Emotionally Engaged Parent Versus Professional Teacher: Strategies for Maintaining Borders Between the Dual Teacher-Parent Role in School

Introduction

In the paper we explore the teacher and parent identity in school settings by examining teacher descriptions of strategies for separating the two roles and by interpreting the strategies in the light of the key meanings of both roles. The teaching profession is associated with expectations regarding teachers’ ability to empathize and understand children and their needs, among other things. Primary teachers, in particular, tend to be seen as parental figures as they work with younger children (MacDonald, 1994). The expectations regarding both roles may overlap to a certain extent, and can even create a synergy effect where both roles thrive in combination (Claesson & Brice, 1989; White, 2011). We were interested in exploring the relation of the two roles in juxtaposition – where both the teacher and parental identity have the potential to be evoked at the same time. Most teachers are also parents and many find it practical to place their children in the school they teach at. The goal of the paper is to present the strategies teacher-parents described for maintaining boundaries between their professional (teacher) and personal (parent) roles in the school environment and to interpret how the strategies relate to the key meanings of the teacher and parent role that emerge in educational settings.

Social constructivist perspective

We approached the concepts of role and identity from the social constructivist perspective. People take active roles in negotiating meanings related to their roles and identities in social situations. According to this approach, identity is neither stable, nor unchangeable; on the contrary, in the constructivist perspective roles and identities are seen as subject to constant definition and redefinition by the actors involved. Symbolic interactionist theory (Blumer, 1986) and its later versions (Stryker, 2002) enable us to theorize about these roles in terms of expectations regarding a certain position or status, and about identities as internalized expectations related to one’s role. People have multiple identities (personal, professional, etc.) that occupy a different rank in the identity hierarchy. The importance of each identity differs depending on the hierarchy, and the probability of behaving according to the expectations attached to that identity may vary too. Identity salience is explained as “the probability that an identity will be invoked across a variety of situations, or alternatively across persons in a given situation” (Stryker & Burke, 2000, p. 286). School settings in which the teachers’ own child is present are environments in which both professional (teacher) and personal (parent) identity have the potential to be invoked.

Research on teacher identity

According to Beijaard et al. (2004) there are three types of teacher identity research – on identity formation; on identification of teacher identity characteristics; and studies where teacher identity was represented using narratives (stories). Some studies examine teacher identity by defining its stable characteristics, but recently identifying meaning and the ways in which the identity is constructed has become increasingly prevalent. The term identity has become more fluid, multidimensional and is studied through the lenses of the discursive perspective. The methodological shift can be explained by the increasing complexity of social life and the greater differentiation of roles (Gee, 2001). In the past two decades methodological approaches to teacher identity have tended to be qualitative (Lutovac & Kaasila, 2019), with professional development being the most frequent topic investigated (Gomes et al., 2013). Our interest lies in the process whereby different actors in educational settings construct the teacher role, in the ways in which teachers create the meanings of their educational and parental roles, how they position themselves and lastly how they negotiate these positions. There are multiple sources of expectations regarding the teacher’s role – societal influences and educational discourses as well as personal experiences and beliefs.

Slovak findings on teacher role and identity

The construction of the teacher role in Slovakia is affected by different influences in the educational arena. In the last decade of the 20th century, the teacher profession in Slovakia – a post-communist country – was faced with de-ideologization, democratization and humanization. Teachers were no longer the single source of knowledge and their social status and pay dropped (causing them to seek second jobs) (Hroncová, 1999). In the first two decades of the 21st century teachers had to cope with educational reforms, concerning mainly legislative and curriculum-related changes, while the status of primary school teachers continually decreased despite efforts to professionalize early childhood education (Kubalíková & Kacian, 2016; Pupala, 2013). The reforms brought a different understanding of the teaching profession and expectations of their role diversified. Kaščák and Pupala (2009) identified six discourses operating simultaneously in pedagogy that assigned different, sometimes opposing, expectations on teachers. Functional (authority) and consensual (traditionalist) discourses were juxtaposed against humanistic (facilitator, partner) and reconstructionist (reformer) ones. Interactional discourse (psychologist) merges pedagogy with psychological approaches, and lastly neoliberal (manager, trainer) ones are fused with a humanistic discourse that stresses the importance of guidance skills rather than the subject-based professionalism of the teacher (Kaščák & Pupala, 2009). Throughout these societal and educational changes teaching has been in crisis, partly relating to the deprofessionalization and staff shortages. We can observe a tension between the idea of the qualified knowledgeable teacher on one hand and the soft-skilled, uncertified “anyone can teach” enthusiasts on the other (Pupala et al., 2020). Helus (2007) observed certain beliefs in Czech (and Slovak) society in which the teacher role is depicted as undemanding and not requiring much training – after all teachers “merely” have to deal with children, and that can be perceived as a natural quality. Havlík and Kota (2002) listed numerous difficulties in the education system in Czechia (Slovakia is similar) – low pay, high staff turnover, staff loss and aging, higher numbers of underqualified employees and the feminization of education – but despite these they considered teachers’ status to be stable. Havlík and Kota thought the feminization of education was merely one of many struggles, but feminist scholars (Cviková & Filadelfiová, 2008, Čermáková, 1999; Jesenková, 2009) argued that the stereotyping of women in society was the source of all these problems in education. Etzioni (1969) found that occupations with a higher percentage of women in a caring role were regarded as “semi-professions” and as having a lower status. One of the ambitions in Slovakia has been for teaching to achieve the status of a full profession in the sense of offering unique expertise, specialized knowledge and autonomy (Kosová, 2005), so that it is not seen as a “lay handicraft” (Vašutová & Urbánek, 2010). After the Velvet Revolution Slovak teachers navigated the various reform attempts and in the last two decades in particular they have been struggling to regain their higher status, partly through attempts to professionalize. The feminization of education, whether perceived of as part of the problems with the teacher role or as an underlying cause of their low status, leads to teachers being characterized as having stereotypically feminine attributes.

Parental roles and teaching

Both teaching and parenting are commonly believed to be simple tasks that come naturally to those who do them (Helus, 2007, Nias, 1989) and this applies especially to motherhood (with mothers, in contrast to fathers, being perceived as primary caretakers with greater responsibility for raising children). Badinter (1998) posits that in European cultures women are encouraged and expected to become devoted mothers and to prioritize motherhood over other roles. Similarly, Hays (1996) states that the socio-cultural expectation is that women will unselfishly care for children. In Slovakia the image of the irreplaceable mother(Grňo, 2006), juxtaposed with that of the father, who has a mere assisting role, has been strongly promoted (Lukšík, 2013). Since the mother is still seen as the primary caregiver (Marošiová & Šumšalová, 2006), Slovak women may identify with the traditional notion of the devoted, caring, kind mother who ideally stays at home until the child reaches the age of three (Potančoková, 2009). Conceptions of parental roles in Slovakia are informed by four co-occurring discourses (Marková & Lukšík, 2013). While the Christian tradition places the main burden of parenthood on women; practical support for parenting stresses the importance of the responsibility of both parents, cultivating both identities of parents and partners. The last two discourses—medical and sexology discourse and the liberal discourse—promote reproductive rights such as planned parenthood, choosing childlessness and womens’ right to abortion, and so deconstruct the traditional role of the mother (Marková & Lukšík, 2013). Recent trends in parental roles indicate a shift towards a loosening of the stereotypically definition of mothers and fathers. Men face challenges in constructing a new type of fatherhood that is about being engaged and present and is not necessarily biological, but entails taking on the role of the social father (Potančok, 2010). Chorvát (2006) stresses the importance of men having the opportunity to self-define the father role.

Although expectations of both the teacher and parental roles may overlap and when combined may create fruitful synergies, in this paper we focus on separating the two, in the expectation that this might reveal new insights into the dual roles. The goal of the paper is to analyse the ways in which primary teachers talk about handling their professional and private roles within the school environment. Secondly, we sought to identify the contribution of the key meanings of constructing one or other role to the development of such strategies.

Methods

Much is known about the nature of discourses operating in the separate arenas of parenthood and teaching (see Introduction). What has been less explored is the construction of both roles in one (working) environment with actors likely to evoke teachers’ as well as parent’s identity. Thus a qualitative design was deemed appropriate. Qualitative research methods are valuable in exploring new topics (Miovský, 2006) and addressing how people create and negotiate meanings during social interactions (Willig, 2001). Our aim was to let the actors talk freely about their experiences and then identify the actors’ attempts to achieve a particular psychological or social goal in the discursive strategies (Wodak, 2001). Example goals are ascertaining a position or legitimising the construction of the role – in our case role separation. The strategies mentioned in the discourse do not merely reveal the construction of the roles and identities, but also point to implications for social practice and participant identity.

Participants

We selected participants who fulfilled the following criteria: 1) the key participants are primary school teachers, 2) the primary teachers work at the school their children attend; 3) the teachers were selected from schools that differed in organisational culture and were located in different parts of the country. In order to ensure thematic diversity we engaged different school actors within four schools based on the previous research (Lukšík et al., 2012), each representing a different school culture and geographical region. We conducted twenty-five interviews with primary school teachers (6), their children attending the same school (6), their colleagues (10), school managers (4) and six focus groups (8 to 15 students in each group) with students where the respective primary teachers acted as class teachers.

Research Methods

The interviews and focus groups were designed to map three main topics – the construction of the teacher role, the construction of the parental role, and experiences of the dual teacherparent and student-child role in school environments. They consisted of a short narrative opening and open questions that allowed the participants to freely describe their views on the three topics. The recordings were transcribed verbatim, including the paraverbal elements of communication (such as pauses, volume, speed, laughter etc.). We used Atlas-ti software for the coding. Throughout the process the codes were discussed and validated with another researcher. All participants provided informed consent for the interviews and participation in the research. When referring to participants, we use the alias chosen by the participant instead of their real name.

Procedure

The findings on maintaining the boundaries constituted one part of the research on the construction of the teacher and parental roles and identity. We were interested in the ways teachers construct their roles (and identities) and the mechanisms for negotiating them with school actors. We focused on identifying the discourses operating in the school settings, the meanings attached to the two roles and maintaining the boundaries between them.

First we explored the construction of the roles using a discursive analysis as that helps reveal the process whereby meaning is constructed rather than the discourse outcome itself (such as category or content) (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2004). Zábrodská and Petrjánošová (2013) recommend applying discourse analysis to research questions concerning identity (and any consequences regarding possible behaviours) and the way constructions are connected to social and power relations. We applied a critical discourse analysis to the data following Zábrodská and Petrjánošová (2013; and inspired by Willig, 2001) in order to identify the micro-discourses operating within the schools. We focused mainly on: 1) the reasoning behind and positioning of the role constructions (What behaviour is considered good and appropriate in parents and children in school settings?); 2) consequences for identity (What implications and consequences are tied up in actors’ expectations of the teacher and parental role in school settings? What emotions are associated with identifying with certain role expectations?) and 3) the function of the discourse (What does the specific micro-discourse, the specific construction of role expectations enable/prevent participants from doing? What aim does it serve?). This produced multiple micro-discourses that participants used to create meaning and negotiate their positions and identities. The microdiscourses reflected the ways in which the participants constructed the roles (discursive constructions), negotiated meaning with actors (referred to in their statements, not recorded live), greater subjectivity and only partially contained the discursive sources (from culture, society) or positioning (as per Willig, 2001).

In the second step we focused on the participants’ description of managing the dual role in school settings. We found that discourses expanded when concerning one specific topic which narrowed down to strategies for separating the two roles in the workplace. At this stage we decided to use an inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to identify the thematic categories within the strategies – the strategies’ goals, participants’ identity positions and the emotions involved. The symbolic interactionist theory of identity suggest that emotions are markers of appropriate behaviours. Identities that come high in a person’s salience hierarchy are more likely to evoke emotions. The higher the components come in the hierarchy of identity salience and identity importance, the stronger the connection between them and the emotional response in the individual (Turner, 2013). Hence we were particularly attentive to the participants’ emotions when they were talking behaviour that was either congruent or incongruent with their identity and the expectations they attached to the respective role.

In the third step, in order to interpret the results we compared the thematic categories with the key meanings of the discursive constructions of both roles.

Caveats

Our paper presents partial results of the research project, focusing specifically on the strategies and, to a lesser extent, on role construction. Although the research design allowed us to explore relations between individual identity, role negotiations with social actors and connectedness with norms and culture, it does have some limitations. The findings relate to and are based solely on the participants’ perceptions. We did not observe or record the live verbal exchanges, the data are limited to the participants’ descriptions of exchanges of views and negotiations with social actors. The conclusions are based on an analysis conducted primarily by one researcher which was then discussed and validated with another colleague. Although the sample was aimed at participant diversity, it is not representative of primary school teachers in Slovakia and unintentionally the sample contained only one male teacher.

Findings

In the first phase we identified the micro-discourses (and their key meanings) involved in definitions of the teacher role and parent role. Participants used three discourses to construct the teacher role: 1) Emphasis on Results and Discipline; 2) Devotion to Teaching Mission and to Students and 3) Pursuit of the profession’s good image. Additionally, when Caring and Devoted Mother was dominant there were multiple micro-discourses on constructing the parental role. Many discourses were either derived from it (e.g. Motherhood as Confirmation of Womanhood; Fulfilling Needs) or were in opposition to it (e.g. Motherhood as One of Many Identities). We also found two opposing micro-discourses on parenting – Parents Set Boundaries versus Parenting through the Relationship. Participants constructed the dual role via its synergies and conflicts, which means the roles can enrich one another. Participants were also aware that teacher/parent demands competed in terms of time. When participants described how they managed the two roles in school settings they almost always thematized different strategies to separate the two in the workplace. We now present the four strategies. To differentiate and maintain the boundaries between the professional and private roles within the school environment, the primary teachers used: regulation of verbal communication; restrictions on physical behaviour; emotional restraint; and favouritism avoidance.

Regulation of verbal communication

Usually, it was seen as appropriate for the child to address their mother-teacher on a second name basis^[1] and to use ‘Miss’ instead of ‘mother’ when on school premises. Communicating on a first name basis would be regarded as impolite.

So when I am teaching a lesson, I am a ‘teacher’. At home, I am ‘mum’, of course. (Eva, teacher-parent, 3:32,70:70)

Well, that kid should call their mum, teacher, right? They shouldn’t shout across the [school] corridor like ‘mommy’ and stuff. They should be called ‘Miss’. (Katarína, teacher-parent, 14:30, 103:105)

You know, sometimes he [the teacher’s son] made a mistake, he said ‘Mum’, but then he felt ashamed. [..] But he should have addressed her formally, like, he would have had to use the formal style because she had probably told him to. And besides, it’s better, you know... (focus group in Tina’s classroom, 23:56, 123:123)

The rule regarding second name basis and formal style was widely in use but could be applied less strictly. When a teacher-mother and a pupil-child were alone in the staffroom or if they entered their own personal, intimate space then that legitimized the use of non-formal language. The strategy not only regulated verbal communication between child and parent, but it also affected communication between the teacher-parent and school colleagues. It was not considered appropriate for them to discuss their child’s school performance or behaviour disproportionately. Participants did not think small talk was a problem but “intervening” to improve grades was unacceptable. Some participants stated that the presence of a parent and child in the same school sometimes resulted in less candid relationships between colleagues. The regulation of verbal communication strategy followed the rules of address—first/second name basis, formal/informal style between parent and child—and the content and frequency of communication between colleagues was also regulated.

Restrictions on physical behaviour

Another strategy regulated the distance between the child and parent and determined the conditions under which they could move around and meet appropriately on school premises. Teacher participants described different limits on what was acceptable. One disclosed that they hugged each other when they met but preferred to leave immediately. Another teacher tried to avoid any kind of physical contact with his daughter when at school.

That means I try to separate it as much as possible. So that I don’t have any contact with my daughter during school time. I don’t want anybody from the class to think that she’s favoured because her father works here. (Jožko, colleague, 5:25, 70:70)

Aneta explained that hugs and displays of affection were considered inappropriate because the other students might become jealous. She also didn’t want her daughter to feel like she was at home when at school:

I am careful about certain things for example her feeling at home here [..], coming for a cuddle during breaks because I am her mother. (Aneta, teacher-parent, 1:66, 99:99)

Another rule limited the circumstances under which children were allowed to spend time in the staffroom with their parents – only after school hours. Some teacher-parents felt lucky and relieved to have avoided problems by not encountering their children during the school day despite being present in the same building (and felt the need to defend they had not actually had the chance to meet their children in school corridors). The emotions they described indicated it would have been considered a problem had they met during school hours.

The strategy limits movement around school and the physical contact between teacherparent and child-student, probably because frequent meetings and physical contact are perceived to be part of a close relationship.

Emotional restraint

Affection was another theme in the interviews – the obligation and effort to retain a certain emotional distance at school underpinned the two above-mentioned strategies. It is assumed the teacher-parent keeps the same emotional distance from their child as they do from other students in the class. We identified the language used by participants to describe the rule such as “I do not allow [myself or my daughter] to dwell on the feelings of motherhood and daughterhood”, “I do not act motherly towards my students”, “I treat my own child as somebody else’s child”. The participants stressed that their emotional engagement with the students was weaker than with their own child. They described how the expectations in school environment led them to feel it was appropriate to adjust not only their emotional behaviour, but also their emotional experience.

And whether my son is there or not, ... for me it’s like having any other child in the classroom, [he is] like, not my child. (Gabika, teacher-parent, 13:33, 118:123)

By contrast, when the participants focused only on the teacher role, they often mentioned having good relationships with students and compared them to the parent-child bond.

Favouritism avoidance

The discourses multiplied and focused on the issue of teachers who favour one student over the others (whether it was their child or a colleague’s child). Two co-occurring and contradictory patterns emerged in the favouritism discourse. One was the tendency to deny the existence of favouritism in their school entirely, thereby excluding any potential concerns. Hence there is no need to establish any regulations for avoiding favouritism. That can be interpreted as an expression of trust towards the teachers’ professionality in terms of their ability to assess children fairly. The motivation in the discourse might stem from the value of maintaining the positive image of the school and of its employees as professionals. There is compliance among participants that it is the teachers’ duty to handle any favouritism and so these teachers actually fulfil these expectations satisfactorily.

No, no. Absolutely not, we do not [have to] deal with these kinds of issues here at all. All the teachers follow the rules. They don’t allow their children in the staff room. The children wait outside. (..) They don’t mingle. [They are treated] Like anybody else. No, that doesn’t happen here. (head, 32:22, 60:60)

On the other hand, the second pattern revealed that the first three strategies had been developed to reduce favouritism. For example, it is customary for a teacher not to teach their own children, and if they do, by accident, then only for one subject.

In my opinion, if a teacher DOES have children, then don’t send them to the same school [as they work in]. We COULD NOT AVOID a situation where the children, especially those in secondary classes, would think that certain favours were being granted, a kind of nepotism... (..) Therefore I am AGAINST^[2] children attending the same school as where their parents are employed as teachers. (interview with school management, 33:13, 32:32)

Participants when in the teacher-parent position defended this by arguing that they were capable of handling the situation well so that nothing unfair took place in school.

No privileges at all, they had nothing. They were never my protégé. (Tina, 7:26, 65:82)

As observers, participants argued that it was impossible to avoid prompts to discuss their child’s school performance with colleagues. Such conversations occurred instantly and were sometimes unwittingly initiated by colleagues. On the other hand, they knew of instances where the expectation that teachers-parents should not discuss their own children’s school results prevented them from solving any school-related problems their child had. Zuza, a participant, talked about what happened to her friend:

But she found out [about her daughters’ ADHD] later than she should have. They had struggled for some time but then she decided just to leave the school. And the reason for the school transfer was precisely because the teacher responsible for her child hesitated about discussing and solving the problem with her.,.so it all became very complicated, needlessly. (Zuza, colleague, 6:35, 125:125)

All the actors involved reported an element of social control in the dual roles in the school environment. The behaviour of teacher-parents and their children-students is observed and they may easily be suspected of favouritism even where there is no indication of it.

He is under close watch [from others] weighing up whether he is behaving like everybody else. Because if not, well...children apart from being cute and lively can act really cruel. So they would immediately know and he would feel bad. That means we avoid these kinds of situations. We do everything ‘kosher’ so that it is OK.” (Zuzka, teacher-parent, 11:30, 88:88)

Participants invested a lot of effort either in demonstrating there was no favouritism in their school or introducing informal rules in order to prevent it. Why is so much effort devoted to fighting against favouritism if the teachers’ professionality means there should not be any? These tendencies are implicitly tied up with two contradictory preconditions – the key meanings attached to teacher and parental roles.

Emotionally engaged parent versus professional teacher

Participants constructed the parental role using several key meanings, including care and love.

“What should a parent be like? Well, caring and loving.” (Katarína, colleague, 14:19, 69:69)

In the discourse even the best teacher’s judgement was thought to be at risk from an affectionate relationship with the children and strong motivation to secure the best possible conditions for them to thrive and succeed. Where the parental role was constructed around the key meaning of being an emotionally engaged parent and not always being able to maintain impartiality, then favouritism was suspected and so strategies were developed to prevent it. Situations where the teacher is not capable of impartially assessing students’ school performances may compromise the teacher’s professional role. On the other hand, discourses defending the person in this double role and denying any favouritism at school were rooted in notion of the professionality of the teacher.

Figure 1

Strategies for maintaining boundaries between the roles and how these relate to the key meanings of the teacher and parent role

A teacher identity based on the key meaning of fair, impartial conduct towards the children had consequences for the teacher’s behaviour in school. In order to maintain a positive teacher identity and meet others’ expectations, teacher-parents behaved more strictly, meticulously and cautiously towards their own children in school settings. The dual role meant they were subjected to more pressure from colleagues and that the pressure was regarded as necessary.

I treat her more strictly. I have to, compared to the other students in the classroom. I don’t mean I am really strict, but they [the other students] need to see that she won’t in fact get support from me if she neglects something, forgets to do her homework or isn’t prepared. (Eva, teacher-parent, 3:30, 68:68)

I know it would be more difficult for them [her own children, if they were to meet in the same school]. Because they would constantly be under close watch. And actually the teachers would have to treat them more strictly. (Ema, colleague, 8:33, 91:96)

To comply with their professional role teachers-parents chose strategies encouraged through social control, thereby disadvantaging their own children.

Conclusions and Discussion

Much of the literature describes teacher identity from a professional aspect and less has been explored from a holistic research perspective (...). I argue that teacher identity reflects not only the professional, educational, and pedagogical aspects of being a teacher but – more importantly – the imprints of the complex interconnectedness of one’s cumulative life experiences as a human being. (Bukor, 2015, p. 323)

The present paper focused on exploring how teacher-parents handled the dual role in school settings. We chose to address a specific situation where the expectations regarding both roles are present at the same time, which leads to a clash of roles, as this makes the boundaries and differences more visible. After identifying the micro-discourses on how the teacher and parental roles are constructed, we analysed the teacher-parents’ and other school actors’ descriptions on how they manage the dual role and then interpreted them in the light of the key meanings of the roles. As the discourses around the issue of separating out the two roles amplified, we focused on understanding the strategies teacher-parents applied to maintain the boundaries – how the feelings involved related to their identities, what goals the strategies were aimed at and how they were legitimized. Each of the four identified strategies was to some extent linked to efforts to minimize suspicions of favouritism, or indeed favouritism itself, and was accompanied by various feelings (failure, relief, pride etc.). We consider emotions to be a valid indicator in defining the importance of identity as well as in/congruence with others’ expectations. Social control played a role in the way the strategies developed, and we interpret this as a sign that all the actors were involved in constructing informal rules around the teachers’ behaviour. We found that participants experienced feelings of shame, fear, doubt or unease when they did not act in congruence with the expectations regarding their teacher role (for example hugging their own child in the school corridor). They also felt proud when they stressed the importance of teacher professionality to them in terms of treating all the students (including their own child) fairly. Usually, professionality as an important feature of teachers’ identity is mentioned in terms of the ability to transfer knowledge (Svaříček, 2011); here it was this specific asset of impartiality.

The strategies identified hinged on the inappropriateness of strong emotional engagement between the teacher and the students. The strategies focused on restricting emotional, verbal and physical expression between teacher-parents and students-children. In the school environment where both personal and professional roles exist, the key meanings attached to parental and teacher roles created an inter-role conflict (Turner, 2006). Teacher professionality and the ability to fairly assess children was undermined by any potential parental emotional engagement and inability to perceive one’s child objectively. The emotional and relational aspect has been found to be one of the important components of teacher identity (Beijaard et al., 2004; MacDonald, 1994). Nias (1999) talked of a culture of care concept in the creation of primary teachers’ identity that included an element of care as affection in terms of relating to others, nurturing empathy etc. Teachers identified positively with positions involving emotionality such as feeling close to the children, being caring and kind, but at the same time they appreciated the ability to separate professional life from personal life (Søreide, 2006). Teachers who are also parents recognized that the double role leads to higher levels of empathy, a better understanding of the child’s “world” and needs, but they also felt the profession contorted their relations at home causing them to behave “like a teacher” even at home (White, 2011). Although the ability to form relationships and the skills of empathy and emotional intelligence are considered a great asset to the teacher role, our results suggest that in the specific contexts where the personal and professional aspects meet, the otherwise beneficial quality is seen as contradictory or inadequate. Our participants identified strongly with defending their impartiality. Teacher professionality is crucial to constructing one of the micro-discourses and resonates with the teachers’ struggle to improve their status by addressing de-professionalization and the feminization of school employees (Cviková & Filadelfiová, 2008; Pupala, 2020). Our findings indicate that teacher professionality is thought to be at risk, nonetheless it is a salient component of teacher identity. The strategies the participants developed may be a defence against (a silent) questioning of the key meaning of the teacher role and how it is performed in the eyes of school actors.

The clash between the key meanings of the roles may also be interpreted through a gender lens. Since motherhood is perceived of as a devoted self-sacrifice (Badinter, 1998; Lukšík, 2012; Potančoková, 2009), parents tend to be less distanced. The dichotomy between objective (stereotypically masculine) and subjective (stereotypically feminine) has led to women being socially encouraged into prolonging early childhood care and discouraged from returning to work (Marošiová & Šumšalová, 2006; Potančoková, 2009) because the professional and the personal are constructed as mutually exclusive. No matter how much the construction of the teacher role can be sourced in motherhood (Hays, 1996; Nias, 1989), teaching is seen foremost as a profession and so requires objectivity. The concept of care is strongly gendered and, according to Vogt (2002), defining educational roles through care can lead to the risk of jeopardy – the perception that teachers are weak. Teaching is practiced mainly by women, especially in primary schools (UNESCO, in Drudy, 2008). Stereotypical views of women (and men) mean that occupations with a higher percentage of women with caring duties tend to have lower status (Etzioni, 1969). Gender segregation, both vertical and horizontal is very much present in Slovak education. Although women are in the statistical majority among teachers, positions of power are occupied more frequently by men (Bosá & Filadelfiová, 2009). Men are viewed as contributing to the professionalization of primary education, an arena dominated by women (Tennhoff et al., 2015). Therefore, in cases of identity insecurities, teachers seeking to acquire higher status may seek to strengthen their position by succumbing to masculine standards and choose to act with emotional distance. The participants’ strategies emphasizing their ability to separate the emotional from the professional in order to stay impartial may have legitimized their strength (as opposed to emotional weakness). Being helpful, self-sacrificing, patient, kind, devoted and empathic are stereotypically feminine characteristics (Kusá, 2006) and are seen in opposition to and complementarily with stereotypically masculine features. Most importantly, emotionality plays a crucial role in the gender discourse that places men and women on different sides of the scale (Kusá, 2006). Gender stereotypes compel teachers to value men (and masculinity) in education by virtue of their neutrality, analytical approach and distance, whereas the feminization of primary education, women and stereotypically feminine features (caring and emotionality) are viewed negatively (Fárová, 2018). Fárová (2018, p. 98) discovered that “.traditional gender dichotomies such as rational vs. emotional, public vs. private, order vs. chaos, active vs. passive, work vs. care are constantly present in the primary education setting”.

Participants’ perceptions of the quality of the relationship with their students differed from those of their bond with their children. They characterized the parental role in terms of an intense emotional relationship with their own child, verbal and physical expressions of love and fondness, partial and biased views of their own child and a primarily non-formal relationship. By contrast, the teacher role was constructed more formally. Although one might expect primary teachers to adopt a kind empathic and affectionate approach, the key emphasis was placed on objectivity (impartiality), fairness in assessing student outcomes and behaviour and keeping an emotional and physical distance. The caring aspect of teaching has been shown to be valuable for schooling. Better teacher-student relationships are associated with higher academic achievement and fewer disciplinary problems (Crosnoe et al., 2004), better school engagement and achievement among students (Roorda et al., 2011). For teachers, the quality of the relationships was a source of enjoyment, job motivation, satisfaction and efficacy incentive for professional development (Spilt et al., 2011). Our findings suggest that otherwise beneficial outcomes of teacher-student relationships may be diminished in situations where meanings of professionality become more salient for teachers’ identity. We would recommend future research should focus on revealing the specific contexts (situational, cultural, historical) of emotional engagement versus distance in education.

School settings emphasize the teacher role while the parental one is left in the background. The participants’ teacher identity was invoked to a greater extent, so that teachers were more prone to act in congruence with that identity. This could be seen as a limitation of the study in terms of the generalizability of the results, but we suggest the opposite is the case – that it means that roles and identities are worth exploring in all their variability, flexibility and dependence on diverse and specific contexts. In different circumstances the process could have different outcomes. For example, in home-schooling the home setting may invoke the characteristics of the parental identity to a greater extent, and parents might find it even more difficult to establish the boundaries between the two roles. Similarly the dual role might be taken on by carers working as substitute parental figures such as foster parents. Although the role of alternative child carer is not the same as the teacher role, it too combines professional and parental aspects in the relationship towards children (Búšová, 2012). Carers have a responsibility to the local authorities to assess the child’s behaviour, performance and so on, and at the same time they develop a parent-like relationship with the children. Depending on the setting, the strategies may pursue a different aim – instead of separating the two, the actors may feel the urge to harmonize and align both the professional and personal aspects of the dual role.