Conference Agenda

Prengel (2019) and Kuhn (2021) note that a broad current of "diversity education" has emerged internationally, bundling pedagogical approaches that address differences on a general-universalist level. "Diversity education," "diversity pedagogy," and "inclusive pedagogy" are used interchangeably, and diversity is often used as a basic term. Accordingly, educational debates usually no longer focus on singular categories of social difference; rather, there is an agreement that education is characterized by a variety of diversity dimensions that can become pedagogically significant. In this context, debates about social differences such as gender in early childhood education and care (ECEC) in Germany have experienced numerous impulses and further developments that affect the scientific field of childhood research, curriculums, and pedagogical practice in ECEC. Walgenbach (2014, 2021) therefore states a change of perspective from difference to difference. Looking at diversity in terms of the political aspects of ECEC, one finds a variety of references but no uniform definitions of what is subsumed under this term (cf. Budde 2015; Kubandt 2016; Meyer 2018). In this context, results from two sub-studies on the relevance of gender and diversity in the field of early childhood are presented. First, results from a qualitative interview study with early childhood educators are presented, and second, results from a document analysis of early childhood curricula in the context of educator training from the 16 German states.
In both studies, the central research question was how gender and diversity are constructed and with which meanings this is linked. The theoretical framework of the studies is formed by social constructivist approaches, which do not understand social differences as a given fact in an essentialist sense, but rather focus on the process of attribution and relevance setting. The de-ontologizing aspect is characteristic for social constructivist approaches as well as the fact that they primarily or exclusively ask how social reality is constructed (cf. Kahlert 2000). Related processes of doing gender and doing difference are often linked to the concept of practices. Schatzki (1996) defines practices as the place where social things are produced and speaks of "doings and sayings" (p. 89). While the interviews focused on social practices, the document analysis focused on discursive practices (Reckwitz 2008, Fegter/Sabla 2020).
The aim of both sub-studies was to gain an insight into educational policy perspectives and specific pedagogical requirements for dealing with gender and diversity in day-care facilities.

Evaluation experiences, both internal and external to the school setting, have played a central role in the implementation of pedagogical practices and formulation of public policies. In Brazil, the discussion about evaluation in the context of Early Childhood Education has been at the center of political and academic debates for at least the last three decades. More recently, however, the debate over this issue has intensified. Thus, while evaluation now figures prominently in the field of macro-policies, it still seems to receive little attention in daily pedagogical practice. Given the challenge of thinking about evaluation in the context of Early Childhood Education and the gaps in studies on the subject, this article seeks to understand evaluation in daily pedagogical practice. It is important to note that evaluation processes in the field of education are not exclusively constrained to pedagogical documentation or the use of formal tools such as tests. One of the most common strategies has to do with the instructions, comments, and narratives verbalized by teachers on a daily basis. Such communication is usually guided by a moral dimension reflecting social constructions and representations around various issues. This study analyzes gender-stereotyped constructions involving idealized concepts of child, woman, and family that are shared on a daily basis within the social relations and interactions between teachers and children. It is observed that such stereotypes are verbalized and expressed in multiple ways to the children who, from a very early age, seek to emphasize valued traits and behaviors in their actions, as well as hide what may be considered deviant behavior. In this sense, although it is more evident in some instances and under certain perspectives, the moral dimension of the evaluation seems to be part of the whole process. There is judgment about supposedly inadequate treatment received by children in their families, with criticism mainly directed at the mothers. Thus, projections about the future of children who grow up in families that are considered inadequate include criminal behavior, failure, etc. When teachers themselves face difficulties in dealing with a child who fails to learn and does not present a learning disability or other learning problem, justifications usually invoke family problems or the absence of mothers. In general, the common understanding is that mothers are primarily responsible for children's education and fathers only play a secondary role. Based on Goffman (1967; 1986), from the point of view of institutions, it can be said that a moral dimension is developed in daily life and in the context of institutional interactions. As a result, moral codes more in line with the formal perspective of the institution are constructed, reconstructed and shared. These codes imply models of woman- and motherhood that are daily confronted with socially constructed and shared standards, expressing the conditions that need to be met in order to match prevailing models as closely as possible.

For over two decades, girls and young women in Western contexts have been depicted as a success story within education. School achievement, overrepresentation in higher education, and an increased role in the workforce have been held up as examples of a post-feminist society where gender inequalities no longer exist (McLeod & Yates 2006). Certainly, the notion of the ‘successful girl’ is a seductive image, though, equally problematic. Such a discourse suggests that girls are without the gendered barriers of previous generations and can achieve anything if they set their minds to it. Furthermore, it ignores powerful intersectional identity vectors as well as significant structural issues. This discourse, which is neoliberal at its core, upholds the false notion of an uncomplicated trajectory and obscures how the realisation of success is not so readily available to all girls from all backgrounds (see McDonald 2021; McLeod & Yates 2006; Pomerantz & Raby 2017; Walkerdine et al. 2001).

The research presented in this presentation is positioned in reference to this phenomenon and its critiques. I am interested in the tensions between social class and discourses of feminine success, and how these tensions impact how First-in-Family (FIF) girls negotiate belonging in higher education. Although belonging is an important area of focus within youth studies research (Harris et al. 2021), within education research there has been a less explicit focus on how working-class girls experience and negotiate feelings of belonging within higher education spaces. As an important aspect of how working-class girls experience the transition from secondary school into higher education, considering experiences of belonging offers “productive ways of thinking about the relational dimensions of youth experience in complex times, and young people’s connections to place, people, material spaces and objects” (Harris et al. 2021, p. 6). How belonging is conceptualised is often undertheorised in studies of young people (Noble 2020; Wright 2015); belonging is conceptualised in this research as a form of membership which is experienced as embodied and, often, as labour-intensive (Noble 2020). As such, belonging also functions as social capital.

Drawing from a larger study examining the experiences of first-in-family (FIF) girls in one Australian city as they transition from secondary school into their first year of university, the aim of this presentation is to consider how gender and social class impact on how FIF girls navigate belonging during the transition to university. First-in-family students are commonly defined as students who are the first in their immediate family to enrol in higher education (O’Shea 2014; Patfield et al. 2022). I draw on critiques of the feminine success discourse (for example, see Archer et al., 2007; Harris, 2004; McLeod & Yates, 2006; Pomerantz & Raby, 2017; Renold & Allan 2006; Ringrose, 2007), particularly in relation to neoliberal aspects such as responsibilisation and individualism, to consider how girls may position a sense of belonging in terms of success and failure. University spaces can be experienced as unfamiliar and anxiety-inducing by working-class students and difficulties adjusting to university can lead to attrition. Furthermore, girls and young women can struggle to assert their rights to territory where such struggles – as a ‘contentious reality that shapes girls’ lives’ (Rentschler and Mitchell 2016, p. 2) – inform not only how girls navigate social spaces but how they experience girlhood.

The thematic analysis of this presentation is based on the narratives of two FIF girls, Kate and Christina. Central to this analysis is an exploration of how Kate and Christina navigate feelings of belonging through discursive understandings of university spaces that are regulated through regimes of gender and social class.