Pseudo-Expert Discourse and Voices we Choose to Ignore
I’ve spent this week at the Australian Teacher Education Association (ATEA) conference at Griffith University on the Gold Coast where I was fortunate to present to researchers passionate about Initial Teacher Education.
As a result, I have so much information running through my mind that I’ve likened it to the scrambled egg bagel I had for breakfast at Starbucks this morning. Imagine that the bagel is my head and the egg (mixed with cheese and herbs) is the scrambled mass of information I am currently trying to process; and process in a way that I can share here.
Given my inability to narrow my thoughts into a clear and succinct article, it felt relevant to go and read a recently published work inspired by other researchers also passionate about boys’ education and outcomes.
I was struck by Holohan and Stahl’s (2026) article ‘Boys, academic achievement and ‘Crisis’ talk: analysing pseudo-expert discourses in the construction of boyhood’ published in Gender and Education. My reflections inspired this blog post.
It is open access and can be read here: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2025.2568409
I have also included the full reference at the end of the article.
The review of literature was familiar to me as I have read and cited many of the same works in my own thesis. What interested me was how this literature related to Holohan and Stahl’s (2026) research – an experience many teachers will relate to but perhaps have not interrogated:
This case study focuses on a recent event where a self-described ‘expert’ on boys’ academic achievement addressed parents and teachers at a private, all-boys school in a high socio-economic suburb within an Australian city (p. 78).
The researchers described recording and transcribing the presentation, noting that this was also posted to the schools YouTube Channel:
In his talk, the speaker – a White male and father of two sons who identifies as a specialist in psycho-social development – discussed boys’ characteristics, learning styles, and external factors influencing their academic engagement. He established credibility with the audience through self-referential anecdotes, humour, and claims of extensive experience, positioning himself as a knowledgeable authority on boys’ education (Holohan & Stahl, 2026, p. 78).
After giggling at the directness of this description, I began to read quicker. I wanted to know what came next and whether they would, like me, question how the sex of the teacher might impact how we teach and engage boys in learning.
The speaker in this case-study is thereafter described as a ‘pseudo-expert’. Again, the directness of this term impressed me. After all, when we place the term ‘pseudo’ in front of something, we are directly implying that it is a fake or imitation of what follows.
This week at the ATEA conference, we spoke about being disruptors and change-makers. It is affirming to read new research that continues to explore how we teach and engage boys.
Like me, Holohan & Stahl (2026) used Braun and Clarke’s stages of thematic analysis, so I felt at home quite quickly within their methodological framework. Feminist Post-Structuralist Discourse Analysis (FPDA) on the other hand is a new approach for me, and again, another aspect of this article that drew me in. No different than being excited for the next instalment of your favourite Netflix series.
At the 2005 BAAL/CUP Seminar, Baxter described FPDA as:
‘an approach to analysing intertextualised discourses in spoken interaction and other types of text. It draws upon the poststructuralist principles of complexity, plurality, ambiguity, connection, recognition, diversity, textual playfulness, functionality and transformation. The feminist perspective on post-structuralist discourse analysis considers gender differentiation to be a dominant discourse among competing discourses when analysing all types of text. FPDA regards gender differentiation as one of the most pervasive discourses across many cultures in terms of its systematic power to discriminate between human beings according to their gender and sexuality (Baxter, 2005 in Baxter 2008, p. 2).
With this understanding, it makes sense why FPDA would be paired with Braun and Clarke’s stages of thematic analysis.
Moving on…
Holohan & Stahl (2026) stated that ‘the pseudo-expert’s use of selective anecdotes and humour [celebrated] conventional male roles, shaping a narrow, stereotypical view of masculinity’ (p. 80).
Whilst I wasn’t surprised that the presentation of this pseudo-expert reinforced hegemonic masculine norms, I was thrown when I read that within within a 48-minute speech, it was recorded as being reinforced on ‘32 occasions’ (p. 79).
Whilst I haven’t been a sleuth and searched for the YouTube video for confirmation, I suspect those non-hegemonic-masculine-reinforced minutes (of which there were only 16) included introductions and/or transitions and/or pauses in speech.
But I digress.
As I continued reading, I encountered a finding that closely aligned with my own. Using thematic analysis also, my study identified the following sub-themes:
for the Female Music Teacher case group, the theme was the ‘cultural capital of sport’ (Pearse, 2025, p. 170)
for the Male Music Teacher case group, the theme was ‘the supremacy of sport’ (Pearse, 2005, p. 204)
for the Adolescent Male Music Student case group, the theme was ‘Music is not as important: The influence of sport and gender stereotypes on adolescent male engagement in music’ (Pearse, 2025, p. 237).
Though a single case-study, this work by Holohan & Stahl (2026) reflects the repetition and reinforcement of the value of sporting culture on what it means to be a man. And I argue, this impacts adolescent male engagement at school – and in my research – the study of, and engagement in music. The pseudo-expert’s focus that boys need physical activity should apply to all people, of all sexes, young and old, for their health and wellbeing, rather than defining what makes a man:
‘Such a perspective ignores the diversity of young boys many who are not athletic as well as the multitude of problematic issues that arise in sport. By emphasising outdoor and sporting activities as the primary venues for boys’ socialisation, this approach reinforces narrow ideals of rugged, athletic masculinity. It also risks marginalizing boys who do not identify with these norms, while limiting the broader developmental and social opportunities available to all boys’ (Holohan & Stahl, 2026, p. 83).
And what about the teachers in charge of their education who do not conform to a rugged, athletic, male stereotype? What are the implications of teaching approaches for female teachers of all ages, shapes and sizes? And with this same line of questioning, how does this impact male teachers who do not conform to the dominant hegemonic masculine stereotype?
My findings show that disrespect, disengagement and sexism are significant consequences for non-conforming teachers, most often, for female teachers.
At ATEA this week, I presented that female teachers new to all-boys’ school environments were not prepared for this culture in their all-boys school and had to adapt using conscious critical reflection and trial-and-error. That I know of, there is currently no pre-service teacher preparation, school onboarding or continuous professional development that addresses the possibility that being a male or female or gender diverse may impact how you approach teaching in a single-sex environment – and in this case, an all-boys school environment dominated by the hegemonic masculine influenced advice of what Holohan and Stahl (2026) so succinctly describe as pseudo-experts.
Adolescent males are desperately trying to work out who they and how they fit in during what is a stormy and tumultuous time of physiological, psychological and social change (Hall, 1904; Buchanan et al., 2023). We all appreciate that every teacher is passionate about supporting boys through this time in their lives but need to be mindful of and critique the sources we use to support our work.
Whilst the research indicates that gender-stereotypes impact boys’ engagement in music, this research shows that stereotypes continue to be reinforced by pseudo-experts such as in this case study (Holohan and Stahl, 2026). We need to broaden our thinking and consider how hegemonic masculine norms impact how male and female teachers, and gender diverse (Victorian Government, 2024) teachers, may teach and contribute not only to boys’ academic achievement but their social and emotional intelligence and wellbeing as they grow and contribute to our society.
And whilst we are at it, I propose we consider how the sex of the teacher may impact how we teach and engage students in all-girls and coeducational schools. I suggest we also consider embedding a similar exploration into preservice teacher education.
References:
Baxter, J. A. (2008). Feminist post-structuralist discourse analysis: a new theoretical and methodological approach? (pp. 243-255). Palgrave Macmillan.
Buchanan, C. M., Romer, D., Wray-Lake, L., & Butler-Barnes, S. T. (2023). Adolescent storm and stress: a 21st century evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1257641.
Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education, Vol. 2. Boston, MA: D. Appelton and Company. doi: 10.1037/10618-000
Holohan, L., & Stahl, G. (2026). Boys, academic achievement and ‘Crisis’ talk: analysing pseudo-expert discourses in the construction of boyhood. Gender and Education, 38(1), 73-90.
Pearse, M. (2025). In tune with boys: How the sex of the teacher and gender stereotypes impact how music is taught and learned in all-boys schools (Doctoral thesis, University of Canberra). https://doi.org/10.26191/jraf-nm76
Victorian Government. (2024, October 3). Key terms used in the LGBTIQA+ inclusive language guide. https://www.vic.gov.au/inclusive-language-guide/key-terms-used-in-lgbtiqa-inclusive-language-guide