Public Sector Education and Gender Inequality: A Mixed-Method Study in Metropolis City of Pakistan

Introduction

Pakistan is ranked as the third-worst country in the world in terms of gender inequality. According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), its position is 151 out of 153 countries in the gender parity index. In comparison, the slope exhibits a drastic decline from 112 in 2006 to 151 in 2020, far behind Bangladesh and India, which scored 72.6 and 112, respectively (Ahmed, 2019). Gender segregation adversely affects socioeconomic well-being and has a significant relationship with the increased poverty of the nation (Rahman, Chaudhry, & Farooq, 2018).

Researchers have reported that educational institutions play a pivotal role in propagating gender inequality. Oftentimes, educators are bound by conventional ideologies of masculinity and femininity (Gul, Khan, Mughal, Rehman, & Saif, 2012; Pardhan & Pelletier, 2017), which are reflected in classroom practices that are insensitive to gender (Kalra & Sharma, 2019; Sultan, Shah, & Fazal, 2019). Most classroom practices impose hidden oppressions that disadvantage and marginalize girls in different ways (Mahmood & Kausar, 2019). In addition, boys' dominance is evident in co-education classes (Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2007) and, no appropriate and prompt actions are taken when boys engage in abusive language and violence against women. In fact, behaviors are normalized by teachers (McCullough, 2017), which leads to an imbalanced environment (Kalra & Sharma, 2019). The patriarchal society of Pakistan adheres to gender-segregating beliefs, such as that men are breadwinners and women are housewives (Rehman & Roomi, 2012) and women are portrayed as passive, dependent, and submissive in textbooks used in educational institutions (Islam & Asadullah, 2018). In addition, men are described as “brave”, “strong”, and “rational”, while women are described as “emotional”, “pretty”, and “sweet” (Mahmood & Kausar, 2019). As part of the instructional design, textbooks, which are considered essential learning tools for students, are aligned with the instructions to impart stereotypical social roles to students (Durrani, 2008). Gender discrimination persists throughout the academic life course (Winslow & Davis, 2016), which results in the systematic transfer of developed ideologies across generations.

While it is commonly assumed that in urban settings, gender discrimination is not prevalent and equal opportunities flourish, Faizi and Butt (2017) and Mehmood, Chong, and Hussein (2018) clearly demonstrate that female education is still restricted despite opportunities available. This study focuses on identifying settled urban educators' beliefs and practices regarding differentiating social gender roles in public-sector institutions. Moreover, this study compares participants' mindsets at the primary and university levels, including junior and senior staff members, to determine whether there is a discrepancy based on their employment status and experience.

Literature Review

Research Methodology

This research study is designed to identify traditional beliefs regarding gender roles and discrimination in established urban public-sector educational institutions in Pakistan. A mix of surveys and one-on-one phone interviews was used to collect data for this study. The quantitative part was designed to manifest the extent of gender bias among the participants and to generalize the findings. Qualitative methods allowed the researcher to delve deeper into the participants' minds and gain a fuller understanding of the underlying reasons for stereotypical ideologies. CDA manifests itself through qualitative analysis. According to Van Dijk (2006), CDA is guided primarily by the desire to understand pressing social problems. Wodak and Meyer (2009) assert that CDA highlights the requirement for interdisciplinary work to understand how language functions in the constitution and transmission of knowledge in the creation of social institutions. Rogers, Malancharuvil-Berkes, Mosley, Hui, and Joseph (2005) noted that critical theories are most often associated with issues of power and impartiality, and the ways in which economics, race, class, gender, religion, education, and sexual orientation construct and change social systems.

The analysis comprises an analysis of texts, communications, and social practices at the local, institutional, and societal levels. The policies of teaching and learning can be better understood by observing the social problems of the wider community, as well as the language and type of texts used. A Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) was conducted to understand how educational actors’ interactions may affect students’ career paths, individual freedom, and social and cultural forces. In addition, it was conducted to understand what kind of knowledge is emphasized and deemed significant for boys and girls. As suggested by Alkin and McNeil (2001) and Mullet (2018), there was a focus on critical analysis of the above aspects in the spoken language of actors.

The following steps suggested by Mullet (2018, p.7) were employed in this study:

• 1. Select the discourse concerning inequality/injustice.
• 2. Locate and prepare data sources from text/ interview transcripts.
• 3. Investigate the cultural and social context of given data.
• 4. Code texts and identify overarching themes (this can be done through thematic analysis).
• 5. Analysis of external relations/interdiscursivity (i.e., dominant social practices in institutions such as schools).
• 6. Analysis of internal relations (e.g., leading statements, applications of spoken language, context, and speakers' positionality).
• 7. Interpret the data in light of the major themes identified in steps 4, 5, and 6.

After transcribing interviews, the thematic analysis was carried out.

Research Objectives

• 1. Identifying and comparing teachers/administrators’ traditional beliefs of gender roles with respect to their demographics such as pay scale, qualification, level of teaching and experience of teaching, job status, type of school, father’s education, and mother’s education.
• 2. Identify teachers/administrators’ classroom practices toward gender inequality and discrimination in urban public educational institutions. (Determine how teachers’ classroom practices contribute to gender inequality and discrimination among students).
• 3. Investigate teacher’s/administrators attitudes with respect to social change in gender roles.

The quantitative part was designed to meet the requirements of research objective 1, and semi-structured interviews were conducted for research objectives 2 and 3. Research objective 1 examined the significance of the dependent variable with respect to independent factors (pay scale, qualification, level of teaching and experience in teaching, job title, type of school, father's, and mother's education). The p-value was used to determine if the differences prevailed, which was possible using a quantitative method. Research objectives 2 and 3 were subjective in nature and required in-depth analysis. Different participants may hold different views and engage in various modes of discussion with students. The problem could not be resolved quantitatively; therefore, a qualitative interview was considered appropriate.

The interview questions included the following:

• 1. “What is the purpose of education for girls and boys in public-sector schools in urban setting?”;
• 2. “What are your beliefs regarding the importance of higher education for female students at public-sector institutions?”;
• 3. “What social roles should male and female teachers perform?”;
• 4. “In what type of discussions are you involved with your students regarding building their careers?

The purpose of interview question 4 was to find answers to Research objective 2. “In what type of discussions, are you involved with your students regarding building their careers?” intends to ask about teacher-pupils’ engagement in “discussion” that is regarded as indirect yet an essential part of teaching and learning in educational institutions.

In the fieldwork, the researchers interviewed all the participants and transcribed all the interviews using direct literal (secretarial) methods. This was achieved by recording audio calls from 10 participants. These recorded calls were then transferred into a computer compact file, and the material was prepared for coding.

Demographics of the quantitative sample

Demographic information showed that most of the participants from public-sector institutions were teachers (145), whereas 54 managers (heads of institutes) and six administrators (DEOs) also contributed to the study. Participants’ basic pay scale (BPS) and grade ranged from grades 9 to 20; however, most of the participants (55) had BPS 17 at the time of the data collection study.

Of the participants, 71% had obtained a Master's degree; however, 16% had higher qualifications, such as an M.Phil. or Ph.D. The most common group was secondary school teachers, from which 60 participants responded. Moreover, it was found that 51% of the participants had a social science background in comparison to 31% of participants from a natural science background. Forty percent of participants had more than 16 years of teaching experience. Table 1 below shows a brief demographic summary.

Table 1

Demographics of the Participants

Instrument’s reliability

Questions to collect responses adopted from Social Role Questionnaire (Baber & Tucker, 2006) based on 13 questions (five reverse coded) where every statement response was collected on a 10-point Likert scale (0% = strongly disagree and 100% = strongly agree). This instrument was designed to manifest perceptions and beliefs about gender roles; lower scores indicate less traditional beliefs. Instrument reliability was ensured using Cronbach’s alpha value, which was 0.588 (> 0.5).

Quantitative Results for Traditional Beliefs

Traditional beliefs were analyzed by stratifying participants into three groups:

• > 70% scores = higher traditional beliefs
• Between 40% to 70% = moderate traditional beliefs
• < 40% scores = lower traditional beliefs

Gul et al. (2012) reported that the majority of educators valued traditional gender stereotypes. Data analysis is aligned with the study of Gul et al. (2012), which showed that only three participants had less traditional beliefs, 68 participants had a high level of traditional beliefs, and 134 participants had a moderate level of traditional beliefs (Refer to Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Level of traditional beliefs among public-sector instructors in Pakistan. (Developed by Authors)

Statistical analysis regarding demographic relationships with traditional beliefs was also conducted, and the results showed no significant relationship, as highlighted by Gul et al. (2012).

Gender Differences and Effect of Demographics on Traditional Role Beliefs

To determine the influence of gender on differences in opinions regarding beliefs about traditional social roles, an independent sample t-test was run. Data analysis indicated that there are no differences, and gender has no influence on beliefs, as the p-value is > 0.05. Levene’s test of equity assumes equal variance (see Table 2). This shows that males and females have similar beliefs about gender roles.

Table 2

Independent Samples Test (For Gender Differences)

Similarly, to evaluate the impact of job status, type of school (co-education, pure girls’/pure boys’ school), father’s education, and mother’s education on beliefs for traditional roles, one-way ANOVA tests were run. These variables have no influence on traditional beliefs as no significant difference in mean values were observed and p-value > 0.05 (Refer to Tables 3, 4, 5, 6). Similarly, to determine the influence of fathers’ and mothers’ professions and marital status on beliefs, one-way ANOVA was also used, and no influences were found.

Table 3

Impact of Job Status (Teachers, Managers and Administrators)

Table 4

Impact of Type School (Co-Education, Boys only, Girls only)

Table 5

Impact of Father’s Education

Table 6

Impact of Mother’s Education

To assess the influences of BPS, qualifications, level of teaching, and experience of teaching beliefs regarding traditional social roles, Pearson’s correlation test was run using SPSS. The BPS was used as a basis for determining salaries. The higher the BPS, the higher the salary and status (primary to secondary); however, more experience may lead to higher salaries for similar BPS. Participants in this study had BPS 09, 10, 14, 15,..., 20. BPS 09 reflects newly recruited teachers in primary education (grades I to V), BPS 14 describes newly hired elementary school teachers (grades VI to VII), BPS 16 displays newly hired high school teachers (grades IX to X), and BPS 17 refers to higher secondary school teachers/college level teachers. The BPS and salaries are revised based on years of experience. Researchers also inquired about qualifications to compare whether beliefs are dependent on years of education, namely, 14 years of education (bachelors), 16 (Masters), 18 (M.Phil), and 21 years (Ph.Ds).

Results highlighted that the BPS, qualification, experience, and level of teaching have no influence on traditional beliefs regarding gender roles (Refer to Table 7).

Table 7

Pearson’s Correlations

Qualitative Findings

Qualitative data analysis was achieved through a standard procedure of transcribing interviews and reported under the headings of the themes generated after discourse analysis.

Discussion and Conclusion

The purpose of this study is to investigate how gender-based instruction is incorporated into mainstream education in Pakistan's metropolitan areas. The literature has revealed that throughout history, public-sector educational institutions have used their power and social positions to reproduce gender inequality (Islam & Asadullah, 2018). The results of the current study also support the literature and reveal that the majority of educators hold conventional gender-role beliefs, despite working in an urban setting where discriminatory beliefs are considered less significant than in rural areas, and very few (only three participants) held less traditional beliefs. In line with previous studies, the quantitative analysis of this study found that participants' traditional beliefs are not related to differences in their demographics, such as years of teaching experience, gender, or type of institution (Gul et al., 2012). In the same vein, different scholars have found similar teachers' stereotypical mindsets at different levels of teaching, that is, from the pre-primary to university level (Gul et al., 2012; Kalra & Sharma, 2019; Mahmood & Kausar, 2019; Pardhan & Pelletier, 2017). Similarly, Pearson's correlation in the current study has also shown that level of teaching has no influence on gender stereotype beliefs. Although most scholars have noted that demographics have no influence on a stereotypical mindset (Esen, Soylu, & Sagkal, 2019) research outcomes showed that parental education, designation, and qualification have a significant relationship with gender-role perception. In contrast to the study of Esen et al. (2019), the current research did not find any relationship between these variables. More in-depth studies are needed to uncover the reasons for the development of gender stereotypes in both urban and rural settings, and demographics or other factors should be studied in detail to determine their core causes.

The qualitative analysis has generated themes and insight toward gender discrimination beliefs, and using the CDA approach, the following themes have emerged:

• ･ Gendered aims
• ･ Discouraging higher education
• ･ A rigid mindset
• ･ Teaching as a feminine profession

Researchers such as Paulo Freire, and Bell Hooks have argued that schools are institutions that construct social realities and have greater impacts on the thought patterns of students. However, Bizzell (1991) mentioned that instead of reforming the minds of generations, they contribute to widening inequalities. The current study results also support Bizzell ’s (1991) mention of inequalities and the interview data have highlighted that the intended aim of education for girls is different from that for boys. Boys' education is considered vital to achieve a desired and valued social position and take part in economic contribution. In contrast, girls' education seems to help them acquire skills that develop them uncritically, into morally rich daughters, devoted wives, and responsible mothers, who could also bear the burden of the dual responsibilities of work and home when the husband is unable to cover family expenditures. It was found that teachers perceive that girls should engage in less challenging, low-earning jobs and, prove to be dependent, obedient daughters and mothers willing to sacrifice; accepting more home and kinship duties. Due to fewer assumed working hours, teaching is regarded as a feminine profession (Siddiqui et al., 2019; Ullah, 2016) and the best earnings platform for girls outside the home. According to Paulo Freire (1996, cited in Ziv, 2015), seeing teaching as a feminine activity and teachers as aunts underestimates the actual responsibilities of teachers in society. Along with the teaching profession, cultural arts are also suggested without acknowledging their interests and abilities. According to Kalra and Sharma (2019), gender-based violence and gender stereotypes abound in Indian schools, where teachers discourage girls from pursuing careers of their own interest. Women should maintain their status as being virtuous, compassionate, and willing to provide quality services to cherished kinship ties.

Participants also believed that young girls may spend time with textbooks that are gender-discriminatory, as expressed by Sultan et al. (2019). Teachers base their lessons on these textbooks, exaggerating the role and involvement of women in Pakistani society (Islam & Asadullah, 2018), which directly or indirectly harms the country’s education system and social structure. Moreover, gender discrimination continues to be mediated through education due to teachers' ignorance, unawareness, and inclusive approaches to social issues and social change (Giroux, 2014). McCullough (2017) argues that when girls stop being silent to resist oppression, schools propagate biased treatment toward them, and they are forced to accept and acknowledge male dominance. The conclusion indicates that participants ideally prefer a gendered society in both rural and urban areas, where men's social positions are considered superior and women's inferior and where important decisions should not be made by women without men's knowledge and consent (Hooks, 1989).

The consequences of this gendered mindset have been discussed by Faizi and Butt (2017), Mehmood et al. (2018), and Nausheen and Richardson (2018), who revealed that the percentage of girls in the labor market is very low, as most of them do not continue their education at a higher level even in urban contexts. Moreover, people in both rural and urban areas prioritize investments in dowries over educational opportunities for girls (Mughal, 2018), implying that educators are blind to the existing taboos that make girls unproductive and indecisive. A strong belief has been observed that women in affluent families are more inclined to perform only the traditional role, as balancing work and family life is one of the biggest challenges for them in patriarchal Pakistani society (Rehman & Roomi, 2012). However, at the same time, it is considered practical for women to work outside and fulfill their family responsibilities if needed.

Acknowledgments

The authors greatly appreciate the reviewers who have dedicated their considerable time and expertise to improvise this paper from its submission to its acceptance. The authors would also like to thank Editage (www.editage.co.kr) for English language editing.

References

• Afzal, M., Butt, A. R., Akbar, R. A., & Roshi, S. (2013). Gender disparity in Pakistan: A case study of middle and secondary education in Punjab. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 7(2), 113–124. [https://doi.org/10.3126/ijssm.v3i4.15962]
• Ahmed. A, (2019). Pakistan ranked 151 out of 153 countries on the Global Gender Gap Index: World Economic Forum report. Retrieved August 6, 2022, from https://www.dawn.com/news/1522778
• Al-Hibri, A. (2000). An introduction to Muslim women’s rights. In W. Gisela (Ed.), Windows of Faith: Muslim Women Scholar-activists in North America (pp. 51–71). Syracuse University Press, New York, USA.
• Alkin, M.C., & McNeil, J.D. (2001). Curriculum Evaluation. In J.S. Neil and B.B. Paul (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 3191-3195). Pergamon, Oxford, United Kingdom. [https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/02417-7]
• Assari, S., & Caldwell, C. H. (2018). Teacher discrimination reduces school performance of African American youth: Role of gender. Brain Sciences, 8(10), 183. [https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci8100183]
• Baber, K. M., & Tucker, C. J. (2006). The Social Roles Questionnaire: A new approach to measuring attitudes toward gender. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 54(7–8), 459–467. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9018-y]
• Bizzell, P. (1991). Classroom authority and critical pedagogy. American Literary History, 3(4), 847–863. [https://doi.org/10.1093/alh/3.4.847]
• Daraz, U., Ahmad, A., & Bilal, M. (2018). Gender inequality in education: An analysis of socio-cultural factors and impacts on the economic development of Malakand, Pakistan. Liberal Arts and Social Sciences International Journal (LASSIJ), 2(2), 50–58. [https://doi.org/10.47264/idea.lassij/2.2.6]
• Durrani, N. (2008). Schooling the ‘other’: The representation of gender and national identities in Pakistani curriculum texts. Compare, 38(5), 595–610. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920802351374]
• Esen, E., Soylu, Y., & Sagkal, A. S. (2019). Gender perceptions of prospective teachers: The role of socio-demographic factors. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(2), 201–213. [https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2019.02.013]
• Faizi, W.U.N., & Butt, M. N. (2017). Higher education for women in Peshawar: Barriers and issues. Al-Idah, 35(2), 72–84.
• Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum, 2007.
• Giroux, H. A. (2014). When schools become dead zones of the imagination: A critical pedagogy manifesto. Policy Futures in Education, 12(4), 491–499. [https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2014.12.4.491]
• Gul, S., Khan, M. B., Mughal, S., Rehman, S. U., & Saif, N. (2012). Gender stereotypes and teachers’ perceptions (the case of Pakistan). Information and Knowledge Management, 2(7), 17–28.
• Hooks, B. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Boston: South End Press.
• Islam, K. M. M., & Asadullah, M. N. (2018). Gender stereotypes and education: A comparative content analysis of Malaysian, Indonesian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi school textbooks. PloS ONE, 13(1), e0190807. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190807]
• Kalra, D., & Sharma, A. (2019). Gender sensitisation: A catalyst to revamp the society. Journal of the Gujarat Research Society, 21(16), 491–500.
• Kapur, R. (2019). Gender inequality in education. International Journal of Transformations in Business Management, 4(1), 1–12. Retrieved May 16, 2020, from http://www.ijtbm.com
• Mahmood, T., & Kausar, G. (2019). Female teachers' perceptions of gender bias in Pakistani English textbooks. Asian Women, 35(4), 109–126. [https://doi.org/10.14431/aw.2019.12.35.4.109]
• McCullough, S. (2017). “I Hope Nobody Feels Harassed”: Teacher complicity in gender inequality in a middle school. Girlhood Studies, 10(1), 55–70. [https://doi.org/10.3167/ghs.2017.100105]
• Mehmood, S., Chong, L., & Hussain, M. (2018). Females’ higher education in Pakistan: An analysis of socio-economic and cultural challenges. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 5(6), 379–397. [https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.56.4658]
• Mitcho, S. R. (2016). Feminist pedagogy. In: M. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory (pp. 1–5). Singapore: Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_235-1]
• Mughal, A. W. (2018). Investigating the issue of out-of-school children in rural Pakistan: Implications for policymakers (Doctoral dissertation). Loughborough University, UK.
• Muhammad, A., Haq, Z. U., & Khan, I. (2018). Household discrimination in school enrolment in Pakistan: Does gender matter? Journal of Applied Economics and Business Studies, 2(1), 29–36. [https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.213]
• Mullet, D. R. (2018). A general critical discourse analysis framework for educational research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29(2), 116–142. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X18758260]
• Nausheen, M., & Richardson, P. W. (2018). Gender and disciplinary differences in future plans of postgraduate students in Pakistan. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 10(2), 338–361.
• Pardhan, A., & Pelletier, J. (2017). Pakistani pre-primary teachers’ perceptions and practices related to gender in young children. International Journal of Early Years Education, 25(1), 51–71. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2016.1263938]
• Qureshi, M. G. (2012). The gender differences in school enrolment and returns to education in Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review, 51(3), 219–256. [https://doi.org/10.30541/v51i3pp.219-256]
• Rahman, S., Chaudhry, I. S., & Farooq, F. (2018). Gender inequality in education and household poverty in Pakistan: A case of Multan District. Review of Economics and Development Studies, 4(1), 115–126. [https://doi.org/10.26710/reads.v4i1.286]
• Rehman, S., & Roomi, M. A. (2012). Gender and work-life balance: A phenomenological study of women entrepreneurs in Pakistan. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(2), 209–228. [https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001211223865]
• Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. O. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 365–416. [https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003365]
• Rosa, R., & Clavero, S. (2022). Gender equality in higher education and research. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(1), 1–7. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2022.2007446]
• Rotter, T. M. (2019). Gender inequality in Pakistan: Causes and consequences from feminist and anthropological perspectives (Master dissertation, Universitat Jaume I). Retrieved August 7, 2022, from http://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/handle/10234/183266, .
• Sahibzada, H. E., Tayyab, M., & Khan. K. (2019). A comparative study of gender inequality in education pertaining to economic and socio-cultural aspects at secondary school level in district Swabi. University of Wah Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 75–94.
• Salik, M., & Zhiyong, Z. (2014). Gender discrimination and inequalities in higher education: A case study of rural areas of Pakistan. Academic Research International, 5(2), 269–276.
• Siddiqui, S., Nazar, N., Hussain, S., & Ali, W. (2019). Impact of mother’s teaching profession on children’s growth: A study on teaching mothers in metropolis city of Pakistan. Journal of Independent Studies & Research: Management and Social Sciences & Economics, 17(2), 139–154. [https://doi.org/10.31384/jisrmsse/2019.17.2.10]
• Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2007). Gender inequality in the primary classroom: Will interactive whiteboards help? Gender and Education, 19(4), 455–469. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250701442658]
• Stamarski, C. S., & Son Hing, L. S. (2015). Gender inequalities in the workplace: The effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision makers’ sexism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1400. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01400]
• Sultan, R. S., Shah, N., & Fazal, A. (2019). Gender representation in public school textbooks of Balochistan. Pakistan Journal of Applied Social Sciences, 9, 55–70. [https://doi.org/10.46568/pjass.v9i1.328]
• Tenvir, F. (2015). The educational experiences and life choices of British Pakistani Muslim women: An ethnographic case study (Doctoral dissertation). University of Worcester, UK.
• Ullah, H. (2016). School teaching as a feminine profession: The legitimization and naturalization discourses in Pakistani context. In Papers from the Education Doctoral Research Conference Saturday 28 November 2015 (p. 122-130). Retrieved May 16, 2020, from http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/education/courses/postgraduate-research/doctoral-research-conference.aspx
• Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250]
• Winslow, S., & Davis, S. N. (2016). Gender inequality across the academic life course. Sociology Compass, 10(5), 404–416. [https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12372]
• Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. In W. Ruth and M. Michael (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd revised (pp. 1-33). Sage, London, United Kingdom.
• Zarar, R., Bukhsh, M., & Khaskheli, W. (2017). Causes and consequences of gender discrimination against women in Quetta City. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 8(3), 1–6.
• Ziv, H. G. (2015). Feminist pedagogy in early childhood teachers' education. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(6), 197–211. [https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v3i6.1072]