INTRODUCTION:

Gender and Gender Inequality

Gender is a contested term which has evolved in its meaning and definition through researchesbeing conducted by social scientists. Irrespective of the way in which gender is construed, the notion of gender tends to be seen and understood in terms of oppositional dualism (Sowell, 2004). The male and female oppositional dualism engenders a supposed ‘naturalness’ of male-ness and female-ness leading to essentialist ideas about manhood and womanhood thus creating gender boundaries. Connell and Pearse (2015) regard these gender boundaries as gender inequalities. Gender inequality has been understood as an ‘ordinal hierarchy between the average men and women in valued resources, in power, and in status’(Ridgeway,2011,p.10).

Ridgeway (2011) contends that a pattern of gender hierarchy exists in which men continue to be advantaged over women throughout much of society. Most gender orders around theworld privilege men and disadvantage women, though there are different forms of privilege and disadvantage across spacesand the scale of gender inequality varies from place to place (Connell and Pearse, 2015). Unterhalter (2007) asserts that the gender dynamics of households, schools, economic and political relations intersect to produce gendered relations of inequality.

In an analysis of the gendered relations of inequality embedded in the matrix of societal institutions, it becomes important to examine gender dynamics in formal education or schools. This is primarily so because societies use education to pass on essential information of their culture, which includes values, skills, and knowledge necessary for survival (Ballantine and Spade, 2008). Though families act as the primary source in the process of socialization, and schools play the second major role in socializing young children, yet socialization that occurs in schools can be instrumental in reinforcing or changing what has already been learned in families (Dawar and Anand, 2017). Biesta (2009) asserts that in performing the function of socialization, schools engage in socialization partly deliberately, in the form of values education, citizenship education, professional socialization or socialization that occurs in less visible ways like ‘hidden curriculum’ or the role of education in the reproduction of social inequality. As socialization and education reinforce each other, understanding the interplay between theformal and informal processes of socialization and the structures and processes of education becomes significant.

The National Focus Group on Gender Issues in Education (2006), maintains that schooling and curriculum have become active instruments of cultural reproduction and social control without seeking to alter the informal and formal processes of socialization. Many theoretical frameworks of education, mainly the conflict, resistance and reproduction theories stress that schools reinforce inequality between students (Ballantine and Hammack, 2016). Finn and Lee, regard formal schooling as a major agent in teaching and reinforcing cultural expectations (as cited in Stromquist, 2007). A pertinent question which arises in the given context of the interplay between socialization and education relates toan important sub-set of socialization, which is gender socialization. Gender according to Lindsey (2015), is a key component in the ordering of all group life, and thus it becomes essential to explore the linkages between gender and schooling. Such linkages have been analysed primarily by feminist scholarship which delves into the issue of reproduction of gender inequalities in the structures and processes of formal education or schools.

Feminist Theoretical Frameworks:

Feminist scholars address above all the question of women’s subordination to men in terms of how it arose, how and why it is perpetuated, how it might be changed and (sometimes) how life would be like without it (Acker, 1987). The word ‘feminism’ was originally a French word, which referredto a diverse collection of groups all aimed in, one way or another at “advancing” the position of women, but the contemporary usage of ‘feminism’ being more inclusive, it is commonly used to refer to all those who seek no matter on what grounds, to end women’s subordination (Jaggar,1983). Feminist theory, like feminism itself, is multifaceted and complex (Acker, 1987). Closely linked to the histories of feminist struggles are feminist research methodologieswhich are broadly categorized into first (1850-1945), second (1945 onwards but with concerted activity from the 1960s to the 1990s) and third wave feminisms (early 1990s onwards), with concerns central to feminists at different historical, social and political moments influencing ideas about methodology and the types of research conducted (Burns and Chantler, 2011).

According to Maynard (1995), three different kind of second wave feminism appeared in published form, an early version of which was, Yates’s book, What Women Want: the idea of the movement, in which Yates suggested a three-fold classification of the women’s movement, which were typically the three classic feminist positions, also called the ‘Big Three’ of feminist thinking, namely liberal feminism, Marxist feminism and radical feminism. During the 1980s, attempts were made to adapt and extend the three main ways of classifying feminist ideas, with subsequent attempts going beyond the ‘Big Three’ by introducing psychoanalytic, post-modern, black, lesbian and various other forms of feminism (Maynard, 1995). Davies and Gannon submit that, third wave feminism (early 1990s onwards) was ushered in by feminist post- structuralism, which historically followed on from, but did not replace liberal feminism and radical feminism, and focused in particular on the specific processes whereby individuals are made into gendered subjects (as cited in Somekh and Lewin, 2011).

In tracing the history of the development of feminist theory, feminist scholars have often pointed towards the limitation of all attempts to classify or categorise feminist thought. According to Nye (1988) the history of feminist thought is borrowing, adaptation and continual outgrowing of a theoretical stance, thus the most adequate understanding of women’s position is to know that each attempt at understanding what was thought and done, creates a new past and a new future. Feminist theories being complex and evolving theoretical positions, the classification of feminist thought is often regarded as problematic.Nonetheless, notwithstanding the proliferation of labels and categories of feminist thought, all feminist theory centres much or all of its attention on gender, by focussing on the inequities, strains and contradictions inherent in gender arrangements and by making a normative commitment that societies should develop equitable gender arrangements (Chafetz, 2006). Different and competing strands of feminism explain gender inequality through a variety of deeply embedded processes such as sexism, patriarchy and capitalism (Giddens, 2009).

Feminist Analysis of Education:

Feminist scholars, in mapping the terrain of gender inequalities in formal education or schools, systematically use feminist theories to account for differential gender outcomes in education. Different feminist theories have related inequalities faced by women in educational systems to differential access, differential treatment and exploitation, patriarchy, and male dominance, whereas some feminist theories have been used to criticize gendered educational practices (Ballantine& Spade, 2015). Stromquist (1990), contends that if women are not enrolled in schools, if they fail to complete a given cycle of education, and if they study only certain fields, the potential role of education in the transmission of skills and knowledge necessary for the establishment of a reconfigured society becomes moot.Though in the past centuries, women have made many gains in educational attainment, particularly in the absence of compelling processes that can actively reconstruct gender biases, gender inequalities in education still remain.

One such area of gender inequality in education is gender stereotyping or gender-bias in learning materials or textbooks. Blumberg (2008) opines that in the face of more visible challenges to achieving gender parity and equality in education like gendered enrolment, retention, differential learning outcomes and achievement, gender-bias in textbooks may appear to be a less urgent or a low-education issue, nonetheless gender-bias in textbooks is ‘(1) an important,(2) near-universal, (3) remarkably uniform, (4) quite persistent but (5) virtually invisible obstacle on the road to gender equality in education – an obstacle camouflaged by taken for-granted-stereotypes about gender roles’ (p.345). It was around the 1970s, that gender-biases beneath the camouflage began to be exposed due to efforts of the activists and educators in the US, followed by attempts to expose and ameliorate gender-biases in textbooks around the world (Blumberg, 2007). In the 1990s, various “second generation” studies began to analyse the persistence (or not) of gender-bias in learning materials and these re-studies noted the persistence of gender-bias in learning materials and the fact that it was decreasing very slowly.

Feminist scholars have focused on the revision of existing curricula at every level of education, through textbook analysis, by focussing on gender representation, which is very stereotypical and biased (Kereszty, 2009). The present paper is an attempt to explore the camouflaged problem of gender stereotyping in school textbooks. The research is aimed at examining gender-bias in the school textbooks brought out by the NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training) and used at the level of senior secondary education. The central question which the paper deals with is how gendered are the NCERT textbooks of senior secondary education? For the purpose of analysis, an evaluation tool developed by the Department of Women’s Studies, NCERT has been used (Srivastava, 2014). The specific research question which the paper endeavours to answer is how is the construct of gender portrayed, in the visuals of the NCERT political-science textbook of class XI, to be assessed through two important sub-components of the evaluation tool, namely ‘active role and ‘passive role’.

Gender Inequality in Education in India: Policy Initiatives:

In the Indian context, gender concerns in education acquired centre stage after the publication of a report ‘Towards Equality’ in the 1970s (Srivastava, 2016). Attempts have been consequentlymade to address gender barriers in education through various constitutional commitments, policy initiatives and conceptualization of different programmes and schemes. The concern for incorporating women’s issues in the syllabus and the textual material was emphasized at the first National Conference on Women’s Studies (NCWS) in 1981, followed by a review of curricula in different disciplines undertaken by the NCWS, which subsequently highlighted the absence of women in the curricula (Dawar and Anand, 2017).

Two important policy documents explicitly emphasizethe need to incorporate gender issues in educational curriculum. The National Policy on Education (NPE) 1986, a landmark document stresses that the National Education System will play an interventionist role in the empowerment of women and will ‘foster the development of new values through redesigned curricula, textbooks, the training and orientation of teachers’ (National Policy on Education, 1986, p. 6). The Programme of Action (POA) 1992, lays down that the ‘Department of Women’s Studies, NCERT will intensify activities in the area of developing gender sensitive curriculum and removing sex bias form textbooks’ (p.2).

The National Curriculum Framework (NCF) 2005, asserts that the representation of knowledge in textbooks and other materials should be viewed from the larger perspective of the challenges facing humanity and the nation and social justice should be the central theme of the curricular reforms to meet the challenges. The National Policy for Women 2016: Articulating a Vision for Empowerment of Women, maintains that continued efforts should be made for gender sensitization of the faculty and curriculum, content and pedagogies for better understanding of the concepts of masculinity and femininity and gender stereotypes (Srivastava, 2016).

Representation of Gender in School Textbooks in India:

Feminist scholars contend that difference in representation of men and women in textbooks offerpoor role models for girls and boys since they do not bring into focus the diversity of roles that women and men play in their real lives, which is instrumental in shaping girls’ and boys’ visions of who they are and what they can become, and such distorted images and portrayals havea detrimental effect on the construction of gender identity among young children. In India, the problem of gender-bias in learning materials or school textbooks has been documented through various researches. Ellis (2002)in an analysis of the schooltextbooks in West-Bengal, finds a good magnitude of gender-bias in the state’s main history and geography texts in the middle school (Parts 1 and 2, published in 1992 and 1996, respectively).Ahmed (as cited in Pandey, 2006) notes that the average primary school textbooks have 115- 130 pages, carry 80-100 illustrations with 52% depicting man and boys, 28% neutral objects, 14% mixed and only 6% portraying girl-children. According to studies reported by NCERT in 2014 on gender analysis of 18 primary level NCERT textbooks and state level textbooks in various Indian states, it has been found that both male and females have been depicted in gender-stereotyped ways in textbooks across the Indian states (Dawar and Anand, 2017).

Pandey (2006) maintains that gender-bias in textbooks might be responsible for the lack of interest that girls show for science at the secondary and senior secondary levels and these texts at a subconscious level prepare boys to achieve while girls are trained to be submissive and obedient at home. Amruthraj (2012) maintains that by perpetuating gender stereotyped games and activities, the textbooks promote gender discrimination and gender inequality, by giving the message that girls and boys have different gender roles. According to Blumberg (2007) due to the camouflaged nature of the problem it becomes difficult to expect people demonstrating in the streets demanding elimination of gender-bias in learning materials, as a result of which many girls navigate around this almost invisible obstacle and taken-for-granted gender stratification. The National Focus Group Paper on Gender Issues in Education (2006) rightly points out that the problem of gender-bias in textbooks persists because there has been no ‘re-conceptualization of the curriculum informed by an awareness of how gender is positioned within discourses of knowledge production and its relationship to social power essential in addressing these issues’(p.20).

Method:

Materials:

In the Indian context, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), an autonomous organization with the Government of India, prepares and publishes model textbooks for classes I to XII, as per the syllabus recommended by the National Curriculum Framework¹. The National Curriculum Framework (NCF) in evolving a national system of education, seeks guidance from the vision of Indian Constitution, and the NCERT textbooks prepared under the NCF, subscribe to various constitutional values.As the NCERT textbooks aremodel textbooks for the primary and secondary levels of education, an analysis of the NCERT textbooks from the gender perspective becomes essential, primarily for the secondary and senior secondary stage of education,an important stage for gender socialization and sensitization. Kalia (1986), Bhog (2002), Nambisan (2005), Prasad (2011), Bhog and Ghose (2014) have examined gender-bias in the NCERT textbooks at the primary or elementary stage of education. This paper attempts to examine gender-bias in the NCERT textbooks of senior secondary stage of education, particularly in the subject of political-science.

The National Curriculum Framework (NCF) 2005, contends that gender justice and minority sensibilities must inform all sectors of the social sciences. Accordingly, the present study analyses gender issues in the NCERT textbooks of social sciences. The sample selected for analysis is the political science textbook of class XI titled ‘Indian Constitution at Work’. According to the National Focus Group on Gender Issues in Education (2006) ‘the mainstream discipline of political science remains largely focused on politics in the narrow sense, like party politics, party system, electoral alliances, however there are compelling reasons to expand the definition of “political” to include whole new areas of activity, many of them involving women as legitimate areas of study’ (p.35).In the light of the above statement, a gender audit of the political science NCERT textbook needs to be conducted to examine firstly,the representation of gender in the ‘political’ activities depicted in the illustrations of the chapters in the textbook and secondly, to understand what constitutes the ‘political’. The research explores the construct of gender as portrayed in the visuals in the textbook, in terms of two important sub-components of ‘active role’ and ‘passive role’, given in the evaluation tool to examine the textbook through a gender lens. The theoretical and conceptual framework guiding the research is Connell’s ‘theory of gender hierarchy’ (1987, 2001, 2005), an influential theory in gender studies, particularly in explaining how particular gender order and gender regimes are stabilized and potentially destabilized (Giddens, 2010).

Content Analysis:

Mayring (2014) submits that there are three different traditions of modern text analysis i) modern hermeneutic approach ii) discourse analysis iii) modern content analysis. The research technique used in the current study is content analysis. Content analysis entails a systematic reading of a body of texts, images, and symbolic matter not necessary from an author’s or user’s perspective (Krippendorff, 2013). Kerlinger, defines content analysis as a method of studying and analysing communication in a systematic, objective and quantitative manner for the purpose of measuring variables (as cited in Wimmer and Dominick, 2013). The technique of content analysis has been applied with the help of an evaluation tool developed by the Department of Women’s Studies, NCERT. The data analysed in the political sciencetextbook through the method of content analysis has been represented using descriptive statistics of percentage and the results discussed through the lens of feminist conceptual and theoretical framework.

Findings and discussion:

Table 1 displays the percentage of female and male characters depicted in ‘active role’ and ‘passive role’in the visuals of the political science textbook, chosen as the sample textbook for the purpose of research. Active role and passive role are two parameters given in the evaluation tool to examine the visuals from a gender perspective. In the context of the political science textbook, titled ‘Indian Constitution at Work’, for class XI, the terms ‘active role’ and ‘passive role’ have been used in a relational manner and they imply whether the character has a dominant role or a subordinate role in the visuals. ‘Active role’ means the character in the image has been shown in a position of dominance like presiding over a meeting, heading a demonstration, taking a lead role in discussions and deliberations. ‘Passive role’ implies a subordinate role in which the characters do not actively engage in the activities depicted in the visual and are seen on the margins of the visual or relegated to the background.

As the table indicates, the percentage of male characters shown in active roleis quite high as compared to the female characters in active roles. Out of a total of ten chapters in the textbook, seven chapters, with the exception of three chapters (chapters one, four, eight), have more than 50 per cent of the male charactersin active roles, whereas in the case of female characters only in one chapter (chapter nine), 37 per cent of the female characters are engaged in active roles. The percentage difference between women in active and passive rolesis quite low in fact negligible in most chapters, as compared to men where the percentage difference between active and passive roles is quite high. Also, whereas there is only one chapter (chapter five) where no female character has been depicted in a passive role, there are three chapters (chapters two, nine, ten) where there are no male characters in passive roles. The chapter in which no female character is depicted in passive role (chapter five), also does not depict a high percentage of women in active roles, as only 25 per cent of the female characters are engaged in active roles as opposed to 60 per cent of male characters depicted in active roles. Also, the percentage of male characters in passive roles, whether high or low, is mostly in relation to male characters in active roles, and not to the female characters in active roles.

Another discouraging observation from the gender perspective is that all the images of the leaders given in the textbook are of male leaders, for example, Rajendra Prasad, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Sardar Patel, Krishnaswami Ayyar, N.V.Gadgil, Sardar Hukam Singh, Somnath Lahiri, among others, with a total exclusion of female leaders. Srivastava (2018) highlights the seminal contributions made by fifteen female members of the Constituent Assembly, towards making of the Indian Constitution, they being, Ammu Swaminathan, DakshyaniVelayudhan, Begum Aizaz Rasul, Durgabai Deshmukh, Hansa Jivraj Mehta, Kamla Chaudhary, Leela Roy, Malati Choudhary, Purnima Banerjee, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, Renuka Ray, Sarojini Naidu, Suchetra Kriplani, Vijalakshami Pandit and Annie Mascarene. The visuals in the textbook do not however carry the images of any of the fifteen female members mentioned. Also, only one chapter (chapter eight- Local governments) in the textbook carries a visual in which men and women have been shown sitting together in a meeting of a local government, in almost equal numbers.

Table 1 Percentage of Women and Men in ‘Active role’ and ‘Passive Role’ in the visuals of the textbook

Chapter Nos.	Male		Female
Chapter Nos.	Active Role	Passive Role	Active Role	Passive Role
1	45	25	15	15
2	65	-	25	10
3	50	26	16	8
4	40	20	30	10
5	60	15	25	-
6	55	23	16	6
7	52	21	21	6
8	44	18	18	20
9	57	-	37	6
10	80	-	20	10

Note. This table shows the percentage of women and men in active and passive roles depicted in the images of the political science textbook of class XI, titled ‘Indian Constitution At Work’ (First edition:2006, Reprint: January 2020).

On the basis of analysis of the textbook through the gender lens, it can be safely argued that the visuals in the chapters of the political science textbook of class XI, are gendered and the images reinforce the unequal gender roles played out in society at large. The ‘theory of gender hierarchy’ propounded by feminist scholar, R.W. Connell (1987, 2001, 2005), in which she expoundsthe concept of ‘multiple masculinities and femininities’, can explain conceptually the gender-biased images in the political science textbook (Giddens, 2009). According to Connell’s theory, sitting at the top of the hierarchy, is‘hegemonic masculinity’ the most idealized pattern of masculinity, associated with authority, paid work, strength, physical toughness, competitiveness and exiting in a subordinated relationship to it are a number of ‘marginalized masculinities’ and ‘subordinated femininities’, with ‘emphasized femininity’ symbolizing the ideal vision of femininity, characterised by compliance, nurturance and empathy (Spade and Valentine, 2011). The visuals in the chapters of the textbook, as analysed in Table 1, echo Connell’s theory of gender hierarchy, where women and even men exist in a subordinated relationship to men who embody ‘hegemonic masculinity’. The term hegemonyaccording to Connell and Messerschmidt, does not mean violence per se, rather it refers to ascendancy achieved through culture, institutions, persuasion (as cited in Spade & Valentine, 2011). Thus, the media, education, ideology, even sports and music can all be channels through which hegemony is established (Giddens, 2010). In the given context, gendered textbooks in formal education become hegemonic devices which reinforce the existing gender hierarchy though gender-stereotypical images and content.

CONCLUSION:

Davies, claims that school is a social experience in which values and attitudes are transmitted, and textbooks are agents of this transmission (as cited in Evans and Davies, 2000). In the Indian context, textbooks are important repository of knowledge and an important teaching and learning material that teachers and students rely upon (Srivastava, 2014). Achieving equality through educationhas been a central concern of the national endeavour underlying Indian education and despite this commitment being unequivocally voiced in all the major policy documents of Independent India, the task of translating this vision of equality into a curricular framework and into textbooks is challenging and has not been fully realised (Outside The Government System- A Report, 2005). According to theNational Curriculum Framework, 2005 school textbooks should be used as one of the primary instruments for equality, since for a majority of school going children and also for teachers, it is the only accessible and affordable resource for education. It thus becomes necessary to take proactive steps to restructure knowledgethrough the gender lens, as embedded in the NCERT textbooks, so that the invisible becomes visible.

REFERENCES:

1. Acker, S. (1987). Feminist theory and the study of gender and education. International Review of Education/ Internationale Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswissenschaft/ Revue Internationale de l’Education, 33(4), 419-435. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3444244

2. Amruthraj, R. M. (2012). Gender discrimination in the primary school English language textbooks in Tamil Nadu. The Primary Teacher, 37 (1& 2), 77-101.

3. Ballantine, J. H., and Spade, J. Z. (Eds). (2008). Schools and Society: A sociological approach to education (3^rd ed.). Sage.

4. Ballantine, J. H., and Spade, J. Z. (Eds.). (2015). Schools and Society: A sociological approach to education (5^th ed.). Sage.

5. Ballantine, J. H., and Hammack, F. M. (2016). The Sociology of education: Asystematic analysis (7^th ed.). Routledge.

6. Bhog, D. (2002). Gender and curriculum. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(17), 1638-1642.

7. Bhog, D., and Ghose, M. (2014). Writing gender in: Reflections on writing middle- school political science textbooks in India. Gender and Development, 22(1), 49-62.

8. Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). On the weakness of education. In D. Kerdeman et al. (Eds.), Philosophy of Education 2009 (pp. 354-362). Philosophy of Education Society.

9. Blumberg, L. R. (2007). Gender bias in textbooks: A hidden obstacle to educational equality in education. UNESCO “Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008, Education for All by 2015: will we make it. UNESCO

10. Blumberg, R. L. (2008). The invisible obstacle to educational equality: gender bias in textbooks. Prospects, 38, 345-361. doi: 10.1007/s11125-009-9086-1

11. Burns, D., and Chantler, K. (2011). Feminist methodologies. In B. Somekh, and C. Lewin (Eds.), Theory and methods in social research (2nd ed., pp. 70-77). Sage.

12. Central Advisory Board of Education Committee. (2005). Regulatory mechanisms for textbooks and parallel textbooks taught in schools outside the government system. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India.

13. Chaftez, J. S. (2006). Preface. In J. S. Chaftez (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of gender. (pp. vii-ix). Springer.

14. Connell, R.W., & Pearse, R. (2015). Gender: In world perspective (3^rd ed.). Polity Press.

15. Davies, B., and Gannon, C. (2011). Feminism/ post-structuralism. In B. Somekh, and C. Lewin (Eds). Theory and methods in social research (2^nd ed., pp. 312-320). Sage.

16. Dawar, T., and Anand, S. (2017). Gender bias in textbooks across the world. International Journal of Applied Home Science, 4 (3& 4), 224-235.

17. Department of Education. (1986). National policy on education1986. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India.

18. Department of Education. (1992). Programme of action 1992. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India.

19. Ellis, J. (2002). Strengthening subservience: Gender bias in West Bengal school textbooks. Manushi, 133, 23-24.

20. Evans, L., and Davies, K. (2000). No sissy boys here: A content analysis of the representation of masculinity in elementary school reading textbooks. Sex Roles, 3(42), 255-270.

21. Giddens, A. (2009). Sociology (6^th ed.). Polity Press.

22. Jaggar, A. M. (1983). Feminist politics and human nature. Rowman and Littlefield.

23. Kalia, N. N. (1986). Women and sexism: Language of Indian school textbooks. Economic and Political Weekly, 21(18), 794-797.

24. Kereszty, O. (2009). Gender in textbooks. Practice and Theory in Systems of Education, 4(2), 1-7.

25. Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3^rd ed.). Sage.

26. Lindsey, L, L. (2015). Gender roles: A Sociological Perspective (6^th ed.). Routledge.

27. Maynard, M. (1995). Beyond the ‘big three’: the development of feminist theory into the 1990s. Women’s History Review, 4(3), 259-281.https://doi.org/10.1080/09612029500200089

28. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basicprocedures and software solution. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173

29. Nambissan, G.B. (2005). Integrating gender concerns. Changing English, 12(2), 191-199.

30. National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2005). National CurriculumFramework. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India.

31. National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2006). National focus group ongender issues in education [Policy statement]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncert.nic.in/new_ ncert/ncert/rightside/links/pdf/focus_group/gender_issues_in_education.pdf

32. Nye, A. (1988). Feminist theory and the philosophies of man. Routledge.

33. Pandey, K. (2006). Gender issues and Indian textbooks. InÉric Bruillard, BenteAamotsbakken, Susanne V. Knudsen, & Mike Horsley (Eds.), Caught in the Web or Lost in the Textbook? (pp.201- 206). Paris Jouve.

34. Prasad, B.V.R. (2013). The absence of the domestic in the NCERT textbook ‘Marigold’ for first standard students. International Journal of English Literature, Language and Skills, 1(4), 49-52.

35. Sowell, S. P. (2004). Doing gender/ teaching science: A feministpoststructuralanalysis of middle school science teacher’s identity negotiations [Doctoral dissertation, Florida

36. State University]. DigiNole: FSU’s Digital Library.

37. http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_migr_etd-1617

38. Srivastava, Y. (2018, January 26). These are the 15 women who helped draft the Indian Constitution. FII.https:// feminisminindia.com/2018/01/26/15-women-draft-indian-constitution/

39. Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in modern world (1^st ed.). Oxford University Press.

40. Spade, J. Z., and Valentine, C. G. (2011). Introduction. In J. Z. Spade, & C. G. Valentine (Eds.), The kaleidoscope of gender: Prisms, patterns, and possibilities (3^rd ed., pp. xiii-xxii). Pine Forge Press.

41. Srivastava, G. (2016). Analysis of the textbooks of Assam, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Maharashtra, Manipur and Rajasthan: An overall report. Department of Gender Studies, National Council of Educational Research and Training. http://www.ncert.nic.in/departments/nie/ dws/pdf/overallreportDGS_24_8_17.pdf

42. Srivastava, G. (2014). Gender concerns in education. Retrieved from http://www.ncert.nic.in/departments/nie/dse/activities/ advisory_board/PDF/Genderconcerns.pdf

43. Stromquist, N. P. (1990). Gender inequality in education: Accounting for women’s subordination. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(2), 137-153. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1392827

44. Stromquist, N. P. (2007). The gender socialization process in schools: A cross-national comparison. “Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008, Education for All by 2015: will we make it? UNESCO efareport@unesco.org

45. Unterhalter, E. (2007). Gender, schooling, and global social justice (1st ed.). Routledge.

46. Wimmer, R. D., and Dominick, J. R. (2009). Mass media research processes, approaches, andapplications (10^th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Received on 05.09.2020 Modified on 25.09.2020

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2020; 11(4):323-329.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2020.00051.0