Sexuality education is known by different names, including healthy lifestyle education, family life education, and relationship education. In the Republic of Armenia, the "Healthy Lifestyle" (HL) program is the only curricular program at public schools that covers reproductive health and gender-related topics.

This paper critically investigates how classroom participants in Armenia discuss gender-related topics during sexuality education lessons, and how this knowledge is constructed. As the socio-cultural context with regard to gender (i.e., societal and familial gender roles) common to the mainstream population in Armenia is in conflict with the definition of gender-related concepts such as gender equality portrayed in the HL curriculum, the focus is on the construction of gendered knowledge considering this incongruity.

Despite Armenia’s progressive stance on gender equality laws, evidenced by the enactment of the law on Equal Rights and Equal Opportunities for Women and Men in 2013 and the development of gender mainstreaming frameworks for specific periods to address gender equality goals, the country’s deeply rooted patriarchal political system poses stark contrasts. Different studies and international reports highlight the persistent challenges of gender inequality and gender-based violence within the country (Khachatryan et al. 2015; Ziemer 2020).

Among a few sex education programs piloted in Armenian schools, the HL program has been distinguished with a nationwide mandatory status since 2008. As of 2023, it is taught to pupils from the 8th to 11th grade, covering topics such as reproductive health, family formation, gender inequality, unintended pregnancy, and gender-based violence. Apart from a few reports, the literature on the examination of the implementation of the HL program, particularly the pedagogical challenges and curricular topics has largely been neglected by academic analysis. This work addresses the academic gap by exploring how this gender-related knowledge is constructed. In doing so, it aims to offer insights into potential improvements for gender-related sexuality education in Armenia and beyond.

Gender is not merely a social institution; it is, along with categories such as race, ethnicity, and class, a central aspect of daily social interactions and power relations (Lorber, 1994). For instance, masculinities and femininities are not static attributes but vary from place to place and are continuously constructed and reconstructed through interactions (West and Zimmerman, 1987; Connell, 1991). This work’s conceptualization of gender-related terminology relies on the sociological categorization of ’sex,’ ’sex category,’ and ’gender’ as applied by West and Zimmerman in “Doing Gender” (1987). Doing gender is one explanation of how people construct and do gender. It is rooted in ethnomethodology and social constructionist traditions and is central to understanding the nuances of gender construction.

Gender, as a part of the social order and division, permeates all societal institutions and influences the construction of knowledge. Given that schools are identified as the primary setting for imparting sexual health information (Seiler-Ramadas et al., 2020), it becomes essential for pedagogues to receive adequate training to become aware of gender issues and to apply this knowledge in their teaching practices. However, teachers worldwide have reported receiving inadequate training for delivering sexuality education effectively (Eisenberg et al., 2010).

To answer the main research questions posed in the study of what knowledge is produced in the classroom and how is the knowledge of gender constructed in the classroom a qualitative study was conducted, described in more detail in the next section on methodology.

This study adopted a qualitative methodology, which allowed effective immersion into the target population’s culture and facilitated in-depth analysis of their discussions and practices. Participant observations were conducted during January and February 2018 when the HL program was being taught. The research encompassed two educational settings: one site was a secondary, while another was a high school. In the secondary school, the HL curriculum targeted 8th-9th graders, while in the high school, it was designed for 10th-11th graders. This phase of the research consisted of both classroom observations and informal interviews with physical educators, who were teaching the HL program. This eight-week period of observing lessons in these schools was crucial for collecting primary, first-hand data. To analyze classroom discussions, the Documentary method – a well-established tool in the field of school research and practical empirical enquiry - was used (Bohnsack, 2014). The study involved recordings of lessons, which were first transcribed in Armenian, then translated into English, and subsequently analyzed using the specific steps of the Documentary method. This process facilitated topical structuring and brought to light the central themes of the discussions. The reconstruction was achieved by following the interpretation steps of 1. formulating (thematic) interpretation, 2. reflecting (documentary) interpretation, 3. case description, and 4. sense-genetic typification, with case comparison continuing until types were formed. A key feature of this method is its systematic comparative analysis, which facilitates the reconstruction of data by distancing myself and adhering to an empirical analytical path. This approach enabled the reconstruction of underlying implicit beliefs and a shared understanding of gender-related topics. The analytic stance matches that of this study because both approaches lend credence to constructionism and are in line with Mannheim’s interpretation method and sociogenetics. Moreover, ethnomethodology and the sociology of knowledge were the underlying theories for the development of the Documentary method (Asbrand and Martens, 2018, p.12). While the social-constructionist framework provides explanations for gender as socially arranged everyday practices, the Documentary method enables the reconstruction of conjunctive experience based on the common practice of participants. The following paper is part of my upcoming book, “Gender, Sex, Taboo: Insights from Armenian Sex Education,” based on my doctoral research (Gevorgyan, 2024). In the next section, the central findings are presented by focusing on the construction of gendered knowledge during sexuality education classroom discussions around gender topics. The paper aims to contribute to the areas of sexuality education, gender, and education studies.

The empirical findings indicated that participants shared a conjunctive understanding regarding moralization and essentialization of gendered knowledge, which manifested in both argumentative and implicit modes. Data reconstruction revealed a common tendency to moralize various situations, behaviours, and actions within an appraisal mode. Notably, the classroom participants consistently demonstrated a shared knowledge of putting emphasized focus on women’s actions and a conforming to a collective understanding of appropriate behaviour and actions. This moralization extended to topics such as sexual intercourse and pregnancy, often associated with the implicit approval of marriage between partners. Expecting a pregnancy after marriage and putting highlighted responsibility and blame on a female if this does not occur was a shared horizon among all cases analyzed. In discussing these topics, the emphasis on abstinence, particularly for women, was central in participants’ commentaries, often conveyed through personal stories and film sequences instead of presenting medically accurate and reliable sources of information. Even in situations involving females affected by sexual violence the emphasis on abstinence remained central in participants’ commentaries. The results showed that teachers played a dominant role in all classroom discussions, often guiding the conversation and giving long monologues. This approach led to the construction of gender knowledge based on a binary framework, including when addressing pupils and when presenting options for different situations based on the pupil’s sex. The findings also highlighted frequent deviation from original statements, both the teacher’s personal statements and those of the pupils, as well as shifts in the nature of questions and pupils’ answers. These deviations were characterized by the use of evaluative language for answers, situations, and behaviors; occasional exertion of authority; leading and loaded questions; prescriptive and descriptive modes; and frequent generalization of opinions.

Asbrand, B. and Martens, M. (2018). Dokumentarische Unterrichtsforschung. Springer. Bohnsack, R. (2014). Documentary method. In Flick, U., editor, The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis, SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis, pages 217–233. SAGE Publications, Inc, 55 City Road, London. Connell, R. W. (1991). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Soc. Forces, 69(3):953. Eisenberg, M. E., Madsen, N., Oliphant, J. A., Sieving, R. E., and Resnick, M. (2010). “am I qualified? how do I know?” a qualitative study of sexuality educators’ training experiences. Am. J. Health Educ., 41(6):337–344. Gevorgyan, Z. (2024).Gender, sex, taboo: Insights from Armenian Sex Education. Psychosozial-Verlag. Khachatryan, K., Dreber, A., von Essen, E., and Ranehill, E. (2015). Gender and preferences at a young age: Evidence from Armenia. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 118(C):318–332. Lorber, J. (1994). Night to his day”: The social construction of gender. Paradoxes of gender, 1:1–8. Seiler-Ramadas, R., Grabovac, I., Niederkrotenthaler, T., and Dorner, T. E. (2020). Adolescents’ perspective on their sexual knowledge and the role of school in addressing emotions in sex education: An exploratory analysis of two school types in Austria. J. Sex Res., 57(9):1180–1188. West, C. and Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2):125–151. Ziemer, U. (2020). Women against authoritarianism: Agency and political protest in Armenia. In Women’s Everyday Lives in War and Peace in the South Caucasus, pages 71–100.Springer International Publishing, Cham.