Education as a lifelong process : comparing educational trajectories in modern societies : summary of core results of the eduLife project.
Date: 2016-09-26
Institutions: Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies
Subjects: adult education, anti-discriminatory measure, education policy, knowledge economy, learning, professional qualifications, social inequality, vocational training

eduLIFE

EDUCATION  
AS A LIFELONG PROCESS

COMPARING EDUCATIONAL  
TRAJECTORIES  
IN MODERN SOCIETIES

Summary of Core Results of the eduLIFE Project

Aims of the eduLIFE project

Studying inequality in educational opportunities has a long tradition in sociology, and many social 
researchers have argued that education has become the key variable in social stratification. Over the 
last decades, modern societies have become characterized as knowledge-based economies in which 
the role of education and its organization in institutions have important consequences for educa-
tional participation in all phases of the life course. Today, education is a lifelong process in which 
individuals acquire skills and competencies in formal and non-formal learning settings not only in 
school but also before school and afterwards throughout the entire life-span. However, our empirical 
knowledge on the variation of inequality in education over the life course in modern societies is still 
based mostly on cross-sectional studies (see, e.g., large scale comparisons such as PISA – Programme 
for International Student Assessment; PIRLS – Progress in International Reading Literacy Study; and 
PIAAC – Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies).  Such studies can 
provide only snapshots of students and employees at particular points in their educational careers. 
Successive snapshots in a series of such cross-sectional surveys highlight the changes in the structure 
as a whole. Yet, cross-sectional designs may mask the changing (and sometimes unchanging) expe-
riences of birth cohorts as their educational careers progress through the life course, and they are 
usually unable to account adequately for path dependencies in educational trajectories. Ultimately, 
cross-sectional research designs fail to analyze education as a highly time-dependent, stepwise, and 
cumulative process.

Therefore, the core aim of the eduLIFE project was to study how the educational careers of individuals 
unfold over the entire life course in different societies and to relate this to family background, edu-
cational institutions, job careers, workplaces, and private life events. The project adopted an explicit 
life-course perspective, utilized comparative research designs, and exploited the best available cross-
sectional  and  longitudinal  datasets  for  studying  educational  processes  in  modern  societies.  Highly 
reputed scholars from a large cross-national network have contributed comparable country-specific 
analyses to the eduLIFE project. Wherever possible, these in-depth country studies were complement-
ed by more highly standardized cross-national studies. By comparing results from different countries, 
we aimed to establish the generality of country-specific findings and to work out important differences 
across societies in terms of their educational institutions and country contexts.

To analyze education as a lifelong process, we structured the objectives of our project into four 
phases, each focusing on a specific, very sensitive stage of the educational career:

Childcare, Early Education and Social Inequality    
In this phase, we studied access to early education and childcare, quality of preschool education, 
and short- and long-term effects of early education and care on individuals from different social 
backgrounds (2014–2015).

Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality    
In  this  phase,  we  examined  educational  differentiation  in  secondary  education  and  short-  and 
longer-term consequences with regard to social inequality in educational opportunities, achieve-
ment, and final educational attainment (2013–2014).

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 1

Gender, Education and Employment 
In this phase, we studied educational trajectories and their consequences for gender differences at 
the school-to-work transition (2012–2013).

Adult Learning 
In this phase, we compared various models of lifelong learning and the consequences they have 
for the educational trajectories of adults together with other (economic and non-economic) life-
course outcomes (2011–2012).

The results of the eduLIFE project have been published in four books by the Edward Elgar Pub-
lishing House (in the eduLIFE Lifelong Learning Series) and in a number of peer-reviewed jour-
nal  articles  (see  the  list  of  publications  on  p.  24).  Furthermore,  results  have  been  presented  at 
major sociological conferences, workshops, and invited keynotes worldwide. These four substan-
tive volumes have been complemented by a book which can be used as a compendium on major 
methodological challenges, solutions, and achievements that emerged in developing the National 
Educational Panel Study (NEPS).

All four research phases followed the same approach: Each phase started by establishing a com-
mon conceptual framework; carrying out preliminary analyses for a small number of countries; 
and building up a network of scholars and experts to design, compare, and discuss country-specif-
ic results. More specifically, in each of the four research phases, we (1) compiled and discussed the 
main theories and hypotheses in the field of study and identified important research gaps; (2) de-
veloped a conceptual framework and a research design guide in order to ensure that results could 
be compared; in particular, we agreed on the main concepts, operationalization, variables, and sta-
tistical models to be used in the country-specific studies. Then we (3) discussed and summarized 
the most important research findings from the various country studies and jointly discussed major 
substantive conclusions in two workshops; before finally (4) identifying limitations and issues that 
are worthy of future examination.

The  eduLIFE  project  therefore  represents  the  outcome  of  the  work  of  a  team  of  experts  on  the 
respective  topics  from  different  countries.  In  each  project  phase,  the  eduLIFE  project  benefited 
greatly from the expertise and knowledge of the eduLIFE team and the large number of interna-
tional collaborators.

2 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

Childcare, Early Education and Social Inequality: 
An International Perspective

Blossfeld, H.-P., Kulic, N. Skopek, J., and Triventi, M. (Eds.) 
Childcare,  Early  Education  and  Social  Inequality  –  An  In-
ternational  Perspective.  eduLIFE  Lifelong  Learning  Series. 
Vol. 4. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Ed-
ward Elgar Publishing (forthcoming).

In focus:
A cross-country comparison of access to early education and 
childcare, quality of early education and care, and its short- 
and  long-term  effects  on  individuals  from  different  social 
backgrounds

Social disparities in children’s cognitive and non-cognitive skills are already present in early childhood and 
preschool age, and these will impact on educational careers when children enter school. Care in the family 
and institutional environments play a decisive role in these processes. Consequently, understanding the 
factors that are responsible for achievement gaps in cognitive and non-cognitive development in early 
childhood is an issue of rising importance in the sociological inquiry into social inequality.

Yet, empirical knowledge on how early care and education are linked to social inequality is surpris-
ingly limited. The literature lacks a comprehensive approach that incorporates and unites different 
perspectives on social disparities in early educational conditions and outcomes while considering 
their consequences for inequality of educational opportunities. Depending on their needs, prefer-
ences, opportunities, and constraints, families will pursue different childcare strategies that vary in 
terms of their type, quality, and intensity. Diverse family environments and exposure will go along 
with varying opportunities for educational stimulation across children. Thus, it becomes clear that 
the family decision making on childcare settings can be seen as an important mechanism driving 
early  inequalities.  Nonetheless,  this  is  a  largely  understudied  aspect:  Past  research  has  focused 
mainly on the effectiveness of preschool interventions without viewing early education and care 
within the larger societal context. In addition, the literature on the influence of other sorts of care, 
particularly informal and parental care, is rather scarce. There is also a substantial lack of cross-
country comparisons of access to early care and education.

Our book represents an important contribution in several respects. First, our definition of child-
care in the framework of inequality analysis is much more comprehensive than that in most previ-
ous studies. Given the complexity of early education and care, we draw a systematic distinction 
between  care  and  education  provided  by  parents;  non-parental  childcare  in  an  informal  setting 
be  it  either  paid  or  unpaid;  and  formal  care  in  an  institutional,  generally  center-based  setting. 
In addition, we consider aspects of the timing and quality of care. Second, we assess both short- 
and more long-term consequences of childcare arrangements for social inequality in educational 

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 3

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
achievement and attainment. This involves studying not only different attendance rates and types 
of  childcare  but  also  heterogeneous  effects  of  childcare  types  by  social  background.  Third,  our 
book  contributes  to  extending  the  analytical  lens  to  European  countries  by  explicitly  address-
ing  the  role  of  the  broader  societal  and  socio-historical  context  that  shapes  childcare  settings. 
Fourth, our approach takes full advantage of the recent availability of national longitudinal data 
on early childhood in several European countries. By comparing how different countries organize 
and support early childcare, we aim to shed light on how variations in early childcare impact on 
social inequality structures. Fifth, our book combines studies conducted by researchers from vari-
ous academic disciplines. Hence, our analysis benefits from a multidisciplinary approach to early 
childhood, education, and care while still offering a clear sociological perspective on the topic.

More than 30 leading experts from several academic disciplines (sociology, psychology, econom-
ics,  and  educational  science)  have  contributed  to  this  book  by  providing  country-specific  stud-
ies on Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Sweden, the 
United Kingdom, and the United States, together with more general studies taking a comparative 
perspective.

Our  results  demonstrate  that  even  before  entering  primary  education,  children  already  differ 
markedly in their basic cognitive and non-cognitive competencies, and that this has consequences 
for their educational opportunities over the life course. However, in the present volume, we show 
that early cognitive and non-cognitive differences between children are a major challenge, because 
they are embedded in a larger context of social inequalities and they result from complex interac-
tions between family involvements, early educational opportunities, and constraints. 

We find evidence that family learning environments play an important role in reproducing social 
inequality. In addition, we demonstrate that, independent of contexts, access to early education 
and care is socially stratified in favor of more privileged children. 

In  our  book,  several  studies  suggest  that  the  initial  disadvantage  of  less  privileged  children  is 
somewhat  reduced  when  they  are  enrolled  in  early  education  institutions.  This  is  the  evidence 
from Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom. In addition, children 
from all social origins tend to profit from early education. However, evidence on the reduction of 
the gap between children from different social origins is rather mixed across countries. This sup-
ports the notion that country contexts are important because they provide different educational 
opportunities. It seems that the quality of early education may play an important role, because the 
specific quality dimensions of early education succeed particularly well in reducing the social gap 
in achievement, although their effectiveness does appear to be context-specific.

Overall, we conclude that early education and care have an important role to play in the context of 
social inequalities, but that their added value depends strongly on the counteracting mechanisms 
present in the families’ different cultural and socioeconomic conditions.

4 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

Eighth eduLIFE Workshop: “Childcare 
Arrangements and Social Inequalities: A Cross-
Country Comparison.” Florence, Italy, 12–13 
November 2015

Core findings in a nutshell:
 ■ Our results demonstrate that children already differ markedly in their basic cognitive and non-

cognitive competencies before entering primary education.

 ■ These differences in children’s cognitive and non-cognitive skills foster social inequalities in fur-

ther educational opportunities over the life course

 ■ Child  development  depends  on  hereditary  potential,  parental  interactions  and  engagement  at 

home, as well as educational investments in children

 ■ The earliest child–parent interactions and the materials and time invested in children are related 

 ■

to social background
Families’ socioeconomic and cultural conditions influence their decisions on childcare arrange-
ments, when to start with formal childcare, and how much of it to use

 ■ Parental decisions and their consequences for child development depend on the country-specific 

availability and characteristics of early education and care

 ■ Good quality early education benefits all children, and it may be particularly advantageous for 

very disadvantaged families

 ■ The use and quality of different forms of childcare interact in creating early social inequalities
 ■ Although early education may level the playing field by reducing the social gap between children, 

it cannot fully eliminate social inequalities

 ■ Country examples shed light on successful policies and show how early childhood education and 

care relate to specific country contexts

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 5

Contents of Childcare, Early Education and Social Inequality – An International Perspective

Part I: Introduction 
1.    Childcare, Early Education, and Social Inequality: Perspectives for a Cross-National and Multidisciplinary 

Study. Kulic, N., Skopek, J., Triventi, M. and Blossfeld, H.-P. 

Part II: Patterns of Care Arrangements
2.   Who  Cares  for  the  Children?  Family  Social  Position  and  Childcare  Arrangements  in  Italy,  2002–2012. 

Brilli, Y., Kulic, N., and Triventi, M. 

3.   Early Childcare Arrangements in Post-Soviet Russia: Social Policy and Inequality Patterns. Kosyakova, Y., 

and Yastrebov, G. 

4.   Time on Leave, Timing of Preschool: The Role of Parental Leave Use for Preschool Start in Sweden. Viklund, 

I. and Duvander, A.-Z. 

Part III: The Role of Family Care Quality
5.   Social Disparities in Cognitive and Noncognitive Development in Early Childhood in Germany. Attig, M., 

Rossbach, H.-G., and Weinert, S. 

6.   Social Inequality in Cognitive Outcomes in Ireland: What is the Role of Home Learning Environment and 

Childcare? McGinnity, F., McMullin, P., Murray, A., and Russell, H. 

Part IV: Consequences of Care and Preschool for Early and Later Educational Outcomes
7.   Preschool and Reading Competencies: A Cross-National Analysis. Dämmrich, J. and Esping-Andersen, G. 
8.   Long-Term Effects of a System of High-Quality Universal Preschool Education. Barnett, S. and Frede, E.C. 
9.   Dutch Pre-COOL2-5 Study: Cognitive and Language Development of Disadvantaged Children as Related 
to ECEC Characteristics. Leseman P., Broekhuizen, M., Mulder, H., van Schaik, S., Slot, P., Verhagen, J., and 
Boom, J. 

10.   What Levels the Playing Field for Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Children in the Norwegian ECEC 

Model? Zachrisson, H.D., Dearing, E., Blömeke, S., and Moser, T.

11.   Early Childcare, Child Cognitive Outcomes, and Inequalities in the UK. Del Boca, D., Piazzalunga, D., and 

Pronzato, C. 

12.   Entry to Formal Childcare and Abilities of Preschoolers: A Comparison of East and West Germany. Skopek, J.
13.   Childcare Arrangements at Preschool Age and Later Child Outcomes in Denmark: The Role of Maternal 

Education and Type of Care. Wahler S., Buchholz S., and Breinholt Lund, A. 

14.   Home Sweet Home? Long-Term Educational Outcomes of Childcare Arrangements in Finland. Karhula 

A., Erola J., and Kilpi-Jakonen E. 

Part V: Discussion and Conclusions 
15.   Too High Expectations? Lessons Learned from a Cross-National and Multidisciplinary Study on the Role 
of Early Education and Care in Social Inequality. Blossfeld, H.-P., Kulic, N., Skopek, J., and Triventi, M.

6 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality:   
An International Comparison

Blossfeld,  H.-P.,  Buchholz,  S.,  Skopek,  J.,  and  Triventi,  M. 
(Eds.)  Models  of  Secondary  Education  and  Social  Inequal-
ity - An International Comparison. eduLIFE Lifelong Learn-
ing Series. Vol. 3. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, 
USA: Edward Elgar Publishing (forthcoming).

In focus:
Educational differentiation in secondary education and short- and 
longer-term consequences on social inequality in educational op-
portunities, achievement and final educational attainment

At  some  points  in  the  educational  career,  most  educational  systems  in  postindustrial  societies 
sort students into different types of education. Countries have developed different approaches to 
educational differentiation in secondary schooling, and these have potential consequences for the 
social  inequality  of  educational  opportunities.  Whereas  most  current  international  studies  use 
a  simplified  dichotomy  distinguishing  between  tracked  and  comprehensive  school  systems,  we 
argue that such simplification does not reflect the complex reality of how contemporary school 
systems  may  work.  Existing  research,  on  one  hand,  tends  to  understate  the  degree  of  flexibility 
and mobility that has been introduced into modern tracking systems. On the other hand, previous 
studies  tend  to  overstate  the  factual  “openness”  of  the  so-called  comprehensive  school  systems, 
many of which have become more differentiated over time.

The  aim  of  this  volume  was  to  study  different  models  of  secondary  education  and  their  conse-
quences for inequality of educational opportunity in contemporary societies. Our approach pro-
vides a fine-grained scheme of educational differentiation that informs our studies by capturing 
not only overt forms of formal differentiation such as formal tracking but also rather hidden forms 
such as subject choice or between-school differentiation. Three types of questions guided our com-
parative research design: (1) How are students sorted into various types of secondary education? 
In particular, what is the role of students’ social background and previous academic achievement? 
(2) How stable is the first allocation to secondary school? Is the initial assignment permanent, or 
how far is it “corrected” by educational mobility in secondary education? What do these patterns of 
stability and/or mobility in secondary school mean for educational inequalities? (3) What are the 
short- and long-term consequences of explicit and hidden forms of differentiation in secondary 
education for students’ educational careers?

The comparative design of our book is extraordinarily strong because it provides case studies from 
17 countries—all relying on longitudinal data—and two additional comparative studies exploiting 
cross-sectional international student assessment data. We grouped the chapters on the country stud-

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 7

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ies according to their main model of differentiation: the early-tracking model (Germany, Hungary, 
the Netherlands, and Switzerland); the Nordic inclusive educational model (Denmark, Finland, and 
Sweden); the individual choice model (Australia, England, Ireland, Scotland, and the United States); 
and the mixed tracking model (Estonia, France, Israel, Italy, and Russia). The inclusion of pre-sorting 
measures of students’ achievement in the country studies made it possible to disentangle the relative 
influence of social background and prior achievement on students’ allocation into various types of 
secondary education. Several country-specific case studies were also able to cover not only students’ 
short-term outcomes but also later steps in their educational careers such as educational mobility in 
secondary education, early dropout, and access to tertiary education.

The core findings of the third eduLIFE Volume can be summarized as follows: First, the allocation 
to  different  types  of  secondary  education  serves  as  an  important  milestone  for  the  intergenera-
tional reproduction of social inequalities in contemporary societies. In all countries under study, 
social background is associated positively with enrolment in more prestigious types of secondary 
education. These social background differences emerge to a quite noticeable extent from differ-
ences in students’ performance. Nonetheless, differences in ability fail to offer a full explanation. 
Second, differentiation in secondary education clearly varies across contemporary societies and 
cannot  be  captured  by  a  simple  and  static  dichotomy  distinguishing  between  tracked  and  non-
tracked systems. Inequality of educational opportunity can also emerge from more “hidden” forms 
of differentiation such as school sector (e.g., public vs. private, religious vs. non-religious), region, 
placement  in  ability  groups,  or  choice  of  subjects  within  systems  with  flexible  curricula.  Third, 
an  original  (unsuitable)  placement  in  secondary  education  can  indeed  be  corrected  in  the  later 
stages  of  an  educational  career.  However,  such  corrections  are  made  more  often  by  individuals 
coming from advantaged social backgrounds, even when previous performance is taken into ac-
count. Fourth, a high level of formal stratification and early tracking does not necessarily mean 
that educational systems are rigid as long as they allow a correction of the initial and early alloca-
tion of children to different types of secondary education. This novel finding opens up a discus-
sion on whether existing classifications of secondary education can adequately address the issue of 
later correction of the initial placement. Fifth, better academic performance in more prestigious 
types of secondary education is largely due to the fact that these schools attract/select high-skilled 
students. Finally, children who entered the more promising and prestigious routes of secondary 
education are also better off later on, for example, in their chances of entering higher education. 
This finding remains significant after models account for individuals’ previous performance and 
social background. In conclusion, we stress that in all countries, secondary education serves as an 
important mechanism for the intergenerational transmission of social inequality, quite irrespec-
tive of the timing, form, and kind of differentiation in secondary education.

The country-specific models of secondary education differentiation are not fixed in time, and edu-
cational reforms have transformed important aspects of school arrangements that affect inequali-
ties of educational opportunities over time.

8 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

Sixth eduLIFE Workshop 
“Differences in Secondary 
Education and Their Short- 
and Longer-Term Effects on 
Inequalities of Educational 
Opportunities.” Florence, Italy, 
27–28 November 2014

Core findings in a nutshell:
 ■ The ways in which students are sorted vary widely across contemporary societies: They include not only 
formal tracking but also less visible forms of informal differentiation in educational environments
 ■ The allocation to different types of secondary education represents an important milestone for 

 ■

 ■

the reproduction of social inequalities in education 
In all countries under study, social background is associated positively with enrolment in more 
prestigious types of secondary education that provide better scholastic preparation for students
In many countries, inequalities at the transition to various types of secondary education are driv-
en strongly by differences in academic performance by social background (primary effects)
 ■ Especially in early tracking countries, corrections of the initial allocation of children to different types 
of secondary education can be found, but shifts toward less demanding tracks are more common
 ■ Mobility  between  types  of  education  often  tends  to  reinforce  inequalities  in  educational  out-

 ■

comes, because low-SES children are more likely to shift to less prestigious programs
Irrespective of the kind of educational differentiation in secondary school, the type of secondary 
education  has  lasting  effects  on  children’s  subsequent  educational  careers  (educational  aspira-
tions, access to university, type of higher education attended)

 ■ Better academic performance in more prestigious types of secondary education is largely due to 

 ■

the fact that these schools attract/select high-skilled students
Social background has a significant direct effect on later educational transitions, even after ac-
counting for academic performance and type of secondary education attended

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 9

Contents of Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality - An International Comparison

Part I:  Introduction and Theoretical Framework
1.   Secondary School Systems and Inequality of Educational Opportunity in Contemporary Societies. Triventi, 

M., Kulic, N., Skopek, J., and Blossfeld, H.-P. 

2.   The Model of Ability Tracking: Theoretical Expectations and Empirical Findings Regarding the Impact of 

Educational Systems on Educational Success and Inequality. Esser, H.

Part II: Comparative Contributions
3.   From Primary School to Young Adulthood: A Cross-National Analysis of Cognitive Competencies and 

Related Social Inequalities. Dämmrich, J. and Triventi, M. 

4.   Excellence Through Equality of Opportunity: Increasing Education Systems’ Social Inclusiveness Benefits 

Disadvantaged Students Without Harming Advantaged Students Holtmann, A.C.

Part III: The Early Tracking Model
5.   Secondary School Differentiation and Inequality of Educational Opportunity in Germany. Buchholz, S., 

Ditton, H., Skopek, J., Wohlkinger, F., Zielonka, M., and Schier, A. 

6.   Educational Mobility and Equal Opportunity in Different German Tracking Systems: Findings From the 

Life Study. Lauterbach W. and Fend H. 

7.   Differentiation  in  Secondary  Education  and  Inequality  in  Educational  Opportunities:  The  Case  of 

Switzerland. Buchmann M., Kriesi, I., Koomen, M., Imdorf, C., and Basler, A. 

8.   Hungary: Early tracking and Competition: A Recipe for Large Inequalities. Horn, D., Keller, T., and Róbert, P.  
9.   Tracking in the Netherlands: Ability Selection or Social Reproduction?  Dronkers, J., and Korthals, R.

Part IV: The Nordic Inclusive Model 
10.   Social Selection in Formal and Informal Tracking in Sweden. Rudolphi, F. and Erikson, R. 
11.   Inequalities in the Haven of Equality? Upper Secondary Education and Entry into Tertiary Education in 

Finland. Kilpi-Jakonen, E., Erola, J., and Karhula, A. 

12.   Educational  Inequalities  in  Tracked  Danish  Upper  Secondary  Education.  Wahler,  S.,  Buchholz,  S.,  and 

Møllegaard Pedersen, S. 

Part V: The Individual Choice Model
13.   Onwards  or  Upwards?  The  Role  of  Subject  Choice  and  Schools  in  the  Reproduction  of  Educational 

Inequality in England. McMullin, P., and Kulic, N. 

14.   School Subject Choices and Social Class Differences in Entry to Higher Education: Comparing Scotland 

and Ireland. Klein, M., Iannelli, C., and Smyth, E. 

15.   Reproduction of Inequality through Curricular Differentiation in Secondary School: A Case Study of the 

USA. Schührer, S., Carbonaro, W., and Grodsky, E. 

16.   Reproducing Social Inequality Within Comprehensive School Systems: The Case of Australia. Chesters, J., 

and Haynes, M. 

Part VI: The Mixed Model
17.   The Long-Term Outcomes of Early Educational Differentiation in France. Farges, G., Tenret, E., Brinbaum, 

Y., Guégnard, C., and Murdoch, J. 

18.   Between Formal Openness and Stratification in Secondary Education: Implications for Social Inequalities  

in Italy. Contini, D. and Triventi, M. 

19.   The Reproduction of Social Inequality in the Russian Educational System. Kosyakova, Y., Yastrebov, G., 

Yanbarisova, D., and Kurakin, D. 

20.   Educational Inequalities in Secondary Education in Estonia: Transitions and Tracking. Täht, K., Ellu Saar, 

E., and Kazjulja, M. 

21.   Tracking and Attainment in Israeli Secondary Education. Blank, C., Shavit, Y., and Yaish, M.  

Part VII: Discussion and Conclusions
22.   Varieties of Secondary Education Models and Social Inequality: Conclusions from a Large-Scale International 

Comparison. Blossfeld, H.-P., Triventi, M., Skopek, J., Kulic, N., and Buchholz, S.

10 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

Gender, Education and Employment: 
An International Comparison of School-to-work Transitions

Blossfeld,  H.-P.,  Skopek,  J.,  Triventi,  M.  and  Buchholz,  S. 
(Eds.)  (2015).  Gender,  Education  and  Employment:  An 
International  Comparison  of  School-to-work  Transitions. 
eduLIFE Lifelong Learning Series. Vol. 2. Cheltenham, UK 
and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

In focus:
Educational  trajectories  and  their  consequences  for  gender 
differences at the school-to-work transition

Educational expansion in recent decades has clearly benefited women and increased their ability to 
compete  with  their  male  counterparts  in  the  labor  market.  This  has  been  further  accompanied  by 
postindustrial  restructuring  and  technological  change  that  has  opened  up  new  career  pathways  for 
many women. Beyond this, spreading egalitarian principles in modern societies and growing partner-
ship homogamy (not only in terms of education but also in respect to paid and unpaid work) have 
further strengthened females’ labor market positions.

Nonetheless,  despite  these  general  developments  toward  gender  equality  that  are  likely  to  have 
improved women’s labor market positions, it remains an open empirical question whether or not 
women really have been able to convert their educational success into gains in the labor market in 
modern societies. Numerous findings suggest that gender differences in the labor market do per-
sist. However, most studies look at the entire labor force. Even though they provide important por-
trayals of the overall degree of sex segregation and the gender gap in occupational rewards, they 
include individuals who participate in the labor market at very different stages of the life course 
with highly heterogeneous biographies in terms of both their occupational careers (amount and 
type of experience, job-related training, unemployment episodes, etc.) and their family obligations 
(marriage, number of children, etc.). Up to now, surprisingly little is known about how far gender 
differences are already determined at labor market entry and how this may have changed across 
cohorts during recent decades. In particular, there is a lack of international comparative studies 
taking stock of recent changes in gender differences at the transition from school to job.

The main aim of the second volume of the eduLIFE book series is to fill exactly this gap in research. 
The book takes a comparative perspective and explores whether and how far gender disparities (in 
terms of both horizontal gender differences and vertical gender inequalities) already exist at labor 
market  entry  and  how  these  have  changed  over  recent  decades.  The  international  comparative 
perspective is especially relevant because, on the one hand, all countries considered in our study 
have experienced a similar expansion of education—especially among women—along with similar 

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 11

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
changes in the occupational structure toward a reduction of the industrial sector and an expansion 
of the service sector. On the other hand, however, they differ in their educational systems, labor 
market  structures  and  regulations,  family-oriented  policies,  and  gender  cultures.  These  factors 
may affect the extent to which women are able to convert their higher educational attainment into 
advantageous positions at labor market entry.

A common research design links together a network of 34 researchers from European countries 
(Denmark,  Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Italy,  Spain,  Sweden,  Switzerland,  and  Briatin) 
along with Russia, Australia, and the United States in order to provide an unprecedented and up-
to-date comparative study of gender differences at labor market entry in modern societies.

Based on the empirical evidence discussed in our book, we can conclude clearly that female and 
male  graduates  enter  different  occupations  and  sectors.  The  consequence  is  lower  competition 
between the sexes despite diminishing shares of traditionally male occupations in production and 
agriculture and the growth of the service sector. Whereas we can observe a gradual decline of gen-
der segregation in most countries under scrutiny, an outstanding contra-example is represented by 
countries in the post-Socialist block in which labor market entry became much more segregated 
after the collapse of Communist regimes. Possibly, the return to a virtual “freedom of choice” cou-
pled with a more traditional family model shaped career choices of female and male graduates, 
leading to stronger divergence between the sexes in the labor market.

With regard to vertical inequalities, we found that women have an advantage relative to men in the 
prestige and skill level of their first jobs. However, despite substantial female advances in educa-
tion over cohorts, the advances in prestige and skill level are stable and have not grown over time. 
Gender inequalities to the female disadvantage still exist regarding earnings and job authority, and 
relative educational gains of women are reflected only partially in returns. Post-Socialist countries 
suggest that under the Communist regime, female and male entrants indeed enjoyed more equal 
labor  market  opportunities,  whereas  labor  market  liberalization  dramatically  disadvantaged  fe-
males’ career perspectives. In conclusion, despite the ideational change of the postindustrial world 
towards more gender equity, gender is still an important factor influencing the demand and supply 
side in modern labor markets. This is clearly visible already at the school-to-work transition. Cer-
tainly, women have made some progress in improving their labor market positions in comparison 
to men over recent decades. However, these seem to be rather inert developments compared with 
their improvements in educational attainment levels.

12 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

Third eduLIFE Workshop “Gender Imbalances in Education and Labor Market Entry.” Florence, Italy, 30–31 May 2013

Core findings in a nutshell:
 ■ Women are outcompeting men in educational attainment across all modern societies
 ■ Yet, women still earn less and are less likely to start off in authoritative job positions. This holds 

true even after accounting for education and type of occupation

 ■ But, women enter more prestigious and higher skill level jobs compared to men. This is explained 

mostly by their better educational qualifications and different occupational choices

 ■ Despite a long-term erosion of traditionally male-dominated occupations alongside a growth in 
service sector occupations, there is still a remarkable amount of horizontal gender segregation at 
labor market entry
In former Socialist countries, a pronounced increase in gender segregation and gender inequality 
in first jobs can be observed following the fall of the Iron Curtain
In some countries, vertical gender inequality is larger among the higher educated; in others, it is 
larger among the lower educated

 ■

 ■

 ■ Our results underpin the importance of taking into account institutional features of welfare states 
in order to understand the extent, quality, and change of gender differences at labor market entry
In countries with high female employment rates, women are relatively disadvantaged at labor 
market entry, whereas in countries with lower female employment, female entrants seem to face 
advantages

 ■

 ■ Post-Socialist  countries  represent  especially  insightful  cases  for  the  study  of  how  institutional 

change impacts on gendered labor market outcomes

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 13

Contents of Gender, Education and Employment: An International Comparison of School-
to-work Transitions 

Part I: Introduction 
1.   Gender Differences at Labor Market Entry: The Effect of Changing Educational Pathways and Institutional 
Structures.  Blossfeld,  H.-P.,  Buchholz,  S.,  Dämmrich,  J.,  Kilpi-Jakonen,  E.,  Kosyakova,  Y.,  Skopek,  J., 
Triventi, M., and Vono de Vilhena, D.

Part II: Comparative Contributions
2.   Gendered School-to-Work Transitions? A Sequence Approach to How Women and Men Enter the Labor 

Market in Europe. Brzinsky-Fay, C. 

3.   Gendered Labor Market Outcomes at Labor Market Entry and their Relationship with Country-Specific 

Characteristics: A Comparative Perspective. Johanna Dämmrich

Part III: Country-Specific Contributions
4.   The Influence of Gender on Pathways into the Labor Market: Evidence from Australia. Buchler, S. and 

Dockery, A. M. 

5.   Gender  Differences  in  Labor  Market  Entry  and  their Long-Term  Consequences  in  the  United  States. 

Schührer, S., Bills, D.B., and Weiss, F. 

6.   The  Consequences  of  Shifting  Education  and  Economic  Structures  for  Gender  Differences  at  Labor 

Market Entry: The British Case Study. McMullin, P. and Kilpi-Jakonen, E.

7.   The Role of Gender and Education in Early Labor Market Careers: Long-Term Trends in Italy.  Barbieri, 

P., Cutuli, G., Lugo, M., and Scherer, S. 

8.   Spain:  Educational  Pathways  and  Their  Consequences for  Gender  Differences  at  Labor  Market  Entry. 

Vono de Vilhena, D., and Miret Gamundi, P.

9.   Vertical and Horizontal Gender Segregation at Labor Market Entry in Sweden: Birth Cohorts 1925–85. 

Halldén, K. and Härkönen, J.

10.   Youth Labor Market Entry in Denmark: A Gender-Based Analysis of the First Significant Job.  Wahler, S., 

Buchholz, S., and Møllegaard Pedersen, S.

11.   Educational Pathways and Gender Differences in Labor Market Entry in France. Yaël Brinbaum, Y. and 

Trancart, D. 

12.   Young Women Outcompeting Young Men? A Cohort Comparison of Gender Differences at Labor Market 

Entry in West Germany. Buchholz, S., Skopek, J., and Blossfeld, H.-P.

13.   Gender Differences at Labor Market Entry in Switzerland. Imdorf, C. and Hupka-Brunner, S.
14.   Hungary: The Impact of Gender Culture. Horn, D. and Keller, T.
15.   Do  Institutions  Matter?  Occupational  Gender  Segregation at  Labor  Market  Entry  in  Soviet  and  Post-

Soviet Russia. Kosyakova, Y., and Kurakin, D.

16.   Segregated Worlds of Male and Female Labor Market Entrants in Estonia During the Last Decades? Saar, 

E., Täht, K., and  Unt, M.

Part IV: Conclusion
17.   Gender, Education, and Employment: Lessons Learned from the Comparative Perspective. Blossfeld, H.-P., 

Skopek, J., Kosyakova, Y., Triventi, M., and Buchholz, S.

14 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

Adult Learning in Modern Societies: An International 
Comparison from a Life-Course Perspective

Blossfeld,  H.-P.,  Kilpi-Jakonen,  E.,  Vono  de  Vilhena,  D., 
and Buchholz, S. (Eds.) (2014). Adult Learning in Modern 
Societies: An International Comparison from a Life-Course 
Perspective.  eduLIFE  Lifelong  Learning  Series.  Vol.  1. 
Cheltenham,  UK  and  Northampton,  MA,  USA:  Edward 
Elgar Publishing.

In focus:
Various models of lifelong learning and their consequences 
for  the  educational  trajectories  of  adults  along  with  other 
(economic and noneconomic) life-course outcomes

In modern societies, adult learning has generally not received much attention from policymakers, 
and public debates in education have targeted mostly other areas. However, due to the acceleration 
of technological change caused by processes of globalization, generational change is becoming insuf-
ficient as a mechanism for adapting the workforce to new demands. Instead, individuals are required 
more and more to update their skills continuously in order to be prepared for the rapidly changing 
requirements of the labor market throughout the life course.

Adult learning has important implications for social inequality. On the one hand, giving adults the 
chance to increase their educational level or change their field of education has the potential to 
reduce inequalities that may have emerged in school or earlier in the job career. Moreover, macro-
processes of globalization and demographic change alter economies and the workforce, thereby 
increasing the need for older persons and the less qualified to participate in lifelong learning. On 
the other hand, adult learning may actually increase inequality if the well-educated are the primary 
group taking advantage of these opportunities.

Importantly, systems of adult learning differ strongly between countries. Thus, the success of at-
tempts to increase educational equality through adult learning is likely to vary by countries as well. 
Accordingly, the aim of the adult learning book was to investigate (1) how adult learning is organ-
ized in different countries, (2) how successful these countries are in encouraging participation and 
skill formation, (3) whether adult learning is converted into better labor market outcomes (e.g., in 
terms of upward mobility), and (4) whether adult learning can effectively reduce social inequality. 
Central to our approach was conceptualizing adult learning from a life-course perspective. Using 
longitudinal data to situate adult learning within individuals’ current contexts enabled us to take 
into account their prior experiences and educational pathways.

In contrast to previous literature, we distinguish between two major types of adult learning, name-
ly formal and non-formal. Formal adult learning occurs in formal settings only and leads to recog-

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 15

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
nized certificates mirroring the normal (hierarchical) educational career. It may take place entirely 
within the initial educational system and lead to the same qualifications or take place in separate 
institutions,  where  it  may  not  necessarily  lead  to  qualifications  of  the  same  value.  Non-  formal 
adult  learning,  by  contrast,  is  often  undertaken  as  part  of  employment  and  consists  of  shorter 
training courses. This type of learning is also organized, involves a teacher of some kind, and it 
may also be institutionalized and lead to certification – though not to full qualifications. Several 
of book chapters were further able to distinguish between employer-sponsored adult learning and 
adult learning without employer support.

Overall, the book delivers a unique comparative study on formal and non-formal adult learning in-
cluding empirical results covering countries showing a great diversity in the organization of adult 
learning (Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Britain, Hungary, Italy, 
Russia, Spain, Sweden, and the United States) as well as results from two comparative studies.

Our  concluding  chapter  summarizes  and  explores  the  main  findings  across  countries  focusing 
strongly on the role of adult learning for social inequalities. Our results point to the potential of 
formal adult learning for lowering social inequalities: We found that medium- and low-educated 
adults, as well as those in marginalized labor market positions, participate more often in formal 
adult learning. Conversely, non-formal adult learning (and particularly employer-sponsored) can 
be described by a Matthew effect: those with a higher educational attainment and/or better em-
ployment positions in the first place are also those who are more likely to participate. Furthermore, 
there were notable gender effects. Compared to men, women are either more or equally likely to 
take  part  in  adult  learning.  Whereas  our  analyses  could  show  that  adult  learning  generally  im-
proves career outcomes, several country studies demonstrated that the returns are higher for those 
who are already more advantaged. Accordingly, despite the potential promise of adult learning to 
reduce social inequalities over the life course, the reality is that adult learning tends to increase 
these inequalities. Our analyses found further that in countries in which the adult population is 
highly educated, participation rates in adult education also tend to be high. However, our results 
show  that  high  participation  rates  are  not  necessarily  associated  with  more  equal  participation 
in (formal) adult learning. In other words, public provision of adult learning does not guarantee 
higher participation of disadvantaged groups or a decrease in social inequalities per se. The book 
concludes with a policy-relevant discussion.

16 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

Second eduLIFE Workshop “Lifelong Learning: Social Inequalities Related to Adult Learning in Different Countries.” Florence, Italy, 
9–10 November 2012

Core findings in a nutshell:
 ■ Non-formal learning financed by employers is the most common type of job-related learning
 ■ Participation in non-formal adult learning is distributed more unequally than participation in 

formal learning

 ■ Women tend to be more likely to participate in adult learning than men, particularly when learn-

ing decisions are initiated by individuals themselves rather than employers

 ■ Participation in adult learning is concentrated among young adults
 ■ The greatest equalizing tendencies for formal adult learning are found in countries with the high-

est levels of education

 ■ Yet, higher participation rates in adult education do not necessarily lead to lower social/educa-

tional inequalities in participation

Formal adult learning tends to be most beneficial when obtained at the tertiary level

 ■ Adult learning generally helps individuals to advance in the labor market
 ■
 ■ Women tend to benefit more from adult learning than men
 ■ Those already better off in society are better able to access adult learning and tend to see greater 

benefits in career progress (cumulative [dis-]advantage and Matthew effects)
In most cases, adult learning does not contribute to reducing social inequalities

 ■

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 17

 
Contents Adult Learning in Modern Societies: Patterns and Consequences of Participation 
from a Life-Course Perspective

Part I: Introduction
1.   Adult Learning, Labor Market Outcomes, and Social Inequalities in Modern Societies. Kilpi-Jakonen, E., 

Buchholz, S., Dämmrich, J., McMullin, P., and Blossfeld, H.-P. 

Part II: Comparative Contributions
2.   Participation in Adult Learning in Europe: The Impact of Country-Level and Individual Characteristics. 

Dämmrich, J., Vono de Vilhena, D., and Reichart, E.

3.   Returns to Adult Learning in Comparative Perspective. Triventi, M., and Barone, C.

Part III: Country-Specific Contributions
4.   Adult Educational Participation and Implications for Employment in the US Context.  Elman, C., and Weiss, F.
5.   Adult Learning in Australia: Predictors and Outcomes. Buchler, S., Chesters, J., Higginson, A., and Haynes, M. 
6.   Cumulative (Dis)advantage? Patterns of Participation and Outcomes of Adult Learning in Great Britain. 

McMullin, P. and Kilpi-Jakonen, E. 

7.   Job-Related  Adult  Learning  in  the  Russian  Federation:  More  Educational  Opportunities  Without  an 

Equalization Effect. Kosyakova, Y. 

8.   Cumulative Inequality Effects of Adult Learning in Estonia. Saar, E., Unt, M., and Roosmaa, E.
9.   Adult  Learning,  Labor  Market  Outcomes,  and  Inequality:  The  Case  of  Sweden.  Kilpi-Jakonen,  E.  and 

Stenberg, A. 

10.   Adult  Learners  in  Finland:  Formal  Adult  Education  as  an  Opportunity  for  Reducing  Inequality?  Kilpi-

Jakonen, E., Sirniö, O., and Martikainen, P. 

11.   Adult Learning in Denmark: Patterns of Participation in Adult Learning and Its Impact on Individuals’ 

Labor Market Outcomes. Wahler, S., Buchholz, S., Myrup Jensen, V., and Unfried, J. 

12.   Reinforcing Social Inequalities? Adult Learning and Returns to Adult Learning in Germany. Buchholz, S., 

Unfried, J., and Blossfeld, H.-P.

13.   Adult Learning in Hungary: Participation and Labor Market Outcomes. Csanádi, G., Csizmady, A., and 

Róbert, P. 

14.   Adult Learning in the Czech Republic: A Youth- and Female-Oriented System? Dana Hamplová, D., and 

Simonová, N.

15.   Participation in Adult Learning in Spain and Its Impacts on Individuals’ Labor Market Trajectories. Vono 

de Vilhena, D., and Miret Gamundi, P.

16.   Italy: A Segmented Labor Market with Stratified Adult Learning. Barbieri, P., Cutuli, G., Lugo, M., and 

Scherer, S.

Part IV: Conclusion
17.   The Promise and Reality of Adult Learning in Modern Societies. Vono de Vilhena, D., Kilpi-Jakonen, E.,  

Schührer, S., and Blossfeld, H.-P.

18 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

Methodological Issues of Longitudinal Surveys

Blossfeld,  H.-P.,  von  Maurice,  J.,  Bayer,  M.,  and  Skopek, 
J.  (Eds.)  (2016).  Methodological  Issues  of  Longitudinal 
Survey.  The  Example  of  the  National  Educational  Panel 
Study. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

In focus:
A  rich  compendium  documenting  major  methodological 
challenges,  solutions,  and  achievements  that  emerged  in 
developing the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS), a 
major longitudinal multicohort study in Germany

The aim of the NEPS is to collect rich large-scale longitudinal data on life courses, in particular the 
educational careers and competence developments of individuals and their consequences in terms 
of health and political behavior, career pathways, job success, employment behaviors, and income 
trajectories from early childhood to late adulthood. The basic survey design of the NEPS – a multico-
hort sequence design – involves six large independent panel samples (the so-called starting cohorts 
that are then followed-up in regular data sweeps over long time spans. In 2009, the NEPS started to 
collected data on (1) 6-month-old babies (Early Childhood cohort), (2) children in Kindergarten 2 
years before regular school enrolment, (3) fifth graders at the age of about 10, (4) ninth graders (the 
15-year-olds that are also analyzed in the PISA study by the OECD), (5) first-year students in higher 
education, that is, at traditional universities and universities of applied sciences, and (6) adults at the 
age of 23 to 64. In addition, the NEPS conducted additional secondary school studies in two selected 
German Federal States. The NEPS has developed and implemented a comprehensive range of longi-
tudinal survey instruments and competence tests, sampling strategies, fieldwork procedures as well 
as an infrastructure for data edition, data dissemination, and user support. More than 200 scholars 
from different disciplines such as sociology, psychology, education sciences, economics, demogra-
phy, statistics, and experts in sociological research methods are working on the NEPS. 

In January 2014, the NEPS project was institutionalized as a Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajec-
tories (‘Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsverläufe’, LIfBi). This governmental support ensures a long-term 
data infrastructure for national and international educational research in Germany. The total num-
ber of target persons included in the NEPS longitudinal study is about 60,000. In addition, educators, 
teachers, school principals, and parents associated with these 60,000 target persons are interviewed 
in order to include their familial, regional, and school contexts. Since 2012, a remarkable number of 
Scientific Use File data sets have been released to the international scientific community. Today, the 
number of scholars around the world who are using NEPS data for longitudinal empirical research 
has increased to more than 1,000 users. Consequently, the NEPS has become the most important 
data  source  for  sociological,  educational,  economical,  and  psychological  longitudinal  research  in 

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 19

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Germany and beyond.

Several years after the start of the NEPS, an abundance of methodological challenges have been 
mastered and valuable knowledge about new solutions and tools has been accumulated. The cen-
tral purpose of this book is to report and discuss the specific methodological problems of longi-
tudinal studies and the practical solutions that have been found in the various NEPS disciplines 
while building up an attractive, efficient, and powerful large-scale multicohort panel database. In 
particular, the book demonstrates new standards in the collection and distribution of large-scale 
longitudinal data. In a nutshell, the 40 short chapters of the book are treating a broad variety of 
relevant  methodological  issues  ranging  from  sampling  and  weighting,  recruiting  and  fieldwork 
management, designing longitudinal surveys, constructs, and competence tests, improving data 
quality, editing and documenting data on a large-scale basis, disseminating data to researchers, 
as well as establishing an effective public relations and communications service for a large panel 
study. Ninetythree authors – all of them longitudinal experts from different fields and backgrounds 
– have contributed to this unique volume, presenting an impressive array of methodological chal-
lenges and solutions.

Contrary to other books on the market, this book is not intended to be just another theoretical 
primer in survey research and it does not adopt a conventional textbook approach. Rather, this 
book serves as a professional reference for applied longitudinal methodology by presenting a well-
selected collection of applied methodological topics and practical issues that had to be solved in 
building up a large-scale survey project but are hardly ever discussed in any available textbooks on 
survey research today. Hence, this volume mainly targets an audience of survey researchers, prac-
titioners in survey methodology, and the broader scientific community using the NEPS and other 
longitudinal data for their analyses. In general, the book would be especially appealing to applied 
life-course  researchers,  psychologists,  demographers,  sociologists,  economists,  and  educational 
researchers  who  are  interested  in  large-scale  assessments  and  educational  careers.  However,  we 
believe that the book may also be of great value for introducing longitudinal methodology of the 
social sciences to undergraduate and postgraduate students.

20 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

The eduLife Team

The eduLIFE project started at Bamberg University in Germany in 2011. The project then moved to the 
European University Institute in Fiesole (Florence), Italy in September 2012. At the EUI, the eduLIFE 
project is being hosted by the Department of Political and Social Sciences of the European University 
Institute, a highly regarded international and interdisciplinary research environment. The eduLIFE pro-
ject also became a leading part of the recently established Comparative Life Course and Inequality Re-
search Centre (CLIC) that brings together highly reputed scholars in comparative life-course research.

The members of the eduLIFE team as well as the external collaborators come from different disci-
plines ranging from sociology, psychology, and economics to educational sciences. This ensures 
a  high  level  of  inter-  and  cross-disciplinary  exchange.  During  the  project  period,  the  following 
researchers have been working in the eduLIFE project as internal team members:

 ■ Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Hans-Peter Blossfeld (German, June 2011–present)
 ■ Dr. Sandra Buchholz (German, June 2011–present)
 ■ Dr. Sandra Buchler (Australian, July 2011– November 2013)
 ■ Dr. Johanna Dämmrich (German, September 2012–present)
 ■ Dr. Elina Kilpi-Jakonen (Finnish, June 2011–August 2013)
 ■ Dr. Yuliya Kosyakova (Ukrainian/German, June 2011–March 2016)
 ■ Dr. Nevena Kulic (Serbian, January 2014–present)
 ■ Patricia McMullin (née O’ Reilly) (Irish, June 2011–present)
 ■
Susanne Schührer (German, June 2011–present)
 ■ Dr. Jan Skopek (German, September 2013–present)
 ■ Dr. Nora Skopek (German, June 2011–January 2012)
 ■ Dr. Moris Triventi (Italian, September 2013 – present)
 ■
Julia Unfried (German, June 2011–September 2013)
 ■ Dr. Daniela Vono de Vilhena (Brazilian/Italian, June 2011–August 2013)
 ■

Susanne Wahler (German, June 2011–present)

Project administration:

 ■ Adele Battistini (Italian, January 2016–present)
 ■
Fabrizio Borchi (Italian, January 2016–present)
 ■ Kathrina Schafhauser (German, June 2011–August 2012)
 ■ Alina Vlad (Romanian, January 2013–January 2016)

For detailed information on the multifaceted background and qualifications of the internal team 
members, please also visit the eduLIFE webpage http://edulife.eui.eu/People/Index.aspx

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 21

Awards and Achievements of Project Members (2011-2016)

Hans-Peter Blossfeld joined the Department of Social and Political Sciences at the European Uni-
versity Institute as Professor of Sociology in 2012. He is on leave from his Chair in Sociology at the 
Faculty for Social Sciences, Economics, and Business Administration at the University of Bamberg, 
Germany (until August 2017). In 2012, Hans-Peter Blossfeld received the Silver Medal of Honor 
of Upper Franconia for his achievements in strengthening the Franconian region as a center of 
scientific research. In 2012, Hans-Peter Blossfeld was appointed IAB Research Fellow of the Insti-
tute for Employment Research (IAB) in Nuremberg, Germany, and ROA Fellow by the Research 
Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA) at Maastricht University, the Netherlands. In 
2014, Hans-Peter Blossfeld became President of the Society for Longitudinal and Lifecourse Stud-
ies (SLLS) based in London (UK).

Sandra Buchholz was appointed Professor of Sociology at the University of Bamberg in 2012. In 
2013, Moris Triventi obtained the Italian National Scientific Qualification for the role of Associ-
ate Professor of Sociology. Elina Kilpi-Jakonen became an Academy of Finland Postdoctoral Re-
searcher at the University of Turku in September 2013, and in June 2014, she became a Senior Re-
search Fellow. In January 2015, Elina Kilpi-Jakonen became docent (Adjunct Professor), which is 
Finland’s equivalent to the postdoctoral habilitation. In September 2013, Daniela Vono de Vilhena 
progressed to the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (Population Europe) where she 
took up a position as a research scientist and scientific coordinator. Jan Skopek accepted an offer of 
assistant professor at Trinity College Dublin in September 2016. Nevena Kulic will become a Max 
Weber Fellow at the European University Institute, Italy in September 2016. Johanna Dämmrich 
successfully defended her PhD thesis in March 2016. Yuliya Kosyakova successfully defended her 
PhD thesis in April 2016, and took up a position as a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Institute for 
Employment  Research  (IAB)  in  Nuremberg,  Migration  and  integration  research  group.  Patricia 
McMullin and Susanne Wahler submitted their PhD theses in March and May 2016 respectively.

Current eduLife research 
team
Front row: Alina Vlad, Yuliya 
Kosyakova, Moris Trive-
nti, Nevena Kulic, Patricia 
McMullin; middle row: 
Sandra Buchholz, Jan Skopek, 
Hans-Peter Blossfeld, Susanne 
Schührer; back row: Susanne 
Wahler, Johanna Dämmrich, 
and Alessandra Minello. 4th 
eduLIFE workshop. European 
University Institute

22 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

eduLife Workshops and Final Conference

To benefit from the expertise and knowledge of our external collaborators and to bring together the 
eduLIFE team with the international collaborators, we organized workshops twice a year for each 
eduLIFE phase as well as a final conference for an interdisciplinary discussion of the eduLIFE results:

 ■

 ■

First eduLIFE Workshop “Adult Learning, Returns to Education and Social Inequalities in Mod-
ern Societies.” Bamberg, Germany, 23–24 March 2012.
Second eduLIFE Workshop “Lifelong Learning: Social Inequalities Related to Adult Learning in 
Different Countries.” Florence, Italy, 9–10 November 2012.

 ■ Third eduLIFE Workshop “Gender Imbalances in Education and Labor Market Entry.” Florence, 

 ■

 ■

 ■

 ■

Italy, 30–31 May 2013.
Fourth eduLIFE Workshop “Education and Gender Differences in School-to-Work Transitions.” 
Florence, Italy, 14–15 November 2013.
Fifth eduLIFE Workshop “Differences in Secondary Education and their Short- and Longer-Term 
Effects on Inequalities of Educational Opportunities.” Florence, Italy, 22–23 May 2014.
Sixth eduLIFE Workshop “Differences in Secondary Education and their Short- and Longer-Term 
Effects on Inequalities of Educational Opportunities.” Florence, Italy, 27–28 November 2014.
Seventh eduLIFE Workshop “Childcare Arrangements and Social Inequalities: A Cross-Country 
Comparison.” Florence, Italy, 21–22 May 2015.

 ■ Eighth eduLIFE Workshop “Childcare Arrangements and Social Inequalities: A Cross-Country 

 ■

Comparison.” Florence, Italy, 12–13 November 2015.
Final eduLIFE conference “Education as a Lifelong Process – Comparing Educational Trajecto-
ries in Modern Societies: Summary of Core Results.” Florence, Italy, 22–23 May 2016.

Former eduLife research team
Front row: Daniela Vono de 
Vilhena, Susanne Wahler, Alina 
Vlad, Hans-Peter Blossfeld, Julia 
Unfried, Susanne Schührer, 
Johanna Dämmrich, Yuliya 
Kosyakova, and Moris Triventi. 
Back row: Elina Kilpi-Jakonen, 
Patricia McMullin, and Sandra 
Büchler

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 23

Publications

Argentin G., and Triventi M. (2015). ‘The North–South divide in school grading standards: New evidence 
from national assessments of the Italian student population’. In Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 
7(2), 157–185.

Ballarino G., Panichella P., and Triventi M. (2014). ‘School expansion and uneven modernization. Comparing 
educational inequality in Northern and Southern Italy.’ In Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 
36(June), 69–86.

Bäumer, T., Blossfeld, H.-P., Janik, F., and von Maurice, J. (2012). ‘Lebensläufe im Längsschnitt. Der Beitrag 
des  Nationalen  Bildungspanels  für  ein  Monitoring  des  Lernens  im  Erwachsenenalter’.  In  Zeitschrift  für 
Erwachsenenbildung, 19(4), 35–39. 

Baumert, J., H.-P. Blossfeld, T.  Cremer, A. D. Friederici, M. Hasselhorn, G. Kempermann, U. Lindenberger, 
J. Meisel, M.M. Nöthen, B. Röder, F. Rösler, F. Spinath, C. K. Spieß, E. Stern, and Trommsdorff, G. (2014). 
Socialisation in early childhood. Biological, psychological, linguistic, sociological and economic perspectives. 
Halle: German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina.

Bernardi, F., and Triventi, M. (in press). ‘The transition from school to work’, in G. Ritzer (Ed.), Wiley Blackwell 

Encyclopedia of Sociology. Second Edition. Wiley-Blackwell, (accepted May 13, 2015).  

Bills, D., and Kosyakova, Y. (in press). ‘Adult education’. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of 

Sociology. Second Edition. Wiley-Blackwell, (accepted Mai 13, 2015).

Blossfeld,  H.-P.  (2012).  ‘Das  Nationale  Bildungspanel  (NEPS)  als  Beispiel’.  In  Forschungsverbünde  in  der 
Wissenschaft – Chance oder Zwang? ( 49–54). Debatte, Heft 11. Berlin: Berlin– Brandenburgische Akademie 
der Wissenschaften. 

Blossfeld,  H.-P.  (2012).  ‘Globalisierung,  wachsende  Unsicherheit  und  die  Lage  der  Berufseinsteiger  in 

modernen Gesellschaften’. In Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter, 59(2), 299–316.

Blossfeld, H.-P. (2013). ‘Bildungsungleichheit im Lebensverlauf. Herausforderungen für Politik und Forschung’. 
In R. Becker, P. Bühler, and T. Bühler (Eds.), Bildungsungleichheit und Gerechtigkeit. Wissenschaftliche und 
gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen (71–100). Bern: Haupt Verlag.

Blossfeld,  H.-P.  (2013). 

‘Kompetenzentwicklung,  Bildungsentscheidungen  und  Chancenungleichheit 
in  Vorschule  und  Schule  –  Neuere  Ergebnisse  aus  der  Forschung  zur  Bedeutung  von  Familien  im 
Bildungssystem’. In D. Deißler (Ed.), Chancen bilden. Wege zu einer gerechteren Bildung – ein internationaler 
Erfahrungsaustausch (37–55). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. 

Blossfeld,  H.-P.  (2014).  ‘Bildung  im  Lebenslauf.  Ausgewählte  Thesen  und  Befunde  aus  der  modernen 
Bildungsforschung’. In O. Güntürkün, and J. Hacker (Eds.). Geist – Gehirn – Genom – Gesellschaft. Wie 
wurde ich zu der Person, die ich bin? (143–161). Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.

Blossfeld, H.-P. (2014). ‘Der Einfluss der Familie auf die Bildungsverläufe der Kinder. Ausgewählte Thesen 
und Befunde aus der modernen Bildungsforschung’. In M. Rupp, O. Kapella, and N. F. Schneider (Eds.), 
Zukunft der Familie. Anforderungen an die Familienpolitik und Familienwissenschaft (113–129). Opladen, 
Berlin and Toronto: Barbara Budrich Verlag.

Blossfeld, H.-P. and Buchholz, S. (2012). ‘Schwerer Einstieg ins Berufsleben’. In Akademie Aktuell, l(3), 34–39.
Blossfeld,  H.-P.  and  Roßbach,  H.G.  (2012). 

‘Neue  Herausforderungen  für  die  Kindertagesstätten: 
Professionalisierung des Personals in der Frühpädagogik’. In Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 24(2), 199–224.
Blossfeld, H.-P., and Blossfeld, G. J. (2014). ‘Event history analysis’. In H. Best, and Ch. Wolf (Eds.), Regression 

analysis and causal inference (359–385). Los Angeles: Sage.

Blossfeld, H.-P., and Blossfeld, G. J. (2015). ‘Life course and event history analysis’. In J. D. Wright (Eds.), International 

Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (51–58). Second edition, Vol. 14, Oxford: Elsevier.

24 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

Blossfeld, H.-P., and Buchholz, S. (2014). ‘Social inequality and mobility’. In M. Sasaki, E. Zimmermann, J. 
Goldstone, and S. K. Sanderson (Eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Comparative Sociology (113–120). Leiden 
and Boston: Brill.

Blossfeld, H.-P., and Shavit, Y. (2015). ‘Persisting barriers: Changes in educational opportunities in thirteen 
countries’. In R. Arum, I. R. Beattle, and K. Ford (Eds.), The structure of schooling. Readings in the sociology 
of education (274–287). Third edition, Sage: Thousand Oaks et al..

Blossfeld,  H.-P.,  Börsch-Supan,  A.,  Breteler,  M.,  Brüderl,  J.,  Doblhammer-Reiter,  G.,  Hoffman,  W.,  Mayer, 
K.  U.,  Rammstedt,  B.,Siegrist,  J.,  and  Wagner,  G.  (forthcoming).  Wissenschaftliche  und  gesellschaftliche 
Bedeutung  bevölkerungsweiter  Längsschnittdaten.  Leopoldina  Stellungnahme,  Halle:  Deutsche  Akademie 
der Wissenschaften Leopoldina.

Blossfeld, H.-P., Bos, W., Daniel, H.-D., Hannover, B., Lenzen, D., Prenzel, M., Roßbach, H.-G., Tippelt, R., 
Wößmann,  L.,  and  Kleiber,  D.  (2014):  ‘Psychische  Belastungen  und  Burnout  beim  Bildungspersonal. 
Empfehlungen zur Kompetenz- und Organisationsentwicklung’. Gutachten. Vereinigung der Bayerischen 
Wirtschaft e. V. , Münster: Waxmann Verlag.

Blossfeld,  H.-P.,  Bos,  W.,  Daniel,  H.-D.,  Hannover,  B.,  Lenzen,  D.,  Prenzel,  M.,  Roßbach,  H.-G.,  Tippelt, 
R.,  Wößmann,  L.,  and  Kleiber,  D.  (2015):  ‘Bildung.  Mehr  als  Fachlichkeit’.  Gutachten.  Vereinigung  der 
Bayerischen Wirtschaft e. V., Münster: Waxmann Verlag

Blossfeld,  H.-P.,  Bos,  W.,  Lenzen,  D.,  Hannover,  B.,  Daniel,  H.-D.,  Prenzel,  M.,  and  Wößmann,  L.  (2012). 
‘Internationalisierung der Hochschulen. Eine institutionelle Gesamtstrategie’. Gutachen. Vereinigung der 
Bayerischen Wirtschaft e. V., Münster: Waxmann Verlag. 

Blossfeld,  H.-P.,  Bos,  W.,  Lenzen,  D.,  Hannover,  B.,  Daniel,  H.-D.,  Prenzel,  M.,  and  Wößmann,  L.  (2012). 
‘Qualitätssicherung an Hochschulen: von der Akkreditierung zur Auditierung’. Gutachen. Vereinigung der 
Bayerischen Wirtschaft e. V., Münster: Waxmann Verlag. 

Blossfeld,  H.-P.,  Bos,  W.,  Lenzen,  D.,  Hannover,  B.,  Daniel,  H.-D.,  Prenzel,  M.  and  Wößmann,  L.  (2012). 
‘Professionalisierung  in  der  Frühpädagogik.  Qualifikationsniveau  und  –  bedingungen  des  Personals  in 
Kindertagesstätten’. Gutachten. Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft e. V., Münster: Waxmann Verlag. 
Blossfeld, H.-P., Buchholz, S., Hofäcker, D. and Bertolini, S. (2012). ‘Selective flexibilization and deregulation 
of the labor market. The answer of Continental and Southern Europe’. In Stato e Mercato, 96(3), 363–390. 
Blossfeld, H.-P., Kolb, K., and Buchholz, S. (2014). ‘Stichwort “Lebensverlaufsforschung”’. In Günter Endruweit, 
Gisela Trommsdorff and Nicole Burzan (Eds.): Wörterbuch der Soziologie (266–269). 3. Auflage. Konstanz: 
UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.

Blossfeld,  H.-P.,  Leuze,  K.,  Schneider,  T.,  and  von  Maurice,  J.  (2011).  ‘Das  Nationale  Bildungspanel  – 
Grundstruktur und Analysepotential unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Erwachsenenbildung und 
lebenslangem Lernen’. In Hessische Blätter für Volksbildung, 61(4), 323–331.

Blossfeld, H.-P., U. Trautwein, and von Maurice, J. (2013). ‘Studying disparities in access to higher education: 
input of the German Educational Panel Study’. In N. McElavy, and H. G. Holtappels (Eds.), Empirische 
Bildungsforschung. Theorien, Methoden, Befunde und Perspektiven (109–124). Münster: Waxmann.

Blossfeld, H.-P., von  Maurice, J., Bayer, M., and Skopek, J. (Eds.) (2016): Methodological issues of longitudinal 

surveys. The Example of the National Educational Panel Study. Wiesbaden: Springer.

Blossfeld, P. N., Blossfeld, G. J., and Blossfeld, H.-P. (forthcoming). ‘The speed of educational expansion and 
changes in inequality of educational opportunity’. In B. Gniewosz, and T. Eckert (Eds.), Bildungsgerechtigkeit. 
Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 25

Blossfeld, P. N., G. J. Blossfeld, and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2015). ‘Educational expansion and inequality in educational 
opportunity: Long-term changes for East and West Germany’. In European Sociological Review, 31(2), 144–160.
Blossfeld, P.N., G.J. Blossfeld, and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2016). ‘Changes in educational inequality in cross-national 
perspective’, in M. J. Shanahan, J. T. Mortimer, and K. Johnson (Eds.): Handbook of the life course, 223–247. 
Volume II. Wiesbaden: Springer.

Buchholz, S., and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2012). ‘Changes in the economy, the labor market, and expectations for the 
future: What might Europe and the United States look like in twenty-five years’. In X. Chen, V. Christmans-
Best,  P.  F.  Fitzmann,  and  K.  Weichold  (Eds.),  Youth  success  and  adaption  in  times  of  globalization  and 
economic change, New Directions for Youth Development. 17–25. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass. 

Buchholz, S., and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2012). ‘Mehr Beschäftigungsrisiken beim Übergang in den Arbeitsmarkt. 
Selektive  Deregulierung  zu  Lasten  junger  Erwachsener  in  Deutschland  als  „Störfaktor“  für  die 
Familiengründung’. In P. Buhr, and M. Feldhaus (Eds.), Die notwendige Vielfalt von Familie und Partnerschaft, 
Reihe Familie und Gesellschaft. 147–167. Vol. 29. Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag. 

Buchholz, S., and Schier, A. (2015). ‘New Game, New Chance? Social Inequalities and Upgrading Secondary 

School Qualifications in West Germany’. In European Sociological Review, 31(5), 603–615.

Buchholz, S., Imdorf, C., Hupka-Brunner, S., and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2012). ‘Sind leistungsschwache Jugendliche 
tatsächlich  nicht  ausbildungsfähig?  Eine  Analyse  zur  beruflichen  Qualifizierung  von  Jugendlichen  mit 
geringen  kognitiven  Kompetenzen  im  Nachbarland  Schweiz’.  In  Kölner  Zeitschrift  für  Soziologie  und 
Sozialpsychologie, 64(4), 701–727.

Bukodi, E., Eibl, F. in collaboration with Buchholz, S., Marzadro, S., Minello, A., Wahler, S., Blossfeld, H.-P., 
Erikson, R. and Schizzerotto, A. (2015). ‘Linking the Macro to the Micro: A Multidimensional Approach 
to Educational Inequalities in Four European Countries’. Barnett Papers in Social Research (WP 15–02). 
Dämmrich,  J.  (forthcoming  2016  in  English,  Spanish  and  Catalan).  Does  preschool  matter?  The  role  of 
preschool  attendance  in  the  reduction  of  immigrants’  reading  disadvantages  in  the  early  school  career. 
Observatorio Social de La Caixa, 1.

Dämmrich, J. (2016). Gender differences in the labor market. A comparative study of contemporary societies. 

Dissertation. European University Institute. 

Dämmrich,  J.,  Kosyakova,  Y.,  and  Blossfeld,  H.-P.  (2015).  ‘Gender  and  job-related  non-formal  training:  A 

comparison of 20 countries’. In International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 56(6), 433-459. 

Dechant, A., and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2015). ‘Changes in the division of labor within highly educated German 

couples when the first child is born’. In Journal of Family Research, 27(3), 373–396.

Denny, K., Doyle, O., McMullin P., and O’Sullivan V.  (2014). ‘Money, mentoring and making friends: The 
impact of a multidimensional access program on student performance’. In Economics of Education Review, 
40 (June), 167–182.

Engelhardt, H., and Skopek, J. (2016). ‘Eheschließungen und Scheidungstrends in der Bevölkerungssoziologie’. 
In Y. Niephaus, M. Kreyenfeld, and R. Sackmann (Eds), Handbuch der Bevölkerungssoziologie (277–302). 
Wiesbaden: Springer.  

Heath, A,. and Kilpi-Jakonen, E. (2012). ‘Immigrant children’s age at arrival and assessment results’. In OECD 

Untapped Skills: Realising the Potential of Immigrant Students (67–78). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Kilpi-Jakonen, E. (2012). ‘Does Finnish educational equality extend to children of immigrants? Examining 
national origin, gender and the relative importance of parental resources’. In Nordic Journal of Migration 
Research, 2(2), 167–181.

26 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

Kilpi-Jakonen, E. (2014). ‘Citizenship and educational attainment amongst the second generation: An analysis 

of children of immigrants in Finland.’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(7), 1079–1096.

Kilpi-Jakonen,  E.,  D.  Vono  de  Vilhena,  and  H.-P.  Blossfeld  (2015).  ‘Adult  learning  and  social  inequalities: 
Processes of equalization or cumulative disadvantage?’ In International Review of Education, 61(4), 529–
546. 

Kilpi-Jakonen, E., Vono de Vilhena, D., Kosyakova, Y., Stenberg, A., and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2012). ‘The Impact 
of Formal Adult Education on the Likelihood of Being Employed: a Comparative Overview’. In Studies of 
Transition States and Societies, 4(1), 48–68.

Kosyakova, Y. (2016). The regime change and social inequality: Gender-specific educational and job careers in 

the Soviet and post-Soviet Era. Dissertation. European University Institute. 

Kosyakova, Y., D. Kurakin, and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2015). ‘Horizontal and vertical gender segregation in Russia 
–  Changes  upon  labor  market  entry  before  and  after  the  collapse  of  the  Soviet  Regime’.  In  European 
Sociological Review, 31(5), 573–590. 

Kosyakova,  Y.,  Dämmrich,  J.,  and  Blossfeld,  H.-P.  (2016).  ‘Participation  in  formal  adult  education  and  its 
impact on inequality over the life course in contemporary Russia’. In World Studies in Education, 17(1), 
(accepted February 1, 2016).  

Kosyakova, Y., Skopek, J., and Eckman, S. (2015). ‘Do Interviewers Manipulate Responses to Filter Questions? 
Evidence from a Multilevel Approach’. In International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 27(3), 417–431.
Kulic, N. (2013). ‘The type and duration of family unions and income sharing: The implications for women’s 

economic well-being’. In The Journal of Socio-Economics, 44(June), 7–15.

Kulic, N. (2014). ‘European Women: The Link Between Money, Career, and Financial Satisfaction’. In European 

Sociological Review, 30(3), 287–301.

Kurz, K., Buchholz, S., Rinklake, A. and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2013). ‘Die späte Erwerbskarriere und der Übergang in 
den Ruhestand im Zeichen von Globalisierung und demographischer Alterung’. In C. Vogel and A. Motel-
Klingbiel (Eds.), Altern im sozialen Wandel: Rückkehr der Altersarmut? (313–334). Berlin: Springer VS. 

Leopold,  T.,  and  Skopek,  J.  (2014).  ‘Gender  and  the  Division  of  Labor  in  Older  Couples:    How  European 

Grandparents Share Market Work and Childcare’. In Social Forces, 93(1), 63–91. 

Leopold, T., and Skopek, J. (2015). ‘Convergence or Continuity? The Gender Gap in Household Labor After 

Retirement’. In Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(4), 819–832.

Leopold, T., and Skopek, J. (2015). ‘The Delay of Grandparenthood. A Cohort Comparison in East and West 

Germany’. In Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(2), 441–460.

Leopold, T., and Skopek, J. (2015). ‘The Demography of Grandparenthood: An International Profile’. In Social 

Forces, 94(2), 801–832.

Leuze, K., von Maurice, J., and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2012). ‘Bildung und lebenslanges Lernen im Erwachsenenalter: 
Die  Konzeption  des  Nationalen  Bildungspanels’.  In  B.  Dippelhofer-Stiem,  and  S.  Dippelhofer  (Eds.), 
Enzyklopädie  Erziehungswissenschaft  Online.  Erziehungs-  und  Bildungssoziologie  (1–19).  Weinheim  und 
Basel: Beltz Juventa.

McMullin, P. (forthcoming). Onwards or upwards? Educational pathways and persistent inequality in the United 

Kingdom’s comprehensive education system. Dissertation. European University Institute. 

Mills, M. and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2012). ‘The second demographic transition meets globalization: A comprehensive 
theory  to  understand  changes  in  family  formation  in  an  era  of  uncertainty’.  In  A.  Evans,  and  J.  Baxter 
(Eds.), Negotiating the life course. Stability and change in life pathways (9–33). Berlin: Springer. 

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 27

Minello A., and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2014). ‘From mother to daughter: changes in intergenerational educational 
and occupational mobility in Germany’. In International Studies in Sociology of Education, 24(1), 65–84. 
Minello,  A.  and  H.-P.  Blossfeld  (2016).  ‘From  parents  to  children.  The  impact  of  mothers’  and  fathers’ 
eduational attainment on those of their sons and daughters in West Germany’. In British Journal of Sociology 
of Education, (accepted February 2, 2016).   

Panichella N., and Triventi M. (2014). ‘Social stratification and the choice of secondary school track. Long-
term trends during educational expansion and reforms in Italy’. In European Societies, 16(5), 666–693.
Passaretta G., and Triventi M. (2014). ‘Il lavoro durante gli studi universitari e gli esiti occupazionali dopo 
la  laurea.  Il  caso  italiano  in  prospettiva  comparata’  [Working  during  university  and  post-graduation 
occupational outcomes. The Italian case in comparative perspective]. Sociologia del Lavoro, 136, 203–220.  
Passaretta  G.,  and  Triventi  M.  (2015).  ‘Work  experience  during  higher  education  and  post-Graduation 
occupational  outcomes:  A  comparative  study  on  four  European  countries’.  In  International  Journal  of 
Comparative Sociology, 56(3–4), 232–253.

Relikowski, I., Ylmaz, E., and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2012). ‘Wie lassen sich die hohen Bildungsaspirationen von Migranten 
erklären?  Eine  Mixed-Methods-Studie  zur  Rolle  von  strukturellen  Aufstiegsprozessen  und  individueller 
Bildungserfahrung’. In Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Sonderhefte, 52, 111–136.

Roßbach,  H.G.,  and  Blossfeld,  H.-P.  (2012).  ‘Einführung  in  das  Schwerpunktheft  Frühe  Förderung  in  der 

Familie’. In Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 24(2012), 112–114.

Skopek, J. (2016). ‘Data Dissemination, Documentation and User Support’. I: H.-P. Blossfeld, J. von Maurice, M. 
Bayer, and J. Skopek (Eds.), Methodological issues of longitudinal surveys (597-690). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Skopek,  J.  and  Munz,  M.  (2016).  ‘Life  Course  Data  and  the  Longitudinal  Classification  of  Educational 
Attainment’.  In  H.-P.  Blossfeld,  J.  von  Maurice,  M.  Bayer,  and  J.  Skopek  (Eds.),  Methodological  issues  of 
longitudinal surveys (669-690). Wiesbaden: Springer.

Skopek, J., Koberg, T., and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2016). ‘RemoteNEPS – An Innovative Research Environment’. In 
H.-P. Blossfeld, J. von Maurice, M. Bayer, and J. Skopek (Eds.), Methodological issues of longitudinal surveys 
(611-626). Wiesbaden: Springer..

Teräs, M., and Kilpi-Jakonen, E. (2013). ‘Maahanmuuttajien lapset ja koulutus’ [Children of immigrants and 
education]. In T. Martikainen, P. Saukkonen, and M. Säävälä (Eds.), Muuttajat: Kansainvälinen muuttoliike 
ja  suomalainen  yhteiskunta  [Migrants:  International  Migration  and  Finnish  Society]  (184–202).  Helsinki: 
Gaudeamus. 

Trivellato P., and Triventi M. (Eds.) (2015). L’istruzione superiore: Caratteristiche, funzionamento e risultati 

[Higher Education: Characteristics, functioning and outcomes]. Rome: Carocci.

Triventi M. (2013). ‘The gender wage gap and its institutional context: a comparative analysis of European 

graduates’. In Work Employment and Society, 27(4), 563–580.

Triventi M. (2013). ‘Stratification in higher education and its relationship with social inequality. A comparative 

study on 11 European countries’. In European Sociological Review, 29 (3), 489–502.

Triventi M. (2013). ‘The role of higher education stratification in the reproduction of social inequality in the 

labour market’. In Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 32(2), 45–63.

Triventi  M.  (2014).  ‘Does  working  during  higher  education  affect  students’  academic  progression?’  In 

Economics of Education Review, 41(August), 1–13.

Triventi M. (2014). ‘Higher education regimes. An empirical classification of higher education systems and its 

relationship with student accessibility’. In Quality & Quantity, 48(30), 1685–1703. 

28 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

Triventi M. (2014). ‘Le disuguaglianze di istruzione secondo l’origine sociale: una rassegna della letteratura sul 
caso italiano’ [Educational inequalities by social background: A review of the literature on the Italian case]. 
In Scuola Democratica, 2(maggio-agosto), 321–342.

Triventi M., Panichella N., Ballarino G., Barone C., and Bernardi F. (2015). ‘Education as a positional good. 
Implications for social inequalities in educational attainment in Italy’. In Research in Social Stratification 
and Mobility, (published online 18 April 2015).

Triventi, M., Skopek, J., Kosyakova, Y., Buchholz, S., and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2015). ‘Gender Inequalities at Labor 
Market Entry: A Comparative View from eduLIFE Project’. In Comparative Social Research, 31 (Gender 
Segregation in Vocational Education – Institutional and Individual Perspectives), 25–51.

Virtù  e  limiti  del  sistema  duale  tedesco.  Intervista  a  Hans-Peter  Blossfeld,  in  Scuolademocratica,  2/2013, 

Special Issue: Education, occupatione e crescir; http://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/1^0.12828/74715.

Von Maurice, J. H.-P. Blossfeld, and Roßbach, H.-G. (2016). ‘The National Educational Panel Study: Milestones 
of the years 2006–2014’. In:H.-P. Blossfeld, J. von Maurice, M. Bayer, and J. Skopek (Eds.), Methodological 
issues of longitudinal surveys (3-18). Wiesbaden: Springer.

Von Maurice, J., and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2012). ‘Chancen für die Forschung durch interdisziplinäre Netzwerkbildung. 
Das  Beispiel  des  Nationalen  Bildungspanels’.  In  Gegenworte,  Hefte  für  den  Disput  über  Wissen  
(39–43). Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. 

Vono  de  Vilhena,  D.,  Kosyakova,  Y.,  Kilpi-Jakonen,  E.,  and  McMullin,  P.  (2016).  ‘Does  adult  education 
contribute to securing non-precarious employment? A cross-national comparison’. In Work, Employment 
and Society, 30(1), 97–117.

Vono, D., and Vidal, E. (2012). ‘The impact of informal networks on labour mobility: Immigrants’ first job in 

Spain’. In Migration Letters, 9(3), 237–247.

Wahler,  S.  (forthcoming).  A  gender  lens  on  individuals’  educational  and  occupational  careers  in  Denmark: 

Evidence across the life course. Dissertation. University of Bamberg.

Zielonka,  M.,  I.  Relikowski,  L.  Kleine,  N.  Luplow,  E.  Yilmaz,  T.  Schneider,  und  Blossfeld,  H.-P.  (2013). 
‘Migrations- und geschlechtsspezifische Disparitäten in der Primar- und Sekundarstufe. Befunde aus der 
Längsschnittstudie BiKS-8-14’. In A. Hadjar and S. Hupka-Brunner (Eds.), Geschlecht, Migrationshintergrund 
und Bildungserfolg (133–158). Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Juventa. 

Zielonka, M., L. Beier, and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2014). ‘Schulverläufe während der Sekundarstufe’. In M. Mudiappa 
and  C.  Artelt  (Eds.),  BiKS  –  Ergebnisse  aus  den  Längsschnittstudien.  Praxisrelevante  Befunde  aus  dem 
Primar–  und  Sekundarschulbereich,  Schriften  aus  der  Fakultät  Humanwissenschaften  der  Universität 
Bamberg (119–130). Bd. 15. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press.

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 29

eduLife Contributors, Workshop and Conference Participants

Franca Maria Alacevich (University of Florence, Italy)
Albert Arcarons (European University Institute, Italy)
Paolo Barbieri (University of Trento, Italy)
W. Steven Barnett (Rutgers College, USA)
Carlo Barone (University of Trento, Italy)
Ariane Basler (University of Zurich, Switzerland)
Juergen  Baumert  (Professor  and  Director  Emeritus,  Max 
Planck Institute of Human Development, Germany)
Rolf Becker (University of Bern, Switzerland)
Fabrizio Bernardi (European University Institute, Italy)
Francesca Bettio (University of Siena, Italy)
David Bills (University of Iowa, USA)
Carmel Blank (Tel Aviv University, Israel)
Sigrid Blömeke (University of Oslo, Norway)
Hans-Peter Blossfeld (European University Institute, Italy)
Diederik Boertien (European University Institute, Italy)
David Bravo (Catholic University of Chile, Chile)
Asta Breinholt-Lund (University of Copenhagen, Sweden) 
Ylenia Brilli (University of Gothenburg, Sweden)
Yaël Brinbaum(Centre d’Etudes sur l’Emploi, France)
Martine Broekhuizen (University of Utrecht, Netherlands) 
Christian Brzinsky-Fay (Berlin Social Science Centre, Ger-
many)
Sandra Buchholz (University of Bamberg, Germany)
Sandra  Buchler  (Goethe  University  Frankfurt  am  Main, 
Germany)
Claudia Buchmann (The Ohio State University, Columbus, 
Ohio, USA)
Marlis Buchmann (University of Zurich, Switzerland)
Erzsébet Bukodi (University of London, UK)
William  Carbonaro  (University  of  Notre  Dame,  Madison/
Wisconsin, USA)
Jenny Chesters (Canberra University, Australia)
Dalit Contini (University of Turin, Italy)
Gabor Csanadi (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
Adrienne  Csizmady  (Hungarian  Academy  of  Sciences, 
Hungary)
Giorgio Cutuli (University of Trento, Italy)
Johanna Dämmrich (European University Institute, Italy)
Eric Dearing (Boston College, USA)
Daniela Del Boca (University of Turin, Italy)
Hartmut  Ditton  (Ludwig  Maximilian  University  Munich, 
Germany)
Michael Dockery (Curtin University, Perth, Australia)
Mounia Drissi (Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy)
Jaap Dronkers (Maastricht University, Netherlands)
Ann-Zofie Duvander (Stockholm University, Sweden)
Cheryl Elman (University of Akron, Ohio, USA)
Robert Erikson (Stockholm University, Sweden)
John Ermisch (Oxford University, UK)
Jani Erola (University of Turku, Finland)
GØsta Esping-Andersen (Pompeu Fabra University, Spain)
Hartmut Esser (University of Mannheim, Germany)

Géraldine Farges (Université de Bourgogne, France)
Helmut Fend (University of Zurich, Switzerland)
Ellen Frede (The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, USA)
Duncan Gallie (Oxford University, UK)
Diana Galos (European University Institute, Italy)
Ludovica Gambaro (Institute of Education, UK)
Adam Gamoran (University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA)
Theodore P. Gerber (University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA)
Klarita Gërxhani (European University Institute, Italy)
Pablo Gracia (European University Institute, Italy)
Eric Grodsky (University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA)
Christine Guégnard (Université de Bourgogne, France)
Karin Halldén (Stockholm University, Sweden)
Saara Hämäläinen (European University Institute, Italy)
Dana Hamplova (Czech Academy of Science, Czech Repub-
lic)
Juho Härkönen (Stockholm University, Sweden)
Michele Haynes (University of Queensland, Australia)
Estelle Herbaut (European University Institute, Italy)
Florian Hertel (European University Institute, Italy)
Angela Higginson (University of Queensland, Australia)
Kerstin Hoenig (Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajecto-
ries, Germany)
Rasmus Hoffman (European University Institute, Italy)
Anders Holm (University of Copenhagen, Denmark)
Anne  Christine  Holtmann  (Berlin  Social  Science  Centre, 
Germany)
Daniel Horn (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary)
Sandra Hupka-Brunner (University of Bern, Switzerland)
Cristina Iannelli (University of Edinburgh, UK)
Christian Imdorf (University of Basel, Switzerland)
Alexandra  Ioannidou  (German  Institute  for  Adult  Educa-
tion, Germany)
Vibeke Jensen (Danish National Centre For Social Research, 
Copenhagen, Denmark)
Aleksi Karhula (University of Turku, Finland)
Nadiya Kelle (European University Institute, Italy)
Tamas Keller (TÁRKI Social Research Institute, Hungary)
Elina Kilpi-Jakonen (University of Turku, Finland)
Markus Klein (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK)
Corinna Kleinert (Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajec-
tories, Germany)
Kathrin Kolb (University of Bamberg, Germany)
Maarten Koomen (University of Bern, Switzerland)
Roxanne Korthals (Maastricht University, Netherlands)
Yuliya Kosyakova (Institute for Employment Research, Ger-
many)
Vladimir Kozlovskiy (The Sociological Institute of the Rus-
sian Academy of Sciences, Russia)
Irene Kriesi (Swiss Federal Institute for Vocational Educa-
tion and Training, Switzerland) 
Hannes Kröger (European University Institute, Italy)
Nevena Kulic (European University Institute, Italy)

30 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

Institute, 

(European  University 

Dmitry Kurakin (Higher School of Economics, Russia)
Anna Kyriazi (European University Institute, Italy)
Wolfgang Lauterbach (University of Potsdam, Germany)
Paul Leseman (University of Utrecht, Netherlands)
Tobias  Linberg  (Bamberg  Graduate  School  of  Social  Sci-
ences, Germany)
Ulman Lindenberger (Director, Max Planck Institute of Hu-
man Development, Germany) 
Michele Lugo (University of Trento, Italy)
Pekka Martikainen (University of Helsinki, Finland)
Karl-Ulrich  Mayer  (B.  Resor  Professor  Emeritus  of  Soci-
ology,  Yale  University,  USA,  and  Director  Emeritus,  Max 
Planck Institute of Human Development, German)
Frances  McGinnity  (Economic  and  Social  Research  Insti-
tute, Ireland)
Patricia McMullin (European University Institute, Italy)
Alessandra Minello (European University Institute, Italy)
Pau Miret Gamundi (Autonomous University of Barcelona, 
Spain) 
Stine  Møllegaard  Pedersen  (University  of  Copenhagen, 
Denmark)
Italy) 
Katy  Moris 
Thomas Moser (Buskerud and Vestfold University College, 
Norway) 
Jake Murdoch (Université de Bourgogne, France)
Aisling Murray (ESRI, Ireland)
Lena Nusser (University of Bamberg, Germany)
Eduwin Pakpahan (European University Institute, Italy)
Hyunjoon Park (University of Pennsylvania, USA)
Stine  Møllegaard  Pedersen  (University  of  Copenhagen, 
Denmark)
Chiara D. Pronzato (University of Turin, Italy)
Tenko Raykov (Michigan State University)
Elisabeth  Reichart  (German  Development  Institute,  Bonn, 
Germany)
Dominic Richardson (United Nations Childrens Fund, Flor-
ence, Italy)
Péter Róbert (TÁRKI Social Research Institute, Hungary)
Götz Rohwer (Ruhr Universität Bochum)
Eve-Liis Roosmaa (Tallin University, Estonia)
Hans-Günther  Roßbach  (Leibniz  Institute  for  Educational 
Trajectories, Germany)
Frida Rudolphi (Stockholm University, Sweden)
Helen Russell (The Economic and Social Research Institute, 
Ireland)
Ellu Saar (University of Tallinn, Estonia)
Stefani Scherer (University of Trento, Italy)
Antonia Schier (Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajecto-
ries, Germany)
Antonio Schizzerotto (University of Trento, Italy)
Ingrid Schoon (University College London, UK)
Susanne Schührer (European University Institute, Italy)

Yossi Shavit (Tel Aviv University, Israel)
Natalie Simonova (Czech Academy of Sciences, Czech Re-
public)
Outi Sirniö (University of Helsinki, Finland)
Jan Skopek (European University Institute, Italy)
Nora Skopek (Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Ger-
many)
Pauline Slot (University of Utrecht, Netherlands)
Oscar Smallenbroek (European University Institute, Italy)
Emer Smyth (Trinity College Dublin, Ireland)
Anders Stenberg (Stockholm University, Sweden)
Haya Stier (Tel Aviv University, Israel)
Kitty  Stewart  (London  School  of  Economics  and  Political 
Science, UK)
Kathy Sylva (Oxford University, UK)
Kadri Täht (University of Tallinn, Estonia)
Elise Tenret (Université Paris Dauphine, France)
Rudolf  Tippelt  (Ludwig  Maximilian  University  Munich, 
Germany)
Claudia Traini (Bamberg Graduate School of Social Scienc-
es, Germany)
Danièle Trancart (Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi, Paris, France)
Moris Triventi (European University Institute, Italy)
Julia Unfried (University of Bamberg, Germany)
Marge Unt (University of Tallinn, Estonia)
Louis-André Vallet (CNRS and Sciences Po, France)
Herman Van de Werfhorst (University of Amsterdam, Neth-
erlands) 
Saskia Van Schaik (University of Utrecht, Netherlands)
Daniele  Vignoli  (European  University  Institute/University 
of Florence, Italy)
Ida Viklund (Stockholm University, Sweden)
Daniela Vono de Vilhena (Max Planck Institute for Demo-
graphic Research, Germany)
Susanne Wahler (University of Bamberg, Germany)
Sabine Weinert (University of Bamberg, Germany)
Felix  Weiss  (Leibniz  Institute  for  the  Social  Sciences,  Ger-
many)
Mark Western (University of Queensland, Australia)
Florian  Wohlkinger  (Ludwig  Maximilian  University  Mu-
nich, Germany)
Maarten Wolbers (Radboud University, Netherlands)
Meir Yaish (University of Haifa, Israel)
Diana Yanbarisova (Higher School of Economics, Russia)
Gordey Yastrebov (European University Institute, Italy)
Henrik D. Zachrisson (University of Oslo, Norway)
Yu Zheng (European University Institute, Italy)
Markus Zielonka (Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajec-
tories, Germany)
Gundula  Zoch  (Bamberg  Graduate  School  of  Social  Sci-
ences, Germany)

eduLIFE - SUMMARY OF CORE RESULTS 2011 - 2016                 31

Education as a Lifelong Process – Comparing Educational Trajectories in Modern Societies
Summary of Core Results of the eduLIFE project

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council
under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme Advanced Research Grant (FP/2007-2013) 
/ ERC Grant Agreement n. 269568 (ERC-2010-AdG_20100407), June 2011- May 2016.

The information and views set out in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily 
reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies 
nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the 
information contained therein

Please cite this publication as: 
Blossfeld, H.-P., Kosyakova, Y., and Borchi, F. (2016). Education as a Lifelong Process – Comparing Edu-
cational Trajectories in Modern Societies. Summary of Core Results of the eduLIFE project. Florence: 
European University Institute.

Contact:
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. Dr. h.c. Hans-Peter Blossfeld
Department of Political and Social Sciences (SPS)
European University Institute
Villa San Felice
Via dei Roccettini 9
I-50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI)
Italy
E-mail: hp.blossfeld@eui.eu

http://edulife.eui.eu/Home.aspx

Acknowledgement:  The authors would like to warmly thank Jackie Gordon of the European University Institute’s 
Communications Service for her support in the realization of this publication.

32 

     COMPARATIVE LIFE COURSE & INEQUALITY RESEARCH CENTRE

 
Funded
by the
European
Research
Council

QM-01-16-559-EN-N
ISBN 978-92-9084-417-4
doi:10.2870/263052