Abstract
This study came into existence against the backdrop of pervasive “negative images of fathers” (Rabe, 2018, p. 13) stemming from societal perceptions of South African men as problematic because “[T]hey are physically absent, abusive, and do not pay for their children’s upkeep” (Morrell, Dunkle, Ibragimov, Jewkes, 2016, p. 81). I was interested to understand the extent and influence of male caregivers’ involvement (or lack thereof) in nurturing young children while at the same time supporting their educational progress in a South African microcosmic community of multiple deprivations. Thus, this study sought to address the main research question: What is the nature and scope of male caregivers’ (fathers/father figures) involvement in the family and school lives of a sample of Foundation Phase (FP) learners from selected township schools? Three primary schools in Thembisa Township, north of the city of Johannesburg, within the Ekurhuleni North education district, participated in this study.
This study adopted a partially mixed sequential dominant status design (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2011). This design accords with the pragmatist paradigm’s tenet that there are multiple ways of seeking knowledge. Hence, data collection methods included a survey and different types of interviews. Research participants comprised FP teachers, FP learners, and male and female caregivers. To analyse survey data, I used descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative data analysis entailed an iterative coding process to generate categories and themes. The fatherhood ideals conceptual framework (Pleck & Pleck, 1997) and the ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) provided lenses through which to interpret the findings.
v
The overarching finding emerging from this study is that male caregivers play a significant role in supporting holistic child development, including emotional wellbeing and school progress. However, the study also found that male caregivers’ involvement in the socialisation and schooling of young children was notably low.
I argued that socio-economic disadvantage is a significant barrier to the responsive engagement of male caregivers in children’s socio-educational activities. In light thereof, I contended that male caregivers in this study expressed their involvement in (other valid) ways that diverged from the dominant middle-class conceptions of parental involvement. Hence, this study poses a well-considered and still germane question about the utility of dominant middle-class conceptions of parental involvement, heedless of the experiences of different cultures and social classes in South Africa.
The study recommends that future research should consider how socio-economic disparities influence conceptions of male parenting and men’s ability to play active roles in supporting holistic child development. The study also highlights several implications for policy and practice, including the need to address teachers’ gendered assumptions about the role of men in children’s upbringing. It is suggested that pre- and in-service professional teacher development programmes should capacitate FP teachers with essential skills to galvanise and sustain male caregivers’ participation in the education and socialisation of their children.