Educational Review

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cedr20

Gender equality matters: a precious “GEM” to tackle

gender inequality through a whole-school community
educational programme

Seline Keating & Catherine R. Baker

To cite this article: Seline Keating & Catherine R. Baker (2025) Gender equality matters: a
precious “GEM” to tackle gender inequality through a whole-school community educational
programme, Educational Review, 77:3, 710-730, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2023.2224939

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2023.2224939

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 10 Jul 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4470

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedr20
EDUCATIONAL REVIEW
2025, VOL. 77, NO. 3, 710–730
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2023.2224939

Gender equality matters: a precious “GEM” to tackle gender

inequality through a whole-school community educational
programme
a b
Seline Keating and Catherine R. Baker
a
School of Human Development, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland; bDCU National Anti-Bullying Centre,
Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper analyses the efficacy of the Gender Equality Matters (GEM) Received 16 December 2022
educational programme in raising awareness, building confidence, Accepted 7 June 2023
and enhancing capacity levels among children to tackle gender
KEYWORDS
stereotyping, gender-based bullying and gender-based violence Sex/gender; primary/
(GBV). While many primary schools are open to engaging children in elementary years; children;
the aforementioned topics, current literature perceives the lack of curriculum; equality/
age-appropriate classroom materials, curriculum overload, and inequality; inclusion/
specific training for both parents and teachers, as existing barriers. exclusion
GEM is an EU-funded project, including over 2,500 participants across
five partner countries (Ireland, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands, Greece).
This paper focuses on the children who participated in this study in
the Irish primary school context (aged 10–13 years old). Pre- and
post-questionnaires, semi-structured focus groups, visual cues, and
lesson evaluations were utilised to gain an insight into the
effectiveness of the GEM programme on this target group (n = 693).
Post participation findings indicate that pupils reported a better
understanding of gender equality relevant terminology, and
increased confidence levels were they to be a victim of, or witness to,
gender stereotyping, gender-based bullying and GBV. Overall, the
findings suggest a need for primary school education programmes
on the above topics. Although there have been many efforts to
promote gender equality, including legislative and policy changes,
our findings highlight the positive and enduring role of whole-school
community educational programmes, like GEM, to instil societal
change, to inspire and empower at both national and global levels.

Introduction: gender inequality and gender-based violence

Achieving gender equality is widely considered an ambitious but pressing universal
objective. Gender equality indexes assessing global and European contexts demonstrate
clear and persistent disparities across many aspects of life, including economic, employ­
ment, social and political power, educational attainment, and distribution of unpaid
labour (EIGE, 2021; WEF, 2022). Ireland, for example, ranks 7th amongst all European

CONTACT Seline Keating [email protected] School of Human Development, Dublin City University, Dublin,
Ireland @KeatingSeline, @cathy__baker
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s)
or with their consent.
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 711

Union (EU) countries for gender equality, demonstrating both significant gain and areas
for improvement. Moreover, globally, the 16th edition of The Global Gender Gap Index
(WEF, 2022) highlights how the COVID-19 pandemic and related economic downturn dis­
proportionately affected women, with particularly pronounced effects on gender parity in
the workforce, amplifying long-standing structural barriers and unequal distribution of
caring responsibilities (WEF, 2022).
A central facet of the move towards gender equality is the elimination of gender-
based violence – i.e. “violence that is directed against a person on the basis of their
sex or gender [including] acts that inflict emotional, physical, mental or sexual harm
or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion and other deprivations of liberty” (Dlamini,
2020, p. 583) Gender-based violence (GBV) is a pervasive systemic global issue, with
recent WHO (2021) statistics estimating that 1 in 3 women experience physical or
sexual violence across their lifetime (a figure that has remained relatively stable over
the past decade). Notably, the risks of GBV are amplified for women who face further
marginalisation due to ethnicity, migration status and/or socioeconomic status
(Mayock et al., 2012; Ozcurumez et al., 2021). GBV has many adverse and persistent
effects on women, including social, economic and health-related effects (Brudvig
et al., 2020; Rees et al., 2011; Vázquez et al., 2012). Significantly, experiences of GBV
often began in childhood, with a survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamen­
tal Rights (2014) finding that one-third of women in the EU reported experiencing phys­
ical and/or sexual violence before age 15.

Childhood development, gender roles, and gender stereotypes

Gender inequality is underpinned by social, culturally and institutionally ingrained gen­
dered social structures, which are internalised and expressed by children in their early
years of development. Children as young as three to four years old have been shown to
ascribe physical appearance, roles, occupations, objects and colours and aggression
levels to specific genders (Martin & Ruble, 2010). While predominant naturalistic assump­
tions about childhood have often assumed children as “gender innocent”, Keddie (2003,
p. 297) used ethnographic case studies to explore the way in which young boys socially
define and maintain norms of masculinity, challenging these existing essentialist narratives.
Children not only show knowledge of culturally developed gender roles and stereo­
types from a young age, they learn to behave in “gender appropriate” ways, often adopt­
ing behaviours and interests in line with these. Children who step outside these socially
ordained gendered ways of behaving are often subject to adverse evaluations by both
peers and parents (Freeman, 2007; Owen Blakemore, 2003). These patterns demonstrate
the development and internalisation of gender roles – “the widely accepted social rules
about roles, traits, behaviours, status and power associated with masculinity and feminin­
ity in a given culture” (Kågesten et al., 2016, p. 3) and gender stereotypes – “structured
sets of beliefs about personal attributes, e.g. interests, competencies, and roles, of men
and women” (Kollmayer et al., 2018, p. 366).
These norms and expectations manifest in many settings, including education. For
example, research demonstrates that boys and girls express different competency
beliefs in subjects such as maths and English, often persisting when controlled for skill
differences (OECD, 2014). The expression of gendered competency beliefs in, and
712 S. KEATING AND C. R. BAKER

strengthening across, childhood demonstrates the critical importance of childhood as a

period of gender role socialisation and gender stereotype internalisation. As summarised
by Cerbara and colleagues (2022, p. 2):
[D]uring the primary school years, together with the family context, the socio-cultural
context, teachers, peers and the media play a crucial role in the acquisition of social con­
straints that have long-term impacts on their aspirations and the perception of their oppor­
tunities, affecting also their relational and psychological well-being.

Researchers have consistently identified early adolescence (10-14 years of age) as a critical
period for developing and intensifying negative attitudes towards gender and gender
relations. A systematic review found that, across cultural settings, children aged 10–14
commonly endorse gender norms, stereotypes and or inequitable gender relations
(Kågesten et al., 2016), highlighting early adolescence as a crucial time for developing
and implementing education programmes that challenge reductive gender norms and
gender stereotypes.
Importantly, gender norms do not exist in a vacuum. Instead, they function to uphold
gendered social arrangements, reproducing and naturalising gender differences (Talbot,
2003). Hegemonic masculine ideals – “constellations of actions that protect and reinforce
the dominant position of men in a society” (Salazar et al., 2020, p. 2) – reinforce expec­
tations that men should be assertive, rational, risk-taking, heterosexual, aggressive, and
socially dominant to women (Kågesten et al., 2016). In contrast, gendered norms
and expectations of girls involve caretaking, accommodating, nurturing and modesty
(Prentice & Carranza, 2002). Such norms are mutually reproductive and reinforce the
idea that women are innately submissive to men in traditional heteronormative, hierarch­
ical social arrangements (Moreau et al., 2019).
Gender norms play a role in the normalisation of gender inequality and the enactment
of GBV (Heise, 1998). For example, high endorsement of traditional gender norms has
been repeatedly associated with the perpetration of domestic and sexual violence (Carr
& Vandeusen, 2004; Jewkes, 2002). In addition, the inability to meet cultural gender
norms has been associated with ostracism and victimisation. Men and boys who trans­
gress gendered norms or engage in activities traditionally associated with women and
girls often face stigmatisation and even violence (Adams et al., 2016). Moreover,
women who transgress traditional feminine gender roles are commonly the victim of dis­
crimination (Gordon & Meyer, 2008; Riggle, 2018). Reaching into childhood, research has
demonstrated the negative impact of gender expectations and norms on the well-being
and mental health of both boys and girls in the school context (Pearson, 2021; Stentiford
et al., 2021). However, such gender norms and expectations remain deeply culturally
engrained, continuously reconstructed and sustained across social and institutional set­
tings, including education (Salazar et al., 2020).

Gender-transformative education: mechanisms for societal change

Due to the pervasive negative impact of gender norms and stereotypes, researchers, pol­
icymakers, and educators have increasingly focused on proactive approaches to disrupt
and disentangle attitudes and behaviour that underpin gender inequality. Policy and
research recommendations have emphasised the critical importance of education
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 713

programmes as a site for challenging social attitudes that normalise gender discrimi­
nation and gendered harassment. Researchers from the Irish Consortium on Gender-
Based Violence emphasise schools as a central institutional setting in which gender
inequalities are reinforced and normalised and, thus, a fundamental site for interventions
challenging said norms (Dunne & Suvilaakso, 2012).
One way in which this approach has been enacted is through the development of
gender-transformative education programmes – i.e. “those which overtly aim to transform
gender norms and promote gender-equitable attitudes and practices” (Peretz et al., 2020,
p. 107). Specifically, gender-transformative approaches to education include explicit focus
and critical reflection on gender norms, stereotypes and expectations (Casey et al., 2018).
Many gender-transformative education programmes advocate for positive, healthy
understandings of masculinity, promoting characteristics such as emotional regulation,
empathy, inclusion and fostering supportive relationships (Banyard et al., 2019; Perez-
Martınez et al., 2021). In addition, several gender-transformative education programmes
focus on increasing the role of “bystanders,” i.e. “third parties who witness risk or who
have the potential to model prosocial norms” (Banyard et al., 2019, p. 166).
Gender-transformative education programmes have been shown to be effective in
many areas. For example, a review of fifteen gender-transformative educational pro­
grammes worldwide found that such programmes showed consistently positive results
in combatting harmful gender norms, attitudes, and stereotypes (Perez-Martınez et al.,
2021). Moreover, gender-transformative approaches have also been shown to be
effective in improving positive sexual health behaviours (Fleming et al., 2016; Lohan
et al., 2022) and reducing GBV (Dworkin et al., 2013; Perez-Martınez et al., 2021).
Notably, gender-transformative approaches have been found to be most effective in
influencing attitudinal changes among children and young adolescents. Blum (2020)
found that gender-transformative education programmes aimed at a younger audience
(i.e. school-based education aimed at those under 16) were more effective than those
aimed at older audiences due to the increased malleability of attitudes. Furthermore,
Ollis and colleagues (2022) demonstrated the effectiveness of a whole-school education
approach to combat gender stereotypes in early primary school-age children in the Aus­
tralian context. These forms of gender-transformative education form an integral part of
respectful relationship education.
Education has a key role in nurturing future generations who are not only critical thin­
kers, but also informed, empowered and prepared to build peaceful, just and inclusive
societies. In childhood, schools play a pivotal role in developing relational skills and
understanding and appreciation of sharing, fairness, mutual respect and cooperation.
For example, they aid in formulating “ … the foundational values and competencies
that are the building blocks towards the understanding of concepts such as justice,
democracy and human rights” (UNESCO and UNODC, 2019, p. 10). Therefore, the pro­
duction of quality education programmes on issues of gender equality represents an
essential avenue for equipping children with the knowledge, values, attitudes and beha­
viours they need to make ethically responsible decisions in their daily lives that support
justice and human rights (UNESCO and UNODC, 2019, p. 14). This paper focuses on the
implementation and evaluation of one such programme; Gender Equality Matters – an
EU-funded education programme focused on tackling gender stereotyping, gender-
based bullying and gender-based violence in the school setting.
714 S. KEATING AND C. R. BAKER

Intervention overview: gender equality matters

The primary aim of the Gender Equality Matters (GEM) programme is to raise awareness,
build confidence, and enhance capacity levels among children, parents and teachers to
tackle gender stereotyping, gender-based bullying and GBV. GEM was funded by the
European Union (EU) under the Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) programme, and
was a collaboration between five EU partners led by Dublin City University (Ireland).
The European partners were KMOP Social Action and Innovation Centre (Greece), Fonda­
zione Mondo Digitale (Italy), the University of Murcia Group of Researchers in Educational
Technology (Spain), and the European School Heads Association (The Netherlands). The
programme was piloted in Ireland, Spain and Greece during 2019–2021.1
While many schools are open to engaging children in education around gender stereo­
typing, gender-based bullying and GBV, the lack of age-appropriate materials to explore
these areas is perceived as a barrier. To bridge this gap, the GEM primary classroom
materials were designed specifically for 10-13-year-old pupils using an equality and
rights-based approach. Through adopting an equality and human rights-based approach,
GEM participants become positive change makers in their whole-school communities and
broader society. The lessons are grounded in the national curriculum and existing school
policies such as anti-bullying, well-being and child protection of that particular jurisdic­
tion. By embedding the GEM classroom materials within the existing curriculum and
school policy, it provides teachers with a means to tackle such sensitive topics in a safe
and age-appropriate manner.

There are five lessons in total:

1. Rights and Equality
2. Gender Stereotyping
3. Gender Stereotyping and the Media
4. Gender-based Bullying and GBV
5. Making a Difference.

The classroom materials include teacher notes and guidance, curriculum mapping, an
LGBTI + glossary of terms sheet and a list of national support services. Each lesson con­
tains specific curriculum based learning outcomes, a list of resources, key vocabulary
and extension activities if teachers wish to continue discussions on a lesson topic.
The GEM classroom materials also include Home-School-Links for each lesson to
promote and encourage meaningful parental partnerships. The inclusion of these
links in each lesson is considered a key element of this teaching resource as it provides
a trigger for conversations in the home, which extend and consolidate children’s learn­
ing in school.
Research by Priegert Coulter (2003) emphasises the critical importance of a whole-
school approach, including support from parents and teachers, when engaging adoles­
cent boys in gender equity education. Therefore, underpinned by Bronfenbrenner’s
(1979) systems theory, the GEM programme adopts a whole-school community approach
to preventative education, targeting children, adolescents, teachers, parents and preser­
vice teachers. In the classroom context, the pupils’ learning is facilitated through an array
of discussion formats to allow active pupil participation, i.e. carousels; mind-mapping.
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 715

Stimulating visuals, fictional scenarios, drama techniques and age-appropriate use of mul­
timedia resources are also utilised. All of the above methods promote collaborative learn­
ing with peers.
Examples of these classroom activities are shown in Figures 1 and 2. These images
include student copies of collaborative drawing exercises that accompanied the class­
room lesson on gender stereotyping. Figure 1 shows an example of a student copy of
classroom material from an activity termed “Inside the box”. In this exercise, students
were directed to list as many examples of stereotypical gendered behaviours as they
could think of. Figure 2 shows an example of a student copy of an accompanying class­
room material from an activity termed “Outside the box”. In this exercise, students were

Figure 1. Sample of classroom materials from lesson 2 activity “Inside the box” in which children were
directed to think of as many gender stereotypes as possible and write them inside the box image.
716 S. KEATING AND C. R. BAKER

Figure 2. Sample of classroom materials from lesson 2 activity “Outside the box” in which children
were directed to think of as many non-stereotypical behaviours as possible and write them outside
the box image.

directed to, in contrast, list as many examples of non-stereotypical gendered behaviours

as they could think of. Both activities were designed to encourage students to reflect on
the content of the classroom lesson and engage students in active discussion around
gender stereotypes with peers.
In addition, an array of training modules (whole-school staff, teachers, trainers, parents)
were developed for both online and face-to-face delivery, which included participatory,
experiential and transformative approaches, i.e. A Massive Open Online Course (MOOC).
The inclusion of GEM trainer modules with a trainer manual functions to sustain the
impact of GEM into the future.
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 717

Materials and methods

Evaluation design
The initial GEM programme was implemented from September 2018-May 2021 and
included over 2,500 participants (children, parents, stakeholders, teachers, and preservice
teachers) across all five partner countries in the initial pilot phase. The data reported in this
paper focuses solely on the implementation of GEM in Irish primary schools. Twenty-seven
primary schools participated in the GEM pilot in Ireland. For this particular cohort, data was
collected through pre- and post-evaluation questionnaires, a semi-structured focus group
and lesson evaluations. The focus groups were guided by open-ended questioning to gain
a deeper insight into the pupil’s experience and learning from the classroom materials
post-delivery. The two questionnaires (pre- and post-intervention) and five lesson evalu­
ations were administered in hardcopy format by the children’s classroom teacher, while
the focus group (n = 5) was conducted by a GEM research team member from Dublin
City University (DCU). The final pupil sample consisted of 693 pre-questionnaires and
536 post-questionnaires. For a full breakdown of the sample, see Table 1.

Ethics
Ethical approval was obtained from DCU’s Research Ethics Committee (REC) before the com­
mencement of the research. All proposed GEM evaluation tools were reviewed by the REC
prior to use. GDPR regulations were followed at all times, i.e. all hardcopy data was stored in
secure, locked cabinets; electronic data was encrypted with passwords. In the classroom
setting, participants were given an age-appropriate plain language statement explaining
the project before involvement in the programme. This statement provided details of
whom they should contact in the event of any issues/difficulties and guaranteed their
right to withdraw at any stage of the research. In addition, both the children and their guar­
dians signed consent forms assenting to participation prior to programme commencement.
Before the programme began, two critical ethical considerations were identified.
Firstly, as children aged 10 + were one of the project’s target groups, the GEM lessons

Table 1. Demographic information of pilot evaluation.

Pupil Pre-Questionnaire Pupil Post-Questionnaire
(N = 693) (N = 536)
n % n %
Gender
Female 340 49.1 293 55.0
Male 353 50.9 240 45.0
Class
5th Class 364 52.5 287 53.6
6th Class 329 47.5 248 46.4
Age
10 years 99 14.3 50 9.3
11 years 334 48.2 267 49.9
12 years 241 34.8 200 37.4
13 years 19 2.7 18 3.4
Note: N’s for post-questionnaire range from 535 to 532 due to occasional missing data, 1 non-response for age, 1 non-
response for class and 3 non-response for gender (including one student who drew in and ticked an additional “not
sure” category).
718 S. KEATING AND C. R. BAKER

would be conducted with young adolescents who may be grappling with emerging
gender and sexual identity issues. Consequently, guidelines and protocols were
implemented to ensure that all school personnel interacting with children were aware
of this and had robust strategies in place should any issues arise. Secondly, the possibility
of disclosures in relation to gender and sexuality-based bullying and violence were con­
sidered. As a result, the partner schools were guided at all times by the Child Protection
Policies of each organisation/institution, as well as the policies in place in school/youth
settings, national laws and EU guidelines. No issues or disclosures arose throughout the
programme’s duration.

Data analysis
Firstly, using SPSS, descriptive statistics were run on the pre-questionnaire responses to
evaluate pupils’ experiences of gender stereotyping, gender-based bullying and GBV to
identify gaps in the curriculum regarding these issues. Descriptive statistics were run
on pre- and post-questionnaires to evaluate participant changes in knowledge, confi­
dence and capacity levels to intervene in gender stereotyping or gender-based bullying
incidents.
Secondly, in order to ascertain a more rich qualitative description of pupils’ experience
of the GEM programme, a focus group was run with a subset of five pupils after they par­
ticipated in all five of the programme lessons. Research using participatory method­
ologies often benefits from a flexible mixed-methods approach to analysis and
evaluation (Ivankova & Wingo, 2018; Molina-Azorin & Fetters, 2019). In this case, focus
group data functioned to further elucidate the experiential and educational impacts of
the GEM programme on pupils, adding a richer understanding of the impact and out­
comes of GEM in the real-world classroom setting.
The qualitative approach adopted was thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) – a
method used to analyse and identify patterns within descriptive data. Thematic analysis’
“accessible and theoretically flexible approach to analysing qualitative data” makes it par­
ticularly useful for exploratory research (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 77). The analysis was
carried out following the following methodological steps: 1) Familiarisation with the
data 2) Generating initial codes 3) Searching for initial themes 4) Reducing and naming
themes 5) Reporting of findings.
Overall, using this combination of quantitative and qualitative, the results were cate­
gorised under the following four core themes; gaps in knowledge and victimisation
needs, intervention and bystander confidence, knowledge enhancement and application,
and community buy-in and dissemination.

Evaluation design and perspective constraints

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 12 (The United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child, 2010, p. 15) states:
Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her views the right to express
those views freely in all matters affecting the child … the child shall in particular be provided
the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the
child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 719

Incorporating this ethos into the foundation of the GEM programme, the design of the
programme evaluation focused on providing an opportunity for real-time in-person feed­
back from pupils before and after participation in the GEM programme. Therefore,
in-classroom evaluations provided an opportune channel for evaluation focusing on
child-friendly and accessible methods that would allow the pupils’ voices to be heard.
However, due to the inherent complexities of conducting classroom-based evaluations
filled out by young children in a busy school setting, the in-classroom evaluation
design posed some sampling constraints. Specifically, evaluations were filled out by
hand by children in a classroom setting, leading to occasional missing data in both the
pre- and post-questionnaire samples due to non-compliance. In addition, as the project
ran between 2019–2021 across three European partner countries, data collection was sig­
nificantly impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. While the in-classroom lessons with chil­
dren ran successfully before the closure of schools, many of the training and evaluation
procedures had to be adapted due to the restrictions imposed by Covid-19. For
example, online training modules for parents were developed for online formats. Further­
more, follow-up interviews with parents who participated in the programme were con­
ducted online and face-to-face, depending on the Covid-related restrictions at the
time. These restrictions and resulting adaptations were carried out at various levels
across the partner countries depending on national policies and guidelines at the time.
Impactfully for this paper, data collection procedures were often restricted by the
Covid-19 pandemic-related lockdowns in Ireland. These restrictions led to many chal­
lenges in retrieving data due to the closure of schools for long periods leading to data
often being inaccessible for long periods. In addition, the extreme strains on the work­
loads of teachers and administrators in those settings led to problems accessing and
distributing follow-up evaluations. Therefore, there was a significantly lower number of
post-questionnaires collected than pre-questionnaires.
Due to these sampling constraints, the quantitative analysis was restricted to descrip­
tive statistics, focusing on the frequencies of responses in each sample.

Results
Gaps in knowledge and victimisation needs
As part of the GEM pre- and post-questionnaires, pupils were asked to respond to a range
of questions assessing whether topics such as human rights, bullying, gender equality,
gender stereotypes, GBV and LGBTI issues had been discussed in the classroom to
date. In addition, pupils were asked to report whether they had experienced gender
inequality, gender stereotypes, bullying, gender-based bullying and GBV in the school
setting. Descriptive statistics were run on the pre-questionnaire responses to these ques­
tions to highlight gaps in the existing curriculum, as well as rates of gender stereotyping,
gender-based bullying and GBV amongst pupils involved in the GEM programme evalu­
ation (Figures 3–5).
With regard to existing curriculum gaps, pupils reported a high level of education on
human rights (80.1%) and bullying (92.9%), demonstrating established integration of
these topics within the Irish primary education curriculum. In contrast, pupils reported
much lower rates of education on gender equality (61.7%) and gender stereotypes
720 S. KEATING AND C. R. BAKER

Figure 3. Breakdown of pupil pre-questionnaire curriculum needs assessment (“Have you ever dis­
cussed in class, as part of a lesson or class activity, any of the issues below”).

(36.7%). Additionally, less than one-quarter of pupils reported having had any education
focusing on GBV or LGBTI issues (22% and 24.9%, respectively), with LGBTI issues being
reported as the subject pupils most wanted additional information about (39.4%).
Notably, despite low reported education rates on issues such as gender stereotypes,
the GEM classroom material pupil responses reveal familiarity with a range of gendered
expectations (see Figure 1). For a complete breakdown of results, see Table 2.

Figure 4. Breakdown of change in confidence pre- and post-GEM programme (“I would feel very
confident about doing something if I were a victim of … ”).
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 721

Figure 5. Breakdown of change in bystander confidence pre- and post-GEM programme (“I would feel
very confident about doing something if I were a bystander of … ”).

In terms of victimisation needs, the data revealed significant rates of gendered expec­
tations or treatment in the school setting. For instance, 21% of pupils reported feeling
subject to gendered expectations in the school setting. Similarly, 22.5% of pupils reported
feeling they had been treated differently due to gender in the school setting. Notably, a
large cohort of pupils were unsure whether or not they had experienced gendered expec­
tations or gendered treatment (31.5% and 30.2%, respectively), pointing to the lack of pre­
vious education in the area. In terms of bullying, 26.5% of pupils reported experiencing
bullying at some point in school, while 25.8% of pupils reported witnessing another
pupil being bullied in school. In contrast, pupils’ reports of experiencing or witnessing
incidences of gender-based bullying were low (5.5% and 6.5%, respectively). Similarly,
only 2.1% of pupils reported experiencing, and 3.6% reported witnessing, GBV in the
school setting. For a complete breakdown of results, see Table 3.
Echoing the quantitative findings, thematic analysis of the focus group data found that
pupils expressed a lack of knowledge of core concepts before participation in the GEM
programme. For example, pupils expressed particular interest in lessons focused on
topics such as gender stereotypes, gender-based bullying and gender-based violence
due to their lack of coverage in the curriculum prior to the GEM programme.

Table 2. Pupil pre-questionnaire curriculum needs assessment.

Have you ever discussed in class, as part of a lesson or activity, Yes No Not sure
any of the issues below? n % n % n %
Human Rights 550 80.1 40 5.8 97 14.1
Gender Equality 423 61.7 106 15.5 156 22.8
Gender Stereotypes 251 36.7 172 25.2 260 38.1
Bullying 637 92.9 26 3.8 23 3.3
Gender-Based Violence 149 22.0 267 39.3 263 38.7
LGBTI 177 24.9 280 40.9 227 33.2
Notes: N’s range from 687 to 679 due to occasional missing data.
722 S. KEATING AND C. R. BAKER

Table 3. Pupil pre-questionnaire victimisation needs assessment.

Yes No Not sure
In your school, have you ever … n % n % n %
… felt you had to say or do something because you are a boy/girl? 143 20.0 323 47.5 214 31.5
… noticed any incidents or situations where pupils were treated differently 153 22.5 322 47.3 205 30.2
because they were a boy/girl?
… been bullied? 179 26.5 414 61.3 82 12.2
… witnessed any of your classmates being bullied? 174 25.8 336 49.9 64 24.3
… been bullied because of your gender (including gender identity or 37 5.5 585 86.7 53 7.8
expression)?
… witnessed any of your classmates being bullied because of their gender 44 6.5 519 76.8 113 16.7
(including gender identity or expression)?
… been the victim of gender-based violence? 14 2.1 606 89.4 58 8.5
… witnessed any of your classmates being the victim of gender-based 24 3.6 528 78.2 123 18.2
violence?
Notes: N’s range from 680 to 649 due to occasional missing data.

My favourite was the gender stereotyping because I didn’t know what it meant before.
(female pupil)

My favourite was the Gender-Based Violence and Gender-Based Bullying because I didn’t
know that people would be violent to people because of their gender. (female pupil)

In addition, mirroring the quantitative data, pupils expressed gaps in knowledge about
gender inequality. Specifically, pupils reported familiarity with human rights and equality
frameworks, but expressed gaps in knowledge around the position or scope of gender-
based targeting as a form of inequality.
I didn’t really know about the gender part of it. I knew more about the equality, but not
gender. (female pupil)

I didn’t realise it can be anywhere, I thought it was only in those countries where girls can’t go
to school; I didn’t realise it was in jobs and in schools and all. (female pupil)

Finally, pupils expressed that before participation in the GEM programme, they were
unaware of, or unable to label, common incidences of issues such as gender stereotyping
in their daily lives.
Like in [toy] shops you see the girls’ section and the boys’ section, but I didn’t think anything
of it until this. (male pupil)

Overall, these results highlight significant gaps in education for young adolescents in
Ireland (children aged 10-13) regarding a range of gender-based issues. However, the
results also demonstrate that, despite these curriculum gaps, children report experiences
of gender inequality, gender stereotyping and gender-based bullying in the school
setting. Notably, the results highlight a need for education targeted at young adolescents
to improve their competency in this area, as well as to challenge the norms and structures
underlying the perpetuation of such behaviour in the school setting.

Intervention and bystander confidence

To evaluate the impact of the GEM programme on behaviour, pupils were asked pre-
and post-participation to evaluate their confidence levels in intervening if they
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 723

Table 4. Change in confidence pre- and post-GEM programme.

Pre- Post-
Questionnaire Questionnaire
I would feel very confident about doing something if I were a victim of … n % n %
Gender Stereotyping 159 23.5 164 32.7
Bullying 217 32.3 209 41.8
Gender-Based Violence 175 26.0 164 32.9
Notes: Pre-Questionnaire N’s range from 677 to 671 due to occasional missing data. Post-Questionnaire N’s range from
501 to 499 due to occasional missing data.

themselves were a victim of gender stereotyping, bullying behaviours or GBV. In

addition, they were asked to evaluate their confidence in intervening as bystanders in
cases of gender stereotyping, bullying or GBV. In order to evaluate reported changes
in rates of intervention, descriptive statistics were run on the pre-questionnaire and
post-programme responses.
When pupils were asked to report how confident they felt in acting if they were
subject to gender stereotyping, bullying or GBV before and after participating in the
GEM programme, there was a notable increase. Specifically, there was an increase in
the percentage of pupils who reported feeling very confident in acting if they were
a victim of gender stereotyping, bullying or GBV after participation in the GEM pro­
gramme. For example, there was a 9.2% increase in pupils who reported feeling very
confident in acting if subject to gender stereotyping after participating in the GEM pro­
gramme. Moreover, there was a 9.5% increase in pupils who reported feeling very
confident in acting if they became a victim of bullying and a 6.9% increase in pupils
who reported feeling very confident in acting if they became a victim of GBV. For a
full breakdown of the results, see Table 4.
A similar increase appeared when pupils were asked to report how confident they felt
in responding as a bystander to incidences of gender stereotyping, bullying or GBV before
and after participating in the GEM programme. Similarly, there was an increase in the per­
centage of pupils who reported feeling very confident intervening as bystanders in cases
of gender stereotyping, bullying or GBV after engagement with the GEM programme. For
example, there was a 7.5% increase in pupils who reported feeling very confident inter­
vening as a bystander in cases of gender stereotyping after participating in the GEM pro­
gramme. In addition, there was an 8.9% increase in pupils who reported feeling very
confident intervening as a bystander in cases of bullying and a 3.8% increase in pupils
who reported feeling very confident intervening as a bystander in cases of GBV. For a
full breakdown of the results, see Table 5.

Table 5. Change in bystander confidence pre- and post-GEM programme.

I would feel very confident about doing something Pre-Questionnaire Post-Questionnaire
if I were a bystander of … n % n %
Gender Stereotyping 205 30.5 190 38.0
Bullying 247 36.8 227 45.7
Gender Violence 228 33.8 187 37.6
Notes: Pre-Questionnaire N’s range from 674 to 671 due to occasional missing data. Post-Questionnaire N’s range from
500 to 499 due to occasional missing data.
724 S. KEATING AND C. R. BAKER

Knowledge enhancement and application

Supplementary to the quantitative data measuring the outcomes of participation in the
GEM programme, in terms of confidence and bystander intervention, feedback from
pupils in the focus group demonstrated significant gains in knowledge of the key
topics covered in the GEM programme. For example, after the GEM programme, pupils
reported being able to confidently define and discuss the concept of gender equality.
No matter what your gender is, you’re all equal, you’re all the same. (female pupil)

Boys and girls and men and women should all be treated equal, because there’s no reason
that they all shouldn’t. (female pupil)

Furthermore, after participation in the GEM programme, focus group respondents were
able to clearly define and outline examples of issues reported as curriculum gaps prior
to the GEM programme, i.e. gender-based bullying.
Yes, I was going to say the same, because they’re not falling into the pattern – or what do I call
it – box of girl/boy. Say a boy came in with makeup on, everyone would look at him whether
it’s bullying or not because it’s unusual to see a boy like that. (female pupil)

Moreover, despite analysis of the pre-participation survey data highlighting low edu­
cational coverage of issues of GBV prior to the GEM programme (see above), pupils in
the post-participation focus group were able to clearly define and outline examples of GBV.
It would be if you’re actually hurting someone … … .you’re actually punching or kicking
them because they’re a girl or because they’re a boy, or what they wear or what they play
with. (female pupil)

I didn’t really know about violence and that people would hurt people just because of their
gender, so I realised that that does happen in the world in different countries and stuff. (male
pupil)

Another central finding from the post-participation focus group data was that pupils not
only expressed increases in definitional knowledge around key concepts, but demon­
strated the ability to apply this knowledge to real-world examples. For example, pupils
were able to demonstrate the application of information gleaned from the GEM pro­
gramme to familiar every-day scenarios from their own lives.
I also liked seeing the fairy tales, because I didn’t realise that [gender stereotyping] before.
And then when I looked at it, I was just like, “Oh yes, that does happen in fairy tales a lot
of the time”. (female pupil)

Because that one [lesson] stood out a lot, because you can see it more often. Because if you
look at ads and all on the TV, Barbies are played with by girls, there’s never a boy sitting down
playing with them. (female pupil)

Moreover, when prompted to use and apply the knowledge gained from the GEM pro­
gramme to strategies to combat gender inequality, pupils were able to adapt the knowl­
edge gained to real-world examples of intervening in instances of gender stereotyping in
their daily lives.
Well, I have a lot of cousins, and sometimes the girl cousins are like, “Oh no, don’t play foot­
ball, it’s stereotypically for boys.” But you could say, “No it’s not, you can go and play football
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 725

if you want.” Because one of my cousins likes football but she’s a girl, but she likes football
and stuff. (female pupil)

So, our Principal usually comes in and says, “Oh, I want four boys to carry tables,” so we were
discussing it in class and we said, “Why don’t some girls stand up next time to lift the tables?”
So, then she’ll kind of be, “Oh, but I asked for four boys,” and then we would say, “Oh, but four
girls can do the same job.” (female pupil)

The ability of students to adapt and apply the definitional knowledge gained through the
GEM programme to real-world examples and interventions against gender stereotyping
and gender inequality represents a significant depth of knowledge gained throughout
the GEM lessons. Moreover, it demonstrates the potential for long-term learning and
skills enhancement due to pupil engagement in the GEM programme.

Community buy-in and dissemination

One of the guiding principles of the GEM programme is raising meaningful awareness and
action in children, parents and educators to empower the whole school and wider com­
munity to challenge attitudes and behaviours towards gender stereotyping, gender-
based bullying and gender-based violence. To do this, as indicated earlier, the GEM
lesson plans include Home-School-Links to promote and encourage active parental invol­
vement and to trigger conversations in the home. Notably, the post-participation focus
group data highlighted the efficiency of engaging pupils in at-home discussions. For
example, pupils were able to detail discussions they had with their parents, based on
the issues raised in the GEM programme.
My mum said that the jobs are better now, but even so, in her work, 90% of the people that
work there are women, but all the men have the top jobs. (female pupil)

Well, I told my mum about a few jobs, and got my mum to see which one would be if you
think a boy would do that job or a girl, like a firefighter and stuff. And I was surprised with
some of the stuff, because a few jobs I thought she’d pick a boy but she actually picked a
girl instead, or a boy instead of a girl. (male pupil)

In addition, pupils reported that during the at-home conversations, facilitated by the
Home-School-Links, their parents expressed positive feelings about children’s participation
in the GEM programme.
My mum was very happy because I showed her one of the videos where it says you develop
your stereotypical view from five to seven. She was happy that we could adjust it a bit as we
were still close to the age from five to seven; we were still close to the age rather than learn­
ing it when we’re way older. (female pupil)

Yes, so my mum was saying that the gender stereotyping, it’s getting worse, but now because
of this programme it’s getting much better because people are talking about it. (male pupil)

Finally, participation focus group data about at-home dialogue with parents demon­
strated the GEM programme as a potential pathway for the dissemination of education
throughout familial and community social networks.
And also, because my mum was telling my auntie, because I was over at her house and she
was telling my auntie all about the stuff. So, my auntie could tell all her friends. (female pupil)
726 S. KEATING AND C. R. BAKER

When it goes to different schools, they could tell their parents, their parents could tell
someone else, and it just spreads around, yes. (female pupil)

Overall, the focus group data highlights the possible avenues for dissemination through
at-home discussions facilitated by the Home-School-Links, providing opportunities for
broader impacts and norm changes through community social networks.

Conclusion
This paper analysed the efficacy of the GEM educational programme in the Irish context,
focusing on awareness, confidence building, and capacity enhancement levels among
primary school children to tackle gender stereotyping, gender-based bullying and GBV.
The overarching vision of GEM is to create whole-school communities that are proactive
in tackling the aforementioned societal issues. By utilising participatory and transforma­
tive methodologies, the GEM programme meaningfully challenges the norms and struc­
ture that underlie the perpetuation of such behaviour, specifically focusing on their
manifestation in the primary school setting. By working with children as young as 10,
the GEM programme aims to create long-term changes in attitudes and behaviours,
including the active involvement of, and partnerships with, parents/educators in a parti­
cipatory capacity.
Combining pre- and post-participation survey data with qualitative focus group data,
the research demonstrates significant curriculum and knowledge gaps on issues of
gender equality, gender stereotypes, gender-based bullying and GBV in primary
school-age children. However, the research also demonstrates promising results for the
efficacy of the GEM programme in-classroom pupil lessons and home-school links to
bridge this gap. For example, the results demonstrate that pupils who participated in
the GEM programme had increased definitional and applied knowledge across a range
of issues, including gender inequality, gender stereotyping, gender-based bullying and
gender-based violence. In addition, the results demonstrate promising increases in inter­
vention and bystander confidence in pupils post participation in the GEM programme.
Finally, the results of the GEM evaluation demonstrate the usefulness of this approach
in fostering community engagement, explicitly highlighting the efficiency of engaging
pupils in at-home discussions. Importantly, the GEM programme findings highlight the
importance and value of providing children with an active voice in the discussion and
evaluation of child-friendly and accessible education programmes.
The GEM programme addresses key gaps identified by Crooks and colleagues (2019) by
positioning the spotlight on structural and social issues instead of focusing solely on indi­
vidual level factors. While there have been many efforts to promote gender equality, includ­
ing legislative and policy changes, the results of the GEM programme evaluation highlight
how school-based educational initiatives play a positive and enduring role. Drawing on evi­
dence identifying early adolescence as a key time for the intervention into the development
of these norms and ideals (Blum et al., 2017; Kågesten et al., 2016) and the gap in currently
age-appropriate material covering this topic, the GEM programme provides a promising
means for early intervention. Moreover, building on research which emphasises the impor­
tance of a whole-school community educational approach to challenging social issues, such
as gender equality (Priegert Coulter, 2003), the GEM programme provides a proactive
channel for early educators to engage in these often perceived sensitive issues.
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 727

Most notably, the current research adds to a growing body of research highlighting the
potential of gender-transformative education in combatting the substrates of gender
inequality (Banyard et al., 2019; Exner-Cortens et al., 2020; Lundgren et al., 2013; Ollis
et al., 2022). By empowering children, teachers, parents and the wider community, edu­
cational programmes such as GEM can challenge attitudes and behaviours that under­
mine gender equality and enable societal change. Importantly, Keddie and colleagues
(2022) emphasise the need for these developing approaches to be intersectional. Com­
mencing gender education in early childhood settings and spiralling this approach
through primary, secondary and even higher-level education settings can enable future
generations to reach their true potential without being hindered by gender inequalities.
Tomorrow’s world is already taking shape in the body and spirit of our children. (Kofi Annan)

Note
1. The GEM post-primary classroom materials were piloted in Italy.

Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to the GEM participants across the five partner countries,
especially Ireland, as those participants are the key focus of this specific paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by the European Union under the Rights Equality and Citizenship Pro­
gramme [grant no 810447].

ORCID
Seline Keating http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9804-3847
Catherine R. Baker http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3838-0937

References
Adams, K. A., Nagoshi, C. T., Filip-Crawford, G., Terrell, H. K., & Nagoshi, J. L. (2016). Components of
gender-nonconformity prejudice. International Journal of Transgenderism, 17(3-4), 185–198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2016.1200509
Banyard, V. L., Edwards, K. M., Rizzo, A. J., Theodores, M., Tardiff, R., Lee, K., & Greenberg, P. (2019).
Evaluating a gender transformative violence prevention program for middle school boys: A pilot
study. Children and Youth Services Review, 101, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.
2019.03.052
Blum, R. W. (2020). Gender norm transformative programing: Where are we now? Where do we need
to be? Journal of Adolescent Health, 66(2), 135–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.11.
299
728 S. KEATING AND C. R. BAKER

Blum, R. W., Mmari, K., & Moreau, C. (2017). It begins at 10: How gender expectations shape early
adolescence around the world. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(4), S3–S4. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jadohealth.2017.07.009
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.
Harvard University Press.
Brudvig, I., Chair, C., & van der Wilk, A. (2020). Covid-19 and increasing domestic violence against
women: The pandemic of online gender-based violence. http://webfoundation.org/docs/2020/07/
WWWF-Submission-COVID-19-and-the-increase-of-domestic-violence-against-women-1.pdf.
Carr, J. L., & Vandeusen, K. M. (2004). Risk factors for male sexual aggression on college campuses.
Journal of Family Violence, 19(5), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOFV.0000042078.55308.4d
Casey, E., Carlson, J., Two Bulls, S., & Yager, A. (2018). Gender transformative approaches to engaging
Men in gender-based violence prevention: A review and conceptual model. Trauma, Violence, &
Abuse, 19(2), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016650191
Cerbara, L., Ciancimino, G., & Tintori, A. (2022). Are we still a sexist society? Primary socialisation and
adherence to gender roles in childhood. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health 2022, 19(6), 3408. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063408
Crooks, C. V., Jaffe, P., Dunlop, C., Kerry, A., & Exner-Cortens, D. (2019). Preventing gender-based vio­
lence among adolescents and young adults: Lessons from 25 years of program development and
evaluation. Violence Against Women, 25(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218815778
Dlamini, N. J. (2020). Gender-Based violence, twin pandemic to COVID-19. Critical Sociology, 47(4–5),
583–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920520975465
Dunne, M., & Suvilaakso, T. (2012). Addressing school related gender based violence: Learning from
practice. https://www.gbv.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/LB-10-Addressing-School-Related-
Gender-Based-Violence-Learning-from-Practice.pdf.
Dworkin, S., Treves-Kagan, S., & Lippman, S. A. (2013). Gender-transformative interventions to
reduce HIV risks and violence with heterosexually-active men: A review of global evidence.
AIDS and Behavior, 17(9), 2845–2863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-013-0565-2
EIGE. (2021). Gender Equality Index 2021. https://doi.org/10.2839/622463.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014). Violence against women: an EU-wide survey.
https://doi.org/10.2811/62230.
Exner-Cortens, D., Hurlock, D., Wright, A., Carter, R., & Krause, P. (2020). Preliminary evaluation of a
gender-transformative healthy relationships program for adolescent boys. Psychology of Men &
Masculinities, 21(1), 168–175. https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=
0&sid=b9892b93-49f4-4ce8-8232-7d2ae121c735%40redis https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000204
Fleming, P. J., Colvin, C., Peacock, D., & Dworkin, S. L. (2016). What role can gender-transformative
programming for men play in increasing men’s HIV testing and engagement in HIV care and
treatment in South Africa? Culture, Health & Sexuality, 18(11), 1251–1264. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13691058.2016.1183045
Freeman, N. K. (2007). Preschoolers’ perceptions of gender appropriate toys and their parents’
beliefs about genderized behaviors: Miscommunication, mixed messages, or hidden
truths? Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(5), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-006-
0123-x
Gordon, A. R., & Meyer, I. H. (2008). Gender nonconformity as a target of prejudice, discrimination,
and violence against LGB individuals. Journal of LGBT Health Research, 3(3), 55–71. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15574090802093562
Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against
Women, 4(3), 262–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004003002
Ivankova, N., & Wingo, N. (2018). Applying mixed methods in action research: Methodological
potentials and advantages. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 978–997. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0002764218772673
Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. The Lancet, 359(9315),
1423–1429. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08357-5
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 729

Kågesten, A., Gibbs, S., Blum, R. W., Moreau, C., Chandra-Mouli, V., Herbert, A., & Amin, A. (2016).
Understanding factors that shape gender attitudes in early adolescence globally: A mixed-
methods systematic review. PloS one, 11(6), e0157805. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0157805
Keddie, A. (2003). Little boys: Tomorrow’s macho lads. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education, 24(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630032000172498
Keddie, A., Flood, M., & Hewson-Munro, S. (2022). Intersectionality and social justice in programs for
boys and men. NORMA, 17(3), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2022.2026684
Kollmayer, M., Schober, B., & Spiel, C. (2018). Gender stereotypes in education: Development, con­
sequences, and interventions. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15(4), 361–377.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2016.1193483
Lohan, M., Brennan-Wilson, A., Hunter, R., Gabrio, A., McDaid, L., Young, H., French, R., Aventin, Á,
Clarke, M., McDowell, C., Logan, D., Toase, S., O’Hare, L., Bonell, C., Gillespie, K., Gough, A.,
Lagdon, S., Warren, E., Buckley, K., … White, J. (2022). Effects of gender-transformative relationships
and sexuality education to reduce adolescent pregnancy (the JACK trial): a cluster-randomised trial.
The Lancet Public Health, 7(7), e626–e637. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00117-7
Lundgren, R., Beckman, M., Chaurasiya, S. P., Subhedi, B., & Kerner, B. (2013). Whose turn to do the
dishes? Transforming gender attitudes and behaviours among very young adolescents in Nepal.
Gender & Development, 21(1), 127. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2013.767520
Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. N. (2010). Patterns of gender development. Annual Review of Psychology, 61
(1), 353. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100511
Mayock, P., Sheridan, S., Parker, S., Mayock, P., & Sheridan, S. (2012). Migrant women and homeless­
ness: The role of gender-based violence. European Journal of Homelessness, 6(1), http://hdl.
handle.net/10147/247814.
Molina-Azorin, J. F., & Fetters, M. D. (2019). Building a better world through mixed methods research.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(3), 275–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819855864
Moreau, C., Li, M., de Meyer, S., Vu Manh, L., Guiella, G., Acharya, R., Bello, B., Maina, B., & Mmari, K.
(2019). Measuring gender norms about relationships in early adolescence: Results from the global
early adolescent study. SSM - Population Health, 7, 100314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2018.
10.014
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/
keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-volume-I.pdf.
Ollis, D., Iannucci, C., Keddie, A., Holland, E., Delaney, M., & Kearney, S. (2022). ‘Bulldozers aren’t just
for boys’: Respectful relationships education challenges gender bias in early primary students.
International Journal of Health Promotion and Education, 60(4), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14635240.2021.1875020
Owen Blakemore, J. E. (2003). Children’s beliefs about violating gender norms: Boys shouldn’t look
like girls, and girls shouldn’t act like boys. Sex Roles, 48(9), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1023574427720
Ozcurumez, S., Akyuz, S., & Bradby, H. (2021). The conceptualization problem in research and
responses to sexual and gender-based violence in forced migration. Journal of Gender Studies,
30(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2020.1730163
Pearson, R. (2021). Masculinity and emotionality in education: Critical reflections on discourses of
boys’ behaviour and mental health. Educational Review. Advance online publication. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1987390
Peretz, T., Lehrer, J., & Dworkin, S. L. (2020). Impacts of men’s gender-transformative personal nar­
ratives: A qualitative evaluation of the men’s story project. Men and Masculinities, 23(1), 104–126.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X18780945
Perez-Martınez, V., Marcos-Marcos, J., Cerdán-Torregrosa, A., Briones-Vozmediano, E., Sanz-Barbero,
B., Davó-Blanes, M., Daoud, N., Edwards, C., Salazar, M., la Parra-Casado, D., & Vives-Cases, C.
(2021). Positive masculinities and gender-based violence educational interventions among
young people: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 468–486. https://doi.org/10.
1177/15248380211030242
730 S. KEATING AND C. R. BAKER

Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to
be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
Priegert Coulter, R. (2003). Educational review boys doing good: Young men and gender equity.
Educational Review, 55(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191032000072182
Rees, S., Silove, D., Chey, T., Ivancic, L., Steel, Z., Creamer, M., Teesson, M., Bryant, R., McFarlane, A. C.,
Mills, K. L., Slade, T., Carragher, N., O’Donnell, M., & Forbes, D. (2011). Lifetime prevalence of
gender-based violence in women and the relationship with mental disorders and psychosocial
function. JAMA, 306(5), 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1098
Riggle, E. D. B. (2018). Experiences of a gender non-conforming lesbian in the “ladies’’ (rest)room.
Journal of Lesbian Studies, 22(4), 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2018.1460565
Salazar, M., Daoud, N., Edwards, C., Scanlon, M., & Vives-Cases, C. (2020). PositivMasc: Masculinities
and violence against women among young people. Identifying discourses and developing strat­
egies for change, a mixed-method study protocol. BMJ Open, 10(9), e038797. https://doi.org/10.
1136/bmjopen-2020-038797
Stentiford, L., Koutsouris, G., & Allan, A. (2021). Girls, mental health and academic achievement: A
qualitative systematic review. Educational Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00131911.2021.2007052
Talbot, M. (2003). Gender stereotypes: Reproduction and challenge. In J. Holmes, & M. Meyerhoff
(Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 645–670). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9780470756942.ch28.
UNESCO, & UNODC. (2019). Empowering students for just societies A handbook for primary school tea­
chers. http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (2010). https://www.childrensrights.ie/
sites/default/files/submissions_reports/files/UNCRCEnglish_0.pdf.
Vázquez, F. L., Torres, A., & Otero, P. (2012). Gender-based violence and mental disorders in female
college students. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47(10), 1657–1667. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00127-012-0472-2
WEF. (2022). Global gender gap report 2022. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2022.pdf.
WHO. (2021). Violence against women estimates, 2018. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/
9789240022256.