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, 20:17:59 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
28 SES 01 A: Parenting in the Age of Digitalization and Uncertainty
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
28. Sociologies of Education
Paper Parents’ Conceptions of Core Social Values Schools Should Promote in Times of Societal Uncertainty Tel-Aviv University, Israel Presenting Author:This study seeks to examine the key values schools should promote according to parents. This focus is especially significant considering ongoing and profound social changes and polycrisis conditions marked by global health emergencies, armed conflicts, mass migration, widening social and economic inequalities, rapid technological transformations, and growing challenges to democratic institutions and values. These conditions destabilize established social orders and raise the need to rethink the core social values that direct society (Akaliyski et al., 2024). In this context, schools have a central role as pivotal institutions for socialization, integration and moral regulation (Durkheim, 1956). Therefore, fundamental questions regarding the purpose of schooling and, more specifically, the values that schools ought to cultivate must be reconsidered and questioned, given the significant social changes and developments (Hannon & Peterson, 2021). Drawing on this perspective, Labaree (1997) argued that the neoliberal regime intensifies schooling’s role as a positional good, aligning educational practices with market-based competition and individual advantage, while marginalizing the democratic and collective purposes traditionally associated with public education. Biesta (2009; 2020) goes further by critically challenging neoliberal conceptions of education. He argues that schools should educate the whole person by enabling students to acquire knowledge and skills (qualification), become members of social, cultural, and democratic communities (socialization), and develop into autonomous, responsible individuals capable of judgment and action (subjectification). As such, schools have a vital role in transmitting shared social and democratic values, cultivating moral dispositions such as responsibility, respect, and justice, and supporting students in forming their own value-based judgments as autonomous subjects, rather than merely conforming to existing norms. This aligns with Feuer (2023), who indicated that schools could contribute to the cultivation of civic values oriented toward the common good, such as respect for democratic rules, mutual responsibility, informed judgment, and a willingness to balance individual freedom with collective well-being. By doing so, schools empower students to sustain and renew democracy within pluralistic societies. This trend is reflected in OECD (2019) that has developed comprehensive policy agendas for 2030, classifying values into four categories: personal; social; societal and human values. These values are adapted at the local level and shaped by national culture, history, religion, language, and community priorities, reflecting how global principles are interpreted, prioritized, and enacted in schools. Thus, while educational values are increasingly shaped by global frameworks and shared principles, their legitimacy and realization depend on local interpretation, democratic negotiation, and cultural grounding. Adopting a bottom-up approach, this study explores which social values schools should prioritize, as perceived by parents. The focus on parents is for several reasons. First, parents represent broader societal norms, concerns, and tensions, offering valuable insight into prevailing social expectations surrounding schooling. Second, as central stakeholders, parents' perceptions and interests can significantly influence educational practices, policy orientations, and school–family relationships (Berkovich & Avigur-Eshel, 2019). Additionally, parents actively participate in education by choosing schools that align with their values and interests. Exploring parents’ preferences can therefore assist in setting school policies that are responsive to their particular social environment and community needs.
Two questions direct our research: 1. What are the central values that parents expect school to transmit to their children? 2. Are there differences in these values across social groups, based on education, religiosity, and school level (elementary vs. secondary)? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study was conducted in Israel, which in recent years has experienced both external and internal conflicts that have divided society and challenged its core values. The study is based on responses from 1,543 parents of elementary and secondary school students, drawn from a nationally representative sample. Participants completed an online questionnaire that included, among other items, to indicate at least two values (and up to six) they believe schools should promote. Before analysis, responses underwent a systematic data-cleaning process. Erroneous or invalid entries were removed, and semantically overlapping value expressions were unified through a double expert review process. Following this procedure, the dataset consisted of 108 distinct value categories, derived from 3,404 total mentions. Values were analyzed across three demographic dimensions: parental educational attainment (with vs. without an academic degree), religious affiliation (Secular, Traditional, Religious), and school level (elementary vs. secondary school). To identify both shared and distinctive values, we conducted descriptive frequency analyses combined with log-likelihood tests to detect values that appeared with significantly higher frequency in one group relative to others. To identify characteristic values within each sub-group, we used the Log-Likelihood (4-term) comparison algorithm to extract frequent words in a the research corpus compared to a reference corpus (Anthony 2024). Statistical significance was set on p < 0.01. In addition, we used the Schwartz cultural value typology (2006) as a framework for interpreting parents’ perspectives, which includes three axes: Embeddedness versus Autonomy, Hierarchy versus Egalitarianism, and Mastery versus Harmony. These axes have already been adapted and discussed within the school context (Daniel, Hofmann-Towfigh & Knafo, 2013). Accordingly, this framework provides a theoretically robust lens for interpreting parental expectations regarding the social values that schools should promote. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Common ground among groups: Findings indicate a strong level of consensus among parental groups regarding the core values that schools should promote. These values include tolerance, respect for others, helping others, empathy, solidarity, social concern, patience, caring, and excellence, reflecting a substantial shared normative ground. These findings suggest that schools need to foster mutual recognition and concern for the welfare of others, particularly in a divided society. Differences between groups: Several meaningful differences emerged along parents’ education and religious affiliation. Examples representing this difference are presented hereby. By education, non-academic parents emphasized respect for parents, violence prevention, and respect in general. In contrast, academic parents emphasized Zionism, democracy, patriotism, liberalism, critical thinking, self-realization, and social engagement. By religiosity, secular parents emphasized democracy, tolerance, solidarity, and critical thinking more than traditional parents, and highlighted respect, patience, empathy, cooperation, leadership, and life preparation more than religious parents. Traditional parents emphasized religion, Judaism, faith, inclusion, and self-related values compared to secular parents. They also prioritized respect, patience, empathy, and inclusion more than religious parents. Religious parents emphasized piety, modesty, diligence, and faith-based values more than both secular and traditional parents. By school level: Secondary school parents emphasized military service, social involvement, and law-abiding. Elementary school parents showed no significant differences in these values. Conclusion: Applying Schwartz’s typology reveals that, among academic and secular parents, social embeddedness is grounded in liberal values, emphasizing egalitarianism and autonomy. In contrast, for non-academic, traditional, and especially religious parents, it is rooted in Jewish religious values and traditions. These findings highlight the complex social fabric of Israeli society, demonstrating that although solidarity and social concern are widely endorsed as shared educational values, they may carry different meanings and implications across social groups. Addressing these nuances remains an important task that still needs to be addressed. References Akaliyski, P., Taniguchi, N., Park, J., Gehrig, S., & Tormos, R. (2024). Values in crisis: Societal value change under existential insecurity. Social Indicators Research, 171(1), 1-21. Anthony, L. (2024). AntConc (Version 4.3.1) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/AntConc Berkovich, I., & Avigur-Eshel, A. (2019). Two Faces of Digital Activism: Parents’ Anti-Neoliberal and Pro-Neoliberal Protests. In Digital Protest and Activism in Public Education: Reactions to Neoliberal Restructuring in Israel (pp. 87-113). Emerald Publishing Limited. Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33-46. Biesta, G. (2020). Risking ourselves in education: Qualification, socialization, and subjectification revisited. Educational theory, 70(1), 89-104. Daniel, E., Hofmann-Towfigh, N., & Knafo, A. (2013). School values across three cultures: A typology and interrelations. SAGE Open, 3(2), 2158244013482469. Durkheim, E. (1956). Education and sociology. Simon and Schuster. Feuer, M. J. (2023). Can Schools Save Democracy?: Civic Education and the Common Good. JHU Press. Hannon, V., & Peterson, A. (2021). Thrive: The purpose of schools in a changing world. Cambridge University Press. Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81. OECD (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030: OECD Learning Compass 2030 Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications Comparative Sociology, 5(2–3), 137–182 28. Sociologies of Education
Paper “You Have the Right to Blame”： Psychological Discourse and the Online Construction of “Problematic Parenting” in China KU Leuven, Belgium Presenting Author:Background and research question: In recent years, concerns about “problematic parenting” have become a growing source of social anxiety and public debate. Psychology plays a central role in defining what counts as “good” or “problematic” parenting, forming part of the broader process of psychologization of parenting (Ramaekers and Suissa, 2012). Researchers have pointed out that parent-blaming is framed as a top-down process driven by parenting experts and policymakers in many Western contexts (Lee et.al., 2014). However, it is less known how psychological discourse infiltrates into the family life and shapes how “good/problematic” parenting is conceived by children within the family. This research will focus on the emergence of the bottom-up parental-blaming phenomenon in Chinese online spaces in the past decades. With the translation and spread of Susan Forward’s Toxic Parents in China in 2017, the psychological term “family of origin” has gained popularity on Chinese social media. Many young people use psychological vocabularies such as “family of origin” and “toxic parents” to reflect their family life and even blame their parents in online spaces (Li, 2023, 2025). This phenomenon challenges the traditional image of Chinese families grounded in harmony and filial piety (Whyte, 1997) and clashes with the recent academic portrayal of contemporary Chinese families as increasingly intimate and egalitarian (Liu, 2016; Liu, 2022). It also raises the question about how psychological discourse influences the construction of "problematic parenting" in the specific Chinese context. Theoretical and analytical framework: In this study, I will explore the parental blaming phenomenon on Chinese social media platforms through the lens of narrativity. This means that it will not interpret parental blaming as a direct reflection of intergenerational conflict, nor will I reduce it to a psychological diagnosis of trauma. Instead, I am more interested in how such conflicts are narrated and constructed. During the analysis, I will adopt the theoretical framework put forward by David Morgan (2001). According to Morgan (2001), family is not only a production-consumption unit, but also a field in which moral responsibilities and emotional resources are continuously negotiated (Morgan, 2001). While the moral dimension refers to the renegotiation of the responsibilities, obligations, and fairness as well as rights and wrongs within the family, the emotional dimension highlights the regulation and dispute over the emotional resources in the family (Morgan, 2001). This conceptualization provides a crucial lens for unpacking different levels of intergenerational negotiation within families and how “problematic parenting” is constructed in such negotiation. By doing such analysis, I hope to grasp the “structure of feeling” behind such public parental blaming narratives and shed light on how individuals negotiate their moral and emotional stances within the family. Such analysis will also enable us to find what types of psychological resources are drawn and how they are used during such family negotiation, thus shedding light on the influence of psychological discourse in family life and parent-child relationships. Intended discussion and the broader relevance: Although the study focuses on Chinese cases, it will generate valuable insights that contribute to the broader debate on the psychologization of family life and parenting culture. It will also complicate the understanding of family life by highlighting the moral and emotional negotiation behind the parental blaming discourse. In addition, China’s unique sociocultural landscape also provides an analytically powerful site for investigating how psychological ideas of parenting collide with Confucian values of family ethics. Such analysis will offer culturally grounded insights for understanding the growing social anxiety about “problematic parenting”. In this sense, the discussion of the study will be highly relevant also for Western and international scholars in the field of parenting and education. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study aims to explain how “problematic parents” are constructed in online parental blaming narratives, with particular attention to the perspective of adult children themselves. Accordingly, the study selects videos in which users share their experiences in the first person and explicitly articulate accusations or critiques of their parents. Since the analytical focus is on identifying common narrative structures rather than providing a systematic account of the circulation or development of “problematic parents” discourse, a purposive sampling strategy is adopted. Specifically, the study will select and analyze 8–10 representative videos that center on blaming or criticizing parents as problematic. These materials are collected from Bilibili.com, a major Chinese user-generated video-sharing platform, particularly popular among young adults. The keywords used for search include “original family” (yuan sheng jia ting) and “toxic parents”(you du fu mu). The selected videos share several characteristics: (1)they are narrated in the first person, feature a single narrator, and (2) present relatively complete narrative structures with a duration of approximately 10–20 minutes; (3) the content involves parental roles, key events, and moral evaluations of parents. Since the analysis will focus on the narrativity, videos that consist solely of emotional venting or clinical/pathological diagnoses are excluded from the selection. The analysis includes two steps. In the first step, I examine the narrative structure of online parental-blaming accounts. Rather than treating these narratives as personal testimonies, I focus on how they are organized as recognizable story forms by identifying key elements that emerged in online parental blaming narratives, such as key actors, emblematic events, and main plots (Giaxoglou and Georgakopoulou, 2021). This analysis foregrounds how moral roles and responsibilities are narratively distributed. Then, I will examine the positioning embedded in these narratives (Bamberg, 2020) e.g., how the narrator presents the main characters (e.g., “problematic” parents and innocent children), how such characters are evaluated and classified and how does the narrator dis/connect their accounts to the meta-narratives (e.g., traditional family ethics of filial piety and psychological discourse about parenting)? Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings *Preliminary findings and expected discussion My analysis identifies several ways in which psychological discourse shapes moral–emotional negotiations and the construction of “problematic parenting” in online parental-blaming narratives. First, psychological discourse provides a new language for understanding parent–child relationships, emphasizing equality, emotional closeness, and mutual understanding. At the same time, it offers interpretive frameworks through which “problematic parenting” is diagnosed and labelled. Second, psychological knowledge contributes to a broader therapeutic culture that legitimizes the articulation of individual pain and suffering within the family domain, thereby strengthening the moral position of (adult) children and reinforcing their claims to victimhood. Third, this psychological orientation is also reflected in a strong self-help ethos, through which adult children emphasize their capacity to reflect on past experiences and overcome adverse family environments, whether through reconciliation or through cutting ties with parents. Within this framework, parents are often constructed as sources of emotional harm and, at times, as childlike figures in need of awakening, tolerance, or even rescue. By contrast, adult children are positioned as morally and emotionally competent problem-solvers. These narratives also reveal tensions between psychological discourse and traditional family ethics centered on filial piety. As parenting becomes increasingly psychologized, the traditional “sacrifice–gratitude” logic in parent–child relationships is gradually replaced by a discourse grounded in rights and responsibilities. Unconditional parental care is framed as both a natural duty and a legal obligation, while parental expectations of gratitude and obedience are increasingly problematized, particularly when such expectations produce guilt, emotional pain, or lasting psychological distress among children. In this sense, parental blaming functions as a key strategy through which the moral and emotional order of contemporary family relationships is renegotiated. References Bamberg, M. (2020). Narrative analysis: An integrative approach. In M. Järvinen & N. Mik-Meyer (Eds.), Qualitative analysis: Eight approaches for the social sciences (pp. 244–264). Sage. Giaxoglou, K., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2022). A narrative practice approach to identities: Small stories and positioning analysis in digital contexts. In M. G. W. Bamberg, M. Watzlawik, & C. Demuth (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of identity (pp. 241–261). Cambridge University Press. Lee, E., Bristow, J., Faircloth, C., & Macvarish, J. (2014). Parenting culture studies. Palgrave Macmillan. Li, M. (2023). Lighting up the darkness: The emergence of the “family of origin” discourse in China. Journal of Family Communication, 23(2), 123–138. Li, M. (2025). Psychologizing the family: How a subversive discourse went mainstream. Journal of Family Communication. Advance online publication. Liu, F. (2016). The rise of the “priceless” child in China. Comparative Education Review, 60(1), 105–130. Liu, J. (2022). Childhood in urban China: A three-generation portrait. Current Sociology, 70(4), 598–617. Morgan, D. H. (2001). Family sociology in from the fringe: The three “economies” of family life. In R. G. Burgess & A. Murcott (Eds.), Developments in sociology (pp. 227–247). Routledge. Ramaekers, S., & Suissa, J. (2012). The claims of parenting: Reasons, responsibility, and society. Springer. Whyte, M. K. (1997). The fate of filial obligations in urban China. The China Journal, 38, 1–31. | ||