 1 l Y e a r 11 Electives Required 11 Electives Required II 11 II 1 11 — ' 4.5 11 — 3.0 11 9.0 11 If 2 11 — 4.5 II -- 4.0 11 9.0 II 11 3 11 6.0 3.0 11 4.0 — H 4.5 II 11 4 II 7.5 1.5 II 4.0 — 11 4.5 I II 11 11 11 • 11 * A one term course with 3 weekly lecture/seminar hours is equivalent to 1.5 units. A one term performance course with 3 contact hours per week is equivalent to 1.0 unit. 58. study i s a four year programme in which students are required to take, in addition to their physical education coursework, coursework i n the faculties of arts, science or commerce and business administration. The physical education requirements i n the degree include both theory and performance courses. The physical education course requirements for this programme are summarized i n Table one. Gaining Access Obtaining permission to conduct the study was a two part process. The f i r s t step was to approach the director of the school of physical education and recreation. A meeting was set up with the director four months prior to the beginning of the study. During this meeting the purpose, methods and time frame for the study were discussed with the director. Approval to conduct the study was given during this meeting with two provisos. First, that I obtain faculty approval by approaching faculty members individually, and, secondly, that I obtain student permis-sion to do the study. Individual faculty members were approached and permission to observe their classes was obtained. Without exception, faculty allowed me to observe their classes and I encountered no opposition from this group at a l l . The students were more d i f f i c u l t to approach. The f i r s t step was to contact the Physical Education Undergraduate Society president. I met with her and explained the nature of my study. She advised me to contact students and suggested that I approach them as a whole group and then follow up with individuals. On three different occasions I explained 59. Figure One .Summary of The Research Process 1984 1985 September October November December January February March April May June Participant-Observation < > Observation of Observation Courses of Courses Student Interviews < , > Document Analysis Faculty Interviews < > < > Document Analysis Document Analysis < > < > P-0 Small Group < > of- Women 60. my research to large groups of students and, at d i f f e r e n t times during the study, obtained permission from i n d i v i d u a l students who acted as informants. In summary, gaining access was a r e l a t i v e l y simple process i n t h i s study. Approaching i n d i v i d u a l s to e x p l a i n the nature of the study provided me with a means of introducing myself and getting to know f a c u l t y and students. Data C o l l e c t i o n Techniques The study was conducted over a ten month period from September 1984 to June 1985. The data c o l l e c t i o n techniques used i n the study were: participant-observation, ethnographic interviewing and document a n a l y s i s . These techniques were used at d i f f e r e n t times i n the study and were used i n conjunction with each other as a means of generating and t e s t i n g themes and ideas that arose during the course of the f i e l d work. Each of these techniques w i l l be discussed separately i n order to depict how the research was conducted. The overlap that existed between these methods i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure One. Par t i c i p a n t ~ Observation Spradley (1979) suggests that the participant-observer comes to a s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n with two purposes: (1) to engage i n a c t i v i t i e s ap-propriate to the s i t u a t i o n and (2) to observe the a c t i v i t i e s , people and p h y s i c a l aspects of the s i t u a -t i o n . (p.54). In order to achieve both of these purposes the participant-observer becomes aware of and attends to information i n social settings that are usually ignored or not attended to by individuals i n their everyday l i v e s . This awareness of what i s going on i n social situations places participant-observers i n a unique position of being an "insider" and an "outsider" in the social situation. By viewing the setting as an i n -sider the participant-observer sees and experiences things i n similar way to others i n the same situation. On the other hand, viewing social situations from the perspective of an outsider allows the participant-observer to view the situation differently and question aspects of the situation that appear to be ignored or taken for granted by insiders. In order to become both an insider and an outsider i n a social setting participant-observers vary the degree of their involvements with both the individuals and the a c t i v i t i e s i n the setting. Spradley (1979) differentiates between high and low l e v e l s of participation. At the high end, where there i s complete participation, individuals study a situation i n which they are already participants. In the middle, there i s moderate participation and the individual seeks to maintain a balance between being an insider and outsider. Finally, at the low end, the researcher i s a passive participant or observer and i s present in the setting but does not interact with people but observes and records what i s going on. An essential part of participant-observation i s the process of record keeping, whilst i n the f i e l d participant-observers make detailed records of their observations. Although events can be documented in a 62. number of ways, they are most commonly written down in the form of fieldnotes. Spradley (1979) identifies four types of fieldnotes; condensed accounts, expanded accounts, a field work journal and analysis and interpretation. Condensed accounts, are notes that are made during field work. The researcher notes down key words, phrases and sentences in order to capture as much as possible of the event. After a day in the field participant-observers create expanded accounts from their condensed notes. The expanded account is a detailed account of what occurred in the field. The key words, phrases and sentences noted in the condensed account serve as useful reminders of what happened in the field. The field work journal is a place where the researcher can record ideas, experiences, confusions, problems, and reactions to situations that occur in the field. The dated entries in the journal provide the researcher with an invaluable chronology of events, mishaps and break-throughs that occur during the study. The journal is the researcher's personal account of the study and is an important means of achieving reflexivity about the research process. The final kind of field notes identified by Spradley (1979) are notes where the researcher records their generalizations, interpreta-tions and basic analyses of the data they have collected. This is where researchers can record hunches, identify themes and begin to generate ideas that can be followed up and tested in the field. During the course of this study my role varied between that of a full participant down to a passive participant, or observer. For the 63. majority of the study I was a moderate p a r t i c i p a n t where I was i n v o l v e d i n both p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n and observation of i n d i v i d u a l s and events i n the p h y s i c a l education programme. During the study my r o l e as a participant-observer can be described i n three d i f f e r e n t ways. I observed and p a r t i c i p a t e d i n courses, p a r t i -cipated and observed i n d i v i d u a l s i n s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s and i n the p h y s i c a l education environment, and, f i n a l l y , spent time as a participant-observer with two small groups of students. Observation of Courses During the course of the study I spent time as an observer and moderate p a r t i c i p a n t i n p h y s i c a l education theory and performance courses. Observations of courses were made i n two periods September -October, 1984 and February - A p r i l , 1985. The f i r s t observations made i n September - October, 1984 were made at the beginning of the f i e l d work. The dec i s i o n was made to observe a number of d i f f e r e n t courses i n order to develop an understanding of the d i v e r s i t y of courses that existed i n the programme. A t o t a l of 16 courses were observed during t h i s period. At l e a s t two observations were made of each course. The range of observations per course was from two to f i v e . A t o t a l of 38 observations were made i n t h i s period across the 16 courses. The courses were sampled i n order to represent the d i v e r s i t y of theory and performance courses that were taught i n the school. The sample included required and e l e c t i v e , theory and performance courses 64. from both the third and fourth years of the programme. During the observations of a l l of these courses my role as a parti-cipant-observer varied from full participation to minimal participation or observation. I sat in the classes, or participated in the activi-ties, as if I was a member of the class. I limited my participation in the classes to taking notes and did not initiate any interaction with students or professors during the observation. In class observations I made condensed notes about the subject matter, students' reactions, seating arrangements, and any other events of significance. After each observation or at the end of a day in the field I wrote an expanded version of my condensed notes. In addition, I kept a field journal diary where I noted down my frustrations, feelings and thoughts about the day I had spent in the field. During the second period of observation (February - April, 1985) of courses I observed seven different courses, four "theory" courses and three "performance" courses (see chapter four for a discussion of diffe-rences between "theory" and "performance" courses). A total of 34 observations were made of these seven courses. The minimum number of observations made for any one course was four and the maximum for one theory course was 10 observations. The second period of observation focussed on repeated observations of fewer courses. The seven courses were sampled from the two cate-gories of courses in the school. This sample consisted of courses that were either required or electives that were chosen by many of the students. 65. My role i n the second set of observations was as i n the f i r s t set of observations and varied from f u l l participation to observation. During the observations I made condensed notes, followed up with elabo-rate notes and kept a f i e l d journal i n the same way that I had done during the f i r s t set of course observations. In summary, i n the f i r s t set of observations I began with a wide focus. I sampled across.a larger number of courses and observed each course between two and three times. In the second set of observations my focus was narrower. I viewed fewer courses and more often with more specific aims in mind. In the f i r s t set of observations I was s t i l l looking at a number of d i f f e -rent aspects of the nature of knowledge in physical education, how i t was defined and taught and students' reactions to i t . In the second set of observations I was more narrowly focused and was looking s p e c i f i c a l l y at the ways i n which gender was taught and defined and students reactions to that. Observations of Social Events and Non-class Time During the period of the academic year, September, 1984 through to Ap r i l , 1985, I acted as a participant-observer with moderate participa-tion i n a c t i v i t i e s that were associated with the school of physical education. During this time I spent time socializing with physical education students at lunch, coffee, parties, and beer nights. I spent time watching games that involved physical education students and I participated i n both impromptu and organized physical a c t i v i t i e s with students. 66. My role during these observations varied from that of a participant-observer with intensive or f u l l participation to that of a passive participant or observer. Most often, my involvement as a participant-observer was moderate and I was often included i n events because I was "around". When possible I made brief notes during actual events. Most often I would make brief condensed notes as soon as possible after an event was over. At the end of each day i n the f i e l d I would write up a f u l l description of any observations from my condensed notes. In addi-tion, ideas, themes and personal interpretations about the events of the day were written up in my f i e l d journal. Obervation of Two Small Groups of Students During the f i n a l stages of the study (March - A p r i l , 1985) I spent a total of six weeks as an observer and participant-observer with two small groups of women physical education students. I spent three weeks following each group to classes, spent time with them s o c i a l l y and simply became "part of the group" for a short period of time. The decision to focus on two small groups of women physical educa-tion students was made because of my interest i n exploring the ways i n which individual students create and recreate gender relations i n their actions and reactions i n their daily l i v e s . The groups were selected because they represented two distinct but typical kinds of women i n the physical education programme. They were identified from my interviews with one of the members from each of the groups and by informants in the programme. 6 7 . The f i r s t group, two women who were close friends, were selected because they were typical of the majority of women in the programme. In my i n i t i a l contact with this group before the observation they described themselves and were described by others as, average, normal female physical education students. I approached both women in February and explained that I wanted to spend time with them i n classes and between classes i n order to try to understand what l i f e as a physical education student i s li k e . During my time with this group I went to classes, went for coffee, lunch, exercised, went to the library and relaxed with them. In my role as a participant-observer I was able to observe, take notes and ask questions about the ways in which they viewed gender relations i n the programme, their reactions to how gender was taught i n their classes and identify their definitions of and opinions on gender issues in physical education. I recorded my observations, conversations with, and any other events I encountered with these women by taking brief condensed notes. These were written up at the end of the day in f u l l . In addition, I wrote down my impressions of important themes, questions and interpretations of the days events and used these to guide my thinking and questions during the subsequent time I spent with the group. The second group of women, three friends, came to my attention repeatedly during the course of my f i e l d work. This group of women were described by other students and described themselves as different from the majority of women in physical education. These women were around the physical education f a c i l i t i e s a l o t and were easy to get to know. 68. These women were se l e c t e d because they represented a sma l l but c l e a r l y I d e n t i f i a b l e group of " a t y p i c a l " women students. 2 In the same way as I had done with the f i r s t group I approached one of the women I had p r e v i o u s l y interviewed i n the group and explained what I was doing and asked i f I could spend time with her and her friends . Again I spent three weeks going to cl a s s e s , s o c i a l i z i n g , drinking coffee, eating, exercising and just t a l k i n g and r e l a x i n g with these women. 3 j took notes where p o s s i b l e and wrote these up at the end of the day and recorded i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , questions and f e e l i n g s i n my f i e l d j o u r n a l . The focus of my i n t e r e s t , as with the other group, was on these women's d e f i n i t i o n s and in t e r p r e t a t i o n s of, and reactions to gender issues i n p h y s i c a l education. In summary, acting as a participant-observer i n d i f f e r e n t ways at d i f f e r e n t times i n the study allowed me to develop, test, modify and redevelop themes as a mean of i n t e r p r e t i n g events and i n d i v i d u a l s ' reactions to events i n the programme. This r o l e allowed me to gain an insider's view of student l i f e from both an insider's and outsider's perspective. This background allowed me to focus my ideas and to pursue the dominant, emergent theme of the study, the s o c i a l construction of gender r e l a t i o n s , i n my interviews with students and f a c u l t y . Interviews Interviews i n f i e l d research are frequently l o o s e l y structured and open ended and c l o s e l y resemble a conversation between the researcher and the informant (Spradley, 1979). The purpose of the ethnographic 69. interview i s to allow the researcher to discover the informant's inter-pretations of and feelings about issues and events in their l i v e s . It provides the researcher with a means of seeing the social world from the perspectives of the individuals in the setting. Interviewers can struc-ture the interview to ask questions about specific events, issues and experiences but the interview structure and questions frequently differ from interview to interview depending upon the individual's responses and perspectives on the social world. The ethnographic interview, then, allows the researcher to gain an understanding of the social world from the perspectives of the i n d i v i -duals i n i t . The researcher i n this situation does not assume the role of a neutral outsider. The interview i s an information gathering and sharing session. Oakley (1981) in an essay on interviewing women, argues that inter-views are not one way conversations where the interviewer e l i c i t s and receives but does not give information. She suggests that i n ethno-graphic interviews i t i s important that researchers (especially feminist ones) must develop a non-hierarchical relationship with their informants and thus develop the process as a two-way exchange of information. If researchers are asked questions about their research or about their personal l i v e s , Oakley (1981) argues that they must answer these ques-tions and use this openness as the basis for the development of a relationship with the informant that i s based on trust rather than power. Like participant-observation, ethnographic interviews vary i n their 70. structure, length and degree of disclosure, depending on the informants being interviewed. This flexibility allows the researcher to gain an insiders' perspective but, at the same time, to view the situation and examine it as an outsider. Thus, the ethnographic interview can be a powerful means by which participant-observers are able to gain an under-standing of insiders' perspectives of the social world as well as to test and verify or redevelop their own interpretations of issues in the settings they are studying. The interviews conducted during this study were semi-structured ethnographic interviews. The interviews occurred during two periods of the study. Student interviews were conducted from October, 1984 to April, 1985. Faculty interviews were conducted from May, 1985 - June, 1985. Student Interviews A total of 28 students (13 men and 15 women) were interviewed during the study. Fifteen of these students (6 men, 9 women) were in the third year of their degree programmes and the remaining 13 (7 men, 6 women) were in the fourth year of their programmes. The interviews varied in length from 40 minutes to 90 minutes. All of the interviews were tape recorded on a cassette tape recorder and they were conducted in quiet, empty spaces in the physical education buildings. The interviews were based on an interview schedule (see Appendix A) that was developed from the observations that had been made during the first month in the field. The interview schedule was broadly focussed 71. and was intended to gain information about student's lives, their per-ceptions of important knowledge in physical education, their reactions to the programme and their definitions of and reactions to gender issues. The interview schedule was piloted with four students (2 men, 2 women) in October, 1985 and was modified in the light of the pilot interviews. The pilot interviews showed that the interview schedule was sufficiently focussed to enable discussion around the issues that were being explored in the study, and that the schedule was flexible enough to allow the interviewees to describe issues that were important to them. During the course of the year the 28 students interviewed were randomly selected from the total population of third and fourth year students. The decision to randomly select interviewees was made because of the numbers of students in the third and fourth years. There were, in total, 303 students enrolled in both years, 143 (69 men, 74 women) in the third year, and 160 (79 men, 79 women) in the fourth year of the programme. It was felt that by randomly selecting students from these years that this would allow me to interview a cross section of < students who were representative of the students in both years. Twenty-eight students were interviewed as this number is approximately ten percent of the students in the year. The selection of the students was made to include approximately equal numbers of third and fourth year students and men and women. After selecting the students who were to be interviewed, I identi-fied these individuals using informants and introduced myself and explained what I was doing. After this initial introduction, we arranged 72. a time that we could meet and conduct the interview. The a c t u a l i n t e r -views va r i e d from i n d i v i d u a l to i n d i v i d u a l . In some instances the interview followed the schedule e x a c t l y and i n v o l v e d no digressions. Others were l o o s e l y connected to the schedule and ev o l v e d i n r e l a t i o n to the interviewees' i n t e r e s t i n s p e c i f i c issues. During a l l of the interviews, I began by exp l a i n i n g the research and by st r e s s i n g that the interview was a means by which I was attempting to understand students' perceptions about, p h y s i c a l education, the degree programme and gender r e l a t e d issues. The interviews were structured along the l i n e s of a conversation to the extent that I allowed the interviewee to set the pace and length and d i r e c t i o n of the discussion. My r o l e i n the interview was to introduce topics, probe f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n and d e t a i l s or examples and to respond to questions about my experiences i f they were raised. A l l of the interviews were recorded and the tapes were transcribed by a t y p i s t f o r a n a l y s i s . In addition, I wrote up my f e e l i n g s , r e s e r v a -tions and in t e r p r e t a t i o n s of each of the interviews i n my f i e l d j o u r n a l a t the end of the day. Faculty Interviews Interviews with f a c u l t y members were conducted during a three month period from A p r i l , 1985 - June, 1985. Fourteen (11 men, 3 women) of the 32 (25 men, 7 women) f a c u l t y members i n v o l v e d i n teaching courses i n the degree programme were interviewed. No members of the examining committee f o r t h i s study were used as informants. The s e l e c t i o n of f a c u l t y 73. members for interviews was made to include individuals who taught either "theory" or "performance" and required and elective courses i n the school. The fourteen faculty interviewed, (11 men, 3 women) were selected so that the various academic sub-units (e.g. sport science, sport performance, professional studies) in the school were a l l represented. The interview schedule for the faculty interviews (see Appendix B) was focussed on two areas, the definition of knowledge i n the programme, and gender issues in physical education. The schedule was developed to pursue these themes, which had arisen from the f i e l d work, student interviews and document analysis that had been conducted during the previous eight months of the study. The schedule was piloted on two faculty members in order to ensure that i t would provide a framework for discussion about knowledge in the programme and the way in which gender issues were defined and taught within the programme. The interviews varied i n length from 15 minutes - 90 minutes. The schedule was used as the basis for discussion i n a l l the interviews but also allowed the faculty members to develop the issues i n their own specific ways. A l l of the interviews were recorded on a cassette tape and were transcribed for analysis by a typist. In addition, after each interview I recorded my impressions i n my f i e l d journal. Document Analysis During the period of the study I was given access to a l l of the documents related to the structure and organization of the school of 74. p h y s i c a l education. In addition, I was given t o t a l access to a l l course o u t l i n e s , exams and materials. The document a n a l y s i s f o r the study focussed on two d i f f e r e n t kinds of documents. F i r s t , documents pertaining to the structure, organiza-t i o n and purposes of the school of p h y s i c a l education and recreation were analyzed. Secondly, course o u t l i n e s , materials and exams were used as the basis f o r analyzing the ways i n which gender was defined and represented i n courses. The d e c i s i o n to analyze documents r e l a t e d to the structure of the programme and the courses taught i n the programme was made as documents provide an important source of comparative data against which to compare data gained from the f i e l d . The f i r s t category of documents was se-l e c t e d as they provide information on the structure and organization of the school. This information i s a u s e f u l backdrop against which to lo c a t e data on the nature of the knowledge taught i n the degree programme. The second category of documents, course o u t l i n e s , exams and mate-s' r i a l s were selected as a means of gaining information about the courses where gender was taught and, i n these courses, as a means of i d e n t i f y i n g how gender issues were framed. The document a n a l y s i s began i n September, 1984 and continued at d i f f e r e n t times throughout the study. The f i r s t category of documents (three i n t o t a l ) were analyzed i n order to obtain information about the structure and requirements of the programme. This a n a l y s i s was used to guide the s e l e c t i o n of courses f o r the i n i t i a l p a rticipant-observation phase of the study. 75. Figure Two Students Enrolled In the Degree Programme During the 1984 - 1985 Academic Year 1st YEAR 2nd YEAR 3rd YEAR 4st YEAR Regular Session M F 14 15 58 52 69 74 79 79 Extrasessional Credit Courses M F Total 29 110 143 160 Total 220 220 442 TABLE II Summary of Year and Sex of Informants 11 Year 11 Male If Female 1f Total 1[ 11 1f 1f 11 1f 11 3 K 6 1 9 1f . 15 1f 11 4 1f 7 K 6 11 13 11 11 If If 11 K 11 Total If .13 K 15 11 28 f 1f 1 11 1f If 77. The course outlines for a l l of the courses in the programme were analyzed during February of 1985. Any references to gender, sex diffe-rences or women were noted and coded in each of the outline. In addition materials referring to these categories was also read and analyzed. This information was used to guide the observations and as the basis for questions in the student and faculty interviews. The document analysis continued during the study and provided the focus for questions, observations and conversations with students and faculty in the field. In addition, the analysis of the documents was structured in the light of the data obtained in the field and, as such, a l l three methods were used to guide each other. The Informants In The Study The degree programme had a total of 442 students (221 men, 221 women) enrolled in the four years of the programme during the 1984 -1985 academic year. Figure two shows the number of students enrolled in each of the four years of the programme and Table two shows the year and sex of the informants. The major informants in the study were the 28 students who were interviewed, and the five women who allowed me to participate and observe their lives for an intensive three week period. Informants ranged in age from 20 - 36. Twenty-five of the 28 were between the ages of 20 and 24. Two of the women interviewed were between 29 - 31 years of age and one of the men was 36 years old. ^  78. The Research Experience Typically, accounts of qualitative research pinpoint the problems that the researcher may encounter i n gaining access to the setting and informants within the setting. In this particular study access to the setting or individuals in the setting was not a real problem. My ex-periences during the research were that individuals, both faculty and students, were very w i l l i n g to talk to me, provide me with documents and any other information that I was seeking. At the beginning of the research experience the study was widely focussed. As the study progressed and my understanding of the programme and individuals i n the programme became clearer the research question became more specific and narrowly focussed. During the research as I engaged in my role as a participant-observer and collected data from interviews and documentary analysis I was able to formulate, modify and develop themes to explain the data I was collecting from the study. This basic form of analysis occurred as an on going process during the study. The f i e l d journal enabled a collation, synthesis and interpretation of the data, and provided a means of direc-ting and focussing the data co l l e c t i o n during the study. The major d i f f i c u l t y that I experienced i n the research was to maintain both an insider's and outsider's perspective. Field work is t i r i n g and the constant comparison of different data and the search for negative evidence and different or contradictory perspectives was very draining. This was resolved by taking "time out" from the f i e l d on certain occasions. When I began to f e e l that nothing new was happening 79. or that I had heard i t a l l before I went back to my data re-read i t , thought about i t and removed myself from the setting. It was in this way that I was able to maintain a balance between being an insider and outsider i n the setting. Another problem that I encountered was that my gender and my own background as a physical educator allowed me access to certain groups and not others. Specifically, I was, because of my sex, excluded from access to many aspects of male physical education student culture. This was only made available to me through interviews and observations, which permitted only a limited view. The opposite was true with the women physical education students. I was allowed complete access and became an insider much more easily for two reasons. First, because I was a woman and thus could relate to many aspects of their l i v e s . Secondly, because I was also active, physically able and a physical educator I was allowed access by the women who described themselves as average and representative of most women in the programme, and by the women who saw themselves as more physically able than the average women i n the programme. In the latter case i t was my physical education background and my physique and physical a b i l i t i e s as a performer on the court that allowed me to gain i n i t i a l access to this group of women students. Without the knowledge of sport and experience as a player this access would have been limited and the relationship more superficial. Thus, despite the use of numerous data collection techniques in this study, i n the end my own background and gender became important in the data collection process. With a different background and experiences I would have been given access to a different group of students. 8 0 . It was the very fact of my involvement that enabled me to take on both the insiders and outsiders role i n the setting. The f i n a l aspect of the research was the process of more formal data analysis and synthesis for the production of the written research report. The data were analyzed in two ways. First, a l l of the observa-tions, transcripts of interviews and documents were coded and every page was numbered and every lin e on every page was numbered. The f i r s t stage of the analysis was to read through a l l of the observations and interview transcripts individually and document by page and l i n e the occurrance of different themes. A l l of the data were read and analyzed a number of times to ensure that the information was categorized consistently i n a l l of the documents. The second stage of the analysis was to collate and synthesize the information that had been categorized i n the f i r s t stage and to look for the emergence of the same themes in different data sources. In addi-tion, there was a search for contradictory or negative evidence that existed i n the data. The themes were then checked against each other to ensure that they were examples of corrobrative evidence and, once again, contradictions or negative evidence was coded and categorized. The f i n a l stage of the analysis was to organize the themes gene-rated i n the f i r s t two stages of the analysis i n relation to the research questions. These were then used to provide the structure and organization for the written document. During a l l the stages of the analysis of the data the themes were checked, rechecked and generated individually and i n relation to the other data sources. It was through 81. this process of "constant comparison" (Glaser and Strauss, 1975) that the data were eventually organized and reduced in a way that addressed the central problem explored in the research, the social construction of gender relations in the degree programme. 82. Endnotes See Burgess's (1984) edited collection of autobiographical accounts of the research process in educational settings for an example of dis-cussions that combine the formal and the informal procedures that were used in qualitative research studies. These two groups of women were the most distinctive and clearly iden-tifiable groups that differentiated themselves on the basis of gender. If the focus of the study had not been on gender but on class or race then it is possible that other groups may have emerged. The three week periods spent with both groups of women ran from February 25th 1985 to April 4th 1985. Demographic data were not collected on the informants as the study addresses questions individuals experiences and interpretations of these experiences as they create their gender identities in their daily lives. 83. ChapterNFour The Social Production of Knowledge and Gender  in the Physical Education Programme Canadian University Physical Education Degree Programmes The advent of degree programmes in physical education in Canadian universities is a comparatively recent phenomenon. The first university degree programme in physical education was established in 1940 at the University of Toronto 1 (Cosentino and Howell, 1971). Physical educa-tion degree programmes at this time were designed to prepare teachers to teach physical education in schools. During the early and mid part of this century physical education was viewed as crucial in developing well rounded, balanced individuals. Physical education was justified as a subject in the school curriculum on the grounds that i t provided sound moral, intellectual, and physical development of individuals. Thus, physical education was seen as more than physical training. It was viewed as a means by which schools could develop well rounded, healthy and morally sound human beings. Cosentino and Howell (1971), quoting an excerpt from a report pro-posing the need for a degree programme in physical education, illustrate the nature of physical education in Canadian schools during the 1930's and 1940. The report argued that the teacher of physical education comes into closer contact with young men than perhaps any other member of the staff and can influence them greatly in teaching bodily health and the fine ideals of conduct .... Therefore why is i t not important also for us to send out leaders who w i l l organize and conduct athletics as 84. a means not an end; t r a i n and develop boys, not e x p l o i t them have them play for the sense of p l a y i n g as w e l l as winning; teach them sportsmanship and f i n e ways of playing? (p.45). Thus p h y s i c a l education degree programmes were designed to prepare young men to go out and to educate young boys, through the p h y s i c a l , to be responsible, moral, and healthy and f i t members of society. Exponents of t h i s view of p h y s i c a l education, f o r example, Jes s i e F e i r i n g Williams, Jay Nash, Charles McCloy, and Charles Bucher, were i n f l u e n t i a l i n developing and a r t i c u l a t i n g p r i n c i p l e s for u n i v e r s i t y p h y s i c a l education programmes that stressed p h y s i c a l education as educa-t i o n through the p h y s i c a l rather than of the p h y s i c a l . As r e c e n t l y as 1964 Jessie F e i r i n g Williams argued that p h y s i c a l education must be p r i m a r i l y concerned with our human problems ... the delinquent behaviour of young people, dishonesty i n sports, intolerance, p h y s i c a l d e f i c i e n c i e s of youth and adults, sedentary habits, the hazards of l e i s u r e time, the increase i n nervous tension and emotional disturbances. ( p . v i i ) . P h y s i c a l education was seen by Williams as a panacea for society's i l l s . He claimed that the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of p h y s i c a l education to young people i n t h e i r s o c i a l development, i n t h e i r play and recrea-t i o n , i n t h e i r h e a l t h p r a c t i c e s , i n t h e i r r a c i a l and r e l i g i o u s attitudes, and i n t h e i r philosophic values .... p h y s i c a l education i s an education of the poten-t i a l s of the whole person through p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , rather than an e x c l u s i v e education of the p h y s i c a l . ( p . v i i ) . The subject matter of physical' education was centered around knowledge and techniques that could be used by prospective teachers to achieve an education through the p h y s i c a l . 85. The early 1960s in the United States and the late 1960's and early 1970's Canada marked the beginnings of a number of debates and struggles over the content and purpose of university physical education programmes. These debates were centered around the creation, and definition of an academic discipline for physical education. The debates about the development of physical education as an academic discipline began in the United States in response to criticisms about the subject matter of university physical education programmes. Franklin Henry's (1964) paper entitled "Physical education: an academic discipline" provided the impetus for discussion and debate about the appropriate subject matter for university physical education. On the one hand there were individuals, led by Franklin Henry who argued that physical education programmes ought to be concerned with the study of the academic discipline of physical education. Henry (1964) argued that the disciplinary study of physical education involved learning a theoretical and scholarly body of knowledge about play, games and sport that had no direct application to physical education in schools. The debate that occurred after Henry's (1964) claims for an acade-mic discipline of physical education took the form of ideological struggles over the ways in which the discipline of physical education ought to be defined. Supporters of Henry's (1964) conception of physi-cal education argued that physical education had a unique body of knowledge that was cross disciplinary in nature (Morford, Lawson & Hutton, 1981). This body of knowledge has been defined by Morford, et. al. (1981) as 86. the social-historical and contemporary roles of physi-cal and ludic activities in culture, in both primitive and advanced societies, and the contribution of these activities to the emotional, social, physical and aesthetic development of the individual and, selected biological, psychological, and mechanical factors which are associated with the individual's growth and motor development, functional status, and abilities to engage in physical and ludic activities. This body of knowledge was to be organized around the scientific and scholarly study of play, games and sport. Opponents of the disciplinary movement in physical education were critical of Henry's (1964) conception because it was unrelated to teaching in schools. These individuals countered with an argument for a discipline of physical education that was organized around the science of teaching and coaching (see, e.g., Broekhoff, 1982; Siedentop, 1980). This conception of physical education, like Henry's (1964) vision, was rooted in the scientific and scholarly study of play, games and sport. It differed, however, to the extent that it was based on the assumption that the essential subject matter of the field was knowledge that could be applied to teaching and coaching. It is important to recognize that the organization and development of physical education programmes in universities has resulted from struggles over the appropriate definition of the subject matter of the field. On the one hand there are individuals who argue that physical education has its own unique body of knowledge about play, games and sport that is worthy of study as an end in itself, irrespective of any applications to teaching. On the other hand there are individuals who 87. argue p h y s i c a l education's knowledge base i s a p p l i e d and the s c i e n t i f i c and s c h o l a r l y study of play, games and sport must be l i n k e d to teaching and coaching. What i s c l e a r from the struggles to j u s t i f y and l e g i t i m i z e the existence of a d i s c i p l i n e of p h y s i c a l education i s that there has been a move towards the use of s c i e n t i f i c methods from the b i o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l sciences to study play, games and sport. Sport science has emerged as a powerful mechanism for the generation and l e g i t i m i z a t i o n of a sophisticated body of d i s c i p l i n a r y knowledge f o r the f i e l d . A somewhat s i m i l a r move towards the development of p h y s i c a l educa-t i o n as an academic d i s c i p l i n e occurred i n Canada, a l b e i t somewhat l a t e r than i n the United States. The move towards the " s c i e n t i f i c " study of play, games and sport i n Canadian u n i v e r s i t y p h y s i c a l education pro-grammes can be most c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e d i n two ways. F i r s t i n the period between 1961-1968 the f e d e r a l government es-t a b l i s h e d p o l i c i e s "to support research i n f i t n e s s and amateur sport" (Macintosh, Franks, Gruneau, Greehorn and Bedecki, 1982 p.3-38) and t h i s support "played a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n the e a r l y stages of the development of a research component i n schools and f a c u l t i e s of p h y s i c a l education and r e l a t e d d i s c i p l i n e s " (Macintosh et.al., p.3-38). This research support was dire c t e d towards the development of " s c i e n t i f i c " projects and p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y s c i e n t i s t s . Macintosh et. a l . (1982) i n a report on f e d e r a l government sport p o l i c y making state that the tremendous imbalance of research funding among the 'sub-areas' i n favour of projects concerned with condi-t i o n i n g programs, and descriptions of p h y s i c a l and 8 8 . functional capacities of Canadians ... was also re-flected in the direction of research and expenditure of monies for laboratories and equipment in Canadian universities. This imbalance reflected to a large extent the strength and number of exercise physio-logists in the universities. (p.3-41). In 1969, the federal government declared a moratorium in order that the programme of funding could be examined. The research committee of the advisory council was established to promote scientific research in schools in physical education and played an important role in the development of research in Canadian university physical education pro-grammes . The scholarship and bursary programme, while influencing research in physical education programmes, also had an impact on undergraduate programmes. Macintosh et. al. (1982) argue that recipients of the bursaries and scholarships "played important roles in the development and direction of undergraduate and graduate programs in the late 1960's and early 1970's" (p.3-40). This development was towards the creation of physical education programmes that moved away from a single focus, physical education as a school-based subject, towards the study of physical education as an academic discipline. The study of physical education as an academic discipline placed the scientific analysis of sport and physical activity at its core. Secondly, .1979 the Canadian Council of University Physical Educa-tion administrators held a national conference on the theme of "Body and Mind in the 90's". This conference was held because the Council determined that it was time to reassess both the professional and discipline degree.programmes 89. i n physical education, kinesiology and related disciplines. (p.i). The purpose of the conference was to take "a forward look at degree programs i n the physical a c t i v i t y sciences at Canadian universities (p.i)". The conference dealt with 12 topics, which were selected because they were assumed to cover the major issues and concerns related to physical ac t i v i t y , sport and recreation. These topics were important because they reflected a concern with the s c i e n t i f i c and scholarly study of play, games and sport as ends i n themselves, and debates over the direction of university physical education and the application of i t s knowledge to different school and non-school based careers. The debate included issues on knowledge for i t s own sake and applications of know-ledge about performance to different l e v e l s of sport and activity. The most noticeable point to be made i s that the conference cen-tered around physical education's problems of identification. Godbout (1980) i n his summation stated that in the old days, i t was a l l quite simple because the curriculum in university physical education was direc-ted toward the teaching of physical education in the schools. Nowadays, however, such a simplistic notion, no matter how attractive i t may be to some, has changed. (p.3). The change has been the move towards the development of an academic discipline centered around the s c i e n t i f i c and scholarly study of human movement. The exact nature of the knowledge base for physical education was not resolved at this conference and, indeed, is s t i l l being debated. However, there was a strong feeling among a number of individuals that 90. s c i e n t i f i c research, both basic and applied i s essential i f physical education i s to survive as a university subject. For these individuals the "need to identify the a c t i v i t y sciences as a primary focus for physical education i s of paramount importance now and w i l l be i n the future" (p.2). It i s clear from the issues raised at the conference and the fun-ding i n i t i a t i v e taken by the federal government, that sci e n t i f i c knowledge about performance i s believed to be an essential part of physical educa-tion's knowledge base. The extent to which university programmes have focussed on the sc i e n t i f i c analysis of performance varies i n different universities. There are some university programmes, kinesiology and kinanthropometry programmes, for example, that are sc i e n t i f i c in their orientation and focus. There are others that are based on the study of physical education from a broader disciplinary perspective that includes sport science as one aspect, but not the only aspect, of the programme. Fina l l y , there are some physical education programmes that are s t i l l firmly rooted i n education and are designed primarily to prepare physical education teachers. Despite the diversity i n orientations i t is possible to identify a trend in university physical education towards sc i e n t i f i c analyses of performance. Ingham (1985) argues that physical education has undergone "a scientistic transformation". He states that the scientistic transfor-mation of physical education presents the cherished goals of physical and health educators as the new found perogative of disciplinary experts/scientists and seeks to authorize this exper-t i s t knowledge within the resurrected definition of 91. well-being as a trouble of personal l i f e s t y l e . Here s o c i a l i z e d n e o p o s i t i v i s t assumptions of o b j e c t i v i t y , proclaimed as science's answer to i l l u s i o n (truth against f a l s i t y ) , a c t u a l l y frame questions i n a way that r e i n f o r c e s the v o l u n t a r i s t i c precepts of r i g h t l i f e s t y l e while denying that s c i e n t i f i c inquiry i s i n any way contoured by i d e o l o g i c a l intrusions. (p.52). Ingham's (1985) argument i s r e l e v a n t to the a n a l y s i s of the s o c i a l construction of gender i n p h y s i c a l education. It i l l u s t r a t e s the importance of exploring the ways questions about gender and information about women's experiences i n p h y s i c a l education and sport are framed. This i s of p a r t i c u l a r concern i n a f i e l d l i k e p h y s i c a l education where i there are d i f f e r e n t conceptions of the knowledge base of the d i s c i p l i n e . Thus, i t i s important to examine the ways i n which gender issues are s o c i a l l y constructed i n programmes where the emphasis i s on s c i e n t i f i c and s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c analyses of play, games and sport and i n others where the emphasis i s on teaching and coaching. The c r u c i a l point i s to examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i f f e r e n t approaches to the study of play, games and sport and the s o c i a l production of knowledge about gender. In other words, i t i s important to examine how knowledge about gender i s presented i n p h y s i c a l education and how i t i s in t e r p r e t e d . The Case: A Physical Education Degree Program The p h y s i c a l education degree programme that i s the focus of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s based on the d i s c i p l i n a r y study of play, games and sport. Students are exposed to knowledge about play, games and sport from the behavioural, b i o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l sciences as w e l l as to knowledge that 92. can be applied to school and non-school based careers in physical educa-tion. The programme i s structured around theory and performance courses. Theory courses provide students with the body of knowledge of the dis-cipline and the performance courses give students experiential knowledge in a number of performance areas. The nature of knowledge i n the degree programme w i l l be explored through an analysis of the requirements of, and the contents of theory and performance courses in, the programme. Theory Courses The disciplinary knowledge that i s taught i n theory courses i n -cludes information from the biological, behavioural and social sciences. The programme includes a wide range of courses, and allows considerable theoretical and methodological diversity in i t s analysis of play, games and sport. 2 n n e g r 0 U p Q f courses tend to have a self-consciously "applied" orientation. They use theory and methods from the biological and behavioural sciences to analyze human physical performance. These courses focus on knowledge that can be used to improve individuals' performance capabilities i n different areas (performance i s often used i n reference to sport but can also include health and fitness). A ( second group of courses analyze play, games and sport as h i s t o r i c a l l y produced cultural forms. The programme distinguishes between required and elective theory courses. The selection and distribution of required and elective courses 93. indicates the importance of biological and behavioural courses. Six of the nine required courses focus on biological and behavioural factors that affect performance. The remaining three required courses are from the category of courses that are not applied to human performance but deal with social and hi s t o r i c a l analyses of play, games and sport. The course descriptions i l l u s t r a t e the difference between the two categories of required courses. The f i r s t category of required courses, which focus upon knowledge that can be applied to performance, are des-cribed i n the following ways: to examine the characteristics of physical growth and motor development and their interrelationship to physi-cal a ctivity, and to consider the factors affecting, and measurement of, physical growth and motor develop-ment. (3.M.L. 1984-85). 3 an analysis of the current research material and theory concerning motor performance and learning of man. Em-phasis i s placed on the concept of man as a component system. (4.M.L. 1984-85). to relate the basic structure and functions of the human body and the relationship of the fundamental mechanisms of human physiology to exercise. (3.I.B.D. 1984-85). an introduction to the physical laws of nature and an interpretation of those laws as applied to human move-ment observed in athletic s k i l l s . An examination of the biomechanical systems of the human body with re-spect to forces developed. An analysis of various specific athletic performances and an introduction to the research tools i n kinesiology. (3.3.B.D. 1984-85). and the study of acute and chronic effects of exercise on body systems; and the relationship of the functional capacity of individual systems to maximal human perfor-mance . (4.B.D. 1984-85). 94. In a l l of these courses material i s drawn from the biological and behavioural sciences and i s used as the basis for analyzing and improving human performance. The emphasis on the application of knowledge from the biological and behavioural sciences to improve performance in the programme's academic core indicates that, i n this particular programme, important knowledge i s defined as knowledge that can be used as a means to an end, namely, the improvement of human performance. The three other required theory courses that make up the academic core use knowledge from the humanities and social sciences to study play, games and sport as h i s t o r i c a l and cultural forms in society. The course descriptions and topics that are included i n the course content of these courses i l l u s t r a t e this change i n focus. One i s described as an introductory examination of classifications for leisure, play, games, contests, dance and sport, toge-ther with an examination of their relationships. (1 S.S. 1984-85). and includes such topics as, formal definitions of play, games, and sports, changes in sport and leisure practices, issues and problems of high performance sport, and some meanings of sport in Canadian culture. The other course i s described as a course that focusses on an h i s t o r i c a l and theoretical analysis of sport i n Canadian society. (2 S.S. 1984-85). and i s designed to provide students with an understanding of the contemporary Canadian sport system; the h i s t o r i c a l , geographical, and sociological factors which have shaped the unique nature of Canadian sport; the role of 95. sport i n Canadian society and sport i d e o l o g i e s opera-t i n g i n Canada, in. the past and present. (2 S.S. 1984-85). Both of these courses draw on knowledge from d i s c i p l i n e s i n the humanities, h i s t o r y , sociology and philosophy, i n order to analyze and c r i t i q u e the development of play, games and sport as h i s t o r i c a l l y formed c u l t u r a l practices. In both these courses play, games and sport are analyzed within a framework that places them at the centre of the p o l i -t i c a l , i d e o l o g i c a l and economic forces that e x i s t i n society. This d i f f e r e n t frame of reference i s one where students are expected to question the ways i n which play, games and sport are constituted i n socie t y and, as such, c r i t i c a l l y analyze the dominant frameworks within which they are understood and p o l i c i e s governing t h e i r p ractices are constituted. In some cases t h i s i n v o l v e s questioning the frameworks used i n b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural courses that focus upon f a c t o r s that a f f e c t performance. This l a t t e r approach i s best summed up by a f a c u l t y member who teaches one of the courses who s a i d that students have to be able to use i t (the course) as a frame of r e f e r e n c e to t h i n k i n a d i f f e r e n t way we d e a l with s o c i a l c r i t i c i s m .... l e i s u r e as a part of c u l t u r e to show t h a t i d e a s don't occur as a vacuum, that they always occur as an a r t i c u l a t i o n of s o c i a l groups. (1 S.S. p.17:14-22). The required theory courses i n the degree programme are drawn from the two categories of theory courses that e x i s t i n the programme. Thus, the core includes analyses of play, games and sport that draw on know-ledge from a wide range of d i s c i p l i n e s . The majority of the courses i n the core focus on knowledge from the b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural sciences that can be a p p l i e d to improve performance. The remaining courses view 96. play, games and sport within a critical, analytical framework that often raises questions about the ways in which sport is taken for granted and analyzed in the rest of the core. This diversity of knowledge in the core provides students with conflicting and potentially contradictory views of important knowledge in physical education. The elective theory courses follow the pattern that exists in the academic core of the programme. They draw on knowledge from the biolo-gical, behavioural, and social sciences and humanities to analyze play, games and sport. The majority of the elective theory courses (18 of 22) focus on knowledge that can be applied to human physical performance. Typical course descriptions are An analysis of current issues, research and practical applications related to psychological theory and met-hods associated with sport and human movement. (3.B.D. 1984-85). advanced quantitative analysis of human motion. (4.B.D. 1984-85). and Principles and methods of conducting exercise classes for adults with application of relevant concepts de-rived from sports medicine, tests and measurements, motor learning, and exercise physiology. (4.P.S. 1984-85). These courses, with their focus on performance outcomes, are con-cerned with knowledge that is potentially "useful" in the sense that it can be applied to vocational practices like coaching, teaching, or the health professions. In contrast to the "useful" knowledge learned in the majority of the theory courses in the programme, the four socio-cultural elective 97. courses build on the c r i t i c a l analytical framework used i n the socio-cultural courses i n the programme's core. These courses are concerned with the analysis of play, games and sport as h i s t o r i c a l l y produced, s o c i a l l y constructed cultural forms and are not concerned about improving performance outcomes. Again, these courses provide students with a contrasting view of physical education and create the potential for contradictions and tension between conflicting definitions of impor-tant knowledge in physical education. Performance Courses Performance courses i n the degree programme provide students with experiential knowledge and s k i l l s in a variety of different physical a c t i v i t i e s . These courses complement the applied theory courses in the programme and are designed to provide students with fundamental s k i l l s and strategies i n performance, and performance analysis. (Calender, 1984-85, p.322). There are a t o t a l of 41 performance courses offered to students i n the degree programme. Students must select 15 of these courses to graduate, of which seven are required for a l l students. In addition, there are 15 performance analysis courses offered to students where they can study factors that contribute to performance excellence. The topics covered in performance analysis courses include techniques, strategies and tac-t i c s , bio-mechanical factors, specific fitness l e v e l s , and coaching procedures. If theory courses are generally designed to provide students with 98. "useful" knowledge that can be applied to performance, performance courses provide them with useful skills and practical experiences in order that they can apply the knowledge they have learned. The purpose of performance and performance analysis courses is described by a faculty member as follows. In performance courses you spend your time teaching the students the techni-ques. Their mark is based on 60% practical and roughly 40% theory where they have to learn strategies and rules and a l l the rest we just do techniques and theory in the performance courses. (2.S. p.3:34-43). and in performance analysis courses well they go into very detailed problems of coaching .... the majority of students coach teams and we'll s spend time discussing some of the problems they have .... it's extremely detailed. (2.S. p.3:45-50). In the performance courses students learn how to perform specific skills, in the performance analysis courses they learn how to analyze skills in order that they can improve the performance capabilities of others. Faculties' Definitions of Important Knowledge in Physical Education In this section I will examine faculty members' definitions of important knowledge in physical education. The preceeding analysis of the structure and organization of the programme identified two different kinds of theory courses. In biological and behavioural theory courses the emphasis is on analyses that contribute to a greater understanding of human physical performance. Knowledge from the biological and behavioural sciences, which can be applied to performance, forms the 99. basic core of these courses. In socio-cultural theory courses, where the emphasis i s on the study of play, games and sport as h i s t o r i c a l , social and cultural forms, knowledge from the social sciences and human-i t i e s i s used as the basis for analysis. The existence of this diversity i n the programme implies that there may also be diversity i n faculty definitions of important knowledge. I w i l l argue that the majority of faculty view knowledge that can be applied to performance as important. This view of important knowledge i s one that focusses on the individual and uses knowledge from the biolo-gical and behavioural sciences i n an attempt to explain individual differences i n performance outcomes. I w i l l also argue that the majority view i s juxtaposed by one i n which important knowledge i s knowledge from the social sciences and humanities that enables an analyses of the his t o r i c a l , social and c u l t u r a l l y produced forces that help to create and reproduce social inequalities i n sport. Individual differences, in this alternative view, are explained i n h i s t o r i c a l and social structural, rather than i n biological and behavioural terms. "Really Useful Knowledge" and S k i l l s I might have a slight bias towards the natural science courses we're talking about physical education so the essentials are anatomy, physiology I think r e a l l y every phys. ed. student should have a very strong base in those particular courses. (7.S.S. p.11:1-7). The majority of faculty who were interviewed (11 of 14) taught theory courses that use knowledge from the biological and behavioural 100. sciences to analyze human performance, or performance courses where students are taught performance s k i l l s . A l l of these i n d i v i d u a l s des-cribed important knowledge i n the degree programme as knowledge that contributes to a greater understanding of performance. For these i n d i v i d u a l s , knowledge from the b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural sciences was viewed as r e a l l y u s e f u l and important knowledge because of i t s a p p l i c a -t i o n to performance. T y p i c a l comments from these i n s t r u c t o r s were I think ... number one that they have to have an under-standing of the basic p h y s i o l o g i c a l background, i t ' s the human being and i t s anatomy and physiology that's important (I.S. p.6:37-42). the p h y s i o l o g i c a l functioning and how we respond to a c t i v i t y i s c r u c i a l (2.S.S. p.14:47-48). I would say that the sports science courses provide the core of knowledge (8.S.S. p.4:46-47). the a n a l y s i s of performance ... from biomechanical, p h y s i o l o g i c a l , motor l e a r n i n g points of view (2.P.S. p.14:18-22). the theory courses probably should be the e s s e n t i a l core ... the theory courses that r e l a t e to p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y . (l.P.S. p.6:22-26). When they were asked why t h i s p a r t i c u l a r knowledge was seen as important t h e i r answers were s i m i l a r , that knowledge from the b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural sciences helps i n d i v i d u a l s to better understand and analyze performance. The best example of t h i s view i s expressed by one f a c u l t y member i n t h i s group who suggested that what we should be looking at i s performance a n a l y s i s , 101. f i n d i n g better s c i e n t i f i c ways i n which we can analyze performance ... that's what phys. ed. i s about. (6.S.S. p.13:4-7). The importance of performance as a unit of a n a l y s i s i n the degree pro-gramme i s evident i n the f o l l o w i n g comments from t h i s group of f a c u l t y . T y p i c a l comments included performance i s the base of P.E.... but I'm not s a y i n g that performance as i t i s taught at t h i s moment .. I'm just saying that performance as a notion i s very important. (2.S.S. p.15:1-2). performance i s a very important aspect of the programme but that does not n e c e s s a r i l y mean performance courses are a c r u c i a l a spect performance a n a l y s i s courses are the only ones that f i t i n t o a u n i v e r s i t y . (7.S.S. p.9:20-28). so the performance area I think i s key. What are you going to do i f you don't have performance? What's the point of studying biomechanics i f you don't know any-thing about what goes on i n the sport to make i t go. You can read about i t and t a l k about i t but i t ' s not the same. (I.S. p.7:14-17). a l o t of f a c u l t y here think they (performance courses) are important and the main reason people think p e r f o r -mance courses are important i s because P.E. s t i l l has as i t s base..sport. (2.S. p.3:19-22). Although there i s some.debate among f a c u l t y about the value of perfor-mance courses, per se, there i s general agreement that performance, as a uni t of a n a l y s i s , i s of c e n t r a l importance i n the study of p h y s i c a l education. The a b i l i t y to perform or more importantly the a b i l i t y to analyze performance and to be able to use t h i s information to improve the performance of others i s viewed as an important and u s e f u l s k i l l by t h i s group of f a c u l t y . Although there i s disagreement about the a b i l i t y 102. of the performance courses i n the programme to provide students with these s k i l l s there is nevertheless agreement that the s k i l l s themselves (i.e. the a b i l i t y to use the knowledge learned in theory courses, in practical coaching and teaching situations to improve the performance capabilities of others) are important. This position i s cle a r l y i l l u -strated i n the following comment we should use the performance element as a lab com-ponent of a performance analysis course let s say performance analysis of team sports which have certain generic si m i l a r i t i e s so you could say ... for the next two or three weeks we'll be looking at soccer, we'll use you as ginnea pigs to photograph .. to digitize some of your actions we can examine some high class s k i l l s , low s k i l l s , s k i l l development we can look at a whole series of things using that lab as an experien-t i a l component. (6.S.S. p.13:8-20). The preceeding analysis i l l u s t r a t e s the centrality of performance in faculty definitions of important knowledge. For the majority of the faculty informants important knowledge i s viewed as knowledge that can be used to analyze performance. Knowledge from the biological and behavioural sciences i s defined as important and "really useful" because i t can be used to analyze and provide the basis for improved performance. This view of important knowledge has a strong applied orientation. This group of faculty stressed the importance of both knowledge about perfor-mance and s k i l l s that can be used to improve performance. The combination of useful knowledge and s k i l l s i s perceived as pivotal i n physical educa-tion. This view Is highly congruent with the structure and organization of the courses i n the programme, which are largely concerned with knowledge about performance and the development of performance and performance analysis s k i l l s . 103. Interesting, Interpretive Knowledge Three of the f a c u l t y who were interviewed had a somewhat d i f f e r e n t view of important knowledge. These i n d i v i d u a l s a l l taught courses that drew on knowledge from the s o c i a l sciences and humanities to analyze play, games and sport. For these i n d i v i d u a l s important knowledge i s knowledge that a llows students to c r i t i c a l l y analyze mainstream views of sport i n c l u d i n g the focus on b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural analyses of performance outcomes. For these f a c u l t y important knowledge i s knowledge that shows students how the very framework they want to operate i s i n i t s e l f questionable and u n f a i r to a l o t of people. (l.S.S. p.6:9-10). In addition, t h i s group of f a c u l t y view knowledge from the s o c i a l sciences and humanities as important because i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g or as necessary fo r discussion and debate about sport and l e i s u r e p o l i c y . One f a c u l t y said i t i s important because i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g . The information i s i n t e r e s t i n g because we can l e a r n about what has happened i n the past. It's just knowledge and understanding about sport f o r i t s own sake. (4.S.S. p.3:11-14). These d e f i n i t i o n s of important knowledge as knowledge that i s i n t e r e s t i n g and knowledge that enables students to c r i t i c a l l y examine taken f o r granted assumptions about play, games and sport are e n t i r e l y consistent with these i n d i v i d u a l s ' approaches to p h y s i c a l education. A l l three f a c u l t y view play, games and sport within a framework that focuses upon the c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s of these a c t i v i t i e s as h i s t o r i c a l l y developed, s o c i a l l y produced c u l t u r a l forms. A l l three i n d i v i d u a l s did, 104. however, recognize that their views of important knowledge did not represent the majority view i n the programme and suggested that, given the performance orientation of the programme, knowledge from the behavioural and biological sciences that could be applied to performance was probably viewed as more important and "re a l l y useful" by the majority of faculty and students. Outside the Core: Socio-cultural and Interpretive Perspectives The preceeding examination of the structure and organization and the nature of knowledge i n the degree programme has shown that in this programme there are two different approaches to the analysis of play, games and sport. The majority of courses and faculty analyze play, games and sport using knowledge from the biological and behavioural sciences. In this approach important knowledge i s defined as knowledge that can be applied to analyzing various aspects of human performance and important s k i l l s are those that can be used to improve performance outcomes, especially with regard to improvements in human performance. This orientation i n the programme focusses on individual performers and performance outcomes and uses knowledge from the biological and beha-vioural sciences to find solutions to problems that are perceived as residing within indiviuals. The assumption i n this approach i s that once the problems are identified and new knowledge and techniques deve-loped, i t w i l l be possible to improve the performance capabilities of individual athletes. The second approach to the analysis of play, games and sport i n the 105. degree programme i s represented i n fewer courses and by fewer faculty but i s , nevertheless, an important part of the programme. In this approach knowledge from the social sciences and humanities i s used to c r i t i c a l l y examine play, games and sport as h i s t o r i c a l l y produced, s o c i a l l y constructed cultural practices. Important knowledge i n this approach i s viewed as knowledge that i s interesting as an end i n i t s e l f , and knowledge that contributes towards a c r i t i c a l analysis of the social construction of play, games and sport including current matters of public policy. This view differs from the biological and behavioural orientation adopted by the majority of faculty and used i n the majority of courses as i t focusses on the relations between sport and society rather than on individuals and performance outcomes. Consequently, the analyses of play, games and sport that are viewed as important in this approach are ones that allow an examination of the ways in which these acti v i t i e s have developed as social and cultural forms. The co-existence of these two conceptions of physical education i n the degree programme provides students with alternative, potentially conflicting views of knowledge. Knowledge that can be applied to im-prove performance and that contributes to a greater understanding of human performance capabilities provides students with a framework for analyzing sport i n which the structure and organization of sport i n society i s assumed to be unproblematic. Yet, this conception of physi-ca l education i s accompanied by knowledge about play, games and sport that i s unrelated to performance but which focusses upon the c r i t i c a l analysis of play, games and sport as social, cultural and ideological 106. phenomena. Thus, within the degree programme students receive somewhat d i f f e -rent definitions of important knowledge. However, these differences are downplayed as the programmes structure and organization i s one that defines knowledge from the biological and behavioural sciences as the core of physical education's disciplinary body of knowledge. Other knowledge, although present i n the programme, tends to be defined as peripheral to this core and thus the alternative views taught i n these courses become marginalized. In this particular degree programme and by the faculty's own admis-sion there i s a strong emphasis on applied knowledge. This emphasis focusses attention on the individual and provides behavioural and biolo-gi c a l explanations for differences i n performance capabilities and diverts attention away from questions that seek to understand the ways in which certain play forms, games, sport and views of the human body have been created to emphasize certain differences between social groups and not others. When the questions are framed in ways that focus atten-tion on the individual the answers to them are often given in biological or behavioural terms. This orientation to physical education provides students with a framework that downplays social and hi s t o r i c a l analyses of differences i n favour of biological and behavioural ones. The Treatment of Gender in Physical Education Theory Courses  Gender as a Variable in Biological^and Behavioural Theory Courses In the majority of biological and behavioural theory courses i n the 107. degree programme gender i s not taught as a specific topic or as a sub-topic within a larger topic. Most frequently i t i s treated as a variable that i s incorporated into the material taught i n the course. It does not appear i n course outlines, materials or course content as a specific topic for discussion. When gender i s included in these courses i t i s referred to as one of a number of variables that affect performance or i t appears as information on a chart or graph i l l u s t r a t i n g differences that exist between men and women. Four of the eight faculty interviewed who taught biological and behavioural theory courses defined gender as a biological category, and viewed i t as information that was r e l a t i v e l y unimportant i n their courses. The following comments i l l u s t r a t e these faculty members views I don't any more than .... w e l l the bigger difference i s age ... I don't l i k e to see gender i d e n t i f i e d too much because I think that's something special. If anything it's irrelevant. (3.S.S. p.3:14-20). No, not r e a l l y as an issue. I think i n terms of re-search i t ' s a grouping factor because there are .... to look at differences between the sexes i n terms of your physiological responses and performance a b i l i t i e s and understand why the difference i s there i n performance. (8.S.S. p.2:3-7). I don't deal with gender. It's a functional anatomy and physiology course so we don't deal with i t . I don't think the book deals with i t , only to say the skeletal structure i s different for men and women. (9.S.S. p.1:12-16). and : I don't think of i t AD : So you don't deal with gender in any of your, classes 108. : No. Not really ... the subjects we use are ... we have relatively normal populations and we've found very little differences among genders. (6.S.S. p.4:4-6). These definitions illustrate clearly the ways in which these faculty members view information on gender. They do not categorize gender as an important issue but view it as a variable that can be either controlled for and ignored or described as part of other material that is being presented. One of this group went on to explain why he did not include information on gender in his courses. He said of his approach Yeah, O.K., take the essence of the game forget about gender ... analyse the skill ... look at absolute values .. what I try to do is look at them objectively and quantify what goes on so we get rid of a l l this mumbo jumbo .... do the same sort of thing start to compare to quantify events irrespective of whether it's a man or a woman and then you try to put them on some kind of continuum, you've taken gender out. (6.S.S. p.24:4-19). For this individual "taking gender out" and analyzing games "objectively" is a natural and logical aspect of biological and behavioural analyses of performance. In this approach gender is defined as a variable that can be controlled and its effects minimized in analyses of performance. Thus, the silences that exist in these courses about gender do so be-cause it is assumed that the effects of gender have been controlled for and therefore the information that is being presented is independent of gender or sex. This member of faculty did, however, recognize that his treatment of gender was linked to his applied orientation and suggested that gender might be an issue in socio-cultural courses in the degree programme. He said 109. : I'm not sure I only know my own area. I'm sure that ... I'm very narrow in my focus at the moment, but I'm sure in other areas it would be an issue. AD : can you give me an example : sociology AD : what about in any of the natural science courses? : well ... there's differences in growth rates. (6.S.S. p.6:6-18). This view was shared by another member of this group who suggested that gender could be controlled for in research designs and by using different methodological techniques. This faculty member stated that he did not discuss gender in his courses because we're looking at methodology. If you look at research methods in terms of methodology of motor behaviour then you'd have to say, well, there's alot of people, you'd have to look at differences, use different techniques but that's specific. (3.S.S. p.1:43-44, 2:1-3). He did, however, suggest that in courses that did not look at biological and behavioural analyses of performance, it might be important to deal with injustices in sport, of which sex inequality might be one. He said : I think we should deal with injustices like if you're in a room and the young girls are doing the sewing and the boys are playing basketball with their dads then those sort of things need to be looked at. AD : where should those kinds of things be looked at? : sociology, ya there. Again, this faculty member reiterates the view that, in biological and behavioural theory courses that focus on analyses of human performance, the effects of gender can be controlled for and therefore it is not an 110. important issue. But, in other courses in the programme that are not concerned about analyzing performance, they agree that gender might be an issue worthy of discussion. This particular group of faculty members' views of gender indicate that there are differences that exist i n the treatment of gender issues in the degree programme that are related to the focus of the courses. For example, this group assume that gender i s only an issue i n the biological and behavioural theory courses i n the programme that deal with aspects of performance i n which there are well established and clear l y recognizable sex differences. Gender i s recognized as an issue i n courses that examine the effects of growth and development on perfor-mance because i t i s a widely accepted and well established fact that there are clear sex differences i n rates of growth and development. This definition of gender i s consistent with the treatment of gender as unimportant because the existence of these sex differences i s seen as an interesting but accepted facts that ought to be described rather than to be debated or c r i t i c a l l y examined. When gender i s recognized as an issue by these individuals i t i s viewed as a potential topic for discussion in socio-cultural theory courses where the subject matter i s unrelated to analyses of the fac-tors that affect human physical performance. Thus, this group view gender as a biological category that may relate to performance but they also recognize that i t might be an issue for discussion i n socio-cultural courses which, although part of the degree programme, are peripheral to i t s applied disciplinary core. 111. Gender as Sex Differences in Biological and Behavioural Courses When gender is treated as an issue in biological and behavioural theory courses in the degree programme it is defined as a biological category. Typically, gender appears on course outlines for these courses in the following ways: motor learning as a function of age and sex (3.B.D. 1984-85). and factors influencing socialization 1. birth order 2. sex 3. family 4. peers 5. others (l.M.L. 1984-85). and a consideration of the research findings - team vs individual sports - specific activities - sex differences - participation level - program involvement (l.M.L. 1984-85). Four of the eight faculty who were interviewed who taught biologi-cal and behavioural theory courses in the programme described their treatments of gender issues in the following ways. well let's say I talked about a topic such as sociali-zation, which I do in the first part of the course or if I talk about it in terms of personality then I obviously want to give them the whole aspect of the course. I have to talk about sex differences. So in socialization, there are lots of articles in different areas on sex differences in terms of socialization, personality or competition cooperation things we are going to be talking about. (2.S.S. p.7:12-20). 112. and yeah, we t a l k about growth and development and your gender issues are just there i n the sense that you look at normal patterns of growth and one of the things you always do i s look at within and between sex differences. (7.S.S. p.3:6-10). and ya I t h i n k I do ( d e a l w i t h gender) e x p e c t a t i o n s that r e l a t e to gender differences, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n sport and what expectations there are. I coach both male and female sports and I recognize some of the expectation l e v e l differences and c e r t a i n l y there are differences associated with gender. (l.P.S. p.17:22-26). and How can you p o s s i b l y not t a l k about gender d i f f e r e n c e s when you are t a l k i n g about i n d i v i d u a l s so that i t i s a major very important thing when you are t a l k i n g about the student and the i n s t r u c t o r . (l.P.S. p.3:15-18). Two members of t h i s group described more f u l l y the ways i n which they discussed sex diff e r e n c e s i n t h e i r courses. The information from both of these f a c u l t y interviews and evidence from observations of cl a s s e s taught by these two f a c u l t y members w i l l be presented as i l l u s t r a t i o n s of the ways i n which gender i s taught i n a p p l i e d courses i n the degree programme. The f i r s t point i s that both of these courses draw on knowledge from the behavioural and the b i o l o g i c a l sciences i n t h e i r analyses of performance. They include m a t e r i a l i n t h e i r courses i n which there are c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i a b l e and accepted sex differences. One of the f a c u l t y members said 113. I think b e h a v i o u r a l l y and c o g n i t i v e l y you know every other way there are sex differences. (2.S.S. p.8:17-18). and explained I obviously want to give them the whole aspect of the course I have to t a l k about sex differences. So there a r e l o t s of a r t i c l e s i n d i f f e r e n t areas on sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n terms of c o m p e t i t i o n c o -operation things we are going to be t a l k i n g about. (2.S.S. p.7:12-20). The other f a c u l t y member expressed a s i m i l a r viewpoint. This i n d i v i d u a l discussed sex differences as part of the material of the course because they e x i s t and are "just there" so form an i n t e g r a l part of the material that i s being taught. This f a c u l t y member described the place of gender issues i n t h e i r course i n the f o l l o w i n g way w e l l the major issues ... the one I deal with an awful l o t , I think the major issue i s males and females competing and t r a i n i n g together or separate, contact sport, non contact the whole issue of separation or combining p h y s i c a l education c l a s s e s . (7.S.S. p.2:18-24). The way i n which these issues are d e a l t with by t h i s f a c u l t y member i s to examine sex differences. The informant's e a r l i e r d e s c r i p t i o n of the place of sex di f f e r e n c e s i l l u s t r a t e s the way i n which the issues are treated. Yeah, we t a l k about growth and development and your gender issues are just there i n the sense that you look at normal patterns of growth and one of the things you do i s look at within and between sex differences. (7.S.S. p.3:6-10). Excerpts from f i e l d notes of observations of c l a s s e s taught by these two f a c u l t y members and comments made by them during t h e i r i n t e r -views i l l u s t r a t e the ways i n which material about sex differences i s framed. 114. Both individuals treat sex differences i n a similar way. They begin by outlining the nature of the differences that exist between men and women in relation to athletic performance and then examine the roots of these differences, and their implications for performance. For example, i n one of the classes I observed in which sex di f f e r -ences were discussed the professor began with a definition of masculinity and femininity and said masculinity and femininity are defined by aggressive-ness and dependency (S.S.3.2. 24/9/84). The professor continued with the statement "Female children may not be socialized into masculine sports or sports that are thought of as more masculine. For example, basketball rugby and soccer. There are a number of studies that have looked at physical educa-tors. Landers looked at males and females i n physical education and found that masculinity and was defined by aggressiveness and femininity by helping behaviour. (S.S.3.2. 24/9/84). and added behaviours l i k e aggressiveness have biological and sociological aspects. Masculine behaviours are more aggressive whereas feminine ones are less aggressive. But an androgenous person i s more well adjusted because they use the appropriate behaviours for specific situa-tions. There have been studies that have looked at women in so cal l e d masculine sports, for example, bas-ketball, and they have found that women had a conflict between playing i n a masculine sport and being female." (S.S.3.2. 24/9/84). This particular discussion of aggressiveness highlights two impor-tant aspects of this treatment of sex differences. First, i t i s assumed that when there i s evidence of the existence of differences between the sexes, these are viewed as a problem for women in physical education. The s o l u t i o n that i s posed f o r t h i s problem i s that women become andro-gynous. In other words that they l e a r n to d i s p l a y masculine and feminine behaviours i n appropriate s i t u a t i o n s . This approach to sex differences does not e x p l i c i t l y frame the differences as b i o l o g i c a l but views them i n such a way that women are assumed to be d e f i c i e n t and men normative. Again, the s o l u t i o n , which i s that women become androgynous, i s one that i s aimed at reducing women's d e f i c i e n c i e s i n order that they can r e s o l v e any p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s that might a r i s e between being a women and being i n v o l v e d i n sport. The other f a c u l t y .member framed the ma t e r i a l on sex differences as an issue of nature vs nurture or biology vs environment. This i n d i v i -dual described the material i n the course that d e a l t with sex differences i n the following way i t ' s b a s i c a l l y d e aling with the same issues p h y s i o l o g i -c a l d i f f e r e n c e s , non differences and t r y i n g to separate whether problems ... whether dif f e r e n c e s are b a s i c a l l y genetic or the environment. (7.S.S. p.3:24-27). The discussion of sex diff e r e n c e s i n t h i s f a c u l t y member's c l a s s was consistent with the above desc r i p t i o n . In one c l a s s that I observed the f o l l o w i n g information was presented to the c l a s s . F i r s t the professor r a i s e d the question Are sex diff e r e n c e s i n a t h l e t i c performance b i o l o g i c a l or behavioural? (3.S.S.3.3. 29/3/85). and then went on to say sex differences i n a t h l e t i c performance are l a r g e l y due to v a r i a t i o n s i n body s i z e , body composition, aerobic power, muscular strength as i n androgens vs estrogens. (3.S.S.3.3. 29/8/85). The professor continued by asking Why are there performance differences between the sexes? body composition, body mass account for the greatest percentage of the difference and body size. What else do we have? .... differences in aerobic performance and muscular strength those are the other two variables. (3.S.S.3.3. 29/8/85). After a discussion of the extent of the differences between males and females on each of the variables the professor returned to the question of whether the differences were biological or cultural and concluded that males have high levels of androgens and females have high levels of estrogens and fat. This is important, if the differences are behavioural we have the potential to change, if they are biological we have to accept them. The evidence leans towards the biological but there is a cultural behavioural factor. (3.S.S.3.3. 29/8/85). In this class sex differences were presented as biological facts, which although mediated by cultural factors, have to be accepted as natural and therefore subject to a limited potential for change. The ways in which gender has been framed by these individuals is consistent with the focus of their courses on the factors that affect performance. When sex differences are viewed within this framework important questions are defined as those that determine the cause of the differences and their effects on performance. This particular approach is one in which performance differences between the sexes are viewed as problems residing in individuals, which can be explained in biological or behavioural terms. The framing of gender as sex differences draws attention away from analyses that question the ways in which play, games and sport have been 117. s o c i a l l y constructed and focusses i t instead upon individuals. When attention i s focussed on individuals, sex differences can be explained i n biological and behavioural terms, which suggests that any differences that exist are biological and thus have to be accepted or are behaviou-r a l deficiences that are located i n women and are subject to limited change. Thus, the image created of women and men i n these courses has the same affect as the approach taken in other biological and behavioural courses i n the programme. Sport, play and games are analyzed i n r e l a -tion to performance outcomes and sex differences are presented as biological and behavioural facts. Thus, women's performance capabilities are judged against c r i t e r i a that are taken as universal and normative and any sex differences that exist are assumed to result from men's natural superiority i n terms of strength, endurance and power. When gender i s framed i n this way i t serves to reinforce and reproduce patriarchial assumptions about men's natural superiority. The Treatment of Gender in Socio-Cultural Theory Courses Gender i s taught i n socio-cultural theory courses i n two ways. It i s taught as a distributive or as a relational issue in these courses. When gender i s treated as a distributive or a relational issue and i s not viewed as a biological category that influences performance out-comes, i t i s analyzed as a s o c i a l l y constructed, c u l t u r a l l y produced set of relations. Thus, i n the socio-cultural theory courses where knowledge i s drawn from the humanities and social sciences to analyze play, games 118. and sport I w i l l argue that a t t e n t i o n i s drawn away from b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural explanations of performance and i s turned towards s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l analyses of the a c t i v i t i e s themselves. One approach that i s taken to gender i n s o c i o - c u l t u r a l theory courses i s to define i t as an issue of sex i n e q u a l i t y . This means that gender i s viewed as the in e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n of resources, oppor-t u n i t i e s and experiences i n sport between women and men. The d e f i n i t i o n of gender as a d i s t r i b u t i v e issue begins with the assumption that sex i n e q u a l i t y e x i s t s i n play, games, and sport and that i t i s a problem that needs to documented and discussed. This view of gender d i f f e r s from the b i o l o g i c a l d e f i n i t i o n s of gender as i t defines gender as an issue of s o c i a l i n e q u a l i t y rather than as a fa c t o r that i n f l u e n c e s performance outcomes. When gender i s defined as an issue of s o c i a l i n e q u a l i t y , play games and sport are n e c e s s a r i l y viewed as s o c i a l p r actices that are not independent of the economic and p o l i t i c a l forces that create sex i n e q u a l i t y i n the re s t of society. The move away from b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural analyses of sex differences i n performance i s evident i n the descriptions of gender that appear i n the course o u t l i n e s of these courses. They are as f o l l o w s Sport and S o c i a l D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n : s o c i a l i z a t i o n i n t o sport as a function of: s o c i a l c l a s s , socio-economic status, r o l e , e t h n i c i t y , and gender, equity and i n e q u a l i t y of opportunity i n sport, amateurism and profe s s i o n a l i sm. (2.S.S. 1984-85). and Sport and S o c i a l Issues from: R e l i g i o n S o c i a l c l a s s 119. Gender Ameteurism & professionalism Regional developments (2.S.S. 1984-85). and, finally Programmes of the Olympic Games 1. Development of events 2. Outstanding performances 3. Women's participation 4. Cultural events 5. Ceremonies. (3.S.S.1984-85). It is clear from these course outlines that gender is viewed as a social issue rather than a biological one. One of the faculty members who taught gender as a distributive issue explained why it was an important topic in the course If you've always worked in a world that is mixed with men and women then you can't help but know what the problems are, especially in a field like physical education. (4.S.S. p.5:18-21). and went on to say Well of course I feel very strongly that there is an on-going serious problem for women in physical educa-tion that has not gone away. I think the biggest problem for me right now is the popular perception that the problem will disappear. We have made many gains but in the process we've lost some of them. What I'm most worried about it that our students coming into physical education don't think that there is a problem. (4.S.S. p.2:27-33). One of the ways in which this problem of inequality is addressed by this faculty member is to use events that have happened in sport to illustrate that inequality is and continues to be a problem for women in sport. In my course I deal with the subject and I deal separately with the bit of information there is on women and we do examine the place of women in ancient Greek society .... I wi l l say I do spend more time on 120. women because it is a natural topic. There is a story to tell about women in the Olympics because it's a l l to do with how they came in late and how they had to fight certain things so because of the Olympics being what it is you can pinpoint it and talk about the attitudes in that way. (4.S.S. p.6:13-24). The approach that is taken by this faculty member is explain that sex inequality exists in sport and show that it is a problem that has occurred as a result of an inequitable distribution of resources to men's and women's sport. The approach taken by this informant to the issue of inequality is explained in the following statement. The faculty member expressed a concern that the issue was a difficult one to cover given the complexity of the issue. they (the students) should find out there is a problem .... we have so much to teach there is'nt time because it is such a serious problem that a great deal of time has to be spent in explaining first of al l what the problem is, how it got to be what it is and how they should change it. (4.S.S. p.2:36-44). The problem is outlined for students using descriptive statistics. I thought .... well the easiest way to handle this is to give them actual information. I will tell them that statistically at the college level we have lost this, this, and this .... it has to be presented so quickly unfortunately that I cannot get into the details of exactly how the material was collected ... so I throw up some transparencies then for about one hour try to present the whole concept of this problem. (4.S.S. p.3:40-47). The professor did , however, express a sense of frustration about having to rush through the material and said it's my cop out and until I've got control of this situation there's no point until I have the time. If somebody said to me, give a whole week to the subject 121. of women in sport, I'd say fine I will but there are problems on this faculty on the subject because there are those that don't want the subject of women in sport discussed separately ... because they perceive that ... if you integrate if you don't say there are any differ-ences, the differences will go away. (4.S.S. p.4:9-20). The approach to gender that has its bases in the differential allocation and distribution of resources moves away from biological explanations of differences towards societal structural explanations of inequality in sport. This kind of analysis moves away from locating the problem within individuals towards viewing it as a problem that exists within sport and the social fabric of society. This approach is one that begins to question the assumption that play, games and sport are independent of social, political and economic forces in society. It documents the existence of inequality and locates this within a framework in which it is seen as a both social issue and a personal trouble. Thus the treatment of gender as a distributive issue provides a view of inequality that is not rooted in biological explanations of male superiority. This provides students with an alternative, view of gender to the ones presented to them in biological and behavioural theory courses. The second way in which gender is taught in socio-cultural theory courses is to frame it as a set of socially developed, culturally pro-duced power relations between women and men. A faculty member described this approach in the following way the issues relating to gender in the area of physical activity, physical leisure and physical education and sport are typically laid out falling into two cate-gorical areas. One is laid into distributive issues 122. and the other to relational issues. The approach I take deals with relational issues, which is the rela-tions between the culturally developed, shared two genders and how that gets realized in distributive issues like the allocation of funds and facilities. (l.S.S. p.2:18-27). The course outlines for the courses in which gender is taught as a relational issue illustrate the way in which it is framed. For example, in one course gender is taught in the section of the course entitled "Sport and the Social Production of Consciousness". Gender is discussed as a part of the topic, "ideology, hegemony and cultural contestation". (3.S.S. 1984-85). In another course, where gender is defined as a relational issue it appears in the course outline in the following way Sport, Ideology and Hegemony a) Dominant Ideology Theories b) Television, Sport, and Cultural Production c) Sport and the Social Production of Gender d) Sport and Forms of Resistance. (3.S.S. 1984-85). Rather than being framed as an issue of inequality, gender is framed in these courses as an ideological and hegemonic issue. Gender is defined as a set of socially produced power relations and sport is viewed as social practice that contributes to, but at the same time chal-lenges, social reproduction and male hegemony. This way of presenting gender relations within sport is quite different from biological and behavioural analyses of gender that occur in the programme. This difference is illustrated in the following descriptions of the ways in which gender is taught as a relational issue. For example, one faculty member described how gender was taught in the following way 123. By the time we have arrived, which is about two thirds of the way through the course, we arrive with the issue of gender having dealt with class predominately until that point. We have been looking at leisure as part of culture and culture has come to be understood structurally in terms of structural elements so the distributive issues pertaining to gender which deal with the awarding of monies to men's vs women's or women's vs men's pro-grammes become kind of structural statements and if you look at culture as a large,' complex mosiac, in complex language, that informs us about our lives and how we are supposed to live our lives. (l.S.S. p.2:36-41). and The distributive factors therefore become part of, at least from my point of view, has become part of those cues. Because it's very obvious when you see many women's professional sports for example you don't see a lot of that televised ... the statements being made. It's a very clear statement because you do see a lot of men's sports. So, maleness, sports and the male preserve, Nancy Theberge's work, it literally rings, true and there's a lot of reasons for that ... historical as well as actual. I try to deal pretty much in the present day with these issues and I give them a historical perspective, but always bring them back to what people can find relevant in their everyday lives. (l.S.S. p.3:1-29). Typically, in these courses gender is introduced with an analysis and critique of sex differences and then moves on to an analysis of the ways in which these categories are socially constructed. sex gets their attention and that's how I start off this section ... writing sex on the board and talking about biological sex differences. But the only reason we can do that and revert it, if that's the right term, into gender or subvert it as a concept back into gender and show how even biological conceptions themselves are gender based. (l.S.S. p.5:27-34). Following this, there is often a description of the nature of gender inequality in society and sport, and statistics are used to illustrate the distribution of resources and opportunities in women's and men's 124. sport. This approach begins with an analysis of gender as a biological category, moves to an analysis of gender as a distributive issue, and concludes with an analysis of gender as a socially constructed, culturally produced-set of relations. This progression is illustrated in the following statement. You find evidence in the appearance of women overall on what appears to be an increasing basis in advertisements. So you take al l of that information and then you contrast it to actual data of how many women are occupied in those positions, and you find out, that women actually occupy fewer of those jobs than in the 1930's ... so that's what I do I sort of throw out material to generate these responses, then I say O.K. what you just said is a perfect case in point because the data doesn't really reinforce that ... so where are you getting your infor-mation from? It's from the cultural mosiac that we're talking about, that's how informed you are by those things .... let's see what's happening, why is this of interest to anybody to create this image. (l.S.S. p.4:1-4, 17-26). This kind of analysis of gender is consistent with the ways in which play games and sport are viewed In these courses. This approach is described in the following statement. It is one that is intended to show that ideas don't occur in a vacuum, that they always occur as an articulation of groups ... social groups. (l.S.S. p.19:24-27). Thus, in this approach, sport is viewed as a socially constructed set of cultural practices that contribute to social reproduction. The treatment of gender as a relational issue challenges biological definitions of sex and shows how these definitions contribute to male hegemony in society. The analysis of sport, play and games as social practices, and gender as a set of socially produced, culturally developed relations provides a view of gender that challenges patriarchial social 125. relations. Thus, i t can be seen that this degree programme i s one i n which students are exposed to different perspectives, which create the poten-t i a l for contradictions and tensions within the knowledge base taught i n the programme. The p o s s i b i l i t i e s for the development of alternative views of gender that exist i n the programme suggest that there i s also the potential for challenges to biological definitions of mens, natural superiority over women. The fact, however, that the majority of courses that constitute the core of the programme either ignore gender or treat i t as sex differences gives a preponderance of emphasis to biological and behavioural analyses of gender. Knowledge and the Treatment of Gender: Alternative Views The preceeding discussion of the ways in which gender i s taught i n the degree programme has shown that i t i s framed differently in biological and behavioural, and socio-cultural theory courses. In the biological and behavioural courses, where knowledge from the biological and beha-vioural sciences i s used to analyze performance, gender i s defined as a biological category and i s treated i n two ways. In the majority of biological and behavioural courses gender i s defined as one of a number of variables that may affect human physical performance. In these courses when information on gender i s presented i t i s incorporated into other material taught i n the course, and i t s effects on performance are portrayed as biological and behavioural facts. The second way i n which gender i s taught i n these courses i s as 126. information on sex differences. When gender i s framed as sex differences i n these courses i t i s presented as information about men's and women's performance c a p a b i l i t i e s . This approach focusses upon differences between the sexes and explains these i n b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural terms. Both of these approaches view gender within a framework that focusses on the i n d i v i d u a l and t h e i r performance c a p a b i l i t i e s . Important ques-tions i n t h i s framework are those that contribute towards a greater understanding of performance, and that can be used as the basis f o r maximizing human performance outcomes. The r e s u l t of t h i s i s that gender i s assumed to be an independent v a r i a b l e i n the performance equation and information about sex differences i s presented within a framework i n which men's apparent s u p e r i o r i t y over women i s explained as a n a t u r a l , b i o l o g i c a l or behavioural f a c t , which i s subject to a l i m i t e d degree of change. This treatment of gender provides a poten-t i a l l e g i t i m a t i o n and j u s t i f i c a t i o n of p a t r i a r c h i a l s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s . The views of gender taught i n the b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural theory courses are counterbalanced by a l t e r n a t i v e views taught i n s o c i o - c u l t u r a l theory courses. In these courses gender i s taught within a framework i n which i t i s viewed as a s o c i a l issue rather than a personal trouble. When gender i s treated as a d i s t r i b u t i v e and r e l a t i o n a l issue the focus i s moved away from i n d i v i d u a l differences towards analyses of the ways i n which play, games and sport have been defined to re i n f o r c e and l e g i -timate sex differences and present them as just and n a t u r a l . Both of these approaches provide an a l t e r n a t i v e to mainstream b i o l o g i c a l d e f i n i -t i o n s of gender and set up the p o t e n t i a l for challenges to p a t r i a r c h i a l , 127. b i o l o g i c a l d e f i n i t i o n s of men's and women's c a p a b i l i t i e s . Thus, the focus of the majority of courses i n the programme provides a framework for analyzing gender that l e g i t i m i z e s p a t r i a r c h i a l ideology and acts as a p o t e n t i a l l y powerful instrument i n the d e f i n i t i o n of r e a l i t y . This view i s , however, countered i n courses that do not focus on performance a n a l y s i s but, instead, focus on the study of play, games and sport as h i s t o r i c a l l y produced, s o c i a l l y constructed c u l t u r a l forms. A l t e r n a t i v e views of the nature of knowledge and the s o c i a l construction of sport and gender are taught i n these courses. The presence of these a l t e r n a t i v e s provides the p o t e n t i a l f o r challenges to mainstream views of important knowledge i n p h y s i c a l education and, as such, to p a t r i a r c h i a l d e f i n i t i o n s of r e a l i t y . Performance Courses and the S o c i a l Construction of Gender Performance courses are c l o s e l y a l i g n e d to the b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural theory courses that focus on analyses of the fa c t o r s that a f f e c t performance. They provide students with p r a c t i c a l experiences, and teach them performance s k i l l s and the rudimentary a n a l y s i s of those s k i l l s i n p r a c t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s . The organization of the performance courses i n the programme does not, however, mirror the organization and sex d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of most sports i n society. A l l but three categories of the performance courses are integrated. Only i n b a s k e t b a l l , conditioning and gymnastics courses are males and females taught i n separate sections. In the others they are taught together even though most of the sports that are being taught 128. are differentiated by sex when they are played. Thus, the performance courses i n the programme do not merely reflect the sex divisions that exist i n sport generally. During faculty interviews, faculty were asked why the majority of performance courses i n the programme were integrated although i n basket-b a l l , conditioning and gymnastics the sexes were separated. A l l of these informants explained the separation of these courses in terms of biological sex differences. They made the assumption that women are unable to compete against men in sports that require strength, speed and jumping a b i l i t y because of differences i n biology. For these i n d i v i -duals the separation of women and men i n these courses i s both f a i r and just because they believe that they are ^ not only different but physi-c a l l y inferior to men and need to be separated and protected because of this. The only reason they're separated i s because we think it's better for the g i r l s . They're not as quick as the men, they don't jump as high, they're not as strong and because of those physical differences they play a l i t t l e bit of a different type of game. (2.S. p.2:34-39). and I don't think there's any question that there has to be (separation) i n those particular areas due to the per-formance a b i l i t y and l e v e l of a b i l i t y of kids coming through and the strength of the kids .... w e l l I don't think i n order to bring people along to give them as much help as you can, the boys would be t o t a l l y bored AD: So the g i r l s were holding the boys back? Yes no doubt about i t and it's not f a i r to the g i r l s either. It's embarrassing for them. They realize i t , they're not that stupid to understand what's going on. They want to learn, they want you to spend time with 129. them so you've got that problem. ( l . S . p.2:1-7, 17-29). and I think women are permitted to, at l e a s t from an o f f i -c i a l p o l i c y , i t seems to me that you cannot deny the woman the r i g h t to enter which ever section they choose. However, having played on a court p l a y i n g b a s k e t b a l l and being elbowed by men .. many times I'm of the opinion that a woman i s better o f f (separated) ... because of height, weight and those kinds of things you can get k i l l e d . (2.S.S. p.13: 16-24). This view of women's performance p o t e n t i a l s i s congruent with the treatment of gender as an issue of sex differences taught i n b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural courses i n the programme i n which women are not only portrayed as d i f f e r e n t but are assumed to be n a t u r a l l y weaker, slower and unable to jump as high as men. The frame of reference used by these f a c u l t y i s one that focusses on i n d i v i d u a l s and explains d i f f e r e n c e s i n b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural terms. The f a c t that t h i s framework i s one that uses male c r i t e r i a and standards to evaluate performance and assumes that they are u n i v e r s a l does not appear to be questioned by these f a c u l t y . Having f a s t e r , higher, stronger as the yardstick f o r achievement helps to r e i n f o r c e the b e l i e f that sex differences i n performance are n a t u r a l which i n turn downplays the considerable o v e r l a p that e x i s t s between the performance c a p a b i l i t i e s of men and women. The majority of performance courses i n the programme, however, are not separated on the basis of sex and women and men l e a r n together. The presence of a majority of integrated performance courses i n the programme suggests that many of these courses are structured i n ways that challenge 1 3 0 . the assumption of women's natural inferiority. If integrated performance courses are to challenge patriarchial definitions of gender, i t requires more than a structure that allows women and men to learn together i n the same class. Integrated courses may s t i l l r e f l e c t patriarchial assumptions about women's and men's a b i l i t i e s and use male achievement standards as the major criterion for assessing performance. There i s , however, the potential i n integrated classes for similar-i t i e s between women and men's a b i l i t i e s to become apparent. Theoretically, able women and less able men are i n classes together and can provide examples of individuals who contradict the assumption of men's natural superiority. The presence of individuals who contravene male defined expectations of women's and men's performance capabilities i n performance courses provides direct evidence that challenges biological explanations of male superiority. However, the potential for integrated courses to challenge p a t r i -archial definitions of gender i s reduced i n the following ways. The majority of the integrated performance courses in the programme include a c t i v i t i e s in which there i s no physical contact between players. These a c t i v i t i e s are ones i n which physical strength i s not the major pre-requisite for achieving success. For example, i n badminton, tennis and v o l l e y b a l l , where players are separated by a net, i t i s possible for women and men to play with and against each other on r e l a t i v e l y equal terms. Thus, when women are successful i n these courses where strength i s not the major pre-requisite they do not threaten patriarchial d e f i -nitions of the natural order of things. 131. Furthermore, In these classes when s k i l l s are learned that require strength, speed and power, i t i s usual for the men and women to be separated into same sex groups within the class. For example, for spiking d r i l l s i n v o l l e y b a l l , the women and men are separated and taught as single sex groups. The implicit message i s clear. Women are naturally slower, weaker and jump lower than men and the use of a lower net and the separation of the sexes for this s k i l l reconfirms these biological differences. Thus, integrated performance courses can be structured i n ways that provide powerful confirmation of patriarchial ideology, even i f they do not r e f l e c t the structural divisions that exist i n sport i n society. In this way the integrated performance courses can serve to reconfirm the facts about performance that are taught in sport science theory courses. The structure and organization of performance courses, has the potential to either reinforce or challenge patriarchial definitions of reality. It i s clear, however, that i f individuals' experiences i n perfor-mance courses confirm the facts about gender that are taught in biological and behavioural theory courses i n the programme, this i s a potentially powerful means for the legitimation of patriarchial ideological messages. Knowledge and Gender in the Programme: A Concluding Statement This chapter has examined the ways in which the structure and organization of the programme and faculty definitions of important knowledge come together in ways that f a c i l i t a t e the reproduction of 132. patriarchial definitions of gender. The centrality of knowledge that can be applied to performance i n the degree programme creates a frame-work for analyzing play, games and sport that focusses upon individuals and factors that affect individuals' performance outcomes. When gender i s viewed i n this way i t i s presented in a framework that focusses on sex differences and i s treated as one variable that may affect performance. The treatment of gender i n this way emphasizes sex differences in per-formance and explains them in biological and behavioural terms. Thus, sex differences i n performance are framed i n such a way that they are presented as a problem residing within individuals rather than as a pro-blem that has been s o c i a l l y constructed and h i s t o r i c a l l y produced. The view of gender that i s taught i n biological and behavioural theory courses i s presented in a framework that implies that patriarchial gender relations are natural and just. Although patriarchial ideological messages are supported and repro-duced in biological and behavioural theory courses i n the programme they are challenged i n socio-cultural theory courses. Socio-cultural courses focus on the ways in which play, games and sport have been s o c i a l l y constructed to produce and legitimize male hegemony. Gender i s treated in these courses in a framework that provides alternative and constrasting explanations for biological definitions of women's inferiority. Thus, this degree programme provides students with an alternative, potentially contradictory and conflicting view of gender. The struc-ture and organization of the programme, which allows these alternative analyses of play, games and sport to co-exist, creates the p o s s i b i l i t y 133. f o r d i f f e r e n t , o f t e n c o n t r a d i c t o r y v i e w s o f i m p o r t a n t knowledge t o d e v e l o p . T h i s d i v e r s i t y e n s u r e s t h a t s t u d e n t s a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h a l t e r -n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and e x p l a n a t i o n s o f gender and a l l o w s f o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f c h a l l e n g e s t o a n a l y s e s o f gender t h a t f o c u s on i n d i v i -d u a l s . 134. Endnotes See Cosentino and Howell (1971) for a detailed discussion of history of physical education in Canada. Prior to 1940, physical education diplomas or certificates were granted by a variety of institutions. 2 The diversity that exists in this degree programme allows for both applied and non-applied analyses of play, games and sport. The extent of this diversity within the curriculum is perhaps best illustrated by the support that was given to this study by both faculty and students in the programme. 3 The code that appears at the end of the excerpts that are taken from documents, courses outlines, observations and interview transcripts identifies the source, the document, the page number and line number of the quote. For example in (l.S.S. p.17:14-22), l.S.S. identifies that source and the individual who was interviewed, p.17 is the page of the transcript and 14-22 represent the line numbers on the page from which the excerpt was taken. Al l of excerpts from transcripts of interviews were edited to remove idiosyncracies of speech for example umms, ahhs, you knows were removed to facilitate a clearer under-standing of the statement. In addition (.....) were used to indicate a pause in the transcript. 135. Chapter Five  Knowledge and Gender: Students' Perspective Social reproduction occurs in complex often contradictory ways. For example, ideological messages that might work to reproduce or oppose an established set of social relations are rarely unified .and consis-tent. Typically, they present us with alternative views of reality. Given the complexity of ideological messages, individuals' interpreta-tions of and reactions to these messages are central to the process of social reproduction. Individuals do not simply believe ideological messages just because they are there, but interpret and redefine them in ways that both accommodate to and resist what they are told. The purpose of this chapter is to examine physical education stu-dents' definitions of important knowledge in physical education and to explore their interpretations of and reactions to the ways in which gender issues are defined and taught in the degree programme. The discussion w i l l begin with an examination of students' orienta-tions to physical education. It w i l l be argued that physical education students are attracted to the degree programme primarily because of their enjoyment of and-successes in sport. Physical education students generally have a strong performance orientation and thus enter physical education programs in order that they can gain the necessary knowledge and s k i l l s to enable them to analyze and improve performance. It is students' performance orientations that are crucial in their definitions of important knowledge in physical education. Following from this, I w i l l claim that important knowledge is 136. defined by p h y s i c a l education students as a p p l i e d knowledge that c o n t r i -butes to a greater understanding of the factors that a f f e c t and, u l t i m a t e l y , can be used to improve performance. This a p p l i e d o r i e n t a -t i o n to p h y s i c a l education has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the ways i n which students i n t e r p r e t information about gender. When performance i s de-fine d by students as the core of p h y s i c a l education's knowledge base, the d e f i n i t i o n of gender issues becomes sex differences i n performance. Students' Orientations to Physical Education In order to examine students' orientations to p h y s i c a l education and the degree programme I w i l l discuss t h e i r reasons f o r choosing to study p h y s i c a l education and t h e i r expectations of the programme. Students' Reasons for Choosing P h y s i c a l Education It seems l i k e a r e a l l y n a t u r a l progression f o r me, hav-ing been i n v o l v e d i n sports a l l the time, and e s p e c i a l l y f o r me, school and sports are synonymous, i t ' s l i k e , that's what in t e r e s t e d me i n school or I was always good i n sports so I figured w e l l I'm here so I ' l l continue with my l i t t l e thing. (5.3.F. p.1:32-38). A l l of the 28 students who were interviewed during the study chose p h y s i c a l education because of t h e i r l o v e of and involvement i n sport. Although a l l of the students c i t e d t h i s as an important reason f o r t h e i r d e c i s i o n to study p h y s i c a l education, they expressed i t i n three d i f f e -rent ways. F i r s t there was a group of students who, because of t h e i r l o v e of sport, viewed p h y s i c a l education as the only l o g i c a l choice f o r 137. them. Secondly, there was a group who, a f t e r t r y i n g other subjects, was drawn to p h y s i c a l education because of t h e i r l o v e of sport. F i n a l l y , there was a group of students who chose p h y s i c a l education because they saw i t as an area that would be u s e f u l as w e l l as one that was of i n t e r e s t to them. Physical Education as a L o g i c a l Choice Nine of the 28 students (seven men and two women) viewed the degree programme as a n a t u r a l choice because of t h e i r l o v e of and involvement i n sport. The reasons that these i n d i v i d u a l s gave f o r t h e i r choices were simply that the programme seemed to be one where they could pursue t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n sport. T y p i c a l responses from these i n d i v i d u a l s about t h e i r reasons f or choosing p h y s i c a l education were my love of sports. (I.4.M. p.1:22). I was a t h l e t i c i n h i g h s c h o o l I j u s t a p p l i e d to phy s i c a l education, I couldn't imagine going i n t o any-thing e l s e . (4.4.M. p.1:20, 27-28). Most of my fr i e n d s are i n v o l v e d i n sports and I think I'm pretty good at a t h l e t i c s and I thought may be phys. ed. would be a good way to c a r r y on. (7.4.M. p.2:1-2). I always had a great i n t e r e s t i n sport. (3.3.M. p.1:25). We l l , i t ' s something that I was always intere s t e d i n .... and e s p e c i a l l y i n high school, that was the thing I probably e x c e l l e d at most. (6.3.M. p.2:8-12). I've always been interes t e d i n p h y s i c a l education since 138. high school. It was a major thing I enjoyed and I have ... seem to have an a b i l i t y . I t was my s t r o n g e s t point. ( 9 . 3.F. p.9 : 1 0 - 1 3 ) . Well I was a c t i v e i n p h y s i c a l education i n high school and I've always kept up with p h y s i c a l education. ( 4 . 3.F. p.2 : 4 - 5 ) . For t h i s group of students p h y s i c a l education was viewed as a subject that they would be interest e d i n and, because of t h e i r previous experiences i n sport, one that they could do w e l l i n . Physical Education As a Second Choice Eight of the 28 students interviewed (three men and f i v e women) de-cided to study p h y s i c a l education a f t e r they had t r i e d another area of study at c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y . F i v e of these students moved into p h y s i c a l education from other areas because they viewed the programme as one that would be easy, i n t e r e s t i n g and fun. For example, one male student who had p r e v i o u s l y studied E n g l i s h at a u n i v e r s i t y i n the United States w h i l s t on an a t h l e t i c s c h o l a r s h i p sa i d I d i d E n g l i s h and Journalism and that didn't r e a l l y i n t e r e s t me .... I'm not your academic i n t e l l e c t u a l type and I didn't know what kind of work I wanted to do .... I wanted to get a degree of some k i n d i n something that would i n t e r e s t me i n some way, I l i k e to use my body more than my brain i n a way and i t seemed more ap p l i e d and I l i k e to do things with my body and I wanted to do a f i e l d of study that was geared to the body. (4.3.M. p.1:25-36). Others i n t h i s group gave s i m i l a r responses. One women switched into p h y s i c a l education because she was behind i n another programme. 139. She took some p h y s i c a l education courses and found that they were relevant so decided to remain i n p h y s i c a l education. She said a c t u a l l y , I didn't r e a l l y intend to go into p h y s i c a l education or education. I wanted to get i n t o physio-therapy more and I went i n and then I dropped a course so I was a u n i t behind ... so I decided to make up t h a t u n i t and as a r e s u l t I took some p h y s i c a l education courses 'cause I thought they r e l a t e d and ... now I've sort of been leading i n t o sports medicine. (6.3.F. p.2:1-8). Another woman began i n p o l i t i c a l science and economics but was unsure of her d i r e c t i o n and d i d not enjoy her courses so e n r o l l e d i n some p h y s i c a l education courses and g r a d u a l l y switched programmes because p h y s i c a l education was "easy and i n t e r e s t i n g " and seemed a se n s i b l e choice as she had always been a c t i v e i n sport i n high school. A male student who also began i n economics stated I wasn't r e a l l y suited f o r economics I didn't think, I found i t boring and numbers aren't e x a c t l y my best thing, and I need something, I knew I had to keep going to school. That was ju s t something I wanted. I wanted to go to school so p h y s i c a l education was something which appealed to me. I wa always a c t i v e i n sports. ' (2.3.M. p.1:9-14). The f i n a l woman i n t h i s group described her reasons f o r studying p h y s i c a l education as I was going to go to law school and I was going to apply as a mature student and they t o l d me I should get i n v o l v e d i n the community and s t u f f l i k e t h a t so I decided instead of that I would go to u n i v e r s i t y so I thought I ' l l take something that's easy and fun and I was r e a l l y a c t i v e i n sport since I was f i f t e e n , ... even younger and so I d e c i d e d to take phy. ed. a f t e r the f i r s t year I r e a l l y l i k e d i t , my values r e a l l y changed .. so I decided I didn't want to get i n t o the r a t race with law. (5.4.F. p.1:11-28). A l l of these i n d i v i d u a l s moved into p h y s i c a l education because they 140. were or had been a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d i n sport and were looking f o r a programme that would be easy, i n t e r e s t i n g and fun. The remaining three i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h i s group s e l e c t e d p h y s i c a l education because they were looking for a subject that would i n t e r e s t them and provide them with u s e f u l , p r a c t i c a l knowledge that could be a p p l i e d to performance. These i n d i v i d u a l s s a i d W e l l I didn't choose p h y s i c a l education r i g h t away, I wanted to go into sport medicine. I was i n sciences and then I found them too dry .... not r e l a t e d to anything and I was into sports but not i n v o l v e d so I wanted to get back i n t o them. (2.3.M. p.1:12-15). p h y s i c a l education's more p r a c t i c a l , more p r a c t i c a l knowledge. I found.in my recreation courses that I took were a waste of time because i t ' s a kind of thing you don't have to learn. It's something you can pick up a l o n g the way whereas w i t h phys. ed. i t ' s more p r a c t i c a l and things that I didn't know were r e a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g and you could apply them. (8.3.F. p.2:9-16). and The whole process was a l e a r n i n g experience f o r me. I always wanted to go i n t o p h y s i c a l education. I was never a c t i v e i n sports at school .... I never had time as I was going to c o l l e g e and p l a y e d rugby, learned to s k i , l i k e t h i s Is whole new broad horizons. I worked i n the gym and took up weight t r a i n i n g there and s t a r t e d i n s t r u c t i n g women's f i t n e s s c l a s s e s that b u i l t my confidence that I was capable of doing t h i s because I never thought I was too coordinated I wanted to l e a r n about the body how i t works get e x p e r i e n c e and l e a r n s t u f f to h e l p the p u b l i c . (4.4.F. p.1:31-32, 2:14-18). For a l l of the students i n t h i s group, f o r whom p h y s i c a l education was a second choice, t h e i r choices were made because t h e i r involvements i n and l o v e of sport l e d them to view p h y s i c a l education as an area of study that would be easy, I n t e r e s t i n g or u s e f u l . 141. Physical Education as a Useful Programme of Studies The f i n a l group of i n d i v i d u a l s , 11 i n t o t a l (three men, eight women), decided to study p h y s i c a l education because they b e l i e v e d that the programme would a l l o w them to pursue t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n sport and provide them with u s e f u l knowledge and s k i l l s that have a d i r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n to performance. Six of these i n d i v i d u a l s , a l l women, chose p h y s i c a l education s p e c i -f i c a l l y because they wanted to teach. The degree programme was seen by these women as a programme that would a l l o w them to combine t h e i r i n t e -r e s t s i n sport and provide them with a set of u s e f u l knowledge and s k i l l s . For example, t h i s group responded to questions about t h e i r decisions to study p h y s i c a l education i n the f o l l o w i n g ways i t was a na t u r a l progression f o r me to do that (physi-c a l education), as a person inter e s t e d i n sport and wanting to be a p h y s i c a l education teacher. (5.3.F. p.18:4-7). because p h y s i c a l education was what I was int e r e s t e d i n i n high school .... a c t u a l l y I wanted to be a p h y s i c a l education teacher. (6.4.F. p.2:19-20). I r e a l l y enjoyed sports and I always thought i f I ever wanted to teach .... I r e a l l y l i k e d my phys. ed. t e a c h e r .... we had a r e a l l y good r e l a t i o n s h i p and I always thought that I'd kind of l i k e to be l i k e her. (3.4.F. p.2:19-23). I've always wanted to teach, and I've always wanted to coach and to do that I f e l t p h y s i c a l education .... that's what I wanted to teach I l o v e s p o r t s . When I f i r s t graduated i t was coaching v o l l e y b a l l was my l i f e so I want to coach a team e v e r y t h i n g kept going around v o l l e y b a l l coaching and, a c t u a l l y teaching. (I.4.F. p.1:28-29, 2:1-6). 142. because I've always wanted to be i n charge of sports t e a c h i n g coaching. (2.3.F. p.1:21-22). Rather than move d i r e c t l y into the f a c u l t y of education and study education with a p h y s i c a l education concentration these women chose the degree programme because of t h e i r shared perception that they would l e a r n u s e f u l knowledge that could be a p p l i e d to improve performance. One of the women i n t h i s group i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s i n her comments about her reasons f o r choosing the p h y s i c a l education as opposed to entering the f a c u l t y of education. When they (education) do phys. ed. t h e i r idea of phys. ed. i s they p l a y l i t t l e games, nothing competitive at a l l ... there's no competition they take that p h i l o s o -phy junk where competition's negative, they're laughed at. I laugh at them. They work l i k e dogs but what they work at i t ' s nothing s u b s t a n t i a l . (G.I.2. p.24:13-18). She went on to say that i n the p h y s i c a l education degree programme the work seems to be more u s e f u l i n a sense that you can r e l a t e to other things through the courses you take .... l i k e t r y i n g to teach a c h i l d movement and when you know only how t h e i r l i t t l e minds work but you don't know the biomechanics of i t , why they're doing i t wrong i t ' s pretty useless. You can't demonstrate you can't say yes the legs bent at the wrong angle, physics wise i t ' s not going to work but the k i d needs help. (G.I.2. p.25:14-24). Thus f o r t h i s group of women the p h y s i c a l education degree programme s a t i s f i e s two c r i t e r i a . I t allows them to pursue t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n sport as w e l l as providing them with u s e f u l knowledge that has d i r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n to performance. The remaining f i v e i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h i s group (three men, two women) sel e c t e d the degree programme f o r reasons of i t s relevance and u t i l i t y . 143. The f i r s t group of individuals, the three men, a l l selected physical education because of their interest and involvement in high performance sport. A l l three were e l i t e athletes and were interested i n analyzing performance but also said that the degree programme was one that would provide them with relevant, and interesting information about performance but most importantly would allow them the time to continue to pursue their own athletic careers. One of the men, a highly s k i l l e d football player stated that his choices of programs of study were circumscribed by his commitment to football. it's mainly (physical education) the f i e l d that I was interested i n i t was either between going to phys. ed. or going to commerce and I didn't think playing football I would have the time. (5.3.M. p.1:24-28). Another of this group who i s an athlete of international calibre sug-gested that his decision to enter this programme was directly related to his athletic career. Well, I was motivated by the fact that i f I wanted to continue my rowing career, I f e l t this was the place to come for i t . So i t wasn't r e a l l y the school or faculty of physical education that attracted me, i t was r e a l l y the rowing environment .... ya and also the coach here .... that was the true reason. (6.4.M. p.1:7-12). The third male in this group was involved competitively i n junior hockey when he was attending high school and stated that although he r e a l l y enjoyed studying physical education sport his primary reason for attending university was to play on the varsity hockey team. basically physical education was my number one inte-rest. I r e a l l y enjoy sports and physical education. I 144. was coming here, I guess primarily to play hockey. But second year, I just felt it would be the best course for me to get into. (3.4.M. p.1:21-24). For a l l of these men the degree programme was useful as it pro-vided them with a means of combining a university education with their athletic commitments. Physical education was viewed as ideal as it was a subject that they were interested in as well as one that was compatible with their athletic careers. The final two individuals in this group, both women, chose the degree programme because they wanted to gain knowledge and skills that they could apply to helping others improve their performance skills. These women moved in to the degree programme after they had spent time studying kinesiology at another university, which they disliked because of its focus on pure rather than applied knowledge. The first woman said well ever since grade 6 I decided I wanted to do some-thing related to sport and when I graduated I thought of doing sports medicine so I went to .... for a while because a friend of mine was also doing that like going into sport med and he recommended very highly the kinese program so I went up there and then after my first year I decided no, I don't want to go into medi-cine. I'd like to pursue some area of sport so the next two years were basically taking the kinese courses and then I decided I wanted to go into physical education. (2.4.F. p.1:29-37). She went on to say well basically most of the academic phys. ed. courses are helpful, .... alot of the information I can apply directly to my part time job which is coaching and swimming. (2.4.F. p.3:28-33). The other woman said of her experiences in kinesiology 145. Oh I went to and I took a l i t t le bit of kinesio-logy. I actually did quite well in that class when I went I wanted to do kinesiology, and I really didn't like the programme. I wanted out. (3.3.F. p.3:6-10). She entered physical education because of her involvements in sport and her belief that she would be able to take courses that were relevant to her interests in sport psychology. I thought it (the programme) would be more channeled ... more individualized have more depth a good theoretical base but related to performance. (2.3.F. p.7:31-36). This group of 11 individuals share an interest in and love of sport. All of these students chose to study physical education because they viewed it as an area of study that would provide them with "useful" knowledge that could be applied to performance. Physical Education Students' Choices: The Search for  Applied and Useful Knowledge The reasons that both the men and women students gave for choosing the degree programme are al l connected to their love of and interest in sport. However, there are some differences between the men and women who were interviewed worth exploring. First, the male students gave very similar kinds of reasons for their choices of the physical education programme. For the majority of the men, (eight of thirteen), their love of, and achievements in sport were the most important reasons for their choices. This group always wanted to study physical education and the degree programme was their first and only choice. The other men that I interviewed fell into two 146. groups. One group chose physical education because they believed i t to be the programme that was most compatible with their primary goals, the continuation of high l e v e l competitive involvement in sport. The f i n a l group of men, came to physical education after trying some other area of study. These individuals also expressed that their love of sport was important i n their choices but, in addition, saw the degree programme as one that would allow them to continue with an education i n an area that was interesting, fun and easy. The women I interviewed painted a somewhat different picture. First, there was more variety i n reasons that were given by the women students. Only two, of fifteen, said that they choose the physical education programme simply because they loved sport. There were, how-ever, six other women who made their choices because they loved sport but they a l l stated that i t was their desires to teach and coach that were pivotal i n their decisions to enter physical education. The largest group of women, seven, came to physical education after working or trying other areas of study. A l l of these women chose physical education as a result of the positive experiences they had and their interests i n sport and physical a c t i v i t y and their desires to find an easy, and interesting programme where they could aquire knowledge that could be applied to performance. Although the students who were interviewed i n the study gave a variety of reasons for their choices of physical education, they a l l shared a love of and interest i n sport. Students' love of sport led them to physical education because i t was perceived as a programme that would be interesting and easy and one that would provide them with 147. useful knowledge that could be applied to performance. Students' Expectations of the Degree Programme. I had an idea of what I wanted to learn. The basics, I wanted to learn more about anatomy, physiology, and .... an interest in sports, the practical side of it ... it's hard to explain what I expected to learn was practical applications if I wanted to teach or work. (8.3.F. p.5:27-34). The students who were interviewed had three different expectations of the degree programme. There were students who assumed that they would learn how to teach, others who expected to learn how to perform, and finally those who hoped they would learn how to improve the perfor-mance of others. Learning How to Teach Ten of the students who were interviewed (four men, six women) said that they expected that the degree programme would be focussed on teaching students how to teach. These individuals assumed they would be taught how to play games and how to teach them to others. For example, these students said that they expected alot more teaching ... I thought you had practicums .... I thought you'd have to go out to schools and spend a day teaching a sport but we never had to do that. (I.3.F. p.10:42-45). and how to be a proper physical education teacher. (6.4.F. p.9:1). 148. and Teaching you how to teach ... more I thought dealing with teaching you what you would a c t u a l l y be teaching I guess the t h i n g t h a t I'm most s u r p r i s e d about not prepared about was t a k i n g some of the acade-mic c l a s s e s . (3.3.M. p.8:2-5). These i n d i v i d u a l s expected to be l e a r n i n g knowledge and s k i l l s that could be a p p l i e d to teaching. These i n d i v i d u a l s assumed that the pro-gramme would be centered around a c t i v i t y and theory that could be a p p l i e d to a c t i v i t y . For example, one student suggested I think the whole emphasis should be put more on teaching people how to l e a r n and be able to demonstrate and show an a c t i v i t y . (6.3.M. p.18:31-35). and another stated that phys. ed. i s a c t i v i t y . I f you can't do i t , you aren't going to be able to show someone e l s e how to do i t very w e l l . Or i f you don't know the basic fundamentals of a l o t of core sports used i n the schools what are you going to be, sure you can say your heart rate should be t h i s and your muscles should be that, but i f you can't throw a b a s k e t b a l l that's not very good. (I.3.F. p.7:22-30). Useful s k i l l s f o r t h i s group of i n d i v i d u a l s are performance s k i l l s , and u s e f u l knowledge i s knowledge that i s r e l a t e d to teaching. Learning How to Perform Seven students (four men, three women) expected that p h y s i c a l education was going to be about l e a r n i n g how to perform. These i n d i v i -duals expected that the degree programme would be an extension of t h e i r school p h y s i c a l education c l a s s e s and that they would l e a r n how to play 149. a number of different sports. The most clear expression of this expec-tation is illustrated by the following statement I had the classic, you know, sit around and shoot baskets and l i f t weights al l day. That's what everyone said you're in physical education you're an idiot. But that's what I thought and in a way that's what I wanted. When I was in high school ... I was happy in a l l my spare time to run or shoot baskets or whatever, and that's what I. expected. Four years of that can't be bad. (4.3.M. p.4:24-32). Other examples of this expectation are I thought you would learn how to do activities and that's about it. (5.4.F. p.1:34-35). and well I figured it would be like it was in school, you know playing games, except I wasn't that naive because I knew people in the program already but I didn't think it would be what it is like the science stuff, I didn't think that would be a real big part of it. (5.3.F. p.6:25-31). The students in this group said that they were surprised when they discovered that the programme was not as they had anticipated. For example one student said about in his first year I just wanted to quit, I was saying I don't want to go back to school, I wanted to take a year off. (4.3.M. p.8:12-17). when asked why he wanted to give up, he described his first year courses in the following way they are easy, you can get by on common sense literally but I don't know alot of it is rubbish, I can't see where it al l fits in. (4.3.M. p.3:32-34). Another student was pleasantly surprised by the kinds of courses she was 150. taking and said about the programme I found it alot more scientific than I thought it would be. AD. How did you react to that? I thought it was great. I thought that was sort of nice, I can actually become a student academically, I'm not just out here to play basketball. (I.3.F. p.11:3-8). Although both of these individuals reacted differently to the degree programme their comments typified those of the rest of the group. All of these students shared a commitment to performance and an interest in courses that taught them knowledge that could be applied to performance. Learning How to Improve the Performance of Others Eleven of the students who were interviewed (five men, six women) expected to be learning information about the body that could be applied to improving performance. All of these individuals imagined that the degree programme would consist of a combination of theory and performance courses that focussed upon theoretical and practical applications to performance. Typical comments from this group included I expected to be learning more physiology and anatomy, functional type of material ... and the first year we spent more time doing more theoretical types of materials. I was quite disappointed with my first year. This year I'm really enjoying it because I'm more into the material I want to take. I feel it's more applicable to what I want to do. (I.3.M. p.3:32-37). I did expect to learn .. how the body works .... how to 151. design programmes, fitness programs and schedules .... Mostly that. (7.4.M. p.6:19-21). I expected physiology and theories behind training and coaching. (6.3.F. p.3:33-34). to learn about the body movements .... so that I could go out and know why I'm teaching this aerobic class, what i t i s doing to your body. (4.3.F. p.4:42-44). The key for this group of individuals was that they would be learning knowledge that could be applied to performance. They viewed this as crucial to physical education and had expectations that were based on visions of physical education that were rooted i n performance and performance analysis. Performance Excellence and Applications to Practice:  Students' Expectations of Physical Education Both the male and female students who were interviewed expressed similar expectations of the degree programme. Not surprisingly, these expectations are closely related to the reasons that students gave for choosing physical education as an area of study. It i s clear from these expectations that these students viewed performance s k i l l s or "learning how to play different sports", and theory about performance as pivotal. Students' views of physical education have a strong applied orientation. None of the students who were interviewed entered the degree programme to study play, game and sport as social and cultural practices. They a l l brought with them notions of physical education that were rooted practice and that were focussed upon the achievement of performance excellence. 152. Students' Definitions of Important Knowledge in Physical Education psychology I thought was fine and motor development I .found OK but I found sociology and meanings and values of sport ... I didn't f i n d that easy. It was i n depth and there was alot of stuff that was new to me. Stuff I'd never r e a l l y thought about in sport ... It was just a different type of theory .... anatomy and physiology you can apply to ... doing exercises but this stuff (2.3.F. p.15:27-34). The preceeding analysis of students' expectations about physical education showed that the majority of the student informants hoped to be learning "useful" knowledge and s k i l l s that could be applied to perfor-mance. In order to examine students' definitions of and c r i t e r i a for important knowledge i n the degree programme the next section w i l l explore their views of the biological and behavioural theory courses, socio-cultural theory courses, and performance courses that are taught i n the degree programme. Biological and Behavioural Theory Courses as "Applied" and  "Really Useful Knowledge" The quotation at the beginning of the preceeding section i l l u -strates the way in which the majority of the student informants viewed knowledge in the degree programme. Twenty-seven of the twenty-eight students who were interviewed said that the most valuable courses in the degree programme were the courses that dealt with knowledge about the body and i t s applications to performance. For these individuals the value of theory courses was judged i n relation to the usefulness of the knowledge that was being taught, and the u t i l i t y of knowledge was judged in relation to i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y to performance. 153. For example, typical comments from both male and female students were I thought anatomy and physiology was excellent mainly because it was applied to athletic function. Also, I really enjoyed biomechanics. (I.4.M. p.2:33, 3:1). Anatomy and physiology .... I learnt the most knowledge than in al l my courses ... for general knowledge that I wanted to know .... I'd be able to apply it in the field as well .... finding out so much about the body .... it was really good. (5.3.M. p.3:38-41).-Anatomy - people should have to take it, definitely I think sports psyc. is necessary I think you should have a combination - I think you should have to have both because if you know al l the mechanics of it but you don't know how to get it across to them, or you don't know what is motivating them or why they're in it period then you're not going to be that useful. (I.3.F. p.8:23-25, 41-46). I think the theory courses give you an idea of how the whole body functions in exercise .... prevention of sports injuries was very helpful and the physiology courses have been the most applicable for me .... it relates to what I .... my job. It gives me the basic understandings. (4.4.F. p.8:31-32, 4:37-41). For others, the courses in the programme that drew on knowledge from the biological and behavioural sciences were not only useful but were also interesting. For these individuals "really important" knowledge was viewed as knowledge from the biological and behavioural sciences that was related to performance because it was useful, applied and interes-ting. For example, comments like anatomy and physiology. I loved and exercise physio-logy. I really liked those courses I found I can relate to it. I see a bone and I can sort of go - ya .... and the physiology part I find really interesting. You know what's going on inside you That's what 154. I prefer about those courses I can relate it to the body. (I.4.F. p.3:39-47, 4:1). It's (anatomy and physiology) the fulcrum of physical education. Everything seems to revolve round it ... now we're learning al l the muscle groups and the phy-siology of the body and I think that's what physical education is about. (2.4.M. p.7:13-16). I really enjoy physiology, anatomy and stuff like that because that is what I'm really interested in and I expected physiology and theories behind training and coaching. (6.3.F. p.3:7-8, 33-34). were typical of this group of students. A strong indication of the pervasiveness of the importance of knowledge that could be applied to performance in students' perceptions of "really useful knowledge" is revealed in the following statement about one of the biological and behavioural theory courses in the pro-gramme it was tough because I had to study like mad ... you have to remember alot of stuff. It's a l l memorization .... you've got to learn a million and one things. It's just cram, cram, cram. (4.3.M. p.4:37-38). Yet, this student said of the course it was a great, great course ... very applied, very specific, very useful. (4.3.M p.3:25-26). Another student made the point more graphically in his statement about biological and behavioural courses. this stuff's tough, I have a hard time with it .... it's just kind of like a test to see who can get over this barrier just kind of weed out the little people who can't handle it. (3.3.M. p.10:25-32). 155. But he went on to say that i t was important material because, you're a phy. ed. student and you should have a good understanding of the human body .... but the material i s important i t ' s just kind of dry I think i t ' s good I do ... before I didn't r e a l l y think that some of those things were necessary ... but now I do ... I think what they do i s they not only prepare you for the small things but they also prepare you for a l l the alternatives. (3.3.M. p.8:21-27). For these individuals knowledge that can be applied to performance is s t i l l defined as important and useful even although i t i s not particula-r l y enjoyable and "dry". Thus, in this case u t i l i t y or the applicability of the knowledge to performance i s more important for these individuals than an interest i n the subject matter that i s being taught. Dry, d i f f i c u l t material i s thought of as important by these students because i t can be applied to performance. Socio-Cultural Theory Courses as "Non-Applied" or Peripheral Knowledge The courses that were cited by the majority as the least valuable were the courses i n the programme that were not directly related to performance but that looked at the h i s t o r i c a l and contemporary relations between sport and society. Typically, students were confused about the relevance or usefulness of these courses as they appeared to have no apparent application to performance and students did not see the link between these courses and policy issues. This was the primary reason for their unpopularity. These students were in physical education to learn how to improve performance and not to analyze play, games and sport as s o c i a l l y constructed, h i s t o r i c a l l y produced cultural forms. 156. For example, the f o l l o w i n g comments i l l u s t r a t e the student informants' views on knowledge that i s not perceived as u s e f u l or a p p l i c a b l e to performance. w e l l the p h i l o s o p h y of s p o r t , i t ' s so s t u p i d .... you read a l l these books .... one i s c a l l e d The Joy of Sport and i t ' s a l l on people's ideas of what sport i s .... i t ' s j u s t not v e r y p e r t i n e n t . (I.3.F. p.8:15-20). w e l l i t ' s not meaty s t u f f .... i t ' s s o r t of a i r y f a i r y s t u f f and that's d i f f i c u l t to take. (6.4.M. p.5:26-27). the h i s t o r y of sport .... i t ' s u s u a l l y l i k e a t r i v i a l pursuit game. It's not that important to the students and i t ' s probably not that important when we get out i n the r e a l w o r l d and s t a r t working i t i s n ' t t h a t v a l u a b l e .... s t u f f you can f i n d i n a t r i v i a l pursuit game. (7.4.M. p.9:2-7). I don't enjoy them a t a l l , I don't understand i t ... I don't tune i n t o i t ... I've read a l l t h a t s t u f f ( p h i l o -sophy and sociology) and I didn't get the books and I don't get the course .... people's views and meanings of l i f e and i m p l i c a t i o n s and s t u f f . I don't know a l o t of i t s i s r u b b i s h . I can't see where i t a l l f i t s i n . (4.3.M. p.3:17-34). For the majority of the student informants these courses were neither u s e f u l or i n t e r e s t i n g . They were selected by students because they were perceived as "easy c r e d i t s " and therefore worth taking as a means of counterbalancing some of the more d i f f i c u l t b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural theory courses. The perception that s o c i o - c u l t u r a l theory courses are "easy c r e d i t s " and the s e l e c t i o n of them by a number of p h y s i c a l education students i l l u s t r a t e s that courses are not always chosen because they w i l l be u s e f u l or i n t e r e s t i n g . Despite being perceived as i r r e l e v a n t 157. and peripheral, these theory courses are sometimes selected by students over applied, useful courses because they are thought to be easier and less work than their "really useful" counterparts. Comments like I heard that one of my science courses was pretty tough and I wanted to do a phys. ed. course but I didn't want to do two tough ones at the same time so I picked an easier one (a non-applied course). (4.3.M. p.3:19-23). and there's biodynamics which is science, I find the re-quired courses are like that then you have the f i l l ins like psychology and sociology they don't hold my interest. (I.4.F. p.7:30-32). As a result of this tension between students' perceptions of courses as hard and useful or easy and irrelevant, most students select courses that are both "really useful" and applied and those that are more general and have no application to performance. There was one individual whose view of important knowledge was in direct contrast to the other students who were interviewed. This indi-vidual was interested in learning knowledge that applied to performance as well as more general knowledge about sport as a social and cultural practice. His definition of important knowledge was based primarily on interest rather than utility. I never looked at going here as just to come here and get a job and if you did that, then you just come here, you might as well forget about every-thing else and take everything as it pertains to what you want to do. But I think, there are alot of other courses here that are just for interest sake, just to know that this exists and stuff and even if you don't think it's going to help you might know it .... and I wouldn't want to take it probably just as 158. important. (6.3.M. p.16:3-13). For t h i s student knowledge that i s a p p l i c a b l e to performance and know-ledge f o r i t s own sake are viewed as an e q u a l l y important and v a l u a b l e part of the degree programme. He i s , however, the only student i n f o r -mant who defined important knowledge i n t h i s way. The majority of the students I interviewed defined important knowledge as knowledge from the behavioural and b i o l o g i c a l sciences that can be a p p l i e d to performance. Knowledge about play games and sport that has no d i r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n to performance i s viewed by the group as, at best, p e r i p h e r a l , and, at worst, i r r e l e v a n t . Performance Courses and "Really Useful" S k i l l s P h y s i c a l education i s p h y s i c a l i f you want to c a l l i t mental then i t ' s something e l s e and that's theory I can't see i t ( p h y s i c a l education) without performance. (5.4.M. p.3:30-32). Performance, as a u n i t of a n a l y s i s , i s viewed by a l l of the student informants as the core of p h y s i c a l education's subject matter. This i s c l e a r from students' descriptions of important knowledge i n p h y s i c a l education. Performance courses, on the other hand, are viewed i n r e l a -t i o n to the students' perceptions of the s k i l l s they w i l l require when they s t a r t working. For the majority of students, performance courses were viewed as having p a r t i c u l a r relevance to i n d i v i d u a l s who were going to be teaching or coaching. For example, t y p i c a l comments from these students were: 159. In terms of teaching, i f you're going to teach p h y s i c a l education, very v a l u a b l e because the courses you do l e a r n about the sport, you l e a r n a l o t about the basic concepts .... i n terms of people t h a t are going on to exercise physiology type things I think i t ' s l e s s v a l u a b l e .... but then a g a i n .... i t v e r y good. (1.3.M p'.5:17-28). i t ' s important I t h i n k w i t h t e a c h i n g r e a l l y .... e s p e c i a l l y I think i f you're going into teaching .... I think ... you should be able to go through a l l these a c t i v i t i e s ... so you have p r a c t i c a l experience. (5.3.M. p.8:6-9). In a sense .... they're o n l y v a l u a b l e i f you have to go out and teach them I t h i n k you s h o u l d have some knowledge of some a c t i v i t i e s as you're a p h y s i c a l educator. (4.3.F. p.6:6-9). , I'm sure we're going to have to teach i t when we go into education or whatever but f o r those who aren't ... they may f i n d i t useless. (I.4.F. p.6:28-28). "Value" f o r these students i s seen i n r e l a t i o n to the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the knowledge and s k i l l s learned i n the performance courses to p r a c t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s . I think they are very important. I think that i f you were to get into a teaching s i t u a t i o n where you r e a l l y know very l i t t l e about a sport you are shown a l l these d i f f e r e n t kinds of sports, you know how to teach them .... i t ' l l h e l p w i t h your knowledge of the game. (3.3.M. p.9:37-42). There were some students who expressed t h e i r unequivocal support f o r performance courses. These students b e l i e v e d that i r r e s p e c t i v e of students' career a s p i r a t i o n s performance courses were an important and necessary aspect of the degree programme. They are viewed as important by these students because i t i s assumed that a l l p h y s i c a l education students ought to be p r o f i c i e n t i n a number of d i f f e r e n t sports. They're v a l u a b l e because i t gets you exposed and gets 160. you used to doing the activity and keeps you in shape .... in physical education you should be doing that it should be required because everyone should know something about it. (7.3.F. p.5:30-38). to get a phys. ed. degree you have got to be able to do some form of activity ... there are alot of different sports you can take alot of different activities .... they should have a standard to get in, a fitness stan-dard, they should have a test you have to take to get in and that eliminates alot of those people who come in because they couldn't get into anything else. (I.3.F. p.6:30-42). I've thought about it. We need performance courses I also think we should have a fitness exam before anyone is allowed into the faculty otherwise it discredits us say like the motor moron she comes and talks to her friends and says I've got a degree in phys. ed. and they see her play and they're going to ask what kind of a faculty is that? I think they're very important. (2.4.M. p.4:11-17). For these individuals performance was seen as an integral and important aspect of physical education. For a l l students irrespective of their career aspirations. There were two students who thought that performance courses were not useful. Their criticisms were based on the lack of relevance of the performance courses to their own needs. They did not state that perfor-mance itself was unimportant, only that performance courses were not suited to their own specific needs. Their comments about performance courses were as follows. I think they are a waste of time really. I would rather see, instead of doing activity courses, maybe an option offered where we could get some practical exper-ience in .... that would be more valuable for me than playing volleyball or basketball. (4.4.F. p.8:9-14). and 161. they should be electives because .... I'm not going to ever use .... to teach somebody the s k i l l s ... they shouldn't actually have them ... well ... they're good in a way. You should be able to touch the surface of them. (3.3.F. p.8:35-40). Both of these women did however say that the performance courses were not relevant to them as they were not going into teaching but recognizee that performance courses had a place i n the programme for other student I guess it's this thing that the majority of students are supposed to get going i n for education. (3.3.F. p.8:41-43). There was a consensus among student informants that performance courses were an important part of the degree programme. For the majority of this group performance courses were viewed as valuable because they provided students with useful s k i l l s that could be used in teaching or coaching. For others performance courses were important because physical education i s assumed to be about a c t i v i t y and, i t i s believed that physical education students ought to be s k i l l e d performer Irrespective of the ways in which performance courses are viewed perfor-mance i s believed to be an important aspect of the degree programme. Important Knowledge in Physical Education: Students' Views of  "Applied" and "Really Useful" Knowledge The preceeding analysis of students' definitions of important know-ledge i n physical education i l l u s t r a t e s that the majority of students view knowledge from the biological and behavioural sciences that can be applied to performance as pivotal. This knowledge i s defined by these individuals as important because i t can be used to analyze and improve 1 6 2 . performance. Thus, f o r the majority of the student informants important knowledge i n p h y s i c a l education i s knowledge that i s "useful", and u t i l i t y i s defined i n r e l a t i o n to degree to which knowledge can be used to improve performance. In addition to de f i n i n g knowledge from the b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural sciences as "us e f u l " knowledge, many of the student informants stated that t h i s information was i n t e r e s t i n g because i t focussed upon the body. However, for those students who d i d not f i n d the material i n t e r e s t i n g i t was s t i l l viewed as important because of i t s usefulness. Knowledge that i s viewed as unimportant and pe r i p h e r a l by the majority of the student informants i s knowledge that they b e l i e v e to have no apparent a p p l i c a t i o n to practice. Knowledge about play, games and sport as s o c i a l l y constructed, h i s t o r i c a l l y produced c u l t u r a l forms and a p p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s knowledge to an a n a l y s i s of p o l i c y issues i s defined by the majority of the student informants as t r i v a l , i r r e l e v a n t and "a waste of time". Yet, t h i s information i s a l s o viewed as common sense and the s o c i o - c u l t u r a l courses i n which i t i s taught are seen as "easy c r e d i t s " by students who take them as a means of counter-balancing the tougher "applied" courses i n the programme. The r e s u l t of t h i s i s that many of the student informants take courses that they view as per i p h e r a l and i r r e l e v a n t f o r easy c r e d i t s rather than taking as many as p o s s i b l e of the courses that w i l l teach information that i s viewed as u s e f u l and important. Thus,"many of the informants, s e l e c t courses that are both consistent with and contradictory to t h e i r perceptions of what constitutes important and u s e f u l knowledge. 163. The informants' d e f i n i t i o n s of important s k i l l s i n p h y s i c a l educa-t i o n a l s o r e v o l v e around performance. The great majority of the informants b e l i e v e that i t i s Important that p h y s i c a l education students be able performers i n a number of d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s . Performance courses are viewed as important because they provide u s e f u l p h y s i c a l s k i l l s and p r a c t i c a l experiences i n a number of d i f f e r e n t sports. Performance courses are viewed as important and u s e f u l by students who are intending to teach or coach because they provide p r a c t i c a l experience and a chance to develop s k i l l s i n a number of d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s . For others, who are not moving into teaching or coaching, they are p r i m a r i l y viewed as courses that are fun and necessary because performance i s viewed as the cornerstone of p h y s i c a l education. In summary, student Informants' d e f i n i t i o n s of important knowledge and s k i l l s i n p h y s i c a l education correspond to the ways i n which know-ledge i s structured and organized i n the degree programme. Students have performance as t h e i r primary focus and knowledge and s k i l l s that r e l a t e to performance are viewed as u s e f u l and i n t e r e s t i n g . Knowledge about sport that has no d i r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n to performance i s seen as pe r i p h e r a l but i s learned by students as a means of obtaining what are assumed to be "easy" c r e d i t s . The r e s u l t of t h i s i s that the majority of student informants are exposed to knowledge from both b i o l o g i c a l and behavoural, and s o c i o - c u l t u r a l courses. Thus, they l e a r n information that i s u s e f u l and can be ap p l i e d to performance i n b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural courses and knowledge about play, games and sport as s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l forms worthy of study i n order to consider the nature of the aims and structures of the a c t i v i t i e s i n which they i n v o l v e 164. themselves in socio-cultural courses. Students' Perspectives on Gender In chapter four it was argued that the structure and organization of the degree programme and faculty members' definitions of important knowledge provide students with alternative, potentially contradictory definitions of gender. On the one hand the centrality of performance and knowledge about performance in biological and behavioural theory courses leads to the treatment of gender issues as biological sex diffe-rences, where differences are framed as individual characteristics and presented as evidence of men's natural, superiority over women. On the other hand in socio-cultural theory courses gender is framed as a social issue and is taught to students in ways that challenge biological and behavioural explanations of sex differences. In order to understand the ways in which these alternative views of gender are linked to the social reproduction of gender it is important to examine students' interpreta-tions of and reactions to them. Gender as Sex Differences Most students mentioned sex differences when asked if gender was discussed in any of their courses. Typical responses from these infor-mants were: sometimes in some of the courses. Like for your aerobic capacity and for strength and stuff like that .... the women's pulse rate is dah dah dah whereas the men's is such in such those kind of things. (4.3.F. p.12:38-39, 13:1-3). 165. Most of the statistics they give are male/female. You know if they're talking about endurance they say males have this much can increase this much. They never give you overall male and female together. I can understand it though. (I.4.F. p.12:30-34). they talk about differences between males and females .... but anatomy is just truly the anatomical side that shows very basic differences like the arrangement of the sex organs and that is it and in the physiology they just lightly touch on differences between males and females. (4.3.M. p.12:13-19). they point to scientific findings, sex differences in performance they just sort of present the accepted facts. (6.4.M. p.5:30-35). The students who described gender as biological sex differences viewed information on differences between women and men as "the accepted facts". Gender, was seen by them as one of a number of variables that affect performance. For example, one student said he thought that the programme did not dwell on sex differences, but other variables that influenced performance outcomes were discussed more often. I think as you go through the programme that they drop al l these hints that it's not so much the sex of the person, it's the background, the activity the person had when they were younger not with the results on the test. So it doesn't matter whether it's a male or female. There will be some high females and some low females and high males and low males. (7.4.M. p.19:16-24). Although this group of students did not appear to view sex diffe-rences as an area of particular importance, they al l explained the separation of certain performance courses in the programmes in terms of natural, biological and behavioural differences between men and women. These individuals viewed men's superior strength, speed and power as a 166. biological fact of life that was natural and therefore unproblematic. For example, the following comments illustrate the pervasiveness of the view of women's natural, inferiority to men. obviously women can't perform obviously women can't do certain men's things, things that men can do. (I.4.M. p.9:23-28). I think there are certain biological differences be-tween men and women and rather than try to erase them to work at equalizing the opportunities that they each have and work together to improve them, not to be afraid to do the best they can do but not to go out and be like men. (2.3.M p.12:25-30). I'm sure if I were teaching I would look at a guy who looks pretty athletic and a girl who looks pretty athletic and expect the guy to do better at certain sports. (I.3.F. p.16:13-17). I think the only reason they're using males (in studies) is they're always bigger so you're probably going to get better results. If you have a female and a male at the same level and you work them out and test them, the results you get on the male will be much better than on the female. (2.G.F. p.22). There were however two women who were critical of framing gender as sex differences. One of the women commented that we did talk on women in sport and women and pregnancy .... a bit in anatomy, they went over the differences in sex. I guess not much time is spent talking about the person as a male I never really thought about it until now it makes me feel like we're kind of cheated. (4.4.F. p.13:27-34). But she went on to admit that when she found that she was in the male section of an activity course she switched to the women's section be-cause it was easier. 167. I even signed up for the male conditioning class be-cause I couldn't get into the women's. Mind you I managed to get out into the women's I would have been marked accordingly to the males so I would have to work alot harder which is one of the reasons I decided to get out. (4.4.F. p.14:33-40). The other women, in a conversation with a friend said you see that's what pisses me off about the statistics we use in physical education. They are general and al l the women that are in physical education deviate stand-ards to begin with we are a l l above the norm so why don't we try and get some stats that show us in relation to athletes. (2.G.I. p.38). Despite their frustrations with the ways in which information about women is presented in applied theory courses both women's critiques were levelled at the nature of the statistics used about women or the lack of information on women. Their critiques were not directed at the framing of gender as sex differences per se but at the inaccuracy of the in-formation they were receiving on sex differences. The responses of most of the students to the framing of gender as sex differences is predictable given their definitions of important knowledge in physical education. Information about sex differences, when it is presented as biological or behavioural fact, represents knowledge that can be applied to performance and thus is information that is "useful" to students. For the women who were critical of the information they were given on sex differences this critique was based on the inaccuracy of the information rather than on the framing of gender in this way. Inaccurate information for these women limits its usefulness and as such provides an incomplete analysis of women's poten-tials. This critique serves as the basis for a challenge to biological 168. views of women's capabilities but one in which the v a l i d i t y of the framework of sex differences remains unchallenged. Gender as a Distributive Issue The second way in which students described the treatment of gender i n their courses was as an analysis of social inequality. The following statements i l l u s t r a t e the ways in which students outlined this approach to gender issues about how women have sort of progressed ... l i k e where we were i n Canadian society to start off with and then how we sort of progressed .... we read a few a r t i c l e s on women in sport. (3.4.F. p.13:20-23). they talked about sport which was a l l men and they talked about the period when women entered. (2.4.F. p.8:20-22). l i k e with history there i s always a lecture thrown i n here or there about women's rights in sports. (8.3.F. p.15:16-18). The reactions to this discussion of women's inequality i n sport were similar. There was a consensus that although inequality was, and had been, a problem for women in society things had improved and women were getting closer to achieving f u l l equality i n sport. The following comments i l l u s t r a t e the nature of this response. AD: Do you think there i s more equality now for women in society? : I think so .... I don't think about i t an awful l o t sometimes. I think I probably should but I haven't really, i t hasn't been a problem for me. (3.4.F. p.13:30-33, 14:1-3). It might be an idea to make people aware I think i t shouldn't be carried to the extremes because I don't 169. think anything can be done to change it. That's just the way people are .... I don't think men's attitudes will change and the ones who are willing to change are changing now. But it might be an idea to make people aware. (8.3.F. p.15:29-35). I think there is equality ... I think so well I know a woman truck driver so it's definately getting better for the women. (7.4.M p.15:19-22). I always encourage girls I think girls are great .... I'm really against people that criticize girls .... I always encourage girls to do anything they want. (3.3.M. p.19:36-41). There is an agreement among these students that inequality was a problem for women in society but it is no longer viewed as a serious one as the perception is that it is being, or already has been, solved. The feeling among these students is that inequality is not a particularily important issue and as it does not directly affect perfor-mance and therefore is not an issue that ought to be focussed on in the programme. This perspective is mostly clearly illustrated in the following comment by a male student. there are more important, worse things to worry about .... there's lots of girls in our programme, there's equal opportunity .... I think it's just something they have to talk about in those history type courses 'cause it used to be worse. Now you have girls playing men's sports so what's all the fuss about. (5.4.M. p.10). Student's views of the treatment of gender as distributive issue are consistent with their definitions of important knowledge. This informa-tion is not seen as pertinent because it is not directly applicable to performance, nor is it useful as the male students believe themselves to be egalitarians and fully committed to "treating girls fairly" and the 170. women students view i n e q u a l i t y i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r personal experiences and define i t as "a fac t of l i f e " or something that i s "not a problem fo r me". The combination of the l o c a t i o n of t h i s information i n "non appli e d " s o c i o - c u l t u r a l theory courses and students views of important knowledge r e s u l t i n t h i s information being viewed as r e l a t i v e l y unimpor-tant and pe r i p h e r a l . Gender as a R e l a t i o n a l Issue Seven of the students interviewed were e n r o l l e d i n the so c i o -c u l t u r a l theory courses where gender was discussed as a set of h i s t o r i c a l l y constituted, s o c i a l l y constructed power r e l a t i o n s between women and men. The f o l l o w i n g students' comments i l l u s t r a t e t h i s ap-proach to gender. one of the things was semiology and he d e a l t with that a f a i r b i t and gender d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n v o l v e d i n the signs and symbols i n society and e v e n t u a l l y how i t s r e f l e c t e d i n sport. ( 6 . 4 . M . p.3:38-41). he was showing pictures of magazines and how the g i r l i s always portrayed as submissive and ... whenever they were a d v e r t i s i n g s t u f f l i k e cuba d i v i n g i t (the z i p of the wet su i t ) would be down to here (pointing at her n a v e l ) ... ya but the o u t f i t i s supposed to be f o r us to l o o k a t . It's supposed to be f o r the women .... but as i f I want to see a g i r l . What i t ' s t r y i n g to do they're u s i n g women to get a t t e n t i o n .... t h a t i s what he's s a y i n g .... j u s t any product .... but they're using women i n seductive ways or whatever to get i t across to the pu b l i c . (2.3.F. p.13:15-29). Students' reactions to t h i s a n a l y s i s of gender and the kinds of issues taught i n these s o c i a l - c u l t u r a l courses are i l l u s t r a t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g comments. 171. alot of people find it off the wall and sort of sit back in their chair drop their pens and wonder who is this guy. You know, where he coming from, did he have too much coffee this morning. (2.4.M. p.7:35-38). I don't get the course, I mean I sit there going, what is that man talking about. (4.3.M. p.3:16-17). The view of these courses as "off the wall" is reconfirmed in the following conversation that I overheard between two women after one of the classes can I borrow your notes, I gave up it makes no sense to me. Sure, but don't expect anything they're garbage ... It's just bullshit. (3.S.S. 13/3/85). When students were asked specifically about their reactions to the material on gender their responses were less damming. For example, one individual said about reactions to this material well he tried to show through ads how the woman was being exploited from a l l .... by the male .... I never gave it much thought .... Even now I don't think it's .... but I can see his point I think it's valid. (5.4.M. p.7:37-42). He went on to say that the class reacted. probably with the attitude so what there are more important things going on in this world .... well I don't think they were saying it was OK but they had reasons for why it was .... they felt there were worse things .... not being involved in the advertisement at a l l they could make it a strictly male ad.... AD: So do you think the impression is that although things aren't great for women they are getting better? Ya, that is the impression or if you're a male we're not the ones causing the problem. (5.4.M. p.8:2-23). 172. Other typical comments about the class ref l e c t this position. For example, there were some g i r l s made comments .... but more the majority ... everyone just laughs. He did w e l l .... he's not offending anyone .... he goes, i t ' s not me. I'm just trying to get a point across. (5.3.M. p.14:16-22). So for this male student the message i t s e l f was not viewed very seriously and therefore i t was easy to laugh at the examples given i n the class. The f i n a l comments by two students i n this class i l l u s t r a t e the dynamics of the responses to material that i s c r i t i c a l of mainstream, applied thinking i n physical education. A male student described the reactions as follows there was a reaction .... a l o t of people were ... you know ... we've been duped. They couldn't believe that a l l this was going on underneath ... and at times i t seemed l i k e he was reading more into i t than there a c t u a l l y was there and, i t ' s possible .... but i t ' s certainly an interpretation and you can't argue with that people got up and would argue the other way .... l i k e he was mentioning that gender discrimination and male dominance in society i s a sociological thing and I remember I argued that it's a biological thing .... we think i n such s c i e n t i f i c terms that i t ' s d i f f i c u l t to appreciate the sociological developments. He then moved on to say I have always been brought along in a more science oriented background. It's hard to break away from that. It's hard to look any other way. (6.4.M p.4:43-46, 5:1-17).• A woman i n the class said of the material a l o t of us didn't agree with him. It's too extreme ... there's equal opportunity here so i t ' s .... he's read-ing too much into i t .... and i t ' s well that's society. (2.3.F. p.13:1014). For these students, and many other physical educators this statement rings true. The focus of the programme on applied knowledge about 173. performance and students' definitions of important knowledge makes i t d i f f i c u l t for them to view physical education i n any other way. Thus i t i s easy for students to react to material that i s different or material that provides alternative analyses of play, games and sport by defining i t as peripheral, idiosyncratic, and extreme. Knowledge, Performance and Gender: Students' Reactions to Alternatives This chapter has examined students' definitions of important know-ledge and s k i l l s i n physical education and their reactions to the ways in which gender issues are defined and taught i n the degree programme. The students i n this study share a love of and interest i n sport. They entered physical education because i t was perceived as a programme that would be easy, interesting and one that would provide them with know-ledge and s k i l l s that could be applied to performance. The student informants view important knowledge i n their programme as knowledge that can be applied to performance. Thus, knowledge about the body and knowledge taught i n biological and behavioural theory courses i s viewed as "re a l l y useful" by students because of i t s focus on factors that affect performance. Conversely, knowledge about play, games and sports that has no direct application to performance i s viewed as irrelevant and peripheral. Yet, i t i s also viewed as "easy" and "common sense" so i s seen as useful i n the sense that the courses can be taken as "easy" credits to counterbalance the more d i f f i c u l t "applied" theory courses. When students' definitions of important knowledge are combined with 174. t h e i r notions of the c e n t r a l i t y of performance i t can be seen that the majority of students view p h y s i c a l education as a programme where they can obtain knowledge and s k i l l s that can be used to improve performance. Knowledge about play, games and sport that i s not r e l a t e d to performance i s defined as p e r i p h e r a l and l a r g e l y i r r e l e v a n t . These orientations i l l u s t r a t e the ways students place knowledge from the b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural sciences that can be a p p l i e d to performance at the core of ph y s i c a l education. Students' reactions to the treatment of gender issues i n the pro-gramme are consistent with t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n s of important knowledge. Information on sex diff e r e n c e s i n performance, where i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e -rences are explained i n b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural terms, i s viewed by the majority of the informants as v a l i d information that i s u s e f u l i n expla i n i n g performance. I t i s not, however, viewed as extremely impor-tant information as gender i s assumed to be only one of a number of fact o r s that a f f e c t performance. Nevertheless when information on sex differences i n performance i s presented to students i t i s g e n e r a l l y accepted that women are n a t u r a l l y slower and weaker than men and there-fore unable to compete with them i n c e r t a i n sports. This view of women's na t u r a l i n f e r i o r i t y i s not accepted by a l l of the student informants. Two women expressed concern about the informa-t i o n that was presented to them i n b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural courses. However, these c r i t i q u e s were di r e c t e d at the inaccuracy of the informa-t i o n on women rather than upon the framing of gender as sex differences. These women, although c r i t i c a l , expressed t h e i r c r i t i c i s m s within a framework that locates differences within i n d i v i d u a l s and explains them 175. i n biological and behavioural terms. Informants' reactions to the framing of gender as a distributive and relational issue i l l u s t r a t e the students responses to these a l t e r -native views are far from straightforward. Students' do not t o t a l l y dismiss either of these approaches to gender. There i s some recognition that inequality, and the social construction of inequality are interes-ting and v a l i d issues. However, this information i s seen as "extreme" and i s not viewed as an important problem for physical educators, as students believe that things are improving for women in society and that they themselves are "not the ones to blame" for the problem. Although the students do not dismiss the information outright they do not view i t very seriously as they define i t as peripheral to their needs as i t does not have a direct effect on performance. This chapter has shown that students have orientations to physical education that f a c i l i t a t e the acceptance of patriarchial definitions of gender. However, this acceptance i s not total as many students are exposed to alternative explanations of gender that locate the problem of differences within individuals and explains them in biological and behavioural terms. The alternative explanations are viewed by students at best, as interesting but peripheral, and at worst, as irrelevant and "off the wall". Thus, the combination of the structure and organization of the degree programme and students' perceptions of important knowledge and , s k i l l s provide powerful support for patriarchial social relations. The importance of "applied" knowledge and performance f a c i l i t a t e s the 176. a c c e p t a n c e o f a d e f i n i t i o n o f gender t h a t f o c u s s e s on t h e i n d i v i d u a l and e x p l a i n s s e x d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r f o r m a n c e i n b i o l o g i c a l and b e h a v i o u r a l terms. C h a l l e n g e s t o t h i s v i e w o f gender a r e e i t h e r framed by s t u d e n t s w i t h i n a s e x d i f f e r e n c e s framework o r a r e v i e w e d a s i r r e l e v a n t and p e r i p h e r a l because t h e y do n o t d i r e c t l y a f f e c t p e rformance. The r e s u l t o f t h i s i s t h a t p a t r i a r c h i a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f gender a r e accommodated t o by s t u d e n t s b u t t h i s accommodation o c c u r s i n complex ways. 177. Chapter Six Accommodation, Resistance and the Social Construction of Gender  in Physical Education Students Lives Social reproduction and transformation occur as a result of the personal and c o l l e c t i v e actions of individuals. Human agents act i n ways that may accommodate to and resist the ideological messages they encounter in their daily l i v e s . It i s important, then, to understand not only how ideological messages are created and presented to i n d i v i -duals but to explore how they are interpreted and experienced by them. The chapter examines the ways i n which physical education students create their gender identities. It explores how male and female stu-dents define their masculinity and femininity i n ways that accommodate to and are resistant of patriarchial definitions of these categories. Evidence from student interviews and participant observations is used to describe students' definitions of gender categories. It w i l l be argued the students i n physical education construct their gender identities i n ways that are both accommodative to and resistant of patriarchial defini-tions of gender. The evidence i l l u s t r a t e s that despite the resistance that i s apparent in some students' actions, this resistance remains isolated and individualized and does not come together i n the c o l l e c -tive, potentially emancipatory, action important for the transformation of the social relations of gender. 178. Groups defined by Gender i n the Degree Programme Four distinct student based, gender defined groups became s i g n i f i -cant in this study. ^ These groups w i l l be used as the basis for the discussion of social reproduction. The ways i n which each of these groups of students create and express their gender identities through their relations with each other provides us with a means of understanding how the social relations of gender are created and reproduced. Each of these groups w i l l be described and juxtaposed i n order to understand the ways in which students in this degree programme accommodate and resist patriarchial ideology through their associations with each other, and others outside of their social groups. The four groups that w i l l be discussed are the "super jocks", the "ordinary jocks", the "women jocks" and the "non jocks". A l l of these groups identify themselves i n varying degrees with the label "jock". At one extreme there are the "super jocks" and "women jocks" who have strong identification and associations as jocks. Then there are the "ordinary jocks" who have looser identification and associations as jocks. F i n a l l y , there are the "non-jocks" who define themselves i n opposition to the jocks. Jocks It seems to me a l o t of people i n physical education just get by .... you sort of get the jocks in physical education .... they always seem to get through l i f e doing the bare minimum .... the people i n school who have spent most of their l i v e s doing sports and not r e a l l y applying themselves to too much else .... to me it's somebody that sort of takes the easy way out of 179. everything, sports is the easy way out rather than applying yourself at school. (4.4.F. p.10:8-28). Jock is a label that is often used to refer to physical education students. The term is one that has a gender of its own. It is, in its extreme form, symbolic of masculinity. Being a jock symbolizes the posses-sion of two highly valued forms of cultural capital in physical education; enhanced male sexuality and athletic prowess. The two groups who developed the most clearly identifiable associations and identities as jocks did so in quite different ways. The "super jocks", a l l of whom were men, constructed their gender iden-tities in ways that confirmed their masculinity and athletic prowess. The "women jocks" constructed their gender identities in more complex ways. Being a jock is contradictory for these women as it creates a tension between their athletic abilities and their gender identities. The "Super Jocks" The "super jocks" are a small group of men, usually football players, who are readily identifiable among the physical education students. The "super jocks" represent an extreme. They are a group that are unashamedly masculine. In order to describe this group I will focus on one indivi-dual, Randy, an informant who is an avowed "super jock". Randy is an example of a "super jock". The first thing that you notice about him is his hair, or lack of it. He has a very short crew cut, it looks as if his head has been shaved. This seems to exaggerate his build. The second thing that is noticeable about Randy is that he is about six feet tall and looks strong and powerful. He has the 180. unmistakable look of a football player. Randy i s rarely alone, he i s always with two or three other men who look just l i k e him, large, t a l l and with very short or no hair. They a l l dress similarly, running shoes or tennis shoes, blue jeans, t-shirts and blue jackets with a small logo saying football. This group i s d i f f i c u l t to ignore. The combination of their size, the similarities in their dress and the fact that they appear to move around in groups makes the "super jocks" instantly noticeable. They s i t together i n class, they train together, they eat lunch together, they socialize together and are part of a very c l e a r l y identifiable group. Randy describes the si m i l a r i t i e s between himself and the other "super jocks" in his state-ment that football players' mentalities don't r e a l l y change that much and they're within this much (placing his thumb and forefinger together) of each other I'd say. They're a l l very similar types I don't know why, they're a l l geared towards football. You've got to love the contact. (4.3.M. p.14:11-15). Being a "super jock" i s unmistakably male. Randy i s the archetypical macho, aggressive, athletic man. The way he dresses, his body, his walk, his hair, his friends, the wad of tobacco i n his cheek are a l l worn as symbols of his masculinity and sexuality. Randy and his friends are easy to find both i n and out of classes. When they go to class they can be found s i t t i n g at the back of the room in a group either sleeping or disrupting the class by talking amongst themselves with an obvious disregard for the subject matter being taught. As Randy explains about one of his courses 181. we take i t and get a snooze during i t , that's why people take i t , before p r a c t i c e you get an hour of sleep (4.3.M. p.7:15-18). During c l asses the "super jocks" conversations are frequently dire c t e d at two topics, " f o o t b a l l " or "broads". For example, i n one c l a s s , which was h e l d i n a la r g e l e c t u r e room, a group of "super jocks" were s i t t i n g at the back and one a r r i v e d l a t e and announced I l o s t my fucking pen so I had to borrow one from some broad. Later on i n the same c l a s s , t h i s group were t a l k i n g to each other about "where the ac t i o n was going to be at the weekend". Outside of c l a s s time t h i s group are easy to f i n d . They are u s u a l -l y s i t t i n g i n the bleachers i n the gym watching the a c t i v i t y on the gym f l o o r . A f a v o r i t e occupation f o r t h i s group i s to gather at lunch times when there are aerobics c l a s s e s going on i n the gym. During these c l a s s e s they often jeer, and d i r e c t comments at the p a r t i c i p a n t s or at each other. A t y p i c a l exchange i s to b e l i t t l e the i n d i v i d u a l s i n the c l a s s . For example, f i v e "super jocks" were s i t t i n g watching an aero-b i c s c l a s s i n the gymnasium when the f o l l o w exchange took place (pointing to one of two men i n the aerobics c l a s s of about 60 women) Randy - look at him, faggot (laughter) S.J. - wow see that one with the pink (pointing to large woman i n a pink leotard) going to knock h e r s e l f out with her t i t s (more laughter) Later on i n the same conversation they began to tease each other Randy - see him, he's here a l l the time watching her (pointing at 182. a woman i n the c l a s s ) , that one .... hasn't got the b a l l s to talk to her S.J. - (no response) Randy - do you want us to ask her out for you ... c'mon let's go i f he won't ... she needs a r e a l man - fuck off (he shoves him and they start a playful wrestle and the others laugh). The "super jocks" have a presence. They don't walk, they seem to strut and exude confidence. They command attention by their very pre-sence. They are physically intimidating. The "super jocks" are envied yet at the same time despised by other physical education students. They do not, however, go unnoticed. This group are viewed with disdain by many of the women i n physical education. They are disliked because of their treatment of women and their overt displays of sexuality. One woman recounted an incident that typifies the a b i l i t y of the "super jocks" to use their bodies to intimi-date. She said I remember we did a l i t t l e project and a l l the guys in my group were football players and then this guy comes in .... I didn't even notice him ... right behind him was this huge guy - I mean huge and a l l he was wearing were l i t t l e shorts and couldn't he put something on? He looked .... just on top of me and I thought oh my god. (D.M.2.G.I. p.3). There i s also some folklore about the sexual exploits of the super jock. Whether real or imagined these tales a l l serve to perpetuate the macho, aggressively masculine image of this group. For example, one woman said of the "super jocks" I've heard things about them I wouldn't repeat I've heard st o r i e s t h i s i s with women ... l i k e one guy well he got a g i r l to agree to go home with him and she gets there and walks i n the room and there was a l l these 183. other f o o t b a l l players and they had t h i s massive bang. I've heard that ^ (D.M.2.G.I. p.4). For the other male p h y s i c a l education students i n the programme the "super jocks" are an i r r i t a n t , yet at the same time they are viewed as an enigma. One male p h y s i c a l education student stated that you know there's no doubt about i t . I mean those guys .... i f you l e t them bother you then they're r e a l l y annoying I know they're b i g and s t r o n g but I don't know how strong they are otherwise ... I know they think they're great when they're w i t h a bunch of guys i f you get them a l o n e I don't know what they're l i k e . I mean can they t a l k to you or are they s t i l l l i k e where are they? (3.3.M. p.20:20-31). Another male student s a i d of the super jocks I don't l i k e the way they a c t i t ' s j u s t the image .... the f o o t b a l l players f o r some reason think that they can't be n i c e guys f o r some reason when they get together as a group they r e a l l y seem to think they have to get tough and be d i f f e r e n t . (I.3.M. p.15:1-5). He went on to say For some reason they think they're i n the e l i t e bunch and I f i n d they r e a l l y s t i c k out because everyone e l s e a l l the other teams compete enter teams i n say storm the w a l l . I've never seen a f o o t b a l l group and they seem to think they're above that, but I don't think they would stand a chance. In terms of a t h l e t e s I'm not that impressed with the f o o t b a l l group. (I.3.M. p.16:6-15). For Randy, the c r i t i c i s m s from others are unimportant. He i s confident about h i s a t h l e t i c a b i l i t i e s and i s unconcerned about being thought of as a "dumb jock", i t i s something that the accepts as part of being a p h y s i c a l education student. He sa i d You always get the b i g laugh. I was the dumb jock. I was happy t h e r e was s c h o o l , i t was g r e a t I t was f i n e I was happy just p l a y i n g sport I didn't care. But now that I know its work and you're standing around the guys take a pick, I don't care. (4.3.M. p.6). He does not care because he is not at university to be an academic. is here to play football. He said of himself I'm not your academic intellectual type .... I like to use my body more than my brain. (4.3.M. p.1:30-32). So playing football, being one of the boys gives him direction and reason to be at school. He described himself in the following way I thrive on discipline and I love practising five days a week. The weight lifting and the regimes and the coaches, I don't know watching the film. It takes about, during the the season, 25 hours a week and then if you travel, it's up to about 60 hours a week. (4.3.M. p.8:5-10). and it's great .... last year I was saying I don't want to go back to school, I wanted to take a year off. It gives great direction. That's what it does. I've got loads of friends on the team. I love weight lifting and it gives me good reason to stay in school.... (4.3.M. p.8:12-17). The camaraderie, and sense of belonging that Randy gets from being "super jock" is extremely important. He said of his hair cut. I've always wanted short back and sides and then the football I just ... did you see my picture in the magazine. I'm bald, bald. I don't know, it's just a dumb thing to do .... it's just something guys do. (4.3.M. p.13:15-28). And of the sense of belonging to an identifiable group. I don't know I think guys that have that mentality and just abuse their bodies .... I think they a l l have the same type of mentality and they al l group together everyone shows up in their team jackets and they're a l l together in a group it's really like that (4.3.M. p.14:29-33, 15:4-6). 185. Randy's major i n t e r e s t i n school i s f o o t b a l l and having fun. Coursework and marks are hot a high p r i o r i t y f o r him. The main aim i s to pass. I wasn't s t r i v i n g to get the A or B. I was happy w i t h my C. (4.3.M. p.4:29-30). or to f i n d an easy way out. They work you hard. Swimming i s another one. I r e a l l y messed up swimming. I meant to fake that I was a bad swimmer but I swam too w e l l so I got i n t o ... so that means you have to do a l l the lengths at the begin-ning. (4.3.M. p.7:1-6). Randy's course load f o r the year r e f l e c t e d h i s commitment to sport. He was taking a t o t a l of 13.0 units, which i s 6.0 uni t s short of a f u l l course load, four units of which were p h y s i c a l education a c t i v i t y courses. This load i s as much as he could be expected to manage given h i s time commitments to playing, t r a i n i n g and p r a c t i s i n g . The compromise was simple f o r him. He sa i d I'm going to take another year to f i n i s h and I'm going to be a f i v e year man. (4.3.M. p.2:16-17). This serves two purposes. I t al l o w s him to carry a reasonable load and to continue to study and pla y u n i v e r s i t y sport for f i v e rather than the normal four years of an undergraduate programme. Randy's views on women i n p h y s i c a l education and women's c a p a b i l i -t i e s i n sport are rooted i n biology. He b e l i e v e s that there are c e r t a i n b i o l o g i c a l differences between the sexes that are legi t i m a t e reasons for the e x c l u s i o n of women from c e r t a i n sports. For example he suggested that the reasons f o r the separation of performance courses by sex were 186. Randy - w e l l f o r conditioning and gymnastics I think i t ' s where strength and endurance come i n t o i t .... g i r l s weren't allowed because they couldn't keep up to the male pace • • • • • AD - what do you thing about that? Randy - I agree .... when you average i t out the males g e n e r a l l y have more endurance than your average conditioned female I would say. (4.3.M. p.10:9-11, 24-27, 30-33). His f e e l i n g s on the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of g i r l s p l a y i n g on boys' hockey or f o o t b a l l were i n the same vein. I'd f e e l f i n e , but I'd look at the maturation studies because at age 14 she's probably s t i l l on a parr, the guys probably haven't h i t adolescence yet. But as soon as the guys s t a r t h i t t i n g adolescence they s t a r t sprout-i n g and p u t t i n g on the pounds ... I wouldn't l e t her p l a y , no. She's j u s t going to get hurt. (4.3.M. p.11:36-41). Thus, Randy, uses b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural evidence to support h i s b e l i e f that women are n a t u r a l l y weaker than men. This evidence i s seen by Randy as legitimate grounds f o r the exclusion of women from c e r t a i n sports i n order to save them from themselves. Women who are big, strong and powerful and who contravene b i o l o g i -c a l and behavioural evidence of t h e i r i n f e r i o r i t y are not viewed as exceptions by Randy. He sai d of t h i s group i t ' s l i k e the big healthy g i r l s go out on the f i e l d and smash each other .... i t ' s a tough s p o r t ... I can't say I r i b them ... nobody r i b s them face to f a c e .... (4.3.M. p.12:25-28). When pushed, Randy admitted that h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of these women was part of the repartee that goes on between d i f f e r e n t groups of at h l e t e s . He sa i d he d i d not think much about t h i s group of women and i f he d i d i t was u s u a l l y i n jest. 187. we call the hockey players hockey pucks and they call us pigskins. I think that just goes on between al l the teams. The ribbing about the women's field hockey team is not anything malicious. (4.3.M. p.12:39-42). Thus, for Randy stereotypes of women in sport were just a bit of fun. Teasing other physical education students, whether male or female was part of being a "super jock". His ambivalence to the achievements of women fits with his belief in their biological and behavioural limita-tions. For the "super jock" the achievements of women athletes are easy to ignore. They don't have to be taken seriously as women do not generally participate in the sports played by these men and, thus, do not challenge or threaten their images as macho men. The "super jock" then is confident, anti-intellectual and agres-sively "male". "Super jocks" are usually found In groups and are identifiable by their size, dress and behaviour. They work hard at their sport and expect kudos from their achievements on the field rather than in the classroom. Being successful in sport, being members of the team, and being big, strong and heavy are symbols of the "super jocks'" indisputable masculinity. These symbols serve as evidence of the link between sport and masculinity. Women, because of their biology, cannot gain access to this group. They can never be "super jocks" in the same ways as Randy and his friends. The "super jocks" exaggerated bodies, behaviour and overt displays of male sexuality make this an exclusively male group. These men are examples of individuals who give a material form to the belief that men are naturally superior to women. The "super jocks" are living 188. proof that men are naturally stronger, and more powerful than their female counterparts and they serve as examples of what other men can achieve. There i s a congruence and lack of conflict for the "super jocks" between the dominant focus of knowledge about gender i n the programme and the ways in which they have created their gender identi-ties. The "super jocks" reproduce i n their every day l i v e s a set of gender relations that confirm and are consistent with biological and behavioural explanations of men's natural superiority. The "Women Jocks" Sometimes i f I play a sport I'd rather be considered not feminine because i t doesn't have good connotations. I think of someone feminine who can't shoot, can't dribble can't do anything. (I.3.F. p.17:20-24). Unlike the "super jocks", being athletic and having an athletic body creates a potential conflict for "women jocks" between dominant ideological representations of women's biological and behavioural capabilities and the ways i n which they create their gender identities. The dominant focus of knowledge i n the programme creates a view of gender that focusses on individual t r a i t s and emphasizes the biological and behavioural basis for the differences that exist between women and men. "Women jocks" have developed their athleticism and gender identi-ties i n ways that contravene the dominant views of gender taught in the programme. Yet, the "women jocks'" expressions of their resistance to patriarchial definitions of their capabilities are realized i n ways that reproduce rather than transform the social relations of gender. 189. "Women jocks" are not easy to locate. They are a minority group in physical education. They are the women who most closely resemble the male "super jock". The "super jocks" are in fact the "women jocks'" reference group. "Women jocks" are in a paradoxical position i n physical education. On the one hand they manifest many of the characteristics and behaviours of physical education students and so theoretically form part of the dominant group in physical education. Yet, by becoming jocks these women do not manifest traditionally feminine behaviours and become a marginal group in relation to women in society. "Women jocks", then, are both dominant and marginal. The position of "women jocks" i n physical education creates tensions for them. These tensions are pivotal i n locating these women i n a position within physical education that i s both enabling and constraining and that has reproductive and transforma-tive potential. Women who describe themselves, and are comfortable with others describing them, as jocks are a minority among women physical educators i n the degree programme. Three of the 15 women who were interviewed were comfortable and identified with the label jock. Chris, Ann and Jo are three "women jocks" in the programme. They are friends with and appear to have much in common with the "super jocks". They are c l e a r l y identifiable as a group and they usually dress i n the standard uniform of the jock - running or court shoes, white knee length tube socks, sweat pants pulled up to the knees and a sweat top or t-shirt. Chris, Ann and Jo are frequently together. They can be found si t t i n g i n the bleachers of the gym, the gallery of the pool, the cafeteria eating or in class. They stick together as a group, s i t with 190. each other in class, eat lunch together, "hang out" in the bleachers together and play sport together. How will people who are not physical educators understand us, don't change us, write about us as we are. Don't make it like we're prissies, but don't make us butchy. Just say what we are. (Ann - 2/4/85). This comment was made by Ann as a warning to me before the process of writing this research began. She outlines in this statement the location of the woman jock; somewhere between a prissy and a butch. The creation of space in the social structures of physical education is pivotal in understanding the "woman jock". She is, in a sense, caught between what she perceives as two very limited and limiting possibili-ties. It is the tension that is created between these possibilities that is important if we are to understand the "women jock". She does not identify with traditionally, feminine women - the prissies, nor does she associate herself with the masculine label of butch. She is caught somewhere in between. In the following comments. Ann, Chris and Jo discuss their loca-tions as a group within physical education. They describe the kinds of women that are in physical education and locate themselves in relation to these categories Ann - Most of the girls in physical education suck the big one. They're motor morons, useless, can't do anything, why are they there? .... I hate these girls that are weak and wimpy. (T. 29/3/85). Chris - ya plus women, I think a lot of women in physical educa-tion I wonder why they took it. They must have their own personal sport because they can't do anything else. (I.3.F. p.4:29-32). 191. Jo categorized the women in physical education in three ways. She stated that with al l the courses that you're in, stereotyping happens al l the time. I find that in my soccer, my football, you know there's the girl who is the feeb, then there's the jock, then there's the girl that we say is butchy. (2.3.F. p.10:20-24). The majority of women in physical education are described by these three as feebs or prissies. Their categories are revealed in the following conversations where they struggle to describe different groups of female physical education students. Prissies are described in the following conversation as: Ann - the prissy girl with the dress and heels Chris - which we assume is a motor moron Ann - yes ... they can't play the sport they just want to fuck the guys. (G.I.2. p.4.). They went on to describe prissies as female who 'play like girls'. Chris - They, if you play like a girl you play wimpy Ann - also there's no aggression or anything put into it . Chris - you get dominated if someone happens to be good they walk over the top of you. (2.G.I. p.42). Female jocks on the other hand are viewed by Chris and Ann as an athle-tic yet feminine woman. They suggested that Ann - If you're a jock OK, well butch and dyke are so close to jock I don't think sk i l l level has anything to do with a butch but it has something to do with a jock. Chris - Cathy was definately not butch .... she could play her body was very athletic. Ann - Nobody ever called Cathy a butch but they sure called her a jock 'cause she was a f a n t a s t i c a t h l e t e .... i t was the way she c a r r i e d h e r s e l f , the way she presented h e r s e l f o f f the c o u r t and out of the gym. AD - Did she do things l i k e wear make up? Ann + C h r i s - No.... i t doesn't have to go to extremes. (2.G.I. - p.2). The extreme form of a woman jock f o r these "women jocks" were described as butch or masculine women. Butch i s described by Jo as Jo - You know. She goes out there, she doesn't care, s h e ' l l push the guys around. I ' l l play, and I ' l l t r y to play to my a b i l i t y but I don't seem to have the same that she does .... s p o r t that's j u s t what they do i t ' s t h e i r l i f e . (2.3.F. p.l0:24-31). and by Ann and Chris as Ann - I t depends ... I t h i n k the way you dress has a l o t to do w i t h i t . Chris - and the way you cut your h a i r , the way you look Ann - The way you carry y o u r s e l f , i f you bump around l i k e you know, kind of f l e x i n g Chris - Try to look l i k e a guy sev e r e l y then you are a butch. I think people with a butch a t t i t u d e don't think they can succeed unless they're l i k e a guy, as aggressive and ugly ... (laughter) and dress the same the whole b i t . Their image i s masculine r i g h t to the end. (2.G.I. p.2,10). Chris, Ann and Jo define themselves as jocks. They do however r e -cognize that they may be defined by others as butchy. AD - What do you i d e n t i f y yourselves as? Chris - Not butch. Ann - as l o n g as we don't get the butch, dyke l a b e l AD - So you are jocks, but not p r i s s i e s . (laughter) Chris + Ann - Yea. Ann - I'm s t r a i g h t anyhow, I wore my s k i r t l a s t week (laughter) i t depends what atmosphere you're i n . I f I go home to my 193. small town a l o t of people think I'm r e a l l y butchy 'cause I do play lots of sports. (2.G.I. p.10). A l l three women were acutely aware of their paradoxical location in the social structure i n physical education. They recognized that by being "women jocks" they were placed i n a marginal position. The men in the programme accept them as friends or "one of the guys" but in doing so do not view them as women. The other women physical education stu-dents define them as masculine or butch and also deny them their femininity. Chris - The guys are a l l your friends Ann - Because you're at their level, you do the same things. Chris - we're just androgynous, then i t doesn't make a difference. Ann - Yeah, but then when you think about i f you wanted a lasting relationship you get this zoom off i n the other d i r e c t i o n ... see you l a t e r . In describing their position i n relation to the men i n physical educa-tion Jo stated that When I started football I made a couple of catches and the guys said "well what's the world coming to. Next thing you know you'll see your wife cooking dinner i n cleats". Sorry to t e l l you buddy but I do already. Anyway he just kind of looked and went "what's the world coming to" and "this isn't right, g i r l s aren't supposed to be l i k e this". (2.3.F. p.7:1-6). They are very much a group that are caught i n the middle.. They are not accepted on equal terms by the male physical education students because they are not men and they want nothing to do with the majority of women i n physical education who they view as weak, unathletic and overly feminine. Ann outlines this i n her comment that 194. You're in a bit of a dilemma you're right down the middle the women hate you, the girls hate you .... because you're so butchy and you're so much better than them at al l sports and guys hate you because you're so threatening to their masculinity so you ride down the middle road. (2.S.I. p.34). Riding down the middle road for Chris, Ann and Jo means creating an identity for themselves in which they can be what they truly are -strong, athletic women who love sport. Yet in creating their identities as "women jocks" they maintain the categories that they are trying to escape from by vigorously denying that they are butches and in so doing accept the negative stereotype of "butch". The "women jocks" have some things in common with the "super jocks" in their construction of femininity as well as in their admiration of athletic prowess. Yet there are some distinctive differences between these two groups. One might assume that Chris, Ann and Jo were a female version of the "super jocks". They are, because of their athlet-icism and body images, a marginal group. They are a close group and are often together in classes, socially and on the court. Their common bond, as for the "super jocks" is their love of and commitment to sport. All three women said they "loved sports" and spent almost a l l of their free time in sport related activities. For example, Chris stated that I an an assistant coach in basketball. I used to play but I don't anymore. And outside of school I play softball, lacrosse, basketball, volleyball, a l l the racket sports, I swim, you name it, I do it. (I.3.F. p.12:41-44). All three women also stated that although the time they spent participating in sport interfered with the time available for studying they felt that as physical education students they should be playing 195. something. Ann - a lot of top athletes will sacrifice their education to play for a university and then after they finish their five years (of playing eligibility) they will get down to some serious studying. AD - Would you do that? Chris - Sure, if they had something to offer. Ann - My ambition was to play varsity ball I played for a year screwed up my academics so bad I couldn't come back without 8.0 units, I dropped courses. (2.S.I. p.20). Despite appearing to place academic work second to their participa-tion in sport, al l three women stressed the importance of both physical education theory and performance courses. The theory courses that were identified as important by al l three women were the courses that could be applied to improve performance. Jo - You know anatomy and physiology you can apply to doing exercises but this stuff (socio-cultural courses) And Chris - What do you teach? AD - Sociology of education. Chris - I hate that stuff. I mean look why do we learn a l l that agonal, historical shit. You're not really into that stuff are you. AD " Yes. Chris - Look, tell me why people play sport, that much I can handle but not that historical shit. What use is it? I prefer science myself at least that's relevant. You can use it not like that agonal play stuff. (T.N. 21/3/85). Performance and knowledge that can be used to improve performance are crucial for these women. They are quite clear about what physical education ought to be teaching them. 196. AD - Could you imagine not studying anatomy and physiology and only studying say the sociology of sport. Chris - No ... you wouldn't be accepted i n the f a c u l t y doing t h a t . They .... they're i n e d u c a t i o n when they do p h y s i c a l education t h e i r idea of p h y s i c a l education i s they p l a y l i t t l e games. Nothing competitive of a l l . There's no competition they take that philosophy junk where competition i s negative. They're laughed at, I laugh a t them. (2.G.I. p.24). For these women important knowledge i n p h y s i c a l education i s knowledge that i s u s e f u l . Usefulness i s defined i n r e l a t i o n to i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to the achievement of human performance excellence. Performance i s c e n t r a l to Chris, Ann and Jo's perceptions of p h y s i c a l education. They stressed very strongly that a c t i v i t y that's what p h y s i c a l education i s .... a c t i v i t y . (I.3.F. p.7:22). but went further to state that they should have a standard to get i n , a f i t n e s s standard. They should have a t e s t you have to take to get i n and that eliminates a l o t of those people who come i n because they couldn't get into anything e l s e . (I.3.F. p.6:38-42). Chris, Ann and Jo appeared i n some ways to be a n t i - i n t e l l e c t u a l . They spent a l o t of time s i t t i n g i n the bleachers t a l k i n g about the work they had to do. When they d i d appear to be studying i t was often s i t t i n g i n the bleachers with a book on t h e i r laps or i n the g a l l e r y above the pool where i t was warmer but, s t i l l as noisy. Their l i v e s d i d not seem to leave much room f o r studying or v i s i t s to the l i b r a r y . Yet, a l l three were carrying f u l l course loads (16.0 - 18.0 units) and were doing w e l l i n the courses they defined as important ( b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural theory courses that taught them s c i e n t i f i c knowledge 197. about performance). For example, Ann was s i t t i n g i n the bleachers copying some notes watching Chris and Jo p l a y i n g v o l l e y b a l l . She said Ann - I've got a t e s t t h i s afternoon, i n d u s t r i a l f i r s t a i d tomorrow, lab exam on Friday and I haven't studied yet I've got Chris's notes from yesterday's c l a s s , I ' l l copy those so she can study f o r the t e s t ... I haven't studied for my anatomy exam yet. AD - When i s that? Ann - 3:30 t h i s afternoon. AD - Do you know i t ? Ann - I have an 85% average so I want to do w e l l ... i f I went i n now I c o u l d pass i t but I want to keep my mark up. (A.K. 26/3/85). This example i s t y p i c a l f o r a l l three women. They do not spend a l o t of time studying during the day, but do enough work at night to a l l o w them to achieve good marks i n important c l a s s e s and pass i n the others. Chris, Ann and Jo are, i n many senses, s i m i l a r to the "super jocks" i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s to theory courses. They are happy with the compromises they have a r r i v e d at for themselves but are a l s o t o l e r a n t of women and men who are studious, hardworking and successful. The key f o r acceptance by these women i s not academic a b i l i t y but how one performs on the court or i n a c t i v i t y courses. For example, one lunch time s i t t i n g i n the g a l l e r y of the pool Chris and Ann had the f o l l o w i n g conversation while watching some swim-mers doing laps. Chris - You know, remember Cathy she played v a r s i t y l a s t year. I think she has the perfect a t h l e t i c body. Ann - Yeah. 1 9 8 . Chris - She's tal l , strong, lean, a great athlete, smart, I mean smart, blond and pretty. Ann - Yeah, she's really got everything the way I would like to be. (T.N.A.K. 21/3/85). Having everything means being attractive, a great athlete and smart. But if they can't have everything then it is vital that Chris, Ann and Jo are good athletes. Athletic ability is crucial for acceptance as a "woman jock". Without that acceptance into this group is not possible. Athletic ability is judged by Chris, Ann and Jo in their performance courses. They are very unforgiving of women who do not meet their standards of performance. This is how they separate themselves as a group. They are athletic; the others who do not meet the standards are written off as "prissies and motor morons". Jo expressed her frust ration at some of the women in her performance courses. I know my soccer class, when I'm playing .... I know some days I get really frustrated with the girls because if they don't want to try and I'm running around and the guys you know, they stereotype the girls and I start saying you're just like old ladies and that's not fair but they don't want to be there. (2.3.F. p.5:34-39). Chris and Ann express similar frustrations. While watching a volley-ball class from the bleachers I had the following conversation with Ann Ann - look (pointing at a woman who has missed the ball) there's another one. (She misses again) look why is it these people are in physical education ... she's probably in education, you know they take a physical education concentration .... they're usually useless. AD - Are there any men who are motor morons in physical educa-tion? 199. Ann - No. AD - Why not? Ann - It's OK for women, .... i t ' s feminine to be useless. They don't try too hard 'cause they're trying to be feminine. It drives me crazy ... you should be i n class with these women ... you know the aerobics types a l l they do i s t r y to look good ... they never try ... i t ' s femi-nine to be weak just prance around and look good. AD - Do you hold back to be feminine? Ann - No way, are you kidding? AD - What about the guys? Ann - it's different for them, l i k e it's important for them to be good. That's how they show how masculine they are. If they are motor morons they'll be ca l l e d whimps ... so they're usually pretty good they try ... take i t seriously. (A.K. 28/3/85). Competitiveness, aggression and athletic a b i l i t y are cultural capi-t a l for a l l jocks, male or female. For male jocks having an athletic body i s enabling. It signifies the masculinity of the jock and extends the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. For a "woman jock" being athletic and having an athletic body i s somewhat different. Having an athletic body does not signify the "women jock's" femininity but indicates a lack of i t . On the one hand having an athletic body i s enabling for her within the context of her own small group. Acceptance as a "woman jock" creates a space within physical education where strong, athletic women are able to express themselves i n ways that are not traditionally femi-nine and they can do so with the support of other similar women. The other side of the coin for the "woman jock" i s that she i s constrained by her athletic body and what i t signifies. Outside of her immediate group she risks being labelled as a butch or dyke because she does not 200. manifest tra d i t i o n a l l y feminine behaviours. "Women jocks", because of their location i n physical education, are caught between a set of competing and often opposing forces. On the one hand Chris, Ann and Jo have resisted traditional definitions of appro-priate "feminine" behaviours and have created identities that are enabling. They have created gender identities that allow them to be strong, athle-t i c and express their femininity i n ways that challenge the view that women are weak, passive and unathletic. Yet, in opposing traditional views of femininity, the "women jocks" have also accommodated to them. The paradox that exists for them i s that i n order to challenge patriar-chial definitions of women's capabilities these women have created room for themselves within male defined structures. So they are at once both accommodating to and resisting patriarchial definitions of their capabi-l i t i e s . The kinds of tensions that exist for Chris, Ann and Jo become evident when their experiences as athletes are juxtaposed with their explanations and interpretations of gender issues in physical education. Chris, Ann and Jo a l l recounted personal experiences they had encoun-tered as athletes and physical education students that had made them aware of the patriarchial nature of sport. For example, Jo told of her experiences as one of two women in a performance course that was teaching a traditionally male game. She said she took the course with a friend because we liked i t and we played i n a league so I guess we just thought i t would be fun. (2.3.F. p.2:12-13). 201. But she found that she was disappointed I don't know I find it very dull. I didn't learn a lot about it. You know, when we played in high school, like powder puff teams and I know about it I watch it and know everything about it, but I really haven't learned a lot. I find we're not important. Like there's two girls and he s t i l l doesn't know who I am. (2.3.F. p.2:15-20). She went on to say ya he pretends we're not there, like the last day I did something well and he just said "oh way to go" and I was saying big deal and everyone is saying she's the star of the game and I only did two things. I didn't do anything exceptional that a guy would do. That was the only time he's ever said anything to us. (2.3.F. p.2:24-29). Jo was frustrated because she expected to be an equal member of the class yet she found that because of her sex rather than her ability she was either patronized or ignored. She found that she started to react in that class in unexpected ways. She began to worry about being a woman, and an athletic one, and it shocked her. She said when we first went out there I mean I'm used to being able to be like one of the guys and not worried about how I look but a couple of times when I was out there I wasn't trying to my ability because I was embarrassed and I thought I'm not going to make the extra effort if they don't think I can do it. (2.3.F. p.6:3-8). She began to say that she reacted that way because the men in the class treated her as if she was a fragile woman so she was angry with them and didn't think it was worth the effort to fight them. However, she did go on to say that there was also other pressure. like I know when I was out there. I started feeling like maybe they think .... I started feeling butchy. I start-ed feeling like I shouldn't be like this and I didn't like it because I'd never been worried about it before. When I was out there I was always intercepting guys and 202. i t was l i k e "wow" and I started thinking are they going to s t a r t thinking of me as l e s s of a g i r l are they going to look at me d i f f e r e n t l y . I started thinking that and I've never thought of that before. (2.3.F. p.7:21-29). Jo's experiences i n t h i s c l a s s g r a p h i c a l l y i l l u s t r a t e d the bound-a r i e s of acceptable behaviour. By putting h e r s e l f i n a t r a d i t i o n a l male domain she found she was no longer one of the guys and began to act i n ways to reassert her femininity, even though she was c r i t i c a l of women i n other s i t u a t i o n s who had taken s i m i l a r actions. Both Chris and Ann had been i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s . The f o l l o w i n g conversation i l l u s t r a t e s the precarious p o s i t i o n "women jocks" f i n d themselves i n . Chris and Ann were discussing the problems that they had encountered i n b a s k e t b a l l . Ann - women i n basketball, you don't get as many s t e a l s as you do i n men's because women can't a n t i c i p a t e what's going to happen. Chris - Some women can. Ann - Yeah the better players can but there are some people that are so resonant and structured i n what they've been t a u g h t .... Chris - i t ' s a l l aggression, i t ' s a l l n a t u r a l aggression. Some-body who s t e a l s tends to be a very aggressive player and women are not as aggressive ... some are Ann - but then you're back to the o l d thing i f you're aggres-s i v e then you're a butch, i f you're butch then men don't l i k e you i f the men don't l i k e you you never get married and you land up being a dyke. Chris - that's e x a c t l y i t . It's almost a s i n to be good at i t because .... Ann - then y o u ' l l lose your femininity, l i k e I know so many good b a s k e t b a l l players, f i e l d hockey players i n high / school they've got a boyfriend i n grade 10 t h e i r boy-f r i e n d doesn't l i k e i t when they go out and thrash somebody i n a f i e l d hockey game ... you have to make a 203. c h o i c e ... you end up h a t i n g the guy because he doesn't l e t you be what you want to be and you hate y o u r s e l f i f you're not being what you want to be. Chris - why should you be one way or the other. You'd l i k e to be r e a l l y good and have someone on the side cheering f o r you i f you can't have i t now you have to throw y o u r s e l f r i g h t at your sport you've got to do i t day i n day out because you've got nothing to come home to. (2.G.I. p.28-29). The preceding somewhat lengthy excerpt shows some of the tensions that e x i s t f o r Chris and Ann. On the one hand they make a c a t e g o r i c a l statement that explains sex differences as b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural t r a i t s that are na t u r a l . Comments l i k e "women can't a n t i c i p a t e as w e l l as men" or "women are not n a t u r a l l y as aggressive" r e f l e c t t h i s assumption. However these explanations are used only to r e f e r to women other than themselves. When they discuss women who are exceptions to t h i s , women l i k e themselves, they abandon t h e i r notions of b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural sex differences and move on to discuss the s o c i a l pressures and l a b e l l i n g that occur when women don't f i t t r a d i t i o n a l b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural d e f i n i t i o n s of t h e i r c a p a b i l i t i e s . They go onto state, l a t e r i n the conversation. Chris - That's why we don't have boyfriends Ann - We're not w i l l i n g to do that. As f a r as I'm concerned i t ' s not worth i t , i t r e a l l y i s n ' t . (2.G.I. p.32). Chris and Ann don't want to become l i k e "other women" and deny t h e i r a t h l e t i c i s m . Yet by exer c i s i n g t h e i r options as strong women within a male defined sport they r i s k becoming outcasts and having t h e i r femini-n i t y questioned. AD - What's the alt e r n a t i v e ? Chris - There i s n ' t one. Ann - There i s n ' t , there, never w i l l be. AD - So what do you do Chris - You change people's a t t i t u d e s . You change women's a t t i -tudes. I think that's the f i r s t thing, to accept the f a c t t h a t I'm going to go out and n a i l you ... because I want to play i t to my best and you guys just p l a y i t l i k e you're there to get a grade even i n p h y s i c a l education ... even some of the people who are p h y s i c a l l y capable some of them are good they don't t r y to get the b a l l . Ann - i t ' s just that you have a competitive nature to you and you just can't s i t back and r e l a x and say I'm going to stand on t h i s court and be the f i f t h man. (2.S.I. p.34-35). The s i t u a t i o n gets a l i t t l e more confusing when "women jocks" play against men or have men coaching them. They seem to be expected to play hard but not too hard. Chris - i f a guy beat you then who cares i f you beat them. Ann - then t h e i r masculinity i s being tested. AD - i s your femininity being tested? Ann - i t ' s just to hide the fact that they won't admit that t h e i r m a sculinity or s e l f image i s destroyed t h e y ' l l say you're a dyke. Or i n other s i t u a t i o n s . Chris - when we played box lac r o s s e he (the coach) said i t ' s a man's game you're going to play l i k e a man and then you got out and he y e l l s you're p l a y i n g l i k e a woman and then you look at him and say a l l r i g h t , a l l r i g h t but I am a woman. Ann - You can't win. You play l i k e a man then they say you're not a woman, you play l i k e a s i s s y then they say you're p l a y i n g l i k e a woman but that's what I am but i t ' s not the way you're supposed to be playing. (2.G.I. p.42). The problem f o r women l i k e Chris, Ann and Jo i s not that they have 205. chosen to be strong, aggressive and competitive, but that they have done so while accepting the structures of physical education and sport and the definitions of gender transmitted there. They are able, to a cer-tain extent, to continue to be "jocks" in this environment because physical performance i s highly valued irrespective of the sex of the performer. Thus i n "jock" culture being athletic i s enabling for "women jocks" of they want to be considered only as athletes. However, this physical prowess has the opposite effect when they want to be seen as women. The frustrations that Chris, Ann and Jo expressed from their exper-iences i n performance were also expressed about some of their courses. The most e x p l i c i t criticism of theory courses came from a conversation between Chris and Ann. Ann - you see that's what pisses me off about the sta t i s t i c s we use i n physical education. They are general and a l l the women that are i n physical education deviate standards to begin with we are a l l above the norm so why don't we try and get some stats that show us i n r e l a t i o n to ... Chris - Because they never pick athletes they always pick non-athletes. Ann - that's because there are more active males than there are active females so i f you take a random sample you're obviously going to get far more active males than females. AD - what happens i s that people take that s t a t i s t i c and say bi o l o g i c a l l y women aren't supposed to be as strong so i f a woman i s strong then they say Chris - You're abnormal. In general society she would be a deviant. If you took the entire population she would be deviant. If you took the population in physical education she would be the norm. It just depends on how you look at i t who wrote the a r t i c l e or book. (2.G.I. p.38). 206. But when trying to think of how things might change they became a l i t t l e pessimistic. For example, comments l i k e Ann - There's s t i l l thousands of people out there lik e our mothers, i f you can't convert your own mother what does that say about society i n general. AD - Do you think things have changed within physical education? Ann - Yes, for the better, i t couldn't have gotten worse Chris - we're getting a lot more demanding AD - In what ways. Chris - Leadership wise, there are more women but except you know we're always in the background organizing so everyone else can go out and do i t . (2.G.I. p.14-15). and Ann's references to male physical education students attitudes Ann - they don't have to think about i t they have had i t a l l their own way for too long. Maybe we should shake them up, show them, they need i t you know. AD - How? Ann - I don't know but just wait we'll show them. (A.K. 2/4/85). The preceeding description of "women jocks" from the perspectives of three women who identify themselves as jocks i l l u s t r a t e s the power of patriarchial structures i n defining the boundaries of these women's lives. A l l three women have managed to create space for themselves within physical education and in order to do so have learned to l i v e with or reconcile contradictions between their experiences as athletes and women. They are a l l acutely aware of the boundaries of acceptable behaviour for women i n sport and understand that they have been s o c i a l l y 207. constructed by women and men rather than b i o l o g i c a l l y and behaviourally determined. Chris, Ann and Jo understand the choices they have made and the consequences of their choices. They have managed to survive and even thrive i n physical education because they are gifted performers. Thus, their presence i n the programme and the ways in which they l i v e their l i v e s serve as potential challenges to patriarchial notions of women's biological inferiority. The challenge that i s posed by athletic women l i k e Chris, Ann and Jo i s counteracted i n a number of ways because i t occurs within a framework that accepts patriarchial definitions of gender. Chris, Ann and Jo have a l l had experiences that have led them to question biologi-cal and behavioural explanations of gender relations. Their experiences as "women jocks" have allowed them to explain their experiences as social issues rather than personal troubles. Despite their challenges to traditional definitions of gender, Chris, Ann and Jo, accept these definitions when they are discussing other women in physical education. They use biological and behavioural explanations to account for any differences between these other women, and themselves and men. Thus, they view gender as a personal trouble for these women and in so doing reproduce the social relations of gender they are attempting to resist. These other women, who do not identify themselves as "jocks" but are nevertheless physical education students, do not act i n the same way as the "women jocks". They are not overtly competitive or aggressive and do not usually try to make their mark i n traditionally male sports. 208. These women are seen by the "women jocks" as examples of women who are inferior to men. When "non jocks" are defined by the "women jocks" as different because of individual biological and behavioural traits the "women jocks" are also defining themselves i n the same way. That i s , as a group that i s unrepresentative, deviant and unfeminine because of their individual biological and behavioural t r a i t s rather than because of s o c i a l l y constructed h i s t o r i c a l l y produced expectations of masculinity and femininity. Similarly, by identifying with the "super jocks", the "women jocks" manifest many of the behaviours and actions that are used as incontro-vertible evidence of the "super jocks" masculinity. Thus, the "women jocks" have bodies and physical s k i l l s that are enabling i n the sense that they allow them to be what they are but constraining i n the sense that by accommodating to traditional definitions of gender the price they pay i s being labelled as butch, unfeminine, and possibly as l e s -bians or dykes. Despite the reproductive consequences of the "women jocks" acts of accommodation and resistance, the fact that they are viewed as marginal, deviant and unrepresentative of their sex allows patriarchal boundaries or definitions of acceptable behaviour for other women in the programme to be extended. In a culture where physical a b i l i t y i s so highly valued, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to ignore the achievements and s k i l l s of talented women, even i f they are seen as abnormal. Their performances speak for them-selves. This i s important because i t points toward at least the pos s i b i l i t y or perhaps the beginning of a new or emergent culture within physical education that challenges patriarchial ideology. 209. "Women jocks" i l l u s t r a t e the problems and d i f f i c u l t i e s that individuals encounter when they attempt to transform and challenge patriarchial definitions of gender. These women have a l l had experi-ences i n physical education and sport that have allowed them to challenge traditional views of gender that are based on biological and behavioural explanations of differences i n individual traits. They have resisted these explanations in relation to their own experiences and capabilities and understand that traditional definitions of gender are s o c i a l l y constructed rather than b i o l o g i c a l l y determined. This understanding allows them to actively resist these expectations and develop gender identities that allow them to be strong, athletic, and competitive women. The resistance that "women jocks" express i n relation to traditional definitions of gender allows them to develop a strong sense of their own identities. However, this resistance i s also accompanied by an accommo-dation to and acceptance of the dominant structures and forms of knowledge that exist i n the programme. The "women jocks" have strong "applied", performance orientations and view knowledge from the biological and behavioural sciences as important and "really useful" and knowledge from the social sciences and humanities as peripheral. The paradox for them is that they have developed challenges to traditional definitions of gender without rejecting the forms of knowledge that have helped to create and reproduce them. The "women jocks" return to viewing gender as a personal trouble when they view other women and men in the programme. They explain differences between women and men in terms of individual traits and define gender relations i n these biological and behavioural 210. terms. The result is that in the short term these strategies make the problems faced by "women jocks" more manageable and tolerable. They are able, despite their acceptance of traditional definitions of gender -"prissies", "jocks" and "dykes" - to extend the boundaries of these categories and find a place for themselves in the programme. However, in the long term this resistance is not realized in the transformation of the social relations of gender. Instead, the "women jocks" create a space for themselves by reproducing the social relations of gender. The "Ordinary Jocks" It's pretty interesting in physical education i t really doesn't matter i f you are a varsity athlete or not. Everyone seems to associate and I really can't think of any definite group at a l l except football people. (I.3.M. p.18:9-12). This comment by a male physical education student describes the division that exists for men in physical education. There are the "super jocks" who identify themselves very strongly as jocks and the other, the ordinary jocks" who have less strong associations. The following section I w i l l describe the "ordinary jocks". The majority of male physical education students view themselves as "ordinary jocks". The "ordinary jock" is about five foot ten inches t a l l and weighs approximately 160 pounds. He is trim and well toned but does not have the bulk of a "super jock". The "ordinary jock" wears his hair short but not cropped and dresses in what appears to be the uniform of this group; tennis shoes, blue jeans or sweat pants, and a t-shirt, sweatshirt or rainsuit jacket. "Ordinary jocks" appear to be very similar and they are very much part of the group and see themselves as "one of the boys". The sense of belonging and being part of a group that has similar interests is important for the "ordinary jock". Physical education gives them a sense of community. For example, one of the "ordinary jocks" said In physical education there's just kind of a real nice feeling between the guys .... between the people in physical education. Even if you don't talk to people much .... it just the physical education students ... a l l kind of have a mutual thing about them that just makes things fun. (3.3.M. p.5:34-41). The common bond for "ordinary jocks" is sport. This above a l l else allows them to identify with other physical education students. In the words of one of the group one thing you've got a lot in common with the other people in terms of sports player in terms that you are an athletic type .... you get to know people. (3.3.M. p.6:5-7). It would be tempting to describe the "ordinary jock" as a milder version of the more extreme "super jock". Although they share some of the same characteristics and behaviours, "ordinary jocks" are not merely a diluted version of the "super jocks". "Ordinary jocks" express them-selves in ways that permit a wider range of expressions of their gender identities than the more narrowly defined "super jocks". "Ordi-nary jocks" play a number of different sports and are not as aggressively "machismo" as the "super jocks". There are, however, limits on what is taken to be acceptable behaviour f o r an "ordinary jock". An "ordinary jock" i s not as easy to f i n d as a "super jock". He spends time i n c l a s s , at the gym u s u a l l y shooting baskets or s i t t i n g i n the bleachers, having coffee with a group of other p h y s i c a l education students, i n the l i b r a r y or at home studying. He seems to have a number of d i f f e r e n t friends and does not spend his time with one p a r t i c u l a r s m a l l group. A man i n t h i s group s a i d you tend to s i t with your team oriented type people but i t ' s s t i l l very s o c i a l with the people around you. Last term I sat with a d i f f e r e n t group of people every c l a s s and just found everybody very f r i e n d l y and very s o c i a l . (I.3.M. p.18:14-18). An "ordinary jock" does not spend a l l of h i s time with other male p h y s i c a l education students. When he goes f o r coffee a f t e r c l a s s i t i s frequently with men and women students. The conversations at coffee are i n v a r i a b l y about course work and sport. These are the two major things i n h i s l i f e . During the day he i s i n v o l v e d i n school work and i n h i s spare time he i s i n v o l v e d i n sport. I tend to do s p o r t r e l a t e d t h i n g s .... you name i t . J u s t about everything, v o l l e y b a l l , r a c k e t b a l l , s o f t b a l l i n the summer, b a s e b a l l , s k i i n g . What e l s e i s there? (7.4.M. p.12:9-11). When he i s not p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n sport, or watching sport on t e l e v i -sion, the "ordinary jock" spends time on h i s schoolwork. The "ordinary jock" understands the tensions that e x i s t between studying and "playing" sport. On the one hand he f e e l s the need f o r balance between h i s work and a c t i v i t y . Yet, he i s very aware of the pressure that e x i s t s f o r him to be an a t h l e t e f i r s t and an academic second. For example, an "ordinary jock" said 213. you l e a r n to p l a y the r o l e out here and p e r s o n a l l y i f I can't do what I want to do then I j u s t go nuts. So I t h i n k t h a t you can f i n d the time to do ... (Sport) you may s u f f e r a b i t as f a r as your marks go but p e r s o n a l l y I w i l l s a c r i f i c e a b i t of i t f o r my own w e l l being I guess you could say. (3.3.M. p.16:27-34). Despite l e a r n i n g to p l a y the r o l e of the academic student there i s pressure f o r the "ordinary jock" to play the r o l e of an a n t i - i n t e l l e c t u a l . The "ordinary jock" i s r e l u c t a n t to admit that he spends time studying or that he attends a l l of h i s c l a s s e s . For example when an "ordinary jock was asked who he spent time with between c l a s s e s he said This year I'm a c t u a l l y , don't t e l l anybody, going to the l i b r a r y and studying. This year a l l my spare time I had to go to the l i b r a r y . (I.3.M. p.17:23-25). "Ordinary jocks" f i n d themselves i n a dilemma. If they become too a n t i - i n t e l l e c t u a l they r i s k being accused of being "dumb-jocks". Yet, i f they are seen to be too studious they can lose t h e i r c r e d i b i l i t y as a t h l e t e s and r i s k being l a b e l l e d as "unmasculine" and "wimps". The f o l l o w i n g comments by some "ordinary jocks" i l l u s t r a t e the ways i n which t h i s group react to the popular perception that p h y s i c a l educators are "dumb jocks". The "ordinary jocks" reactions to the s t e r e o t y p i c a l image of p h y s i c a l education students as "dumb jocks" i l l u s t r a t e that they are s e n s i t i v e to the a n t i - i n t e l l e c t u a l image of p h y s i c a l education. One member of t h i s group s a i d I think people assume p h y s i c a l education i s probably one of the easier subjects. I think we are doing just as much work as anyone e l s e and more i n terms of the a c t i v i t y as w e l l . (I.4.M. p.4:25-27). Another confirmed t h i s s e n s i t i v i t y i n h i s comment that 214. well more and more people they joke and say ha ha you're In physical education but it's no. No we r e a l l y do serious work and they know i t too but it's a good socialization factor laughing at me. (2.4.M. p.9:16-18). But he did admit that we usually-end up rationalizing, we say "look we do ser-ious work". We're more into sciences now, you know sports science and biomechanics, it's a way of justifying how important i t i s . (2.4.M. p.9:20-23). This kind of rationalizing goes on for the benefit of others outside of physical education. However among the other physical education students there is a different approach. It i s assumed that physical education students are aware of the fact that the programme i s not an easy option and that they know that physical educators have to be both athletic and academic i f they are to gain their physical education degree. Despite the claims by "ordinary jocks" that physical education i s not an easy option there i s also the recognition that there are courses that can be taken for an "easy time". An "ordinary jock" said of his programme well here I am taking three ac t i v i t y course, you know it's my fourth year, it's my last term of my fourth year and I did want something so I can relax so I can do a l o t of my skiing and stuff and so I must admit I took most of those a c t i v i t i e s for that reason but it's not always l i k e that and i t hasn't been l i k e that and I s t i l l learn a l o t from them. (2.4.M. p.12:1-7). If there i s any pressure for the "ordinary jock" to do well i n any of his courses, i t i s i n the biological and behavioural theory courses, the ones that are related to the body and can be used to improve performance. It i s , however, considered to be quite normal to miss classes and take 215. s o c i o - c u l t u r a l theory courses f o r an easy time. For example, one male i n t h i s group s a i d I know l o t s of people who don't show up to c l a s s and have other p e o p l e take notes .... they t h i n k the s t u f f i s i n the book and they think i f i t ' s not i n the book, they can pick i t up from somebody else's notes. (I.3.M. p.17:11-18). He d i d go on to q u a l i f y t h i s statement the t h e o r e t i c a l courses you do have to spend more time on. I'm sorry the science type courses you have to spend more time. The o t h e r type courses you can r e a l l y l e t them go. You can r e a l l y think oh, w e l l I can just B.S. myself out of that. (I.3.M. p.9:1-5). The p r i c e f o r l e t t i n g go i s to get a lower grade. An "ordinary jock" who did not work hard on h i s non-science courses s a i d w e l l t h i s i s personal probably me being a procrastinator, I was a b l e to get notes from someone e l s e , not show up and get my p's. (5.4.M. p.4:37-42). He did however work i n some of h i s courses, the b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural ones that d e a l t with the body. i t just wasn't something where you go i n there and cram before an exam. I mean you're s i t t i n g there and the ninety odd muscles you have to do and you've got to know because i t ' s p a r t of your body. (5.4.M. p.4:28-31). There are a l s o tensions f o r the "ordinary jock" around the development of h i s masculinity. It i s expected that they w i l l be "aggressive" and competitive performers and t h i s encourages them to produce t r a d i t i o n a l expressions of t h e i r masculinity. I f they are not aggressive and compe-t i t i v e on the court they r i s k having t h e i r masculinity and s e x u a l i t y questioned and being l a b e l l e d as "wimps" or "fags". The f o l l o w i n g statement i s an example of an "ordinary jock" s t r u g g l i n g with 216. definitions of masculinity as they are exhibited i n performance classes. - I work at a sports centre at the same time as this guy and he's the t h i r d ranked baton t w i r l e r i n the world .... he looks r e a l l y funny out there and It just doesn't f i t . And figure skaters, male figure skaters are a l l considered gay .... there i s a continuum again between fags or somebody who is feminine and somebody who i s gay .... I think most people now when they say fag they don't mean gay they just mean he's feminine. He's just wimpy looking and he likes g i r l s stuff. (2.3.M. p.10:1-10). There i s the expectation that the "ordinary jock" w i l l succeed in a c t i -vity courses. He has to show that he i s proficient and s k i l l f u l , and aggressive and competitive, even during learning situations where the purpose i s to learn to improve specific s k i l l s . The pressure to be a s k i l l e d performer i s p a r t i c u l a r i l y high for "ordinary jocks" i n ac t i v i t y courses that are a l l male. The following two examples i l l u s t r a t e the ways in which male jocks are reminded of and react to the pressure to succeed. In the f i r s t case i n an male act i v i t y class three men were practising shooting baskets. After f i v e minutes of shooting one of the three men had scored only once. The others were both scoring regularly. They had the following exchange. A - C'mon lets see i f you can do i t . You're shooting l i k e a g i r l . (B shoots and misses again) A+C - (laughter) C - You're in the wrong section, the g i r l s come i n tomorrow. B pick up the b a l l and tries again and misses he catches i t a throws i t at the wall muttering to himself. 217. In the second example, a woman physical education student described an incident that happened in one of her activity courses Cathy - some guys have a really different attitude, some would be really helpful. I think others would feel threatened, especially if you could do it well. I find that in a lot of courses. AD - Can you give me an example? Cathy - There are lots. I used to play (soccer) it's not worth it. Because I'd check a guy and al l the other guys from the sideline would bug him because he'd been checked by a girl successfully. And this one guy used to say "well I didn't want to hurt her it's not like a guy you can't shove her out of the way. I just didn't want to hurt her". Whereas I'm giving them an elbow .... is fine. But then nobody can do that to me. And another guy would always, if you'd check him he would fall down pretending he twisted his ankle or something. He may have done it but if he does it 3 or 4 times you start getting suspi-cious . (8.3.F. p.13:27-31, 14:14-26). But going too far with male "machismo" becomes a problem for the "ordinary jock". He can be a good student, sensitive and caring as long as he is also seen to be a skilled, aggressive competitor in traditional male sports. If he is not a good performer then he risks having his sensiti-vity and intellect used as evidence of a lack of masculinity. The expression of his gender is bounded by his body. If the "ordinary jock" is an excellent performer the boundaries for the expression of non traditional forms of masculinity seem to be more flexible. If not, they are very limited and limiting for him and he is expected to produce very traditional expressions of his masculinity. The following comment i l l u -strates this contradiction simply and clearly in the following statements I'm sure they're (girls) more receptive to a guy who can cook or is interested in what is going on with women and stuff and yet is s t i l l able to look good in a muscle shirt (2.3.M. p.7:36-39). 218. and you know it's like that Billy Joel song keeping the faith it's great he says I learned how to dance and s t i l l look tough. (2.3.M. p.10:15-17). The "ordinary jocks'" explanations of women's capabilities in sport move beyond biological and behavioural explanations of sex differences. There are instances of explanations that frame sex differences as biolo-gical and behavioural traits located in individuals and those that adopt a wider focus and recognize that women's participation in sport has been limited by both her biology and social expectations of the limits of her biology. "Ordinary jocks" often confuse biological and socio-cultural ex-planations of women's capabilities in their discussions of gender. This confusion is evident in the following statements about the separation of performance courses on the basis of sex. AD - Do you know why they are separated? - Obviously women can't perform ... I don't know that's such a biased statement. It's just been classified that way. Obviously women can't do certain men's things ... things that men can do. Or I guess there's things men can't do that women can do and I guess that they thought the two areas of skill or ability are different. (I.4.M. p.9:23-28). In this explanation biological and behavioural sex differences are identified as the primary the reason for the separation of men and women in performance courses. For this man, women are believed to be unable, because of biological and behavioural differences, to keep up with the men. He did, however, go on to admit that women were not expected to participate in certain sports because of expectations about the limits 219. that are set by her biology. AD - Is i t p o s s i b l e f o r a woman to take f o o t b a l l and i c e hockey? - Ya, I t h i n k so, sure w e l l I shouldn't r e a l l y say that. I know i t ' s e a s i e r for guys to do the female or the quote female a c t i v i t i e s whereas g i r l s are not neces-s a r i l y encouraged to take the male a c t i v i t i e s l i k e f o o t -b a l l and i c e hockey, although I think they're allowed to. They're just not encouraged to 'cause they get hurt or just cause more problems. (I.4.M. p.10:1-7). Thus, t h i s "ordinary jock" recognizes that biology has been s o c i a l l y constructed i n ways that i t i s presented as a legi t i m a t e reason f o r women's exclusion from t r a d i t i o n a l l y male a c t i v i t i e s . Despite h i s r e -cognition that sex i n e q u a l i t y i n sport i s s o c i a l l y constructed around b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural sex differences, t h i s "ordinary jock" d i d not see h i s views on women i n sport as contradictory or problematic. In further discussions of women i n sport another "ordinary jock" moved between b i o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l explanations f o r i n e q u a l i t y . His statements about the stereotyping of women a t h l e t e s i l l u s t r a t e these contradictions. He revealed that h i s g i r l f r i e n d , a p h y s i c a l education student who played f o o t b a l l and was aggressive and competitive, was not stereotyped as unfeminine, masculine or butch. He said AD - Say you get a woman who f o r example i s good at f o o t b a l l and she hangs around i n her track s u i t and c l e a t s do people say what a butch? - they s u r v i v e i t because they're feminine enough looking. Like Jan i s always thought of as cute AD - and people know she's your g i r l f r i e n d too - but even beyond that she's got a t i n y voice, she's cute and she's always been l i k e that. She's had both sides. But i f she happened to be 220. (2.3.M. p.7:12-20). These comments illustrate this man's awareness of the ways in which women are labelled-as butch and unfeminine if they are strong, competitive, athletes and not traditionally feminine in their appear-ance. Yet, in the next statement he moves away from this sympathetic position to say I suppose, I've always thought it was neat, I don't like butches, I've always thought it was neat that a girl could combine the two and were able to go out on the field and just go wild and give it their a l l and play the game like anybody could, a guy or whatever and yet off the field, even on the field retain her femininity. (2.3.M. p.7:30-39). He suggests that those women who don't fit this ideal are the ones who are butch. He went on to suggest that they are girls who have a very hard time trying to figure out i f they are girls or guys .... they're not worried, they just don't try to be most of them have devoted their lives to playing and they're so into it that it becomes central in their life some of them are big they l i ft weights they're muscular they're heavy .... it's just a girl who has masculine features, she's big maybe not attractive the ones that couldn't care less how they look. (2.3.M. p.9:2-32). The comments made by this "ordinary jock" about women who do not fit the image society has created of the feminine women illustrate that he has traditional views of femininity and describes women who deviate from this as representative of a small group who are trying to be like men. When pushed, he finally comes down on the side of biological and behavioural sex differences and emphasizes different spheres of activity for women and men. He suggests, in the final analysis, that women should be like women and not like men. 221. I think there are certain biological differences between men and women and rather than try to erase them try to work at equalizing the opportunities that they each have and work together to improve them, not be afraid to do the best they can do but not go out and be l i k e men. (2.3.M. p.12:25-30). The "ordinary jocks" are caught in a set of paradoxical social relations. They are allowed to be sensitive, i n t e l l e c t u a l and slight as long as they can show themselves to be good athletes. Their expectations of women f i t the same pattern. A woman can be aggressive, competitive and play l i k e a man on the f i e l d as long as she i s an exemplary feminine, cute and attractive woman off the f i e l d . The "ordinary jocks" have developed their gender identities in ways that accommodate to and reproduce traditional definitions of masculinity and femininity. They are able to accommodate to traditional definitions of masculinity by developing overt expressions and symbols of their gender identities. For this group the most overt symbol of their mascu-l i n i t y i s the possession of an athletic body and the best expression of this masculinity i s success as an athlete "on the f i e l d " . When "ordinary jocks" can establish their success as athletes or i f they can show that they are "competitive" and "aggressive" on the f i e l d , they can extend the limits of their gender identities to include "non-traditional" expressions of their masculinity. However, i n extending the boundaries for the expressions of their masculinity the "ordinary jocks" do so by accommodating to traditional definitions of masculinity and feminity and, therefore, reproduce these categories rather than transforming them. The "ordinary jocks" also have strong "applied" orientations and 222. view knowledge from biological and behavioural theory courses as important because of i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y to performance. This view of important knowledge i s consistent with the dominant focus of knowledge in the programme. "Ordinary jocks" view gender primarily as an issue of sex differences and define differences between women and men as a personal trouble rather than a social issue. Although there i s some understan-ding of sex inequality as a s o c i a l l y produced problem, "ordinary jocks" have developed a view of gender relations that i s based on biological and behavioural explanations of individual traits and have developed their Identities i n ways that reproduce patriarchial gender relations. The "Non-Jocks" The f i n a l group I w i l l discuss i s a group of women students who do not associate themselves with the term jock. This group of women, the "non-jocks", are the women the "women jocks" referred to as prissies". One of the "non-jocks" said of the "jocks" in the programme. I think because we don't have our whole identity i n what we're doing. You know we have a l o t more other interests. And too it's that whole thing of femininity and masculinity I think. For me I'm not going to go around hanging on to my hockey stick wearing sweats a l l the time because thats not me. That's not people's conceptions of what a g i r l i s supposed to be and I don't f e e l good being that. I don't want to be considered a jock or a dumb jock or anything l i k e that so I'm not going to adopt that kind of thing. < (5.3.F. p.16:13-24). Twelve of the fifteen women students interviewed stated e x p l i c i t l y that they did not want to be considered as jocks. A l l of these women associated the term jock with masculinity and for these women to be labelled as a jock would mean that they were unfeminine and unattractive 223. to men. Typical comments by these women were I've never thought of myself as one (a jock). I'm usually not a l l that involved but I am involved. Sometimes, as long as it's friends that say i t I laugh about i t but I wouldn't want to be cal l e d a jock by anyone outside of my close friends I think of myself as muscle bound, I have a complex; my muscles aren't r e a l l y .... I r e a l l y don't want to be thought of as muscle bound AD - why not? I do want to be feminine and I don't want a guy feeling insecure. Like I'd hate to be stronger. (4.3.F. p.13:10-21). and another suggested that the l a b e l l i n g of women in physical education as jocks i s I think i t ' s true to point. It's not a f a i r thing to say and i t certainly i s an unfair generalization there are some g i r l s who are more prone to be masculine looking or who can take on a r e a l l y masculine attitude towards sport but that certainly isn't true for the majority I wouldn't think. (5.3.F. p.15:16-21). The "non-jocks" i n physical education see themselves as represen-tative of the majority of women physical education students. The "non-jocks", unlike the "women jocks" have developed their athletic a b i l i t i e s i n ways that permit them to be good athletes and feminine women. Being recognized as feminine, attractive and athletic women i s v i t a l l y impor-tant to the "non-jocks" and i t i s i n this respect that they d i f f e r most dramatically from the "woman jocks". The reference group for the "non-jocks" is other women in society and not other physical education students. In order to understand the ways in which the "non-jocks" have created their gender identities within physical education I w i l l describe them from the perspectives of two of i t s members - Mary and Dawn. Mary 224. and Dawn look very much l i k e many of the women that are i n physical education. Both women dress i n street clothes to go to class. They wear jeans, golf shirts and sweaters, skirts and sweaters or fashionable sportwear and shoes. Unlike the women jocks, Mary arid Dawn, do not wear sweatpants and sweattops to their classes or as their normal everyday clothing. When Mary and Dawn exercise they wear functional sportswear but they do not wear them as symbols of the fact that they are physical education students. For example Dawn said well there's two types (of women), we physical education ones I doubt i f we'd go into the weight room wearing make up because we know i t w i l l smudge .... where as the ones that are going to the fitness centres with the nice leo-tards and a l l that are just there to look nice and see nice guys .... whereas we'll go down with ripped sweats and a l l that we're not there for that reason. Later on i f we're going outside then we'll throw on our good tights but not when we're i n the training room. (I.G.I. p.2). Although Mary and Dawn do not see themselves as women jocks they also separate themselves from the women Dawn described above, the women who participate i n sport "just to look nice". For Mary and Dawn, being a woman i n physical education means that they can be feminine, attrac-t i v e and yet s t i l l athletic. They take their sport seriously. In the following conversation both women discuss the difference between them-selves and women who are not in physical education. Dawn - They're only there to attract men. They're not there to train. I doubt i f they can train with tight ... whatever they're wearing Mary - i t looks so uncomfortable Dawn - i t looks nice but they look so nice i n them too nice. 225. They go i n and they come out and they look the same. You know it's impossible I can't go and train and come out and look l i k e I did before Mary - I actually wouldn't want to. I wouldn't feel l i k e I had done anything (I.G.I. p.2). Dawn and Mary see themselves as typical physical education stu-dents. Yet, they do not associate themselves with the male jocks or "women jocks" Mary - I think I do what the majority do Dawn - That's why I'm pointing out the people you see i n the bleachers. AD - So how would you describe yourself? Mary - I'd consider myself a typical physical education student AD - What does that mean? Mary - I go to my classes, do my work, and most of my friends from school are from the physical education department. AD - So would you both describe yourselves as hard workers who also work out at sport and that's a typical physical education student. Mary and - Yeah. Dawn (I.G.I. p.29). Mary and Dawn are typical, but typical of women physical education students who define their gender identities in tr a d i t i o n a l l y feminine ways. They do, however, share one major thing in common with other education students, their love of sport. Mary and Dawn both love sport, which i s why they are studying physical education. The sports that they enjoy and participate in, are however, ones that they view as suitable for women, or a c t i v i t i e s that are not viewed as tough, aggressive or masculine. For example, Dawn 226. p a r t i c i p a t e d i n track and f i e l d and aerobic and f i t n e s s and Mary said that she was i n v o l v e d i n a number of a c t i v i t i e s . v o l l e y b a l l i s f i n i s h e d but tennis I play a l o t of tennis, and aerobics. Aerobics i s a new thing with me. (I . 4.F. p.10:32-33). She d i d however go on to say that she thought f i e l d hockey, soccer, and b a s k e t b a l l were more masculine games where as games l i k e v o l l e y b a l l were more feminine. Mary - w e l l v o l l e y b a l l i s .... s o r t of an a g i l i t y s p o r t v o l l e y b a l l i s a feminine sport AD - But the men play. Do they think of men's v o l l e y b a l l and women's v o l l e y b a l l as d i f f e r e n t games Mary - I think they do. With women's v o l l e y b a l l , w e l l the men are always more aggressive. They're up at the net blocking, h i t t i n g , they don't have long r a l l i e s , i t ' s a l l k i l l . They women's v o l l e y b a l l i s more defensive ... set up the plays, three h i t s here, h i t i t back. (I . 4.F. p.13:32-39). For both Mary and Dawn p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n sport i s an important part of t h e i r l i v e s but they are both conscious of ensuring that they p a r t i c i -pate i n sports that do not compromise t h e i r femininity. They want to be seen, and see themselves, as feminine and a t h l e t i c . This p o s i t i o n i s d i r e c t contrast to the "women jocks" who e x p l i c i t l y said that they do not want to be thought of as feminine i n the ways i n which Mary and Dawn do. A good example of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the ways i n which Mary and Dawn and Chris and Ann discuss the same women tennis players. Chris and Ann had the f o l l o w i n g conversation Chris - I wish I played tennis l i k e Martina Ann - She's my i d o l she's awesome ... I know pe o p l e c a l l her a butch they assumed she was a dyke because she was such a good tennis player, because she has such good muscles and has low"body f a t . 227. AD - No one would say that about Chris Evert. Chris - She doesn't look l i k e Martina at a l l . I would think I could walk on the court and d r i l l her into the ground. She looks l i k e a prissy (2.S.I. p.43). Mary and Dawn took the opposite view in their discussion. They said Mary - Well Martina and the same with B i l l i e Jean King you can e a s i l y point a finger at her .... she doesn't look femi-nine. AD - No one would do that with Chris Evert Lloyd. Mary - Because of her looks. She looks feminine. I li k e Chrissy as a tennis player because she does have that female part about her Dawn - And I i d e n t i f y more with her than Martina .... I'd l i k e to play l i k e Martina but I'd look lik e Chris (I.G.I. p.25). For Mary and Dawn i t i s important that they combine their athletic a b i l i t i e s with being feminine. The balance between being athletic and feminine i s essential. Mary and Dawn have well developed categories for acceptable and unacceptable behaviours and as such are limited by the ways i n which they have defined their femininity. This definition i s used as the basis for their own behaviours and guides their participa-tion i n sport as well providing the standard by which they evaluate other women physical education students. For example when discussing the kinds of sports she participated i n and the choices of a c t i v i t y courses she made in her degree programme Mary stated that I wouldn't (take football or hockey) I find i t more a male sport. Hockey, I'd fee l sort of inferior. I shouldn't say that but I would. I'd go i n there and a l l there i s i s a l l these guys. I think the guys sort of f e e l that i t might ruin i t .... a c t i v i t i e s are fun you go in there to play. I think they might fe e l held back. 228. They can't hit the girl. You know it sort of puts a damper on everything. But I myself know I wouldn't take a class like that just because of that. (I.4.F. p.14:3-10). She did, however, admit that she had not always been like that When I was a little kid growing up, I grew up in a small town, hockey I was a big fan of. But I always played football, basketball, badminton, I sort of played al l sports .... I related myself to al l sports, the ones with guys dominating and otherwise. (I.4.F. p.10:35-41). It was when she became older and she was no longer comfortable being a "tomboy" that Mary started to move away from the sports she saw as male sports. Mary and Dawn have created an identity for themselves that allows them to be athletic without contravening traditional definitions of femininity. They are not interested in being like male or female jocks and do not view competition against men in male sports as important. They have found ways of developing their athletic abilities and re-taining their femininity without overtly challenging male physical educators in male sports. It is in this sense that being athletic is enabling for "non-jocks" as it allows them to be more than feminine women. Although they have developed their gender identities in ways that allow them to play hard and train hard on the court, and to be accepted as feminine and attractive women off the field or out of the gym, they have done so by accepting patriarchial definitions of gender. Mary and Dawn also differ from the other physical education stu-dents in the programme because they admit to being serious students and spend a great deal of their time studying in the library or at home working on class projects. Both women work hard and are critical of 229. p h y s i c a l education students who are not w i l l i n g to take t h e i r work s e r i o u s l y . The f o l l o w i n g conversation i l l u s t r a t e s Mary and Dawn's views on p h y s i c a l educators who won't t r y. Dawn - ....there's a l o t of people i n ph y s i c a l education that shouldn't even be here. It's true I f i n d AD - Who shouldn't be here, what type of person shouldn't be here? Dawn - the ones that can't handle, the ones that are t r y i n g to get out of courses. You see quite a few people "oh I can't take gymnastics. I just have a bad back and my knee i s k i l l i n g me or I have t h i s problem or that problem .... or I can't do t h i s because I've got some problem you can't have the problem a l l your l i f e . Mary - say .... the f i r s t three weeks probably OK they were a l l r e a l l y motivated but a f t e r that they didn't give a damn. Then i t came to the l a s t week and then they were t r y i n g to cram there's no way, you can't, you e i t h e r work at i t throughout the term or you won't get anything out of i t ... AD - Do you know a l o t of people l i k e that i n p h y s i c a l educa-tion? Dawn - oh ya. We didn't t h i n k t h e r e were but a f t e r t h a t .... I b e l i e v e i t . AD - So what are they here f o r then? Dawn - I r e a l l y don't know. Sometimes I wonder because they're not t r y i n g t h e i r h a r d e s t so they're not .... they might -l i k e the f i e l d but .... l i k e they do want i t but i n r e a l i t y deep down in s i d e they don't r e a l l y care that much. (I.G.I. p.14-15). Both women went on to say that they b e l i e v e d that people i n ph y s i c a l education who d i d not t r y t h e i r hardest expected the programme to be an easy option and one i n which they could just play sport a l l day. They stressed that they d i d not view p h y s i c a l education i n t h i s 230. way. Dawn - But did you come int o p h y s i c a l education thinking every-thing was easy? Mary - no Dawn - So, I didn't e i t h e r .... I would p r o b a b l y have gone i n t o b i o l o g y or something e l s e but I saw that there were other courses that could give me something rather than just p l a y i n g b a s k e t b a l l or something r e a l l y simple and that's where I enjoy i t , otherwise I doubt i f I'd f i n i s h . AD - I think some people came i n just expecting to pla y basket-b a l l maybe that's why they got shocked. Dawn - they could just go and get a c e r t i f i c a t e - then work a l l the way up why bother coming here. They could do the same job probably. (2.G.I. p.15). Mary and Dawn both work hard and spend quite a b i t of t h e i r f ree time together working or discussing work that has been covered i n t h e i r c l a s s e s . They said that Dawn - I f i n d every year I do something d i f f e r e n t . This year I studied at home. Last year I studied here. This year before I spent a l l my days here. I'd go home l a t e at n i g h t , I'd go to the l i b r a r y , I'd go f o r a jog. Mary - I prefer to study at home. AD - Do you s i t i n the bleachers? Mary + Dawn - No AD - What do you do? Mary - we u s u a l l y meet at the student union b u i l d i n g Dawn - t h i s l a s t term we've been meeting a l o t Mary - that's because we've been doing a group project. (1.G.I. p.28). Mary and Dawn were both carrying f u l l course loads. (17.5 units each) and expected high standards of themselves. 231. Mary - it's been a great day today I got two papers back both f i r s t s . AD - great Dawn - she deserves i t , we work hard. Mary - I'm on a r o l l lets go get our independent research back, c'mon Dawn. (M.S.J.D.K. 15/3/85). For Mary and Dawn important knowledge in physical education i s knowledge that i s "useful". In this regard they are similar to the majority of physical education students. Useful knowledge for Mary and Dawn i s knowledge from biological and behavioural courses that can be applied to performance. For example Dawn cited biomechanics as one of her better courses. She said well f i r s t i t was physiology, although now I took 473, 363 was basic biomechanics but 473 (more advanced) got r e a l l y interesting it's r e a l l y interesting what you can do .... (analyze performance) (I.G.I. p.11). Mary was more explicit about her interests she said Mary - physiology .... l i k e my anatomy and exercise physiology. I r e a l l y liked those courses AD - why did you like them? Mary - I found I can r e l a t e to i t . I see a bone and I can sort of go ya and the physiology part I find r e a l l y interesting. You know whats going on inside you .... Thats what I prefer about those courses, I can relate i t to my body. (I.4.F. p.3:39-47). Both Dawn and Mary said that the socio-cultural courses i n programme were not as enjoyable for them because they had d i f f i c u l t y understanding their relevance. Yet, both women did suggest that these courses might be of value to some people, just not them. Mary and Dawn are similar to the majority of physical education 232. students i n the degree programme in that their perceptions of important knowledge i n physical education i s knowledge from biological and beha-vioural courses about the body that can be used to analyze performance. This view of important knowledge has implications for the ways i n which Mary and Dawn explain and describe women's capabilities i n sport and physical education. Both Mary and Dawn viewed issues concerning women i n sport as both personal troubles and social issues. They did argue that inequality was a problem for women i n sport but they went on to stress that things were changing and women were beginning to attain equality in_both sport and society. For example, when Mary was discussing students' reactions to incidences of chauvinism in the programme, she explained that some of the male students and professors had negative expectations about women. Mary - I r e a l l y noticed i t i n one of the courses I took, he's just r e a l l y negative. You know, no you're not doing that right he doesn't expect to see g i r l s in that. AD - How do people react? Mary - the guys sort of start giggling. It's funny guys nowa-days are noticing i t more. They are. I find that in high school the guys were "oh it's true you're just a woman". Now they're starting to come around, they're taking i t more seriously now lik e we're threatening them .... the g i r l s would a l l be just fuming .... i t s upset-ting and i t does not help you at a l l in the course. You just think you jerk. (I.4.F. p.8:18-31). Yet, i n another conversation about inequality with Dawn, both women moved back and forward between different positions on the extent of the problem for women. They did both agree, however, that inequality was a problem for women that ought to be resolved. AD - Would you c a l l yourself a feminist? Dawn - I don't c a l l myself anything, I'm a person a female person. AD - I know but you know what feminism is? Dawn - ya but I wouldn't ... I guess I am but I wouldn't c a l l myself one. AD - So i f someone said to you Dawn you're a feminist what would you say? Dawn - I'd swear back at them. Why are we labelling people? Mary - Thats beside the point who cares? Dawn - I'm just doing what's normal. I don't think i t has to be labelled. Mary - What's normal though? No I'm saying that through the past i t hasn't been normal for a woman to do what you want to do. Dawn - But why? Because no one spoke up not that it's not normal Mary - that's why we're here. It's to get women into the work force to get equal rights. Dawn - equal rights which they're always deserved they've been there they just Mary - they haven't been Dawn - they should have been Mary - but they haven't Dawn - a l l people are equal. (I.G.I. p.19). In the preceding conversation Mary and Dawn see inequality as a social structural problem. Interestingly, when both women discussed inequality they did not discuss i t as a personal trouble but talked about i t more generally as something that women i n general faced in 234. society. This is in direct contrast to the "women jocks" who spent a lot of time discussing their experiences as women in male defined sport. Despite their discussions of inequality as social issues Mary and Dawn take a different view of women's capabilities in sport. They move from a social structural explanation of inequality to biological and behavioural explanations of women's capabilities in sport. For example, in discussing the ways in which sex differences are taught in the programme Dawn said Dawn - when you put two people out there they put you out there and a guy, the guy is going to beat you and that's what they're going to look at .... That's the way it is. (I.4.F. p.12:34-38). When both women were asked whether they felt that some information in physical education was based on studies on men that were then genera-lized to women they said Dawn - No, I don't know. AD - Have you ever thought about it . Mary - No. Dawn - I think the only reason they're using males is they're always bigger so you're probably going to get better results. If you have a female and a male at the same level and you work them out and test them, the results you get on the male will be much better than on the female at that point. When you compare ... as a person ... but when you compare it per Kg. of body weight then you'll see a difference and they'll probably be similar but they don't usually do that. They usually just look at it like that and oh the male is better. AD - What do you think about that? Dawn - O.K. when you write a paper don't you want to have really good results and have everything clean so there's a difference. That's what they do so why do it on females. (I.G.I. p.22). 235. The explanations that Mary and Dawn give for sex differences in performance are based on biological and behavioural explanations that locate the differences i n a b i l i t i e s i n terms of individuals traits. This explanation i s acceptable for both women as they have no desire to compete against or play in male sports or to compete against men. This i s revealed in the following statement by Mary who suggested that the reason certain performance courses were separated by sex was I guess they feel that the men are at a higher l e v e l so they t r a i n them harder. I don't know how to put i t . They feel they just have to work them harder. They think we're delicate females who couldn't play basketball with-out dying after two laps and conditioning. We couldn't run with the guys the guys w i l l a l l go for a run the same day but they'll a l l be back so much sooner. AD - How do you feel about that? I think a l o t of women are capable of keeping up with the guys maybe the women w i l l f e e l inferior. I mean it's pretty tough when you're playing maybe they f e e l a l o t of the guys w i l l f e e l frustrated playing with women. They won't feel as i f they can exert themselves as much. (I.4.F. p.12:1-18). Although both Mary and Dawn explain sex differences i n performance i n terms of biological and behavioural traits they do recognize that there are some women who are capable of keeping up with the men. However, the women who are seen as capable of competing against men or who p a r t i c i -pate i n "masculine" sports are viewed by Mary and Dawn as butch and unfeminine. Mary - Yes I've thought of that at times .... I hear g i r l s who play soccer and to me soccer has always been .... (I.4.F. p.13:5-7). These women, the ones that are thought of as unfeminine, are in fact the 236. "women jocks". They are the group "non-jocks", including Mary and Dawn, do not want to be associated with. Being labelled as unfeminine and butch i s not an important issue for Mary and Dawn, as i t i s something that happens to other women. In fact Dawn said about the fact that some women physical educators are labelled as unfeminine t h i s i s the f i r s t time I've talked about i t .... i t doesn't bother me. I think about i t but i t doesn't bother me .... well i t s always been there but i t doesn't bother me. (1.G.I. p.6). Mary and Dawn and the "non-jocks" are a majority when considering women physical education students but a minority within physical educa-tion students generally. The "non-jocks" have created a group where they are able to be athletic and create traditionally feminine gender identities. They achieve this by participating i n sports that are considered acceptable for women and by staying away from sports that are considered to be masculine l i k e football and ice hockey. If the "non-jocks" participate i n "male sports", they compensate by asserting their femininity off the f i e l d . They achieve this by avoiding dressing l i k e the "women jocks" and disassociating themselves from individuals who adopt the persona of the "women jocks". They are not interested in being l i k e many of the other physical education students as they see them as masculine and therefore not a group whose behaviours they wish to emulate. Thus the "non-jocks" have developed a group identity that is unique i n physical education. It i s one that has been defined i n ways that allow women to remain i n physical education and create traditionally feminine gender identities. In this sense being a "non-jock" i s enabling 2 3 7 . for many women p h y s i c a l education students. They have been successful i n creating an i d e n t i t y f o r themselves i n which t h e i r femininity and a t h l e t i c i s m can be developed i n complementary ways. A paradox e x i s t s f o r women i n t h i s group. In order to be accepted as a t h l e t i c and feminine they have to accept b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural explanations of women's i n f e r i o r i t y , p a s s i v i t y and n a t u r a l weakness. The acceptance of sex differences i n performance c a p a b i l i t i e s as n a t u r a l a l lows the "non-jocks" a means of developing t h e i r bodies and r e t a i n i n g t h e i r categories of femininity. The contradictions that a r i s e for "women jocks" who are a l s o feminine and a t h l e t i c but who define t h e i r femininity i n n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l ways do not occur f o r the "non-jocks". They do not t r y to challenge p a t r i a r c h a l d e f i n i t i o n s of women's capabi-l i t i e s . They accept them and as such are not seen as a threat to p a t r i a r c h i a l notions of male supremacy. U l t i m a t e l y the "non-jocks", despite t h e i r success i n developing a women's c u l t u r e within p h y s i c a l education, develop t h e i r gender i d e n t i t i e s i n ways that reproduce pa-t r i a r c h i a l d e f i n i t i o n s of masculinity and femininity and women's and men's sporting c a p a b i l i t i e s . Any other expression of t h e i r gender i d e n t i t i e s f or the "non-jocks" i s seen by them as a move towards be-coming l i k e the "women jocks", which i s viewed as too high a p r i c e to have to pay. The S o c i a l Construction of Gender: Concluding Remarks This chapter has shown that students negotiate the meanings of gender and develop t h e i r gender i d e n t i t i e s within p h y s i c a l education i n 238. complex and often paradoxical ways. An examination of d i f f e r e n t groups of students i l l u s t r a t e s that the s o c i a l construction of gender catego-r i e s within a society that i s s t r u c t u a l l y and i d e o l o g i c a l l y p a t r i a r c h i a l , and a programme that emphasizes and pr i z e s p h y s i c a l a b i l i t y tends to be reproductive rather than transformative. That i s not to say that there are no challenges to p a t r i a r c h i a l d e f i n i t i o n s of gender and b i o l o g i c a l and behavioural explanations of women's c a p a b i l i t i e s as at h l e t e s . There are. However the resistance that occurs i n the programme i s expressed by a s m a l l group of women who, i n t h e i r attempts to be strong and a t h l e t i c , redefine t h e i r femininity i n ways that u l t i m a t e l y reproduce the gender categories that they are t r y i n g to escape. This resistance does not r e s u l t i n the transformation of the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s of gender because i t i s accompanied by an accommodation to and acceptance of the dominant structures and forms of knowledge that e x i s t i n the programme. These women get l i t t l e h elp from the s o c i o - c u l t u r a l courses that t r y to provide them with an a l t e r n a t i v e as they view t h i s knowledge as p e r i -pheral and unimportant. The a l t e r n a t i v e s they have developed a r i s e from t h e i r own experiences and are bounded by t h e i r acceptance of the domi-nant categories of gender that e x i s t i n p h y s i c a l education. These women have, however, been succ e s s f u l i n r e d e f i n i n g the boundaries for women i n ph y s i c a l education as t h e i r achievements i n sport cannot be denied by other students. They can, and do, compete against male p h y s i c a l educa-t i o n students and manage to keep up with or surpass them i n many a c t i v i t i e s . Their successes i n eroding p a t r i a r c h i a l d e f i n i t i o n s of t h e i r c a p a b i l i t i e s as sportswomen have created problems f o r the "women 239. jocks'" as they are often viewed as masculine women and defined as idio -syncratic and unrepresentative of their sex. When they are defined as lesbians or butches, they are less threatening to both the men and other women in the programme because the negative force of these definitions i s accepted by a l l . At the same time as patriarchial definitions of gender are being challenged by the "women jocks" they are also being accepted by other physical education students. The men in physical education, the "ordinary jocks", and "super jocks", and the other women, the "non-jocks" create gender identities that accommodate to and reproduce domi-nant biological and behavioural explanations of sex differences as individual traits. In some senses, i t can be argued that i t i s the "women jocks" acts of resistance that make i t possible for other students to create their gender categories. Their challenges to traditional d e f i -nitions of gender allow more p o s s i b i l i t i e s for the "non-jock" women in the programme. These women can be athletic and feminine by accepting and accommodating to, rather than challenging, male dominance. At the same time this also allows more p o s s i b i l i t i e s for some of the male physical education students who can be masculine and sensitive and caring because they are athletic. The "women jocks" are also rewarded as they have been successful i n developing their gender identities within the structures of the physical education programme i n ways that allow them space to be what they want to be. A l l four groups of students develop and create their gender identi-ties in different ways. Despite these differences a l l four groups develop their response within the dominant structures of the programme 240. t h e r e s u l t i s t h a t , i n the l o n g t e r m , t h e s e a c t i o n s and e x p r e s s i o n s l e a d t o t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n r a t h e r t h a n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f t r a d i t i o n a l , p a t r i a r -c h i a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f gender. The f a c t t h a t t h e s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s o f gender a r e r e p r o d u c e d by p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s as t h e y g i v e meanings t o and c r e a t e t h e i r gender i d e n t i t i e s does n o t mean t h a t t h e y c a n n o t be c h a l l e n g e d and t r a n s f o r m e d . However, when c h a l l e n g e s o c c u r i n ways t h a t a r e a c c e p t i n g o f dominant s t r u c t u r e s t h e y f r e q u e n t l y r e m a i n i s o l a t e d , and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d and as s u c h a r e n o t r e a l i z e d i n e m a n c i p a t o r y s o c i a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . 241. Endnotes The four groups that are discussed i n this chapter represent four different ways in which physical education students expressed their gender identities within the programme. My interest and the major focus of this study i s on gender rather than on class or ethnicity. These groups represent four different ways i n which students created meanings and developed categories of gender. I did not pursue the issue of class i n this dissertation for two reasons. First, my primary interest i s on the social reproduction of gender and as such, this was the most important and only focus of my research. Secondly, the limited data that I collected on class from my informants suggested that these categories cut across class loca-tions. In a l l four categories students were from different class locations. Therefore these individuals' acts of accommodation, resis-tance and acceptance of traditional definitions of gender suggest that these actions are important i n terms of gender and not class. 242. Chapter Seven Knowledge, Gender and Social Reproduction in Physical Education: Concluding Comments This study examines the production and reproduction of gender relations i n one Canadian university physical education degree programme. The study explores the relations between the nature of knowledge in the degree programme and the production and reproduction of the gender relations within the programme. It examines the ways in which patriar-chial ideology enters into the subject matter of this programme and explores how men and women students define and create .their gender identities within this structure. Summaryv>of the Research Findings One of the major findings of this study i s that the structure and organization of knowledge i n the curriculum and faculty members' definitions of important knowledge provide two different frameworks for analyzing and presenting information about sport and gender. In a majority of courses knowledge from the biological and behavioural s c i -ences i s used as the basis for the analysis of performance, and important knowledge i s defined as knowledge that can be applied to performance. The other courses in the programme use a different framework for analy-zing play, games and sport. In these courses knowledge from the social sciences and humanities i s used to c r i t i c a l l y examine sport as an histo-r i c a l l y produced, soci a l l y constructed cultural practice. Important 243. knowledge i s viewed by faculty who teach these courses as knowledge that helps students c r i t i c a l l y analyze the dominant frameworks within which play, games and sport are understood and the ways in which the policies governing their practices are constituted. The diversity that exists i n the knowledge i n the curriculum i s reflected i n the treatment of gender issues i n the programme. When gender i s viewed within an applied framework i n biological and behavi-oural courses i t i s treated as a variable that may affect performance. This treatment of gender i s one that emphasizes sex differences i n performance i n terms of individuals' traits and explains them in biolo-gic a l and behavioural terms. In this view sex differences i n performance are framed as personal troubles, located within individuals, rather than as s o c i a l l y produced, c u l t u r a l l y defined categories. When gender i s treated i n socio-cultural courses i t i s discussed as a social issue. The analysis i n these courses focusses on a discussion of inequality i n sport and i n some instances includes a discussion of the ways in which play, games and sport have been structured and organized to produce and legitimize male hegemony. This treatment of gender i s the antithesis of the approach taken in biological and behavioural courses and provides an analysis that locates gender inequality i n the social relations of sport rather than i n biological and behavioural differences between the sexes. These findings are an i l l u s t r a t i o n of the contradictions that occur i n this programme. The curriculum i s structured to promote diversity and to provide students with different approaches to the analysis of play, games and sport. The existence of this diversity i l l u s t r a t e s the 244. complexity and contradiction involved in any ideological messages. Apple (1983), Corrigan (1979), McRobbie (1978) and Willis (1977) a l l argue that ideological messages are never complete and that they enter into and define reality in subtle and complex ways. Pinpointing the existence of different approaches to the analysis of play, games and sport and the treatment of gender issues is insufficient to provide a complete discussion of social reproduction. What must be established are the ways in which ideological definitions enter into and define meaning within this structure. The challenge is to show the links between ideology, knowledge and gender. There are clear links between ideology, knowledge and gender in this degree programme. When knowledge from the biological and behavioural sciences is used to analyze performance in biological and behavioural theory courses gender is defined as sex differences which are then explained in biological and behavioural terms. The combination of an applied framework, knowledge from the biological and behavioural sci-ences, and performance as a unit of analysis provide an ideal site for the infusion of patriarchial definitions of gender. This kind of analy-sis provides an important link between ideology, biology and gender. As Willis (1982) argues: The area of sport generally offers itself as an impor-tant target because of its apparent autonomy. Sport is just itself and part of the ideologically important area of the 'natural'. If evidence can be found here for ideological belief, then it will have the cache of the real, it will be admirably suited to citation out of context. But within this already privileged zone there is the further sub-region of women in sport which can offer the bonus of biological, and apparently in-controvertible differences between the sexes once the 245. question of sexual comparison arises. (p.130). Biological and behavioural theory courses do just this. They analyze sport using a framework i n which gender i s defined as a biological category and i s viewed as an issue of sex differences. The organization of these courses around performance and sci e n t i f i c knowledge that can be applied to performance, presents sex differences i n performance within a framework that legitimizes patriarchial definitions of women's capabili-ties by locating them within individuals and explaining any differences in biological and behavioural terms. Scientific evidence that shows that women are different (and inferior) to men because of biological and behavioural t r a i t s i s one way i n which patriarchial ideology i s able to enter into and define meaning i n this programme. In the courses where the focus i s not upon knowledge that can be applied to performance but upon knowledge that helps students to c r i t i -c a l l y analyze the dominant frameworks within which play, games and sport are understood, and how policies governing their practices are consti-tuted, gender is treated as a s o c i a l l y constructed, c u l t u r a l l y produced category. Biological and behavioural explanations of women's inferi o r i t y are questioned i n these courses and patriarchial definitions of women's capabilities are seen as s o c i a l l y produced rather than natural, immutable facts. This approach i s one that challenges rather than legitimizes patriarchial ideology. The analysis of the nature of knowledge and faculty members' defi-nitions of important knowledge i l l u s t r a t e the ways in which knowledge, ideology and gender are linked. This kind of analyses of the curriculum 246. also shows that students are exposed to a diversity of views of gender, even though biological and behavioural explanations of sex differences are presented as the dominant one. The second set of findings from the study relate to men and women students' interpretations of and reactions to the structure and organi-zation of knowledge i n the programme. The study showed that both men and women students' definitions of important knowledge and s k i l l s in physical education correspond to the ways in which knowledge is struc-tured and organized i n the programme. They have performance as their primary focus and knowledge and s k i l l s that can be used to analyze and improve performance are described as "really useful". Conversely, know-ledge that has no direct application to performance i s viewed as interesting, but peripheral, and courses in which this knowledge i s taught are taken by men and women students as a means of obtaining what are believed to be "easy credits". Both men and women students' reactions to the treatment of gender issues i n the programme are consistent with their definitions of impor-tant knowledge. Information on sex differences i n performance, where differences are explained i n biological and behavioural terms, i s viewed by the majority of informants as "really useful knowledge". This d e f i -nition of information on sex differences encourages students to view gender as a personal trouble that is located within individuals and that can be explained i n biological and behavioural terms. This leads to an acceptance of evidence that shows that women are not only different, but inferior. Critiques of this view of women's capabilities by students are directed at the inaccuracy of the information on women rather than 247. at the framing of gender issues sex differences i n individual traits. Men and women students' responses to ideological definitions of women's capabilities are far from straightforward. This i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n their reactions to the framing of gender as a s o c i a l l y constructed, h i s t o r i c a l l y produced category. Both men and women students do not dismiss this information outright. There i s some recognition by them that inequality and the social construction of inequality i n sport are interesting and v a l i d issues. However, because this information i s not defined by students as "rea l l y useful", only "interesting", i t i s viewed as peripheral to their immediate needs. These responses by men and women students show that they have orientations to physical education that f a c i l i t a t e the acceptance of patriarchial definitions of women's and men's capabilities i n sport. However, these students are also exposed to, and find interesting, alternative explanations of gender issues that challenge biological and behavioural explanations of sex differences. The categorization of these alternative views as peripheral rather than "r e a l l y useful" allows students to l i v e with both explanations without viewing them as contra-dictory. Ultimately, patriarchial, biological and behavioural explanations of sex differences i n performance capabilities are viewed as v a l i d representations of r e a l i t y as they provide students with "really useful" knowledge that has direct application, and can be used by them to improve human physical performance. Information about the social construction of gender issues that challenges patriarchial d e f i -nitions of r e a l i t y i s not categorized as "really useful" and as such 2 4 8 . students define i t as per i p h e r a l , which allows p a t r i a r c h i a l d e f i n i t i o n s to remain i n t a c t . The preceeding findings i l l u s t r a t e the importance of understanding how i d e o l o g i c a l messages are legitimated and challenged w i t h i n the curriculum and men and women students' perceptions of these messages. They show that the combination of the structure and organization of knowledge i n the programme and men and women students' orientations to ph y s i c a l education i s one that f a c i l i t a t e s an acceptance of p a t r i a r c h i a l d e f i n i t i o n s of gender. The f i n a l set of findings from t h i s study b u i l d on the f i r s t two. They i l l u s t r a t e the ways i n which men and women students accommodate to, r e s i s t and accept p a t r i a r c h i a l d e f i n i t i o n s of gender as they create and develop t h e i r gender i d e n t i t i e s i n the programme. These findings repre-sent the r e a l dynamic of s o c i a l reproduction. They show that despite the resistance that i s apparent i n some students' actions, t h i s r e s i s -tance remains i s o l a t e d and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d and does not come together i n the c o l l e c t i v e , p o t e n t i a l l y emancipatory, a c t i o n that i s important for the transformation of the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s of gender. The study showed that students negotiate the meanings of gender and develop t h e i r gender i d e n t i t i e s i n complex, often paradoxical ways. For example, the "women jocks" i n the programme redefine t h e i r femininity i n ways that accommodate to and r e s i s t t r a d i t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s of gender. These women i l l u s t r a t e the problems and d i f f i c u l t i e s that are faced by i n d i v i d u a l s who attempt to transform and challenge these t r a d i t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s . They have a l l had experiences that a l l o w them to challenge these d e f i n i t i o n s . These experiences permit them to r e s i s t b i o l o g i c a l 249. and behavioural explanations of sex differences and develop an awareness that traditional definitions of gender are socially constructed rather than biological and behavioural traits that are located within indivi-duals. This understanding allows these women to reject traditional expectations of their.sex and develop gender identities that permit them to be strong, athletic and competitive. Although this resistance allows the "women jocks" to develop a strong sense of their own identities, it is also accompanied by an accommodation to and acceptance of the domi-nant structures and forms of knowledge in the programme. The paradox for the "woman jocks" is that they have developed challenges to tradi-tional definitions of gender without rejecting the forms of knowledge that have helped to create and reproduce them. The result is that in the short term the "women jocks" are successful in creating space for themselves in the programme by extending the boundaries of traditional boundaries of gender, but in the long term these actions reproduce rather than transform the social relations of gender. The other groups of students in the programme, the "super jocks", the "ordinary jocks" and the "non jocks" also create their gender iden-tities in paradoxical ways. The male "super jocks" and "ordinary jocks", and the women "non jocks" in the programme create their gender identities by accommodating to and accepting traditional definitions of gender. The "super jocks" are an extreme group and they are examples of male physical education students who give a material form to the belief that men are naturally stronger and physically superior to women. These students reproduce in their daily lives patriarchial definitions of 250. men's natural superiority. They are l i v i n g proof of that gender i s a biological category and provide a powerful mechanism for patriarchial ideology to enter into the realm of the natural and biological. The "ordinary jocks" express their gender identities i n less e x p l i c i t l y "macho" ways. They appear to be allowed the freedom to act in ways that challenge patriarchial definitions of men's and women's capabilities. There i s room for the "ordinary jocks" to express their masculinity i n a number of ways. However, the limits of this are clea r l y delineated. They must establish their masculinity through athletic prowess. The limits are set i n relation to the "ordinary jocks'" physical a b i l i t i e s . If they can establish their prowess on the f i e l d then they can be sensitive, studious and quiet and s t i l l be accepted. If not, "ordinary jocks" are expected to be tough, aggressive and competitive off the f i e l d . The "ordinary jocks" are not as overtly masculine as the "super jocks" but their gender identities are s t i l l overt expressions of their masculinity. This group produce their gender identities i n ways that extend the traditional definitions of masculinity to include "non-traditional" expressions of their gender but do so by accommodating to traditional definitions of masculinity and femininity and, as such, reproduce these categories. The "non jocks" i n physical education have developed a group iden-t i t y that i s unique i n this programme. It i s one that has been defined in ways that allow these women to be athletic and create identities that are traditionally feminine. For these women being athletic and feminine are not seen as conflicting or antithetical because of their acceptance 251. of biological and behavioural explanations of women's and men's perfor-mance capabilities. This acceptance of traditional definitions of gender provides the "non jocks" with a means of being feminine and remaining in physical education. For the "non jocks" accommodating to and accepting patriarchial definitions of their a b i l i t i e s and the creation of gender identities that reproduce the social relations of gender enables them to exist in physical education without being viewed as butches or lesbians. The risk of being viewed as "unfeminine" and the consequences of resisting traditional definitions of gender i s viewed by this group as too high a price to have to pay. The ways in which these groups of students create their gender identities by accepting and accommodating to the dominant structures and forms of knowledge in the programme i l l u s t r a t e s the subtle and paradoxi-c a l ways male hegemony i s reproduced in physical education. Challenges to male hegemony occur as a result of the actions of individuals trying to create space for themselves i n the programme. Ultimately, even those who resist, reinforce and reproduce the categories they are resisting. There i s room i n this programme for students, through actions of accom-modation and resistance, to create space to develop their gender identities i n diverse ways. The power of male hegemony i s nevertheless evident as this diversity co-exists with and reproduces categories that legitimize biological and behavioral rather than cultural explanations for women's and men's physical capabilities. The strength of these findings i s not in their generalizability or universality but i n their a b i l i t y to give an insight i n to the processes involved the social construction of gender for students i n one university 252. physical education programme. The advantage of being able to document one case i s that i t allows the researcher to focus, i n depth, on a process that i s seldom analyzed at the l e v e l of "lived" experience. Accommodation, Resistance and Social Reproduction: A Final Note The findings of this study suggest that i t i s important to move beyond an examination of sexism i n the curriculum. Although this work i s important and necessary i t cannot explain the process of social reproduction. If we are to understand how male hegemony i s reproduced i n physical education, i t i s important to examine the structures and nature of knowledge in the programme, and students' interpretations of and reactions to them i n order to explore the relations between human agency and social reproduction. r The problem that one i s attempting to address in analyses of the social reproduction of gender relations in physical education is to understand how the structures and forms of knowledge that exist i n particular programmes produce potentially patriarchial ideological mes-sages, and reproduce patriarchial social relations. One way this relationship between knowledge, structure and social reproduction i s explained i s to suggest that the knowledge and structures of the pro-gramme ref l e c t or correspond to the dominant, patriarchial ideology that exists i n society and therefore reproduces patriarchial social relations. However, i t i s too easy to view social reproduction i n terms of a simple correspondence between programme structure and knowledge and patriarchial ideology. This research shows that this i s c l e a r l y not the 253. case. First, this programme i s structured to provide students with alternative frameworks for analyzing and presenting information about play, games and sport and gender. The dominant framework i n the pro-gramme uses knowledge from the biological and behavioural sciences to analyze human, physical performance. In this framework gender i s viewed as an issue of sex differences, which are explained i n terms of i n d i v i -dual biological and behavioural traits. This approach focusses attention on individuals and explains gender these terms. Thus, this dominant view is one that reinforces and legitimizes patriarchial ideology. However, this view of gender i s countered by an alternative one. There are courses i n the programme that analyze play, games and sport as s o c i a l l y constructed, h i s t o r i c a l l y produced cultural forms. In these courses gender i s treated as a social issue rather than a personal trouble and i s analyzed in a framework that locates gender inequality i n the social relations of play, games and sport rather than i n biological and behavioural differences between the sexes. Thus, students are presented with knowledge that both legitimizes and challenges patriar-chial ideology i n the same programme. Secondly, i t i s clear from the findings of this research that students do not simply accept patriarchial definitions of gender and reproduce these gender relations i n their own l i v e s . They actively resist and accommodate to these ideological messages as they struggle to create meaning and develop their gender identities i n their daily li v e s . The students i n this study i l l u s t r a t e the importance of understanding and accounting for human agency in analyses of social reproduction as 254. they do not passively accept the dominant structures and forms of know-ledge in the programme but interpret and react to them in complex and paradoxical ways. It is, however, important to explore the relations between human agency and social reproduction. The findings in this study suggest that male hegemony is reproduced despite the resistance that occurs to i t . The study shows that resistance does not always lead to the transforma-tion of patriarchial social relations. The resistance that is expressed by students in this study allows them to create space for themselves in the programme. However, the resistance is accompanied by an acceptance of and accommodation to the dominant structures and forms of knowledge in the programme and, therefore, i t remains individualized and is not realized as collective opposition, as potentially emancipatory insights are regarded by the students as peripheral or they are ignored. This study has shown that the social reproduction of gender in this programme is only one small part of a much broader hegemonic process. The reproduction of male hegemony is only possible i f potential opposition and acts of resistance can be neutralized. This is not only possible, but successful, in this programme as resistance remains individualized and never congeals into collective, emancipatory and transformative action. It would appear that the power of the discourses of science, the occupational and economic demands that exist in society, and stu-dents' strong vocational and performance orientations facilitate an acceptance of a framework that defines "important knowledge" as know-ledge that can be applied to improve human physical performance. An acceptance of this view of "important" and "really useful" knowledge 255. ensures that gender remains defined as a personal trouble, even by those who are attempting to resist traditional definitions of gender, and the potentially emancipatory insights that would allow a redefinition of the problem are simply defined as peripheral or are ignored. Suggestions for Further Research There are a number of suggestions for further research that arise from this study. These suggestions can be summarized as follows. First, an examination of the social reproduction of gender in other physical education programmes and other sites should be conducted. For example, i t would be useful to explore further the links between know-ledge, structure and social reproduction i n other university physical education programmes. Specifically, an exploration of the nature of knowledge in physical education may allow the development of courses and materials that present alternatives to the dominant forms of knowledge which allow individual acts of resistance to come together i n c o l l e c t i v e acts that lead to the transformation rather than reproduction of male hegemony. Closely aligned to this i s the need for research that explores the processes involved i n the social reproduction of gender in school physical education programmes, and competitive sport and recreational sport programmes. An analysis of different programmes w i l l provide a better understanding of the ways in which male hegemony i s resisted, accommodated and reproduced or transformed by the actions of the i n d i v i -duals involved in them. Secondly, i t would be useful to focus on specific individuals or 256. groups within p h y s i c a l education and sport programmes. For example, case studies of women who r e s i s t p a t r i a r c h i a l i d e o l o g i c a l messages by r e j e c t i n g the dominant structures and forms of knowledge i n the f i e l d , and case studies of men who a l s o r e s i s t these i d e o l o g i c a l messages would provide a greater understanding of the s o c i a l reproduction of the r e l a t i o n s of gender. T h i r d l y , analyses of the ways i n which the d i s c i p l i n e has been s o c i a l l y constructed and h i s t o r i c a l l y produced to l e g i t i m i z e and repro-duce male hegemony are necessary. H i s t o r i c a l analyses of the r o l e s women have played i n the development of the d i s c i p l i n e and studies that examine the ways i n which women have accommodated to and r e s i s t e d the dominant forms of knowledge i n the d i s c i p l i n e are important i f we are to understand how male hegemony has been created and reproduced. Fourthly, t h i s research suggests that i t might be important to study other d i s c i p l i n e s and examine the ways i n which knowledge, s t r u c -ture and the s o c i a l reproduction of gender r e l a t i o n s are linked . F i n a l l y , an understanding of the production and reproduction of other forms of hegemony would be val u a b l e . An examination of the s o c i a l reproduction of c l a s s and e t h n i c i t y would a i d i n further understanding the l i n k s between accommodation, resistance and s o c i a l reproduction. 257. Bibliography Acker, S. and Warren Piper, D. (Eds.) (1984). Is higher education  fair to women? Society for Research into Higher Education. Alaya, F. (1977). Victorian science and the 'genius' of woman. Journal  of the History of Ideas, 38, 261-80. Anyon, J. (1983). Intersections of gender and class: Accommodation and resistance by working class and affluent females to contrary sex-role ideologies. In S. Walker and L. Barton (eds.), Gender, Class  and Education. ' Lewes: The Falmer Press. Apple, M.W. (ed.) (1982). Cultural and economic reproduction in  education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Apple, M.W. and Weis, L. (eds.) (1983). Ideology and practice in  schooling. Philadelphia: Temple Press. Arnot, M. (1980). Schooling and the reproduction of class and gender relations. In L. Barton et. al. (eds.), Schooling, Ideology and  the Curriculum. Lewes: Falmer Press. Arnot, M. (1985). Current developments in the sociology of women's education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 6, 1, 123— 130. Barrett, M. (1980). Women's oppression today: Problems in Marxist  feminist analyses. Norfolk: The Thetford Press. Barrett, P. (1985). Structuring stereotyping. In Alice in Genderland. The National Association for the Teaching of English. ! Beamish, R. (1982). Sport and the logic of capitalism. In H. Cantelon and R. Gruneau (eds.), Sport, Culture, and the Modern State. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Beamish, R. (1984). Materialism and the comprehension of gender related issues in sport. In N. Theberge and P. Donnelly (eds.). Sport and  the Sociological Imagination. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press. Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Beteille, A. (1969). Social inequality. Baltimore: Penguin. 258. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall. Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: Introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society  and culture. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Boutilier, M.A., & San Giovanni, L. (1983). The sporting woman. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publications. Bowles, G. and Duelli Klein, R. (eds.), (1983). Theories of women's  studies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bray, C. (1984). Gender and the political economy of Canadian sport. In N. Theberge and P. Donnelly (eds.), Sport and the Sociological  Imagination. Fort Worth: Tetas Christian University Press. Broekho'ff, J. (1982). A discipline - so who needs it? Proceedings of  the North American Association of Physical Education in Higher  Education. Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetic. Burgess, R. (1984). In the field: an introduction to field research. London: Allen and Unwin. Burstyn, J.N. (1973). Education and sex: The medical case against education for women in England, 1890-1900. Proceedings of the  American Philosophical Society, 117, 79-89. Byrne, E.M. (1978). Women and education. London: Tavistock. Connell, R. (1983). Which way is up? Essays on Class, Sex and Culture. Sydney: George Allen and Unwin. Corrigan, P. (1979). Schooling and the smash street kids. London: The Macmillan Press. Cosentino, F., & Howell, M. (1971). A history of physical education in  Canada. Toronto: General Publishing Company Limited. Culley, M., & Portuges, C. (eds.), (1985). Gendered subjects the dynamics  of feminist teaching. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Davies, L. (1984). Pupil power: Deviance and gender in school. Lewes: The Falmer Press. Deem, R. (1978). Women and schooling. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. " 259. Deem, R. (eds.), (1980). Schooling for women's work. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Delamont, S. (1980). Sex-role and the school. London: Methuen. Denzin, N.K. (1971). The logic of naturalistic inquiry. Social Forces, 50, 166-82. Duelli Klein, R. (1984). Women studies: The challenge to man made education. In S. Acker et. al. World Yearbook of Education 1984:  Women and Education. London: Kogan Page. Duquin, M.E. (1977). Perceptions of sport: A study in sexual attraction. In R.W. Christina and D.M. Landers (eds.), Psychology of  Motor Behaviour and Sport ~ 1976, Volume II, 47-55. Champaign, 111.: Human Kinetics Publishers. Dyer, J. (1979). Understanding and evaluating educational research. Addison - Wesley. Eichler, M. (1980). The double standard: A feminist critique of  feminist social science. London: Croom Helm. Erickson, F. (1984). What makes school ethnography "ethnographic"? Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 15, 51-66. Evans, J. (1984). Muscle, sweat and showers: Girls' conceptions physical education and sport: A challenge for research and curricu-lum reform. Physical Education Review, 7, 1. Fee, E. (1976). Science and the woman problem. In M.S. Teitelbaum i (Ed.), Sex differences. New York: Anchor Press. Felshin, J. (1974). The triple option for women in sport. Quest Monograph 21, 36-40. Fristchner, L.M. (1978). Karate: The making and maintenance of an underdog class. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 1, 3-13. Fuller, M. (1985). Black girls in a London comprehensive school. In M. Hammersley and P. Woods (eds.), Life in School. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Gaskell, J. (1985). Course enrollment in the high school: The perspective of working class females. Sociology of Education, 58, 48-59. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. 260. Genovese, E. (1972). Roll, Jordan roll: The world the slaves made. New York: Vintage. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1975). The discovery of grounded theory:  Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Godbout, P. Conference Statement. In F. Hayden (ed.), Body and Mind  in the 90's. Ontario: Bates, Printing. Gold, R. (1958). Roles in sociological fieldwork. Social Forces, 3b. Gouldner, A.W. (1970). The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books. Griffin, P.S. (1983). Gymnastics is a girls thing: Student participation and interaction patterns in a middle school gymnas-tics unit. In T. Templin and J. Olson (eds.), Teaching in Physical  Education. Champaign: Human. Kinetics Publishers. Griffin, P.S. (1984). Girls' participation patterns in a middle school team sports unit. Journal of Teaching In Physical Education, 4, 30-38. Griffiths, D. and Saraga, E. (1979). Set differences in cognitive abilities: A sterile field of enquiry? In Hostnett et. al. Sex Role Stereotyping.- London: Tavistock. Gruneau, R.S. (1975). Sport, social differentiation and social inequa-lity. In D.W. Ball and J.W. Loy (eds.) Sport and Social Order:  Contributions to the Sociology of Sport. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley. Gruneau, R.S. (1983). Class, sport, and social development. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press. Hall, M.A. (1978). Sport and gender: A feminist perspective on the sociology of sport. CAPHER Sociology of Sport Monograph Series. Calgary: The University of Calgary. Hall, M.A. (1980). Rarely have we asked why: Reflections on Canadian women's experience in sport. Atlantis 1, 1, 51-60. Hall, M.A. (1981). Sport, sex roles and sex identity. The CRIAW  Papers / Les Documents de (') CRAF, _1. Ottawa: The Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. 261. Hall, M.A. (1982). The player, the woman and the necessity of feminist scholarship. In N.A.P.E.H.E. Proceedings, Vol. III. Champaign, 111: Human Kinetics Publishers, 48-55. Hall M.A. (1984). Towards a feminist analysis of gender inequality in sport. In N. Theberge and P. Donnelly (eds.) Sport and the Socio- logical Imagination. Fort Worth: Tetas Christian University Press. Hall, M.A. (1985). Knowledge and gender: Epistemological questions in the social analyses of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2, 25-42. Hamid Don,- F. (1984). Educational opportunities for girls in Malaysian secondary schools. In S. Acker, J. Megary, S. Nisbet, & E. Hoyle (eds.), World Yearbook of Education 1984: Women and Education. London: Kogan Page. Hamilton, M., & Leo-Rhynie,' E. (1984). Sex roles and secondary education in Jamaica. In S. Acker et. al. (eds.), World Yearbook  of Education 1984: Women and Education. London: Kogan Page. Hammersley, M. (1983). The ethnography of schooling: Methodological  issues. Driffield: Nafferton. Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in  practice. London: Tavistock. Hargreaves, J. (1982). Sport, culture and ideology. In J. Hargreaves (ed.), Sport, Culture and Ideology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hart, M. (1976). On being female in sport. In M. Hart (ed.), Sport  in the Socio-Cultural Process (2nd edition), 438-448. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown. Hayden, F. (ed.), (1980). Body and mind in the 90's: A forward look at  degree programs in physical activity sciences. Ontario: Bates Printing. Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The meaning of change. London: Methuen. Henry, F.M. (1964). Physical education: An academic discipline. Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 35, 32-33. Howe, K.R. (1985). Two dogmas of educational research. Educational  Researcher. Imray, L., & Middleton, A. (1983). Public and private: Marking the boundaries. In E. Gamarnikow et. al. (Eds.), The Public and the Private. London: Heinemann. 262. Ingham, A.G. (1985). From public issue to personal trouble: Well-being and the fiscal crisis of the state. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2, 43-55. Jaggar, A. (1983). Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld. Junker, B. (1960). Fieldwork. Chicage: University of Chicago Press. Kelly, A. (1981). The missing half. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Keohane, N., Rosaldo, M. and Gelpi, B. (eds.), (1982). Feminist theory:  A critique of ideology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. King, R. (1978). All things bright and beautiful: A Sociological study  of infants's classrooms. Chichester: Wiley. Kuhn, A., & Wolpe, A.M. (eds.), (1978). Feminism and materialism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. v Landers, D.M. (ed.), (1976). Social problems in athletics: Essays in the sociology of sport. Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press. Lenskyj, H. (1983). The role of physical education in the socialization of girls in Ontario 1890-1930. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation O.S.I.E. University of Toronto, Ontario. Lewko, J.H., and Greendorfer, S.L. (1977). Family influence and sex differences in children's socialization into sport: A review. In D.W. Landers and R.W. Christina (eds.) (1977). Psychology of Motor  Behaviour and Sport, 434-447. Champaign, 111.: Human Kinetic Publishers. Maccoby, E.E. and Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The psychology of sex dif- ferences. Standford, California: Standford University Press. Macintosh, D., Franks, N., Gruneau, R., Greenhorn, D., & Bedecki, T. (1982). Federal government sport policy making since 1961. Unpublished Preliminary Draft Report. Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the western pacific. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Mangan, J.A. (1983). Athleticism in the Victorian and Edwardian  public school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McRobbie, A. (1978). . Working class girls and the culture of femininity in women's studies group LCCS, University of Birmingham. Women  take issue. Aspect of women's subordination. London: Hutchinson. 263. Measor, L. (1984). Gender i n the sciences: P u p i l s gender based conceptions of school subjects. In M. Hammersley and P. Woods (eds.). L i f e i n School: The Sociology of P u p i l Culture. M i l t o n Keynes: Open U n i v e r s i t y Press. Metheny, E. (1964). Sports and the feminine image. Gymnasion 1, 4, 17-22. Mies, M. (1983). Towards a methodology f o r feminist research. In G. Bowles and R.D. K l e i n (eds.), Theories of Women's Studies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Minns, H. (1985). G i r l s don't get holes i n t h e i r c l othes: Sex-typing i n the primary school. In A l i c e i n Genderland. The National Association f or the Teaching English. Money, J. and Ehrhardt, A.A. (1972). Man and woman boy and g i r l . Baltimore: The John Hopkin's U n i v e r s i t y Press (Mentor Book). Morford, W.R., Lawson, H.A. and Hutton, R.S. (1981). A cr o s s d i s c i p l i n a r y model f o r undergraduate education. In H.A. Lawson (ed.), Undergraduate eduation: Issues and approaches. Washington, D.C.: AAHPERD. Oakley, A. (1981) Interviewing women: A contradiction i n terms. In H. Roberts, Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Prendergast, S. (1978). S t o o l b a l l - the pursuit of vertigo. Women's  Studies International Quarterly, 1, 15-26. Riordan, J. (1985). The s o c i a l emancipation of women through sport. The B r i t i s h Journal of Sports History, 2, 53-61. Roberts, H. (1981). Doing feminist research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Sharpe, S. (1976). Just l i k e a g i r l : How g i r l s l e a r n to be women. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Sheilds, S.A. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism and the psychology of women: A study of s o c i a l myth. American Psychologist, 30, 739-54. Sherman, J. and Beck, E. (eds.), (1979). The prism of sex: Essays i n the sociology of knowledge. Madison: U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin Press. Sidentop, D. (1977). Developing teaching s k i l l s i n ph y s i c a l education. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. 264. Smith, D. (1975). An analysis of ideological structures and how women are excluded: Considerations for academic women. Canadian Review  of Sociology and Anthropology, 12, 4. Spender, D. (Ed.). (1981). Men's studies modified: The impact of  feminism on the academic disciplines. London: Pergamon Press. Spender, D. (1982). Invisible women: The schooling scandal. London: Writers and Readers Publishing. Spender, D., & Sarah, E. (eds.), (1980). Learning to lose: Sexism and  education. London: The Women's Press. Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Stake, R.E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educat ion  Researcher, 7 (2), 5-8. Stanley, L. and Wise, S. (1983). Breaking out: Feminist consciousness  and feminist research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Stanworth, M. (1983). Gender and schooling: A study of sexual divisions  in the classroom. London: Hutchinson. Stoddart, K. (1977). The presentation of everyday life: Strategies for adequate ethnography. Unpublished paper. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. Theberge, N. (1984). Some evidence on the existence of a sexual double standard in mobility to leadership positions in sport. International  Review for the Sociology of Sport, 19, 2, 185-195. Thompson, J. (1983). Learning liberation: Women's response to men's  education. London: Croom Helm. Vickers, J.N., & Gosling, B.J. (1984). The changing participation of men and women in the Canadian interuniversity athletic union (1978-1982). Ottawa: The Women's Representative Committee, C.I.A.U. Walker, R. (1981). Three good reasons for not doing case study research. Paper presented at British Educational Research Association Conference, September 1981. Walker, S., & Barton, L. (1983). Gender, class and education: A personal view. In S. Walker and L. Barton (eds.), Gender, Class  and Education. Lewes, Sussex: The Falmer Press. Wax, R. (1971). Doing field work: Warning and advice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 265. Weiner, G. (1984). Feminist education or equal opportunities: The tension within. Paper presented at the G i r l Friday Conference, Manchester Polytechnic. Weiner, G. (ed.), (1985). Just a bunch of g i r l s : Feminist approaches  to schooling. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Wenkert, R. (1980). The growing interest in ethnographic research: Implications for educators. Teacher Education Laboratory, 9(3), 2-4. Williams, J.F. (1964). The principles of physical education. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders. Willis , P. (1977). Learning to Labour. Sussex: Saxon House. W i l l i s , P. (1982). Women in sport i n ideology. In J. Hargreaves (ed.), Sport Culture and Ideology. London: Routledge and Kegan.Paul. Wine, J.D. (1982). Gynocentric values and feminist psychology. In A. Miles and G. Finn (eds.), Feminism in Canada. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Wine, J.D., Moses, B., 6c Smye, M.D. (1978). Female superiority i n sex differences competence comparisons: A review of the literature. In C. Stark-Adamec (ed.), Sex Roles: Origins, Influences and  Implications for Women. Montreal: Eden Press. Wolpe, A.M. (1977). Some processes i n sexist education. London: Women's Research and Resources Centre. Yin, R. (1981). The case study as a serious research strategy. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion and Utilization, 3(11), 97-114. Young, M. (ed.) (1971). Knowledge and control. London: Macmillan. 0 266. Appendix A Student Interview Schedule ' Individual's Background Experience 1. How are you? 2. How many years have you been enrolled in this programme? 3. What year are you in? 4. Did you come here directly from high school? What high school did you attend? If you did not come directly from high school what did you do? 5. Why did you choose to study p.e.? Why did you choose to come to university? Did you consider doing anything else? What do your parents do? Have any of your family ever been to university? Who? What did they do? 6. What do you plan to do when you finish your degree? What are your career plans? Do you think you w i l l be able to achieve this? What is your second choice? Structure and Organization of the Programme 1. What p.e. courses are you taking this year? Why did you choose these courses? 2. Which p.e. courses do you prefer? Why? 3. Which p.e. courses do you least prefer? Why? 4. What are the strengths of the programme? 5. What are the weaknesses of the programme? Why? 6. When you f i r s t arrived i n the programme what did you expect i t to be like? Was it? Why not? 267. 7. What do you think that this programme should be teaching students? Why? Is it? 8. What i s taught i n your performance courses? Why are they included i n the programme? How valuable are they? Is the programme designed to prepare you for teaching? What i s i t designed to do? 9. What did you expect to be studying when you i n i t i a l l y entered the programme? Have your ideas about physical education changed as a result of this programme? In what ways? Why? 10. How do you react when people suggest that studying p.e. i s an easy option? Are these criticisms justified? Is this programme an easy option? Explain? Which courses are generally considered to be easy credits? Why i s that? Which ones are generally considered to be tough courses? Why i s that? Gender and Physical Education 1. What sports or physical a c t i v i t i e s do you participate in? At what level? How long have you been participating? How much time does this involve? Do you find that i t interferes with the time you can spend on studying for your courses? 2. Do you coach or teach any sports or physical activities? What? With whom? 3. I have noticed that i n some of the performance classes that males and females are separated. Why i s this? Is i t possible for a woman to take football or ice hockey? 268. 4. Is gender ever discussed in any of your^ courses? Which ones? In what ways is gender dealt with? Do you think that gender should be discussed? Explain? 5. It is sometimes claimed that p.e. is a masculine or male oriented subject. How valid is this claim? 6. Is there equality between males and females in this programme? Explain? What about with the within the varsity teams? I have noticed that often it is the men's teams that seem to get alot of attention despite the fact that some of the women's teams are equal-ly, if not more successful. Is this the case? Have you ever felt that? Why do you think this may be so? Is this a valid comment? Why? 7. When I hear people joking around about the stereotypical images of women in sport I have heard that women who play basketball and field hockey are butch and not feminine? Is this a common stereotype? Why is this the case? How do you react when you hear that kind of statement? Is there a similar stereotype about footballers and hockey players? What is it? 8. Is there anything else I should know? 269. Appendix B  Faculty Interview Schedule 1. What courses do you teach? 2. What department are you in? 3. What do you see as the major issues i n relation to gender and physical education? 4. Do you include material on gender in any of the courses that you teach? Can you give an example? 5. Have you done any research or writing on gender? What was it? 6. Do you forsee doing any work on gender i n the future? What w i l l you be doing? 7. Do you include any readings on gender in any of your courses? What are these? 8. Do you think that gender i s an important topic for physical educa-tion students? Why? Why not? 9. Does material on gender have any place in the programme? Where would you put it ? 10. Can you r e c a l l ever being questioned about the exclusion of material on women or g i r l s i n any of your classes? Can you give me an example? 11. If during a class you were teaching a student asked "how does this apply to women?" How would you respond to this question. 12. There appears to be considerable debate within both the popular and academic literature about the p o s s i b i l i t y of female athletes "catching up" with or closing the gap with their male counterparts. 270. Have you any thoughts about this? Are you aware of any evidence to support or refute these claims? 13. In this programme men and women are separated i n certain performance classes and not others. In basketball and conditioning, for example, there are separate men's and women's sections, why i s this? What do you think about this? 14. The students I have been interviewing generally claim that perfor-mance courses are the core of the physical education programme, they view them as an essential part of their degree. How do you see performance courses f i t t i n g into the programme? Do you think they are an important part of the degree programme? 15. What do you see as the most important courses i n the B.P.E. program-me? Why? 16. It has been claimed that sport i s a male dominated, activity. Is physical education i n this programme male dominated? In what ways? Can you give me an example? Do you see this as changing? In what ways? 17. Is there anything that I have missed that you think I should be aware of i n relation to gender? 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054666/manifest

Comment

Related Items