Gender Stereotypes and the Role of Women in Higher Education (Azerbaijan Case Study)

Abstract

Gender stereotypes are common among students of both sexes and among the teachers and students’ family environment. In addition to communication processes, they are manifested in the phenomenon of gender-based division of learning and the hidden curriculum. In developing countries, the problem of access to higher education is also unsolved, not only because of socioeconomic reasons but also because of psychological reasons—devaluation of education and professional potential of women. These factors have a negative influence on social and economic processes in general. The study of gender stereotypes is the foundation for strategies’ development to overcome gender inequality and implementing a model of gender parity (egalitarian model). This model assumes that the change must take place on both sides: the impact on people’s behavior by laws prohibiting discrimination, providing financial support and openings for women students; and changes in belief prevailing in the society by initiating discussions in media, educational institutions, and community organizations with a reasoned positioning of gender equality importance.

Keywords

educational policy social justice students

Introduction

The state egalitarian policy is based on the gender model of symmetric and equal inclusion of men and women in all spheres of public activity.

The standards in respect of femininity and masculinity formed in higher education are objective deterrent to the effective students’ socialization (Yakovenko, 2015). For this reason, pedagogical science needs to rethink its position in matters of sex-role students’ socialization.

We consider gender inequality in education as a situation when “less equal” are women, as from the perspective of men it is normal—they do not think to put it into question, while for women, it is discriminatory to some extent (Jacobs, 1996).

Difficulties in overcoming gender inequalities are caused by external (organization, system of laws) and internal (perception) factors. Perception of other people at the time of communication often occurs by means of stereotypes, as a stereotype is a generalized and simplified, automatically arisen image of another social person or themselves (Myers, 2008). Unconscious application of stereotypes and the fact that people do not notice that are one of the main reasons for their resistance, as well as the fact that they are formed in the process of socialization and culture learning. Thus, even in stereotypes’ articulation, they are granted as trivial, something that does not make sense to affect or change.

The nature of gender stereotypes is an idea of what social functions are performed by women and men. The stereotypes’ affect is particularly noticeable when the subject departs from that prescribed stereotype roles: It is considered as an act against the rules, even if such rules or consent of their observance are not fixed in writing, and requires the person of certain mentality to punish such entity or to change the very mentality, to expand the stereotype. Accordingly, if a woman acts in a way not prescribed for women to do, this consistently will cause resistance of the system. For example, men continue the acts of violence against women in response to the change of usual social roles, in particular, female education (Chisamya, de Jaeghere, Kendall, & Khan, 2012).

Additional complexity arises when stereotypes’ carriers are subjects discriminated against these stereotypes. This kind of situation is one of the possible explanations for the inertia of complex, hierarchically organized systems, such as education. Even under favorable external conditions, formal values and the goal of gender equality are nothing more than a declaration by virtue of the fact that both men and partly women are not inclined to ascribe both sexes with equal opportunities. Consequently, the gap between the formal proclamation and social reality only make matters worse.

There, the problem of overcoming the stereotype in the perception and interaction requires solved problem of identifying gender stereotypes. However, stereotypes’ identification can be challenging because they grow in culture and directed behavior (Steele, 1997). Nevertheless, both stereotypes’ identification and changing are achievable and necessary steps to overcome discrimination and promote equality.

Ensuring conditions of gender equality is an unavoidable aspect of observance of fundamental human rights in the education system (Wilson, 2004), which is reflected in the content, methods, and goals of modern education. The Bologna process, which Azerbaijan joined in 2005, trends of democratization and humanization of post-Soviet society inevitably impact on the education system of Azerbaijan (Kerimli, 2013). These changes have become an activator of demand for internal educational transformation of high quality.

Currently, most of the countries of the former Soviet Union have higher educational institutions reflecting gender stratification of society and culture in general, demonstrating the unequal status of men and women (Iarskaia-Smirnova, 2001). Revision of traditional cultural limitations, focus on personal potential development by taking into account gender peculiarities, and creation of conditions for maximum self-realization of young people in the process of pedagogical interaction are the most important goals of gender education. The introduction of gender education can form an idea that gender is not a basis for discrimination and allows graduates to have a free choice of their own life (Nadolinskaya, 2004).

The Soviet legacy, Islamic values, and pre-Islamic cultural traditions play a great role in the field of higher education of Azerbaijan. However, the attempts to integrate into the international educational space and to spread pro-Western views on the educational process are no less important. These circumstances lead to inevitable aggravation of entitlement and the real situation of women in higher education. The difficulties faced by women in entering educational institutions, education itself and attempts to apply their skills in later life, are observed not only in Azerbaijan but also in other countries of the former Soviet Union, secular states with a predominantly Muslim population and industrial–agricultural countries.

Materials and Method

After analyzing enormous amount of literature about gender stereotypes and human behavior, we used axiomatic method and modeling to propose a program of creating equality between a woman and a man in educational sphere.

Results

Studies of Gender Stereotypes in Education

The concept of “gender stereotypes” means (Bendas, 2006):

the quality and characteristics, which are usually used to describe men and women;

gender stereotypes contain normative patterns of behavior, traditionally attributed to individuals (male or female);

gender stereotypes reflect generalized opinions, judgments, and people’s ideas about what is different in men and women;

gender stereotypes depend on the cultural context and the environment, in which they find their application.

The main feature of gender stereotypes is that they are firmly fixed in public consciousness and change very slowly, partly representing the prejudices that affect each person.

The most common representation of men and women on each other are stereotyped in nature: A positive image of men is usually described in connotations of competence, activity, and rationality; female—sociability, warmth, and emotional support. Negative men qualities are rudeness, authoritarianism, and women—inactivity, excessive emotionality (Sharipova, 2015). Researches of 70s have focused on stereotypes regarding the capabilities of men and women, manifested in various spheres of professional activity. In the experiments, it was recorded that the subjects have evaluated the abilities of men that are higher than women’s abilities. Then, attempts were made to explain the patterns identified in accordance with the attribution theory (Malle, 2003).

Attribution theory describes how people explain the behavior of others—whether they explain the action by inner dispositions of a human (traits, motives, attitudes) or external situations (Malle, 2003). For example, the professional successes of men is often associated with their qualities or abilities, as the competence of men is perceived as an expected factor corresponding to “male” quality—the desire to achieve, and professional progress of women is explained by random factors, such as luck or circumstance (Zherebkina, 1996). Thus, both sexes tend to ignore the skills and personal qualities of women in assessing their success. Moreover, if woman fails, she gets a more lenient assess than the man who has not reached success (Dresvyanina, 2014). The rigidity of gender stereotypes makes men to be successful, whereas business success is not mandatory for women.

Even in spite of the proven fact that the fundamental innate differences in psychological characteristics of men and women do not exist (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974), gender stereotypes continue to live and to influence the behavior of people.

The image of the man is most associated with instrumental traits, and women are attributed to expressive traits (Nadolinskaya, 2004). Therefore, despite the fact that women with their warmth and openness are described quite positive, they appear to be less intellectually competent and more passive. In this context, these conclusions lead to discrimination of women, for example, at work—there have been formulated questions concerning stereotypes’ accuracy (Bendas, 2006):

Are the stereotypes an accurate reflection of reality?

Do not they bring differences, identified in a minority on the majority, and thus, distort the real situation?

The inaccuracy of gender stereotypes are reflected in the fact that, for example, female students’ success is often underestimated, especially in sciences, which are traditionally considered as masculine, such as mathematics in despite of high marks obtained by them in these subjects (Beyer, 1999).

Despite the fact that the stereotypes describe men consistently more active and stronger than women in most countries (J. E. Williams & Best, 1990), the self-image of young people in these countries do not always coincide with those stereotypes, even if they correspond to them, the compliance is very small (J. Williams, Satterwhite, & Best, 1999).

There are several groups of gender stereotypes (Kletsina, 1998):

Stereotypes of masculinity-femininity. Men and women are attributed to specific social and psychological qualities and personality traits, behavioral style. Masculinity corresponds to “active-creative” characteristics, and instrumental personality traits, such as activity, dominance, confidence, aggressiveness, logical thinking, and ability to lead. Femininity corresponds to “passive-reproductive beginning,” which manifests itself in expressive personality characteristics: dependency of care, anxiety, low self-esteem, and emotionality.

Stereotypes of labor nature between men and women. Men’s labor is defined in the instrumental field of activity, the possibility of creative work and leadership. Women labor performs service character, it is a part of the expressive field of activity; women often work in the field of trade, health, and education.

Stereotypes associated with fixing family and professional roles according to gender. For men, the most important social roles are professional roles prescribed involvement in social life, professional success, and responsibility for ensuring family. For women, the most important social role is the role of homemaker, mother, private sphere of life—home and birth of children; she is responsible for relationships in the family.

The danger of gender stereotypes’ presence in education is not only in leading to violence and humiliation of women in educational institutions (Chisamya et al., 2012). The stereotype can internalize. In such cases, gender stereotypes can get in the way of success in education by low self-esteem, self-perception as “incapable” or as a human of “second class,” by rejection of attempts to advances due to the belief that external conditions do not allow success (Steele, 1997). Internalized stereotype is not perceived as something alien, and the subject itself is often not tracked, but it forms perception and influences behavior.

Negative Impact of Gender Stereotypes in Education

Although the perception by means of stereotypes is largely inevitable, it has often a negative impact on women’s ability to participate in the educational process.

Gender inequality in higher education manifests itself in different ways in connection with various aspects, even in developed countries (Jacobs, 1996):

Women have equal with men access to higher education.

Women are slightly less successful in college experience, than men.

Women have almost no advantages in the use of higher education outcomes in comparison with men.

In developing countries, the access to education for women is much lower due to primarily psychological reasons and stereotyped perception. In these countries, educated people expect future success. However, parents do not consider the situation when education does not lead (or seems not to lead) to women’s success in life as a meaningful one (Wilson, 2004). In turn, limits in women’s ability to learn and, subsequently, to be hired and earn money lead to reproduction of traditional gender specialization of labor and to a barrier in economic development of a particular region (Jayaweera, 1997). Thus, low access to education is due to both economic reasons and gender stereotypes.

Developing countries and other regions are characterized by rising unemployment during the periods of economic decline. This contributes to aggravation of issues related to gender inequities in hiring, as such periods require professions related to physical labor that is traditionally “male” or experts with experience in the field of economy and business that is a profession associated with traditional “masculine” qualities, besides authoritative experts, rather than graduates (Kochetov, 2011). Accordingly, in such circumstances, the possibility that there will be hired a woman is much lower than the possibility that there will be hired a man. The recommendation for the regions under these conditions and developing countries is a priority policy aimed at poverty reduction and job creation—only with such prerequisite, it will be possible to consider the issue of gender equality in recruitment and, accordingly, the question of educational importance for women (Jones & Chant, 2009). Besides, the link between education and the subsequent hiring is not clear: one cannot guarantee the other. There is the economic effect of “punishment” for educated women: they are not hired, as they have been educated, that for women, according to traditional morality, is not necessary (Wilson, 2004). Hence, it is not only the current situation that matters but also the core beliefs of population, which help to maintain a certain status quo. Similarly, in the very poor countries, there is not gender or social class that matters, but how family income affects the low access to women education (Jayaweera, 1997). Although the global problem of poverty is relevant, specific problems will not be solved due to the lack of resources.

However, it is also a tribute to tradition—women are not considered as a labor force, but only as domestic workers. The statement “When the situations vacant is low, men have more rights to be hired than women have” is the most powerful factor in explaining differences between countries in women’s employment and pay gap for men and women (Fortin, 2005, p. 417). Accordingly, society with traditional values considers that is unthinkable for women to improve economy. The economic consequences are not long in coming if we initially will not follow such a stereotype, but will provide the access to vocational and tertiary education for both men and women. However, the mentality and traditional concepts including gender stereotypes are not something that is easily and quickly to be changed.

Women themselves have become a powerful force in the fight for their rights. Higher education for women increases their level of support for feminist views (Klein, 1984); respectively, deprivation of education is one way to control the public opinion, which contributes to a vicious circle. According to Jayaweera (1997), “While education may not be an adequate base for empowerment, exclusion from education reinforces powerlessness” (p. 417). Education will not solve all the problems of gender inequality, but at the same time, providing sound policies in this field, it can be an instrument to overcome prejudices and stereotypes, as well as providing conditions, in which acquired skills and knowledge are in demand, to increase economic performances of the region or country.

In general, equity in education cannot be established only by top management decisions related to the education system itself: Declared equal rights to education are not the end or transformation of gender inequality (Chisamya et al., 2012). Accordingly, to achieve equal opportunities in/by education for women and men, there are changes not only in laws but also in people’s beliefs.

It is surprising that the study on gender issues, despite their apparent urgency, is paid a lot of attention to gender interaction in the field of education, but only a little of it to gender inequality (Jacobs, 1996). Another methodological problem is that in such studies, education is measured in the number of attendance years, that is, when the subject is officially on record, but very little is said about the content and quality of education (Malhotra, Pande, & Grown, 2005). The most striking example of an irrelevant content is the so-called hidden curriculum—discriminatory statements are not pronounced, but all relationships within educational institutions and all the good examples in the class reproduce inherent in the culture visions of women as of subordinate, associate, respectful persons who do not seek to achievements and men as dominant, independent with efforts to achieve (Iarskaia-Smirnova, 2001; Workman, 2013). Thus, the problem is ignored or replaced by other problems.

One reason for this reticence is probably the fact that the problems of physical and psychological violence against women in educational institutions are seen as problems of girls and women themselves, while such facts are appealed, rather, to the relationship between women and men, as well as to the dominant norms of masculinity and femininity (Dunne, 2009). Although women’s struggle for their rights is attributable primarily to the work of feminists, the men struggle—the liberal ideology. In general, the violation of women’s rights is a problem of society and it should be solved by affecting the whole society.

For example, in Tajikistan, renewal of education aimed at ensuring equal opportunities for women and men; policy makers have not only focused on “traditional” openings for women in higher education and students’ financial support but also initiated a loud discussion in media aimed at overcoming gender bias in education (Silova, 2005). In contrast, Malawi and Bangladesh girls formally have the same right to schooling as boys, but gender inequality is not raised in the community and often—even in the schools—women continue to suffer humiliation, depreciation, and violence that men in these situations do not see as a problem (Chisamya et al., 2012). These examples show the importance of information and public debate on the topic of gender inequality, but not just general questions, such as gender differences.

Frequent Problems and Recommendations

Actions at changing public opinion and, therefore, the situation in schools must be systemic. One of the most common reasons why women do not have real access to higher education is a constant unpaid burden on household duties, which is taken as right—often by women themselves—and increases with age (Chisamya et al., 2012; Jones & Chant, 2009). In such conditions, women do not have enough time to study; therefore, performance level gets lower. Initially biased teacher or peer will find it as a “confirmation” of stereotype that women are not “smart” or “not adapted to learning.” Moreover, the woman hearing this constantly could begin to believe it. Accordingly, a reasoned distribution of housework among all members of the family can be the first step toward real change in gender roles that entail with the proper support at the level of discussions, changing gender stereotypes.

Systematicity should be ensured at all levels. To take the advantage of women’s education, there must be created the appropriate conditions (Malhotra et al., 2005) in the society:

Access to quality health care.

Favorable situation on the labor market.

Possibility of alternative ways of achieving economic well-being, in addition to traditional patriarchal model and availability of social support systems.

Complex influence involves multiple links between different social institutions. Changes in the structure of educational institution will be effective only if the latter interacts with social, cultural, economic, legal, political or any other environment, in which the educational institution operates (Chisamya et al., 2012). If the values declared and embodied in the University are supported by the society, teachers will feel safe in being conductors of these values. If discriminating models continue to function outside the university, then the university approaches will be devalued. This does not mean that there should be no reforms within institutions, if society provides widespread discriminatory beliefs; rather, it means that the result—gender equality—is reachable in very slow and selective terms, if it is achievable in such conditions.

Similarly, if additional financial support does not lead to the final result—women’s education and employment according to the specialty—it does not mean that the measures themselves are not effective. The reason for “inefficiency” may lie in the fact that additional financial support is unreasonably small amount, taking into account the situation in the country, and thus, cannot provide education without working or being in isolation from the family (Silova, 2005). Too low financial support is not able to compensate insecurity of hostels by a secure residential lease (Jones & Chant, 2009), which also serves as a reason for denial of education under formal approach: not only the observance of rights but also declared, ineffective support. These data show the importance of a comprehensive and reasoned reform plan.

Reform can be realized by the following two approaches:

Changing gender attitudes by public discussions, conferences, information, and debate to influence the behavior of people. In this situation, it is important to bring evidence-based data not only about sex and gender but also on the contribution of gender equality in socioeconomic prosperity of the country.

Changing behavior by nondiscriminatory regulations and punishment for discriminating, and thus influence the gender stereotypes. It is important to emphasize people (as it is possible and appropriate) to unjustified, irrelevance of gender stereotypes, stereotypical differences of opinions with reality.

Thus, changes must be achieved from two sides: to discuss gender stereotypes following the actual stereotypes—but not only differences or other common themes, as well as their impact and the influence on behavior by legislation and additional funding—and watch out for actual compliance with these standards.

Higher educational institutions are not just distributors of knowledge—the teachers are idols, images for identification. Therefore, gender inequalities’ transformation by means of the education system requires a transformation of interactions and relationships at all levels—from the audience to the global public (Chisamya et al., 2012). Accordingly, the change to overcome gender inequalities is required toward relationships between teachers and between teachers and students. Educators should take into account the gender equality issues in teaching the future teachers. As long as teachers are forced to fight for their rights, they cannot devote enough time and effort to teaching quality (Wilson, 2004). Another aspect of gender equality realization in education is that peer relations are an example for students. The changes of accepted social norms will become inevitable under the support of these intentions outside the institution. However, even in situations with the lack of broad social support for the idea of gender equality, the educational institutions can become a safer place for women’s discussions than their family or community (Chisamya et al., 2012). Nevertheless, if the outside or the behavior of teachers does not support such a discourse, it will remain ineffective formality.

Another way to change the gender stereotypes in terms of educational system is impact on the hidden curriculum. To achieve this, the following approach should be implemented (Iarskaia-Smirnova, 2001):

Introduction of critical knowledge on gender in education is feasible if the studies in all disciplines of humanities and social-economic blocks will not be gender-neutral, that is, the issues of gender inequality will be put under attention.

Principles of gender equality are introduced in the form of a game and free discussion (without drill and aggression).

The use of gender knowledge and skills of tolerance and equal communication is possible in a special environment conducive to students’ creative thinking development, in conditions that ensure their personal growth, social competence and adaptation, and full participation in the educational process.

Because the actions of teachers and administrators aimed on maintaining the hidden curriculum are often unconscious, it is difficult to detect them and change. However, it is feasible—the maximum efficiency can be achieved in integrated action based on reasoned planning.

The discussion of any form requires an experience-based example and personal involvement. In situation when minority that discriminates women speaks about its own real experience, discriminated majority are aware about the subtext of words, actions and the impact on the person humiliated by these statements and actions, consciously–it happens or unconsciously (Larrabee & Morehead, 2008). New attitudes without prejudices (if they are consciously accepted and integrated into the worldview) begin to manifest themselves in behavior; teachers in their practice will show such a pattern aimed at equality. Thus, discussions with schoolchildren, students and future teachers should be organized and held by real people in the family and media based on their life stories and scientific arguments. They should not be hold in an academic or dogmatic manner.

Discussion

Education is one of the most important prerequisite to ensure gender equality, when women have rights equal to the rights of men. Azerbaijan’s education system is regulated by the Constitution, the Law on Education, the various reform programs, and other official acts. Article 42 of the Constitution of Azerbaijan provides the equal rights to education for every citizen of the republic. Article 3 of the Law on Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan provides the right to education for every citizen regardless of gender.

At the end of the 19th century, Azerbaijan collected deeply rooted gender stereotypes on the position of women in society: They were engaged mainly in family and work at home, were financially dependent on their husbands and fathers, and were illiterate. Political and social events that occurred after World War II have dramatically changed the role of women in society and transformed its image: opened up an opportunity for professional development of women, education and financial independence. Thus, in the second half of the 20th century, women’s education has become equal with modernization and progress. Unfortunately, these changes did not have the impact of gender stereotypes on the status of women in the education system, where they are passive participants of the process.

The problem of social and professional equality in Azerbaijan remains unresolved. Currently, the country needs new solutions of the problem related to the transformation of sociocultural identity and the social roles’ revision of both sexes.

In this article, such options are presented in the following main areas of reforms necessary in Azerbaijan:

Compliance with the balance between the change of stereotypes by public debate and influence on the behavior by antidiscrimination regulations, mandatory support of one block by the other—as the main methodological principle of introduced changes.

Ensuring equitable sharing of family responsibilities—feasible liberation of girls and women from the imposed so-called “women’s” work.

Adequate financial support of female students and openings programs in educational institutions.

Focus on gender equality in teacher training: training content, no gender preferences on the part of a teacher, equal pay for the work of equal complexity, and creating equal relationships between colleagues.

Focus on the effect of the hidden curriculum, updates in educational content according to the principles of gender equality.

Pedagogical skills of teachers and other persons engaged in debate: scientifically proven data should not go counter to the personal involvement and real-life examples of people.

The lack of a systematic approach leads to a disequilibrium in actions and, accordingly, there are no results. Even in declared equal rights to education, if there are no public debates and other measures outside schools, gender stereotypes and attitudes on the social level are aimed at maintaining the discrediting women’s role (Molla & Cuthbert, 2014). Overcoming gender inequality is only possible under long-term, consistent, and reasoned actions.

Another problem of educational system’s transformation is the fact that gender inequality, which still exists in the system of higher education, is negatively perceived by women even in developed countries with a long history of democracy; men also believe that gender inequality is a normal state of affairs, which should not be changed (Barry, Berg, & Chandler, 2006). This provides the need in initiating truly wide-ranging discussions participated by both women and men with an emphasis on mutual benefit from the observance of the principle of gender equality.

In Azerbaijan, protection mechanisms have not worked out equal rights under the formal declaration or punishment in case of violation. Moreover, in practice, people often follow patriarchal principles, wherein the majority of the population are Muslims. However, a strong women’s movement would rally the people who think differently or initiate a discussion. This cultural situation is an example of the Soviet practice—some principles are formally proclaimed, as others are embodied. The educational system can and should be involved in the change of global phenomena such as gender stereotypes, but the actions must be integrated and planned.

Thus, in planning actions aimed at achieving gender equality in the educational environment, it is important to take into account the probability of these difficulties’ occurrence, which can be broadly described as inertia with respect to changes. Social and, especially, gender stereotypes are very persistent phenomenon; however, culture reproduces itself by means of gender stereotypes. In this context, entrenched gender bias should not just be destroyed, there must be a new different view, reasoned and supported by the experience aimed at equality.

Conclusion

Gender stereotypes influence the quality of interpersonal communication: The image of a partner in social interaction is sketchy and superficial, and often manifests itself in a more positive assessment of the image of a typical male in comparison with the image of a typical woman. They have a negative impact on personal growth: orienting men and women at different life strategies and offering different ways and means of self-realization. Thus, unequal social position of men and women that adversely affects their personal, is a barrier to personality development of both men and women. Gender stereotypes encourage men and women in interaction to build not equal, but superordinate relationships, in which men occupy a dominant position.

Stereotypes have an impact on people at the level of unconsciousness. This includes unconscious beliefs, attitudes towards any object or event, realized in actual behavior. The person outwardly declares independence from gender stereotype, but implements the stereotype in behavior. The unawareness is a danger and the cause of gender stereotypes’ rigidity: They are difficult to trace and even more difficult to change.

The reasons for gender inequality in Azerbaijan society are patriarchal systems, the lack of mechanisms at the national level to overcome gender inequality and lack of civil society institutions’ development, in particular, the women’s movement.

The negative impact of gender stereotypes in education manifests itself in the maintenance of discriminatory discourse in reducing self-esteem and self-confidence of women due to stereotypes’ internalization, suffering the crime to be committed in terms of violence and humiliation, both among students and among teachers. The formal policy adoption on overcoming gender inequality does not mean real change.

To make the changes effective, there must be a balance between the two paths—the influence on the attitudes and the influence on the behavior—as well as supporting and providing the second path, and vice versa. The impact on attitudes means holding a public debate on gender inequalities, disclosure of irrelevant stereotypical content, and argumentation of public benefit in terms of gender equality. The influence on behavior includes laws and regulations from the level of the educational institution to the national and international levels that prevent discrimination, as well as monitoring the compliance with these norms. Second, it is necessary to initiate discussion on unfair sharing of family responsibilities before the introduction of any changes. Third, it is necessary to ensure timely funding of the support program for women. If education is effective, then these costs are recovered. The fourth aspect is the provision of adequate (in the way of gender equality) conditions in teachers’ preparation allowing both to operate the relevant scientific data and to be an example of gender equality principles’ embodiment. The fifth important step in reforming higher educational system is the revision of curricula and bringing them in line with the gender equality principles. Finally, in interaction with the audience, it is important to be expressive, to put forward arguments understandable and familiar to the audience, to discuss specific examples of life, and remain open to discussion.

The practical application result of gender approach in educational institutions is not only personality development as a future expert based on gender equality principles but also the transformation of educational process. If the current model is focused on specialists training in accordance with the prevailing social norms, the gender component within it opens a space of free expression for creative individuality of both students and teachers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Elza Alipasha Mollaeva was born in 1961 in Georgia. In 1978, she graduated from high school and entered the Azerbaijan State University, Faculty of History. In 1983, she graduated this university with honours. The number of scientific papers published – 30; among them, 1 monograph.

References

Barry

Berg

Chandler

(2006). Academic shape shifting: Gender, management and identities in Sweden and England. Organization, 13, 275-298. doi:10.1177/1350508406061673

Bendas

(2006). Гендерная психология: Учебное пособие [Gender psychology: Textbook]. St. Petersburg, Russia: Peter Press.

Beyer

(1999). The accuracy of academic gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 40, 787-813. doi:10.1023/A:1018864803330

Chisamya

de Jaeghere

Kendall

Khan

(2012). Gender and education for all: Progress and problems in achieving gender equity. International Journal of Educational Development, 32, 743-755. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.10.004

Dresvyanina

(2014). Критерии и показатели экспертизы гендерной среды вуза [Expertise’s criteria and indicators of gender university environment]. Person, Family and Society: Issues of Pedagogy and Psychology, 45, 43-48.

Dunne

(2009, June). Effective responses to gender based violence: Some conceptual roots. Address to the Irish Joint Consortium on Gender Based Violence, Dublin, Ireland.

Fortin

N. M.

(2005). Gender role attitudes and the labour-market outcomes of women across OECD countries. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 21, 416-438. doi:10.1093/oxrep/gri024

Iarskaia-Smirnova

(2001). Inequality or multiculturalism. Higher Education in Russia, 4, 102-110.

Jacobs

J. A.

(1996). Gender inequality and higher education. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 153-185. Retrieved from www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2083428

10.

Jayaweera

(1997). Women, education and empowerment in Asia. Gender and Education, 9, 411-424. doi:10.1080/09540259721169

11.

Jones

G. A.

Chant

(2009). Globalising initiatives for gender equality and poverty reduction: Exploring “failure” with reference to education and work among urban youth in the Gambia and Ghana. Geoforum, 40, 184-196. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.07.008

12.

Kerimli

(2013). Болонская система и развитие высшего образования Азербайджана [Bologna system and higher education development in Azerbaijan]. Scientific Dialogue, 14(2), 22-32.

13.

Klein

(1984). Gender politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

14.

Kletsina

(1998). Гендерный подход в системе психологического образования [The gender approach in psychological educational system]. In Mykhailova

M.V.

(Ed.), Гендерные исследования: Феминистская методология в социальных науках [Gender studies: Feminist methodology in the social sciences] (pp. 193-214). Kharkiv, Ukraine: Center for Gender Studies.

15.

Kochetov

A. N.

(2011). Профессиональное образование и рынок труда: Проблемы взаимодействия [Vocational education and the labor market: Problems of interaction]. Sociological Research Journal, 5, 82-90.

16.

Larrabee

T. G.

Morehead

(2008). Prospective teachers’ reflections: Responding to a call for LGBT-inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 10, 1-15. doi:10.18251/ijme.v10i1.78

17.

Maccoby

Jacklin

(1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

18.

Malhotra

Pande

Grown

(2005, July). Impact of investments in female education on gender equality. Paper prepared for presentation at Session 3: Schooling, XXV IUSSP International Population Conference, Tours, France.

19.

Malle

B. F.

(2003). Attributions as behavior explanations: Toward a new theory. Eugene: University of Oregon. Retrieved from http://cogprints.org/3314/1/Explanation_theory_03.pdf

20.

Molla

Cuthbert

(2014). Qualitative inequality: Experiences of women in Ethiopian higher education. Gender and Education, 26, 759-775. doi:10.1080/09540253.2014.970614

21.

Myers

D. G.

(2008). Social psychology. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

22.

Nadolinskaya

(2004). Влияние гендерных стереотипов на воспитание и образование [Influence of gender stereotypes on education and training]. Journal of Psychology, 5, 30-35.

23.

Sharipova

(2015). Образование с точки зрения гендерного знания [Education in terms of gender knowledge] (Proceedings of Hujand State University named after academician B.G. Gafurov). Journal of Humanities, 1(42), 233-235.

24.

Silova

(2005). Traveling policies: Hijacked in Central Asia. European Educational Research Journal, 4, 50-59. doi:10.2304/eerj.2005.4.1.5

25.

Steele

C. M.

(1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613

26.

Williams

J. E.

Best

D. L.

(1990). Sex and psyche: Gender and self viewed cross-culturally. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

27.

Williams

J. E.

Satterwhite

Best

(1999). Pancultural gender stereotypes revisited: The five factor model. Sex Roles, 40, 513-525. doi:10.1023/A:1018831928829

28.

Wilson

(2004). Human rights: Promoting gender equality in and through education. Prospects, 4, 11-27. doi:10.1023/B:PROS.0000026677.67065.84

29.

Workman

(2013). The hidden curriculum: Influences on the gender role development of North American children and teens. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10587/1317

30.

Yakovenko

(2015). Аксиологический аспект гендерной проблематики в философии образования [Axiological aspect of gender in educational philosophy]. “Gramota” Publishing House, 12, 216-218.

31.

Zherebkina

(1996). Предпосылки и история возникновения философской методологии феминизма [Prerequisites and history of philosophical methodology of feminism]. In Zherebkina

(Ed.), Theory and history of feminism (pp. 14-23). Kharkov, Ukraine: F-Press.