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, 21:30:56 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
33 SES 13 A: Relationality, Vulnerabitlities and PolyCrisis: Education in Troubling Times.
Paper Session
| ||
    | ||
33. Gender and Education
Paper Vulnerability in a Time of Polycrisis: Rethinking Gender Education for Girls and Young Women Bar Ilan University, Israel Presenting Author:This paper addresses the challenges of gender and sexuality education for girls and young women under conditions of contemporary polycrisis, understood as the entanglement of political gendered polarization, conservative backlash, gender-based violence, digital sexual cultures, and socio-economic precarity. These overlapping crises intensify gendered vulnerabilities while simultaneously undermining the pedagogical conditions required for sustained engagement in gender justice education. Girls and young women are increasingly positioned within contradictory educational and cultural expectations: they are encouraged to be autonomous, resilient, and empowered, while remaining exposed to embodied, affective, and structural harms. This contradiction often leads to the trivialization, individualization, or depoliticization of vulnerability in educational contexts, thereby weakening the transformative potential of gender education. Drawing on feminist theories of vulnerability and gender transformation (Butler, 2004; Gilson, 2014, 2016; Keddie, 2022; Levi Herz & Rozmarin, 2025a; Rozmarin, 2020, 2021), the paper proposes a vulnerability-based pedagogy of gender transformation as a response to these conditions. Vulnerability is conceptualized not as a deficit or a temporary crisis state, but as a dual and relational phenomenon: both a socially induced condition shaped by power formations and a shared ontological feature of embodied, interdependent life. This duality becomes particularly salient under a polycrisis, where structural inequalities and affective experiences are deeply entangled and where young people’s subjectivities are shaped by continual exposure to uncertainty, risk, and moral demands for resilience. We argue that gender education in the context of a polycrisis must move beyond frameworks that pit vulnerability against agency or resilience. Instead, it must attend to vulnerability as an affective dynamic that can become a resource for critical awareness, relational responsibility, and collective action (Levi Herz & Rozmarin, 2025a; Rozmarin, 2020, 2021). We propose two pedagogical principles. First, affective attentiveness cultivates students’ capacities to recognize, name, and interpret affective responses — such as shame, fear, anger, or dissonance — as epistemic resources for mapping gendered power relations in their lives. By attending to affective dissonance (Hemmings, 2012; Levi Herz & Rozmarin, 2023), students can identify gaps between norms, self-perceptions, and embodied experiences, thereby critically interrogating heteronormativity, objectification, and gendered expectations. Second, this pedagogy validates diverse modes of action and subjectification that emerge under conditions of vulnerability, particularly relational and collective forms of agency. Drawing on the concept of vulnerability-based alliances (Butler, 2015; Levi Herz & Rozmarin, 2025b), the paper highlights how shared vulnerability can support solidaristic, ethical, and transformative forms of collectivity among students, enabling them to engage with gender justice not through guilt, blame, or moralization, but through mutual responsibility and care. By situating vulnerability at the center of gender education, this approach reorients gender pedagogy toward relationality, affect, and interdependence. It reframes girls’ and young women’s education not as preparation for overcoming vulnerability, but as a space for learning how to live, act, and transform within conditions of uncertainty, inequality, and interconnection. We argue that such a pedagogy is crucial for sustaining critical gender education in times of polycrisis, as it equips young people not only with analytical tools but also with affective and relational capacities to navigate and collectively reshape their worlds. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper adopts a conceptual–theoretical methodology grounded in feminist theories of vulnerability, affect theories, and critical pedagogies. It develops a normative and analytical framework for rethinking girls’ and young women’s gender education under conditions of heightened vulnerability. This analysis proceeds through a critical synthesis of three bodies of scholarship: (1) feminist theories of vulnerability; (2) affect theories and feminist accounts of affective politics; and (3) critical and gender-transformative pedagogy. First, we engage feminist theorization of vulnerability as developed by Butler (2004, 2015), Gilson (2014, 2016, 2024), and Rozmarin (2017, 2020, 2021). These theories conceptualize vulnerability as an embodied, relational, and politically structured condition that challenges liberal ideals of autonomy and self-sufficiency. We draw particularly on the distinction between vulnerability as a socially induced condition shaped by power relations and vulnerability as a shared ontological feature of human interdependence. Second, we mobilize affect theories to conceptualize vulnerability as an affective dynamic rather than a static condition. We draw on Hemmings’ (2012) notion of affective dissonance and on Zembylas’ (2020, 2024) work on affect, complicity, and difficult knowledge to analyze how emotions function epistemically and politically in gender education. This allows us to conceptualize affect not merely as subjective experience but as a site where social norms, power, and subjectivity intersect (Levi Herz & Rozmarin, 2023). Third, we situate this analysis within critical and gender-transformative pedagogical traditions (Connell, 2023; Keddie, 2022; Ollis, 2017; Ringrose & Renold, 2014), which emphasize reflexivity, power analysis, and transformative learning. We critically engage these pedagogies by highlighting their tensions — particularly the risk of reproducing binaries of oppressor/victim and vulnerability/agency — and propose vulnerability-based pedagogy as an alternative that integrates critical awareness with relational ethics (Levi Herz & Rozmarin, 2025a). The concept of polycrisis is used as a contextual and analytical perspective for understanding the intensification and entanglement of structural, political, affective, and ecological conditions that shape contemporary education. Through this integrative theoretical approach, the paper develops pedagogical principles, aiming to offer conceptual tools for educators, researchers, and curriculum designers working in gender education. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This paper argues that contemporary gender education must be rethought in light of polycrisis and its effects on girls’ and young women’s vulnerabilities, subjectivities, and capacities for action. We have proposed a vulnerability-based pedagogy of gender transformation that reframes vulnerability not as a deficit or obstacle to empowerment, but as an affective and relational resource for critical awareness, ethical responsibility, and collective engagement. By conceptualizing vulnerability as both socially induced and ontologically shared, this pedagogy challenges neoliberal frameworks that individualize harm and moralize resilience. It also disrupts pedagogical binaries that oppose vulnerability to agency, instead foregrounding relational, collective, and situational forms of action. Through practices of affective attentiveness and the validation of vulnerability-based alliances, gender education can become a space where students learn to interpret their embodied experiences politically and to act with others rather than against themselves. This approach is particularly crucial in a polycrisis, where crises are no longer exceptional disruptions but ongoing conditions that shape educational life. A vulnerability-based pedagogy does not aim to resolve crises, but to cultivate capacities for living, learning, and transforming within it. It thus supports a form of gender education oriented toward interdependence, care, and shared responsibility, offering a more sustainable foundation for gender justice work in unstable and unequal times. References Butler, J. (2004). Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. Verso. Butler, J. (2015). Notes toward a performative theory of assembly. Harvard University Press. Connell, R. W. (2023). Teaching the boys: New research on masculinity and gender strategies for schools. In The Critical Pedagogy Reader (pp. 332-354). Routledge. Gilson, E. (2013). The ethics of vulnerability: A feminist analysis of social life and practice. Routledge. Gilson, E. (2016). Vulnerability and victimization: Rethinking key concepts in feminist discourses on sexual violence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 42(1), 71-98. Gilson, E. (2024). Toward a pluralist approach to vulnerability: A contribution to an interdisciplinary trialogue on vulnerability. Human Studies, 47(2), 261-273. Hemmings, C. (2012). Affective solidarity: Feminist reflexivity and political transformation. Feminist theory, 13(2), 147-161. Keddie, A. (2022). Engaging boys in gender transformative pedagogy: Navigating discomfort, vulnerability and empathy. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 30(3), 401-414. Levi Herz, R., & Rozmarin, M. (2023). Affective dynamics and young women’s sexual subjectivity: the case study of the Israeli practice of “attacking”. Young, 31(5), 499-516. Levi Herz, R., & Rozmarin, M. (2025a). Vulnerability-based gender transformation pedagogy: rethinking girls’ and young women’s education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 1-18. Levi Herz, R., & Rozmarin, M. (2025b). Young women’s sexual agency, relationality, and vulnerability: The Israeli case study of “attacking”. Sexualities, 28(1-2), 219-234. Ringrose, J., & Renold, E. (2014). “F** k rape!” Exploring affective intensities in a feminist research assemblage. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 772-780. Rozmarin, M. (2017). Vulnerable futures, transformative pasts: On vulnerability, temporality, and ethics. New York: Peter Lang. Rozmarin, M. (2020). Those Who Gather in the Streets: Butler's Vulnerable Political Subjects. Philosophy Today, 64(3), 599-616. Rozmarin, M. (2021). Navigating the Intimate Unknown: Vulnerability as an Affective Relation. NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 29(3), 190–202. Zembylas, M. (2020). Re-conceptualizing complicity in the social justice classroom: Affect, politics and anti-complicity pedagogy. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 28(2), 317-331. Zembylas, M. (2024). Navigating the affective aspects of vulnerability in our times: faithful affective witnessing as pedagogical theory and practice. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 32(1), 125-141. 33. Gender and Education
Paper The EQGED Index: Quantifying the Differential Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Math Achievement by Gender in Europe University of Salamanca, Spain Presenting Author:The terms equality and equity are often confused, which in reality is not merely a terminological debate, but rather a practical one. While equality refers to the equal treatment of all people simply because they are human beings (without further distinction), equity refers to an ideal of justice. The latter acts as a regulator of those circumstances which, as a result of vulnerability factors, prevent certain individuals or groups from building a dignified life (Espinoza, 2007). Educational equity has been divided into three dimensions: academic segregation, equality of results and equality of opportunity (hereinafter EO), on which we will focus (Enchikova et al., 2024). The aim of this article is to delve deeper into EO, moving away from the conceptual superficiality to which it has been reduced, and studying how it works in the construction of educational gender equity in the European context. Puyol understands that all individuals, regardless of their characteristics, should be able to develop freely through equal opportunities. To this end, circumstances beyond their control must be equalised through a ‘levelling of the playing field’ (Rawls, 1971; Roemer, 1998; Puyol, 2010), providing a series of basic personal and impersonal goods together with the ability to use them and eliminating roles and stereotypes (Dworkin, 1981; Cubo, 2018), to the point where the results of this process are due solely to individual decisions (Puyol, 2010; Barragué, 2016). Thus, at the same time, EO is the first condition for exercising freedom. In this sense, the thesis defended here is that merit is not an adequate measure of equal opportunity because it does not reach all sectors of a structurally unequal society equally. The meritocratic principle thus serves as a ‘device for legitimising privilege’ and the market economy (Rendueles, 2024). The case of gender equality is not only highly illustrative, but also deeply relevant to the construction of an egalitarian society. The starting point faced by women in the education system requires an approach based on ‘human capital, role models and the construction of gender stereotypes’ (Vázquez-Cupeiro, 2015, p. 183). In fact, the European Charter for Equality of Women and Men in Local Life committed to eliminating discrimination and obstacles, roles and stereotypes, and ensuring balanced participation in decision-making. Therefore, an initial levelling is necessary, recognising and tackling obstacles, not only as material and economic barriers, but also cultural, symbolic and social ones (Dworkin, 1981; Subrahmanian, 2005). In other words, women's choices and outcomes are determined by the roles they have been taught, both in the family and at school, where the dominant ideology is reproduced (Ávila, 2004), resulting in a sexual division of public and private space (Cobo, 2005), that is, in strata or outcomes. Even so, every social system needs an authority to legitimise its ideology, and ‘science’, with its privileged status, is a powerful consolidating agent (Vázquez-Cupeiro, 2004). Hence the need for indicators that measure gender equity in education, specifically the I. O., in order to understand and eliminate illegitimate inequality in status and outcomes. One example is the EGEI (European Gender Equity Index), based on the differentiated position of men and women in social spaces, as well as on the resources needed to maintain that status: economic resources (work), social prestige (education) and power (politics). Empirical analyses indicate that the situation in Europe still involves structural inequality between men and women, although there are significant differences between countries (Bericat, 2011). In short, a methodological tool is needed that considers the before (opportunities), during and after the educational moment (Subrahmanian, 2005), allowing for contextualisation or establishing a ‘connection between background and educational outcomes’ (Enchikova et al., 2024). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper presents a new index, which intends to measure the influence of gender in educational equity in some European countries. This index is also compared to other indicators related to education and gender, and broader socio-economic country-level issues. The sample consists of 15-year-old students participating in PISA 2022 in the European Union countries. Following OECD (2024) recommendations, since our aim is to compare data between countries, the data was weighted with the variable “senate weight”, which avoids biases due to uneven sample sizes by escalating all country samples to 5000 individuals. The variables extracted from the PISA 2022 competence and context questionnaires (OECD, 2023) were three: gender, mathematical competence level (first plausible value), and the economic, social and cultural status of students (ESCS), PISA’s own measure of socioeconomic status (SES). The EQGED index (Gender Equity in Education) was designed to quantify the differential influence that SES has on math achievement according to student gender. For each gender, a simple regression was calculated, obtaining the R2, and the following formula was used to get the EQGED for each country: (R2male/R2female)-1. This way, a value of 0 would signify an equal impact of SES on achievement in both genders, values under 0 would mean a higher impact of SES for women, and values over 0 would mean a higher impact of SES for men. For cases with unequal regression coefficients and intercepts (and thus diverse regressions slopes), we also explored whether the widest gaps in achievement were located in low or high SES brackets to check for possible patterns. Lastly, in an attempt to explore possible correlations between EQGED and other system-level socioeconomic variables, we compared our index with the countries’ GDP (World Bank) and Human Development Index (UNDP). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Throughout this paper, a new index has been presented to measure the difference between the impact of SES on the achievement of European secondary education students according to their gender. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study of the gap in educational equity represents a novel approach. While the results reveal clear differences between the European countries regarding the magnitude of their equity gap and the pattern of these inequalities, in the vast majority of countries women suffer greater disadvantages than their male classmates. Some countries display inequalities primarily in high SES brackets, indicating that at low SES levels male and female students score similarly; however, as one moves up the economic spectrum, male students take greater advantage of resources and attain higher achievement compared to their female peers with the same SES. Other countries show the opposite pattern, with relative equality of achievement at high SES levels, but manifest achievement inequalities at low levels. This poses a more concerning problem, as it implies that the most economically disadvantaged female students suffer a greater negative impact on their achievement than their male counterparts. This raises two important research questions: what risk factors do women of low SES suffer to a greater extent that might explain this situation? And, what can be done to mitigate these effects? On the other hand, the correlation analysis makes it evident that the EQGED index does not significantly correlate with other socioeconomic indicators. Although further in-depth investigation into its potential relationship with other indices is certainly required, the main objective for future research should be the detection of factors related to educational inequity based on gender, in order to establish effective educational policies and practices to reduce this gap. References Ávila, M. (2004). Socialización, Educación y Reproducción Cultural: Bordieu y Bernstein. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 19(1), 159-174. Barragué, B. (2016). (Des)igualdad de oportunidades y movilidad social. En B. Barragué y M. I. Sáez (Eds.), Desigualdad y riqueza (20, p. 159-172). Bericat, E. (2011). The European Gender Equality Index: Conceptual and Analytical Issues. Social Indicators Research, 108(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9872-z Cobo, R. (2005). El género en las ciencias sociales. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, 18, 249-258. Cubo, O. (2018). Marx y Kant: sobre la igualdad de oportunidades. International Journal of Philosophy, (8), p. 134-157. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2329940 Dworkin, R. (1981). What is Equality? Part 1: Equality of Welfare. Phylosophy & Public Affairs, 10(3), p. 185-246. https://doi.org/10.2307/2693632 Enchikova E., Neves, T., Toledo, C. & Nata, G. (2024). Change in socioeconomic educational equity after 20 years of PISA: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2024.100359 Espinoza, O. (2007). Solving the equity-equality conceptual dilemma: A new model for analysis of the educational process. Educacional Research, 49, p. 343-363. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880701717198 OECD (2024). PISA 2022 Technical Report. OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/01820d6d-en. Puyol, A. (2010). El sueño de la igualdad de oportunidades. Gedisa. Rawls, J. (1971). Teoría de la justicia (M. D. González, Trad.). The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Rendueles, C. (2024). La igualdad de oportunidades en disputa. Igualitarismo y meritocracia en el postneoliberalismo. Bajo Palabra, (36), p. 269-288. https://doi.org/10.15366/bp2024.36.011 Roemer, J. (1998). Igualdad de oportunidades. Isegoría, (18), p. 71-87. https://doi.org/10.3989/isegoria.1998.i18.146 Subrahmanian, R. (2005). Gender equality in education: Definitions and measurements. International Journal of Educational Development, 25, p. 395-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2005.04.003 Vázquez-Cupeiro, S. (2015). Ciencia, estereotipos y género: una revisión de los marcos explicativos. Convergencia. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 22(68), p. 177-202. https://doi.org/10.29101/CRCS.V0I68.2957 33. Gender and Education
Paper Young Australians’ Gendered Perceptions of Their Future Related to STEM 1: University of Melbourne, Australia; 2: Deakin University, Australia; 3: Southern Cross University, Australia Presenting Author:Global challenges (climate change, and sustainable food production, technological advances such as the rise of generative artificial intelligence) continue to redefine the STEM landscape, resulting in entirely new jobs and career pathways within STEM fields (OECD, 2025). For example, the Australian federal Department of Education (2025) argues that “the gap between the knowledge generated in the education system and the skills demanded by employers and individuals is widening” and that STEM is a priority as it is predicted that future jobs will increasingly require STEM competences. This has important implications for STEM education and career advice, as the skills profile of the future workforce is determined largely by the study choices of students in secondary education (Australian Academy of Science, 2025). However, across the globe, students’ performance and interest in STEM subjects or careers continue to decline or stagnate. Especially, certain groups (e.g., girls, rural students or students from low SES areas) remain underrepresented in STEM fields such as mathematics, physics, engineering and IT. The world of STEM, and global movements surrounding STEM research and practice, is changing at an increasing rate in terms of its focus and its setting within global developments that are changing the face of public and political interactions with STEM. In this context, it is timely to investigate how the current generation of secondary students formulate perceptions about their future, how they see themselves in relation to STEM (e.g., motivation, identity, confidence; Calabrese-Barton et al., 2013) and how their ideas are shaped by their educational experiences as well as by factors external to school (e.g., parents, peers, (social) media). Given the rapid pace of change, the need for up-to-date information on STEM perceptions and aspirations is critical for effective policy making. This paper reports about a study in the state of Victoria, Australia which aims to reveal what young people perceive as important to their futures, with a particular focus on the role of STEM, and which gendered aspects they perceive, and reveal, in terms of opportunities and obstacles. The outcomes have implications for formal and informal STEM education and for career advice, which will be addressed. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The project combines desk research with an empirical study. Desk research focused on reports and public data sets collected through (annual) surveys among thousands of young Australians administered by Youth Insight, Mission Australia, LSAY and the Youth Barometer. Youth Insight has a focus on trends in young people’s relations with STEM (i.e., survey data on how students’ interest, confidence and aspirations towards STEM have changed between 2019 – 2023, STEM aspirations) while other monitors investigate more general concerns of young people related to challenges (i.e., cost of living, study and career, artificial intelligence, climate change). In the second half of 2025, an empirical study was conducted. Eight schools in the state of Victoria were selected on the basis of providing real-world STEM and STEAM experiences to students in year 8-10. Schools were located in rural, regional or urban areas. After ethics approval was obtained, data were collected from 12 student focus groups (totalling 50 girls and 25 boys; year levels 8-10), and semi-structured interviews with 13 STEM teachers and 3 career advisors. Focus groups for students were preceded by either a workshop (e.g., on future food production) or a recent outreach experience that could inspire students to think about their future in relation to STEM or STEAM, such as robotics events or astrophysics camps. Focus groups included both boys and girls, sometimes separately and sometimes mixed. The focus group interview protocols were semi structured and designed to be responsive to the particular contexts of the school and the students’ STEM experiences. The focus was on students’ experience of STEM through the provided workshop or STEM outreach activities they had attended and their perceptions of STEM, STEM futures and their relations to STEM. The questioning protocols were particularly alert to the way students’ perceptions and commitments – their identity work – reflected rural-urban contextual differences, gendered positioning, the role of STEM projects in framing identity, and different perceptions of STEM futures and career options. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Desk research indicates that boys and girls (aged 14-17 years) score very similar for science on interest, confidence and importance. However, boys score higher than girls for technology, engineering and mathematics. Interest, confidence and importance tend to decline with age. Students from low SES areas score a bit lower than those from higher SES areas on these indicators, particularly boys. In terms of STEM career aspirations, girls (14-17 year) are almost half as likely as boys to aspire to a career in STEM (22% versus 43%; Youth Insight, 2023). A substantial proportion of young people (about 20-30%) are reconsidering their career aspirations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, or the rise of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI). The analysis of empirical data is in progress. Preliminary analyses reveal that schools play a crucial role in shaping students' aspirations and understanding of STEM futures. Students' perspectives were largely shaped by their school experiences and opportunities available to them to engage with STEM. It was found that students can be attracted to STEM through practical applications and real-world problems rather than pure content knowledge, suggesting that STEM contexts offer opportunities for diverse student engagement beyond traditional STEM careers. Related to pursuing STEM careers, students talked about opportunities to contribute to society, however, they expressed gendered concerns about ethical and equity issues related to STEM jobs. Students voiced gendered expectations about the impact of technological advances on society and work. Girls, in particular, were critical about GenAI being unreliable and indicated how unethical use of GenAI could compromise study and work. Differences were noticed in perceptions and expectations of urban students compared to those from rural areas. For instance, rural schools had strong sports cultures which was particularly important for boys, meaning that STEM identity formation was competing with other dominant identities. References Australian Academy of Science (2025). Australian science, Australia’s future: Science 2035 (Abridged version) DOI: 10.82202/0d7r-6h92 Calabrese Barton, A., Kang, H., Tan, E., O’Neill, T.B., Bautista-Guerra, J. and Brecklin, C. (2013). Crafting a future in science: tracing middle school girls’ identity work over time and space. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 50 (1), 37-75 Department of Education (2025). Why is STEM important? https://www.education.gov.au/australian-curriculum/national-stem-education-resources-toolkit/introductory-material-what-stem/why-stem-important OECD (2025). Trends Shaping Education 2025. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ee6587fd-en. Youth Insight (2023). 2023 Youth In STEM Report. https://youthinsight.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Youth-in-STEM_2023-Report-FINAL.pdf 33. Gender and Education
Paper ***WITHDRAWN*** Parenting in Transition: Child-Rearing under Changing Social Conditions in Assyrian Families in the German Diaspora Johannes-Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany Presenting Author:Migration profoundly reshapes family life, educational expectations, and gender relations. For Assyrian families in the German diaspora, parenting becomes a central site where cultural continuity, gender norms, and educational aspirations are negotiated. Parents often articulate concerns about ,cultural loss’, intergenerational distance, and changing gender roles, concerns that are reflected in the growing role of churches, associations, and community initiatives aimed at youth socialization. This paper explores how Assyrian parents in Germany negotiate child-rearing practices under the conditions of migration, diaspora life, and intergenerational change. Drawing on qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 3 Assyrian parents living in Germany, the study examines how parenting values, moral frameworks, and everyday educational practices are reshaped in relation to gender norms, parental roles, and expectations placed towards children. The sample includes first-generation parents who migrated from Iraq, Syria and Turkey, as well as second-generation parents raised in Germany. Particular attention is paid to how parents experience and negotiate educational responsibility, authority, care work, and cultural transmission in the diaspora context. While existing research on Assyrian communities has focused primarily on forced migration, trauma, and identity preservation (Collie, et. Al, 2019; Benyamin, 2022; Wozniak-Bobinska, 2019), little is known about if and how gendered parenting practices evolve in everyday family life, especially in Germany. While Assyrian communities have been studied in countries such as Sweden, Australia, and New Zealand regarding multilingualism and identity transmission, there is a significant research gap concerning everyday parenting practices in Germany, particularly from a gender-sensitive perspective. Germany has a prominent Assyrian diaspora of ca. 200.000 Assyrians; numbers are only estimated since there is no official census. Due to constant conflict in their countries of origin (Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran) the diaspora community is constantly growing. By foregrounding gender as an analytical lens, this study contributes to Network 33’s focus on knowing and acting under changing conditions of educational research. It highlights how gender, migration, and education intersect in family-based learning processes and offers insights relevant to culturally responsive educational and social work practices. By doing so, this paper situates Assyrian parenting within broader debates in gender and education by examining how educational practices in the family are shaped by intersecting conditions of migration, gender, and diaspora. The study addresses the following research questions:
The project draws on interdisciplinary perspectives from educational sciences, gender studies, and migration research. Key concepts include gendered socialization, acculturation and cultural transmission in migration contexts. Gender is understood not as a fixed category, but as relational and situationally negotiated within family practices. By combining diaspora studies with feminist and gender-sensitive approaches to education, the study aligns with Network 33’s interest in how knowledge production in education must respond to changing social conditions and power relations. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a qualitative research design to examine parenting practices within Assyrian families in the German diaspora. Qualitative methods are particularly appropriate for exploring subjective interpretations, biographical experiences, and everyday educational practices that cannot be captured through standardized instruments. Data are collected through semi-structured, guided interviews with three Assyrian parents, particularly mothers currently living in Germany. Participants are selected using purposive sampling in order to reflect variation in generational position (first- and second-generation parents), educational background, rural and urban origin, and the age of their children (6–12 and 13–18 years). The limited number of cases allows for in-depth analysis and comparative interpretation across interviews, rather than statistical generalization. The interview guideline is biographically and thematically structured. Participants are first asked to reflect on their own upbringing and educational experiences within their families of origin, including parental expectations, disciplinary practices, and value transmission. Building on this retrospective perspective, the interviews focus on how participants currently raise their own children in Germany and how they experience and interpret parenting within the German social and educational context. Central topics include perceived changes and continuities in child-rearing practices across generations and migration contexts. Furthermore, participants are invited to describe challenges, obstacles, and difficulties they encounter in everyday parenting. These may include tensions between family-based norms and institutional expectations, experiences with schools, intergenerational conflicts, or uncertainties related to authority, language use, and educational aspirations. This focus enables an analysis of parenting as a situated practice shaped by structural, cultural, and social conditions. Interviews are conducted in the participants’ preferred languages (German, Arabic, or Neo-Aramaic/Assyrian), audio-recorded with informed consent, transcribed, and anonymized. Data analysis follows qualitative content analysis according to Mayring (2015), combining deductive category development with inductive coding. Analytical attention is given to patterns and contrasts in narratives of parenting, education, and authority. Ethical standards, including informed consent, confidentiality, and voluntary participation, are strictly observed. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study seeks to explore how Assyrian parents in Germany negotiate child-rearing under the intersecting conditions of migration, gender, and education. Rather than assuming fixed or homogeneous parenting models, the analysis is expected to indicate that parenting practices in the diaspora are shaped by ongoing negotiations between inherited norms, personal biographies, and institutional expectations within the German educational context. The findings may suggest that parenting responsibilities and educational practices are organized in gendered ways, particularly with regard to care work, moral guidance, and authority. Differences between mothers’ and fathers’ roles may become visible in narratives surrounding schooling, language use, and adolescence. At the same time, the data may point to moments of change and renegotiation, especially among second-generation parents or families with different educational backgrounds. Expectations placed on children may also vary according to gender and age, reflecting broader processes of gendered socialization within the family. By focusing on everyday family practices, the study is expected to contribute to gender and education research by highlighting the family as a significant, yet often overlooked, site of informal education. The anticipated outcomes underscore the relevance of understanding parental practices as educational actions embedded in social relations, cultural meanings, and migration experiences. From a broader perspective, the study may offer insights for gender-sensitive educational research and practice, particularly in contexts involving migration and minoritized communities. In line with the aims of Network 33, the paper seeks to contribute to discussions on how gendered knowledge, norms, and educational practices are produced and negotiated under changing social conditions. References •Altıntaş, M. C. (2025). Family relations and religious education among Assyrians in Türkiye. •Benyamin, A. (2022). Assyrians in Modern Iraq: Negotiating Political and Cultural Space. •Berthold, A. (2021). Einstellungen zur Akkulturation von Eingewanderten: Einstellungsunterschiede von Jugendlichen mit und ohne Migrationshintergrund. •Hlavac, J. (2012). Continuing and shifting multilingualism in an emigre situation: Language use and attitudes amongst Iraqi Chaldeans and Assyrians in Melbourne. •Kindon, S., & Collie, P. (2010). You can’t clap with one hand: Learnings to promote culturally grounded participatory action research with migrant and former refugee communities. •Kindon, S., & Collie, P. (2010). Mindful identity negotiations: The acculturation of young Assyrian women in New Zealand. •Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Klagenfurt. •Otyakmaz, B. Ö., & Karakaşoğlu, Y. (Eds.). (2020). Frühe Kindheit in der Migrationsgesellschaft: Erziehung, Bildung und Entwicklung in Familie und Kindertagesbetreuung. Springer VS. •Sparre, S. L. (2017). Incense and holy bread: the sense of belonging through ritual among Middle Eastern Christians in Denmark. •Uçan, Y. (2020). Erziehungsziel Mehrsprachigkeit: Eine qualitative Studie zu Erziehung und Elternschaft im Kontext von Migration. Verlag Barbara Budrich. •Wozniak-Bobinska, M. (2019). “Intergenerational Relations: Exploring Ambivalence within Assyrian/Syriac Families in Sweden.” Parole de l’Orient, 45, 393–417. | ||