Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:29:40 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
33 SES 02 A: New Roles for Masculinities in Educational Settings and Practices.
Paper Session
| ||
| Session Abstract | ||
|
This session explores new ways in which diverse masculinities are impacting and transforming different educational contexts. The papers interrogate this problem in diverse settings, including adult education and different levels of compulsory education. An array of different empirical and theoretical lenses are explored and the session offers an important opportunity to debate theories of masculinities. | ||
    | ||
33. Gender and Education
Paper From Hegemonic Norms to Help-Seeking: A Qualitative Study of Well-being Educators Rethinking Gender-Responsive Mental Health Education in Boys’ Schools 1: The University of Queensland, Australia; 2: Flinders University; 3: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; 4: Australian Catholic University, Brisbane; 5: Deakin University, Australia Presenting Author:Context: According to the Australian National Youth Mental Health Survey, one in three young Australians experience high levels of psychological distress (Headspace, 2020). In Australia today males are three times more likely to commit suicide – one of the highest rates in the world. Education, early detection and intervention are vital to preventing the long-term consequences of poor mental health. We know gender norms significantly influence how young people today understand their mental health and wellbeing and how they seek help when they are experiencing psychological distress. Research continues to highlight how hegemonic masculinity norms (e.g. strength, resiliency, toughness) may serve as a significant barrier to how some males come to understand their social and emotional wellbeing (Smith et al. 2020). Research suggests how, due to social stigmas, males are less likely to seek professional help for mental health struggles (Seidler et al. 2018). To date, there is limited research capturing how educators today are meeting the needs of boys and young men and their efforts to develop and implement effective well-being education that is gender-responsive.
Significance: Improving the effectiveness of wellbeing and mental health education is integral to prevention efforts. As the majority of mental illnesses emerge in adolescence, secondary schools are uniquely positioned to provide timely preventative mental health education for boys and young men. Mental health and well-being education programs must be responsive to the distinct gender socialization pressures males experience. For the most part, school-based mental health programs remain almost exclusively gender-neutral and externally designed. Research is required in order to understand how we make these programs address issues concerning the role of gender in mental health and well-being. Given the persistent issues concerning the wellbeing of males, both the World Health Organization (Gough & Novikova, 2020) and the American Psychological Association (2018) have called for programs that are gender-sensitive and gender-responsive to better meet the needs of males.
Theory: Mental health and wellbeing literacy refers to the knowledge and competencies that enable individuals to recognise mental health challenges, understand risk and protective factors, and respond appropriately to psychological distress (Jorm et al. 1997). This concept, developed in the field of public health, extends beyond symptom recognition to include attitudes toward mental health, beliefs about help-seeking, and familiarity with available support services (Kutcher et al. 2016). As its most basic, it is assumed higher levels of mental health literacy are associated with reduced stigma, earlier intervention, and more effective engagement with professional and informal sources of support. Mental health literacy is foundational to school-based intervention efforts. However, adding a layer of complexity, mental health literacy has been increasingly shaped by digital environments, where mental health information (and misinformation) circulates unevenly and requires critical interpretation (Okan et al. 2020). As such, there is a need to understand mental health and wellbeing literacy not only as an individual capacity but as a socially and culturally situated set of knowledge resources that influences how mental health is recognised, discussed, and acted upon. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Research Methods: This research draws on 12 semi-structured interviews with school well-being leaders working in a network of single-sex boys’ schools in Australia. The participants committed to a well-being audit’ capturing their efforts to develop and implement well-being education as well as what they saw as the strengths and weaknesses of well-being and mental health programs aimed at boys and young men. Using semi-structured interviews, we were able to focus on an in-depth exploration of participants’ perspectives while retaining sufficient consistency to allow comparison across accounts. This approach supported the generation of rich, contextualised data capturing how participants interpret and make sense of their professional experiences developing mental health and well-being curriculum and pedagogy. After the research was conducted, a thematic analysis was undertaken to identify and interpret key patterns and trends across the dataset. Interview transcripts were read iteratively to support familiarisation with the data, and initial codes were generated to capture recurring ideas and points of significance. These codes were then reviewed and grouped into broader themes that reflected shared meanings across participants, while also attending to points of divergence. This process supported an analytically grounded account of how participants articulated their experiences and perspectives. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Results: In examining the efforts of well-being leaders in boys’ schools, we identified four key insights: 1) the changing nature of the mental health and well-being of boys and young men in reference to exposure to new gender pressures amplified through access to digital content; 2) what educators are grappling with in terms of well-being education and where they see productive spaces in the future; 3) the experimentation with different pedagogic approaches to gets boys and young men to reflect on the relationship between masculine norms and well-being; and 4) what they see as authentic and effective ways to improve the mental health literacy and well-being education of boys and young men. Conclusions: Together, these findings underscore the strategic importance of empowering well-being educators in schools to develop localized, gender-responsive practices focused on improving mental health literacy of boys and young men. There is a need to document how well-being educators in schools are developing effective educational approaches and what they see as the difficulties and opportunities in delivering effective age-appropriate well-being education for diverse groups of boys and young men. This research is useful for those scholars engaged in developing professional support, training, and resources to assist educators at the chalk face in responding and adapting to emerging gender and social pressures affecting many boys and young men today. References American Psychological Association. (2018). APA guidelines for psychological practice with boys and men. American Psychological Association. Gough, B., & Novikova, I. (2020). Mental health, men and culture: How do sociocultural constructions of masculinities relate to men’s mental health help-seeking behaviour in the WHO European Region? World Health Organization. Headspace. (2020). Insights: Youth mental health and wellbeing over time. Headspace national youth mental health survey. Jorm, A. F., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, J. M., Christensen, H., Rodgers, B., & Pollitt, P. (1997). Mental health literacy: A survey of the public’s ability to recognise mental disorders and their beliefs about the effectiveness of treatment. Medical Journal of Australia, 166(4), 182–186. Kutcher, S., Wei, Y., & Coniglio, M. (2016). Mental health literacy: Past, present, and future. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 61(3), 154–158. Okan, O., Bauer, U., Levin-Zamir, D., Pinheiro, P., & Sørensen, K. (2020). International handbook of health literacy: Research, practice and policy across the lifespan. Policy Press. Seidler, Z. E., Rice, S. M., River, J., Oliffe, J. L., & Dhillon, H. M. (2018). Men’s mental health services: The case for a masculinities model. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 26(1), 92–104. Smith, J. A., Merlino, A., Christie, B., Adams, M., Bonson, J., Osborne, R., Judd, B., Drummond, M., Aanundsen, D., & Fleay, J. (2020). “Dudes are meant to be tough as nails”: The complex nexus between masculinities, culture and health literacy from the perspective of young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males. American Journal of Men’s Health, 14(3). 33. Gender and Education
Paper Redefining Masculinities: Male-Identifying Teachers Engaging Boys as Change Agents 1: University of Calgary, Canada; 2: University of Melbourne Presenting Author:Six years after the #MeToo movement rose to prominence, divergent responses have evolved – particularly in relation to men and masculinity. Despite the important development in men’s and boys’ understandings of gender inequality, society also witnessed a backlash by anti-feminist men and men’s groups (Maricourt & Burrell, 2022). The growing popularity of misogynistic influencers, such as Andrew Tate, also takes root in this socio-cultural landscape. A UK study found that one-in-four young men agree with Tate’s views on women (Oppenheim, 2023). Significantly, these influencers have captured the attention of boys in schools (Halliday, 2023; Will, 2023). Tate is an individual enactment of systemic and ideological problems in society and educational institutions. Not surprisingly, educators are increasingly navigating gender and sexuality questions in their own pedagogical practices. This research is designed to reveal and assess the ways that violent and unhealthy masculinities are challenged and disrupted in education by male-identifying teachers across Canada. Building on previous research (Kehler, Knott-Fayle, 2025) with pre-service teacher’s gender-transformative pedagogies, we have found that there is an awareness of the socio-cultural issues impacting masculinity as well as an appetite to build teaching practices which challenge them. At the same time, there are clear structural and personal obstacles to doing so. Schools are increasingly aware of the competing discourses affecting how education addresses and responds to gender, sexuality and youth identities (Keddie, 2010). Previous action has drawn on sex role and male role models theories, calling for more male teachers to respond to the apparent sissification of boys, which proved uncritical and misguided (Martino & Kehler, 2006). Martino (2008) calls for a more critical investigation into the effects of a regime or culture of hegemonic masculinity and “gender normalization which incites anxieties about feminized and/or emasculated boys in schools” (190). This paper critically explores the pedagogical practices of male-identifying teachers who challenge, disrupt, and navigate normative masculinities in and through education. The primary research questions guiding this research include: a) When and how do male-identifying teachers challenge normative masculinities? b) What motivates male-identifying teachers to challenge normative masculinities? c) What are male-identifying teachers’ perceptions of the impact of their critical pedagogical practices on gender arrangements? These research questions are developed in part using Apple’s (2016) principles for critical scholar/activists. Specifically, whilst the research is developed as a result of, and to better understand, exploitative and dominating societal relations, our aim is also “to critically examine current realities with a conceptual/political framework that emphasizes the spaces in which more progressive and counter-hegemonic actions can, or do, go on” (511). Conceptually and theoretically, we build on feminist, queer theory, and critical masculinities studies research (Butler, 2006; Connell, 2005; Elliott, 2020), acknowledging the fluidity and diversity of gender and sexuality. Drawing on previous research highlighting the problematic nature of male role model discourse connected to a “moral panic” within education (Martino et al., 2009; Martino & Kehler, 2006), this research is not positioned within the context of male identifying teachers as role models. Instead, engaging men as activists, as allies and agents of change requires understanding how and when men and boys take up a disruptive practice of questioning normative masculinity. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methods, Methodology: Our data analysis focusses on making sense of the participants’ experiences and views on challenging normative masculinity through pedagogical practices. At the same time, we draw on critical discursive methods (Lazar, 2007; Thompson et al., 2018) to explore and uncover latent ideas through a detailed discursive analysis of the interviews. This exploration of the latent and multi-layered meanings in the interviews involves connecting interview data to broader structural and ideological matters as well as research on critical masculinities studies and critical pedagogy. Utilizing feminist discursive methods, the first phase of the analysis “involves identifying the broad discursive patterns that people actively negotiate in their voiced accounts”. This phase is comprised of (1) chunking the talk into sections, (2) labelling those sections with descriptive codes, (3) identifying recurring codes, (4) identifying discourses, (5) identifying discursive patterns, and (6) theoretically accounting for those patterns. The second phase involves tracing participants agentic voices, “in order to understand how they actively locate and relocate themselves” (Thompson et al. 2018, 101) relative to the discursive patterns identified in the first phase. This second phase involves (1) identifying first-person accounts to (2) identify how the individual speaks about themselves and the topic. Then (3) identifying contrapuntal voices to explore the multilayered nature of experiential accounts and, finally, (4) composing a theoretical account of the individual’s voices in relation to broader discourses (see also Gilligan et al., 2003). This approach emphasises counter-hegemonic voices and personal experiences – in this case, male-identifying teachers challenging normative and violent masculinities through critical pedagogical practices – whilst exploring the structural conditions of the personal. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Expected Outcomes, Conclusions: As van der Heijden et al. (2015) argue, it is increasingly important “to create supportive school contexts in which teachers are encouraged to be agentic in order to positively influence or change education” and most importantly, “improve education on daily practice by using their agency” (682). In the current cultural climate of change and backlash, teachers are required to respond critically and strategically in their engagement with all students to promote critical awareness and knowledge of gender inequities. Students, boys in particular, may be “quick to reject attempts to engage them in discussions about gender, claiming that these topics only relate to girls” (Schwarz, 2020, 137). However, research (Govender & Bhana, 2023; Martino & Resai-Rashti, 2012; Schwartz, 2020) has shown that teachers who are aware of the fluctuating conceptions of masculinity and who are capable of creating emotional empathy with boys can support boys to be active agents deconstructing restrictive images of masculinity. As such, amidst public concerns surrounding the ongoing discussion of gender and sexuality education, particularly around boys and masculinity (Schwartz, 2020), there are opportunities for “‘classroom trouble’, to unsettle the normative knowledges, practices and subjectivities that ordinarily circulate unquestioned in classrooms” (Youdell, 2011, 88). It is unclear how educators, teachers and schools challenge gender binaries, and particularly the rigid and damaging heteronormative aspects of masculinity which go largely unquestioned, whilst supporting and maintaining typically silenced discourses within education (Kehler, 2009; Meyer, 2007). It is this unknown that we address in this research. References Apple, M. W. (2016). Challenging the epistemological fog: The roles of the scholar/activist in education. European Educational Research Journal, 15(5), 505–515. Butler, J. (2006). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge. Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed). University of California Press Elliott, K. (2020). Bringing in margin and centre: ‘Open’ and ‘closed’ as concepts for considering men and masculinities. Gender, Place & Culture, 27(12), 1723–1744. Gilligan, C., Spencer, R., Weinberg, M. K., & Bertsch, T. (2003). On the Listening Guide: A Voice-Centered Relational Mode. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (1st ed, pp. 157-172). American Psychological Association Kehler, M. (2009). Boys, Friendships, and Knowing “It Wouldn’t Be Unreasonable to Assume I am Gay.” In W. Martino, M. Kehler, & M. B. Weaver-Hightower (Eds.), The problem with boys’ education: Beyond the backlash. Routledge Kehler, M., & G. Knott-Fayle (2025) Preservice teachers disrupting contemporary patriarchal masculinities: A manscape beyond “the boys”, Gender and Education, Special Issue. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2025.2583935 Keddie, A. (2010). Feminist struggles to mobilise progressive spaces within the ‘boy‐turn’ in gender equity and schooling reform. Gender and Education, 22(4), 353–368. Lazar, M. M. (2007). Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Articulating a Feminist Discourse Praxis. Critical Discourse Studies, 4(2), 141–164. Maricourt, C. D., & Burrell, S. R. (2022). #MeToo or #MenToo? Expressions of Backlash and Masculinity Politics in the #MeToo Era. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 30(1), 49–69. Martino, W., & Kehler, M. (2006). Male teachers and the “Boy Problem”: An Issue of Recuperative Masculinity Politics. McGill Journal of Education, 41(2), 113–131. Martino, W., Kehler, M., & Weaver-Hightower, M. B. (Eds.). (2009). The problem with boys’ education: Beyond the backlash. Routledge. Martino, W., & Resai-Rashti, G. (2012). Gender, race, and the politics of role modelling: The influence of male teachers. Routledge Schwartz, Y. (2020). “I present a Role model of Fluid Masculinity...”: Gender Politics of Pro Feminist Men in an Israeli High School Gender Equality Intervention Programme. In R. Luyt & K. Starck (Eds.), Masculine power and gender equality: Masculinities as change agents (pp. 133–156). Springer. Tompkins, J., Kearns, L.-L., & Mitton-Kükner, J. (2018). Teacher Candidates as LGBTQ and Social Justice Advocates through Curricular Action. McGill Journal of Education, 52(3). 33. Gender and Education
Paper The Patriarchal Paradox: Prescriptive Masculinities and Unintentional Subversionof Gendered Education Aarhus University, Denmark Presenting Author:This paper examines the paradoxical effects of patriarchal gender norms on educational outcomes by asking how adherence to prescriptive masculinities may unintentionally create conditions for gender subversion in schooling. Drawing on two complementary ethnographic sub-studies in Nepal, the research investigates how patriarchal role conformity—particularly men’s alignment with breadwinner and migration-linked masculinities—reconfigures everyday educational decision-making within households. The central research question guiding this study is: How do prescriptive masculinities unintentionally create spaces to challenge gendered patterns in education? To address this, the paper explores three interrelated dimensions:
Theoretically, the paper is grounded in feminist and masculinity studies, particularly Raewyn Connell’s framework on hegemonic and prescriptive masculinities, alongside feminist political economy and moral economy approaches to household decision-making. These perspectives allow for an analysis of patriarchy not as a fixed or uniformly oppressive system, but as a set of practices that can generate contradictory and unintended outcomes. By conceptualising patriarchy as a dynamic and relational process, the paper theorises how masculine conformity can simultaneously reproduce gender hierarchies and create openings for gendered educational change. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a comparative, mixed-methods ethnographic design across two complementary field sites in Nepal: Mahendranagar/Bhimdatta among Freed Kamaiya families (conducted by Mohini Gupta) and Dharan among Gurkha families (conducted by Sanjay Sharma). These two sites were selected to capture variation in caste, class, labour histories, and migration trajectories, allowing for a comparative analysis of how masculinities and patriarchal household structures shape educational decision-making in distinct socio-historical contexts. The primary empirical material consists of a structured household survey of 100 households across the two sites, designed to capture demographic characteristics, educational participation, gendered division of labour, migration histories, and household decision-making practices related to schooling. The survey provides a systematic basis for identifying patterns in gendered educational outcomes and household role configurations. In addition, the study draws on in-depth qualitative data from approximately 30 households across the two sub-studies. These include semi-structured interviews with male and female household members, as well as extended participant observation. This ethnographic engagement enables close analysis of everyday practices, negotiations, and moral discourses surrounding masculinity, femininity, education, and provision. Participant observation is used to document how gender roles are enacted and contested in daily life, and how educational decisions are embedded within broader household economies and kinship relations. The analytical strategy is comparative and interpretive. Data from the two sites are analysed both within and across cases to identify shared patterns and site-specific dynamics. This approach allows the study to theorise how prescriptive masculinities operate differently across historical labour regimes (bonded labour versus military and transnational migration) while producing comparable paradoxical effects on women’s educational agency. Ethical protocols were followed in both sites, including informed consent, anonymisation, and sensitivity to the vulnerabilities of formerly bonded labour communities and military families. The collaborative nature of the research also enables reflexive comparison and cross-validation of findings across researchers and sites. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This paper shows that patriarchal household structures do not operate only as mechanisms of constraint but can also generate unintended spaces of subversion. Across both field sites, prescriptive masculinities—organised around male provision, sociality, and mobility—paradoxically create conditions that enable greater educational participation and agency for women and girls. Rather than simply reproducing gender inequality, these dynamics produce a patriarchal paradox in which adherence to gendered roles leads to outcomes that partially destabilise gendered educational hierarchies. In both Gurkha and Freed Kamaiya households, fathers are characterised by physical or metaphorical absence. Among Gurkha families, men’s labour migration and military service result in physical absence from everyday household life, reducing their educational role largely to financial provision. In Kamaiya households, men’s engagement in precarious labour and social drinking produces a metaphorical absence, marked by limited awareness of and participation in children’s schooling. In both cases, masculine identities centred on provision distance men from the everyday labour of education. This distancing shifts educational responsibility onto mothers. Across both sites, mothers emerge as the primary managers and advocates of children’s education, with schooling becoming socially constructed as part of women’s domestic and moral labour. While this reinforces gendered responsibility, it also expands women’s authority in educational decision-making. Sons are more likely to disengage from schooling, shaped by substance use, early entry into wage labour, and military-oriented masculine aspirations. Daughters, in contrast, often experience greater opportunities to remain in education. With fewer immediate labour expectations, and with mothers’ active support, girls are encouraged to pursue continued schooling. Overall, the findings theorise a form of paradoxical patriarchy, in which prescriptive masculinities unintentionally enable gender subversion within the educational ecosystem. Women’s educational agency thus emerges through, rather than outside of, patriarchal structures, complicating linear assumptions about patriarchy and empowerment. References Burke, Penny Jane. 2006. "Men accessing education: gendered aspirations." British Educational Research Journal 32 (5): 719-733. Butler, Judith. 2004. Undoing Gender. Routledge. Connell, Robert W., and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. "Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept." Gender & Society 19 (6): 829-859. Maycock, Matthew. 2025. "Performances of emergent masculinities amongst rickshaw drivers in Nepal." Asian Journal of Social Science 53 (4). Sharma, Jeevan Raj. 2008. "Practices of male labor migration from the hills of Nepal to India in development discourses: Which pathology?." Gender, Technology and Development 12 (3): 303-323. | ||