Time: Wednesday, 28/Aug/2024: 15:45 - 17:15 Session Chair: Helene Götschel |
Location: Room 010 in ΧΩΔ 02 (Common Teaching Facilities [CTF02]) [Ground Floor] Cap: 60 |
Paper
Discursive Variations of "Coming Out" as a Queer Teacher in Finland
University of Helsinki, Finland
Presenting Author:This upcoming study is part of a doctoral project that examines the discourses and discourse variation of Finnish queer, or LGBTQ+, teachers in the workplace. Teachers are professionals in a highly visible and socially relevant occupation who are at the same time part of a population that has historically been stigmatized and whose experiences have been marginalized. Their experiences mirror those of all queer people in our society, but their position as teachers provides a platform of conducting research through the societally significant and relevant context of schools.
The current study constitutes an investigation into the various ways of Finnish queer teachers disclosing or revealing their non-heterosexuality or non-normative gender in their work environment. With this study, I aim to examine how “coming out” as queer occurs at the workplace in the Finnish teacher context, and to explore how the discursive choices teachers make when they discuss and construct their coming out experiences connect to heteronormativity and to the prerequisites of being a teacher. This study also seeks answers to questions such as: how do queer teachers talk about coming out in the workplace and what kind of attitudes and opinions they have on the matter? What elements and factors are shaping the ways in which coming out is performed by queer teachers in the workplace? How do queer teachers disclose or reveal their queerness in different situations and contexts in the workplace? The data for the current study is going to be group interview data, produced in three separate group interviews, with 15 participants in groups consisting of 3-5 teachers. Group interviews are utilized for this study due to the sensitive nature of the topic being researched within a sensitive research population; group setting can reduce the power of the researcher and provide a safe context that allows for higher level of consensus and elaboration on mutual issues (Barbour & Kitzinger 1999).
The premise for this study is that there exists a hegemonic discourse of heteronormativity in society that is reproduced and enforced in schools (e.g., Lehtonen 2021; Ferfolja & Hopkins 2013) which maintains power relations that come into play in discourses related to queer teachers’ language use. The basis of this study also relies on sociolinguistic research, which claims that language use and language use variation can construct social and ideological meanings and establish discourses, identities and speech communities. In reference to many other languages that have been analyzed in terms of gender, sexuality and the teacher context, Finnish language characteristics (e.g., gender neutral third person pronoun) bring an interesting aspect to this research setting. Revealing and disclosing information about non-normative sexuality or gender is a complex and challenging interactional speech act with multiple forces and factors influencing the way it is uttered or performed, especially when considering the intentions behind what the speaker is hoping to achieve (Chirrey 2003). By “coming out”, queer people challenge the existing heteronormative power structures and simultaneously communicate their position as the other in the community, and their resistance to the dominant norms (Llewellyn & Reynolds 2021). Earlier research about coming out in the teacher context points out to a high level of ambivalence and conflict surrounding the individual teacher in their decision-making process about disclosing their sexuality (Connell 2015; Gray 2013; Rasmussen 2004). For example, the norms around teacher professionality and queer visibility are often experienced as contradictory and complex (e.g., Ferfolja & Hopkins 2013; Neary 2013). The various factors behind coming out in educational context may be connected to issues and questions surrounding teacher norms or moral questions.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is utilized as the main research perspective to analyze the transcribed interview data, to best explore the hidden power relations embedded in language (Fairclough 2010). A three-dimensional CDA method is used in this study to examine the discursive indicators and representations of heteronormativity and power relations, as well as potentially identifying social problems and discourses influencing the way queer teachers’ talk about their coming out experiences in the group interview settings. The analysis will first focus on linguistic and semantic features of the text, then continue to seek out contradictory properties and similarities to establish meaningful bundles of discursive processes, guided by what teachers said and how. Finally, the analysis will connect these interpretations and meanings to the larger sociocultural context.
CDA allows for the exploration of how heteronormative power dynamics, that are embedded in language, are either challenged or enforced in queer teachers’ interviews while also considering the wider, societal context of how discourses can both mirror queer teachers’ reality but also shape it. CDA favors a multidisciplinary approach in research and enables the researcher to make connections between different fields, making it an ideal perspective in examining a complex phenomenon like heteronormativity and challenging the narrative it creates (Fairclough 2010; Van Dijk 2016).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
By examining how queer teachers discursively construct their workplace coming out experiences in group interview settings, we can see the discursive variation around the phenomenon. The results will provide discourse-level information about the interactional strategies that queer teachers use when revealing, disclosing or hiding their sexuality or gender. I argue that this discursive variation will enforce earlier findings which state that heteronormativity is a dominant framework in Finnish schools (Lehtonen 2023), but also reveal its influence to the ways in which queer teachers exist and talk about their personal life, sexuality and gender; this is important because the different ways of coming out can reveal how queer people are disciplined to present themselves in schools and what kind of subject positions are available to them in the contemporary Finnish society. The findings will reflect the hidden, deeper attitudes and values surrounding queer people and queer teachers that are present in the western countries, specifically Finland and other similarly liberal Nordic countries with educational policies that are based largely on socio-democratic values (Lappalainen & Lahelma 2016).
References
Barbour, R. S., & Kitzinger, J. (Eds.). (1999). Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice. Sage Publications Ltd.
Chirrey, D. 2003. “‘I hereby come out’: What sort of speech act is coming out?” Journal of Sociolinguistics 7:1, 24—37.
Connell, C. 2015. School’s Out: gay and lesbian teachers in the classroom. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Fairclough, N. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd edition). Pearson Education Ltd.
Ferfolja, T., and L. Hopkins. 2013. “The complexities of workplace experience for lesbian and gay teachers.” Critical Studies in Education 54 (3): 311—324.
Gray, E. 2013. ” Coming out as a lesbian, gay or bisexual teacher: negotiating private and professional worlds.” Sex Education 13 (6): 702-714.
Lappalainen, S., and E. Lahelma. 2016. “Subtle discourses on equality in the Finnish curricula of upper secondary education: reflections of the imagined society” Journal of Curriculum Studies 48 (5): 650-670.
Lehtonen, J. 2023. “Rainbow Paradise? Sexualities and Gender Diversity in Finnish Schools.” In Finland’s Famous Education System, edited by M. Thrupp, P. Seppänen, J. Kauko, and S. Kosunen Springer, Singapore.
Llewellyn, A. and Reynolds, K. 2021. “Within and between heteronormativity and diversity: narratives of LGB teachers and coming and being out in schools” Sex Education 21:1, 13-26.
Neary, A. 2013. “Lesbian and gay teachers’ experiences of ‘coming out’ in Irish schools.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 34:4, 583—602.
Rasmussen, M.L. 2004. “The Problem of Coming Out” Theory Into Practice 43:2, 144—150.
Van Dijk, A. 2015. “Critical Discourse Analysis” In D. Tannen, H. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell.
Paper
“I’d Hate to be Gay, Wouldn’t You?”: One Teacher’s Experiences of Social-Class and Sexuality in two English Secondary Schools.
Durham University, United Kingdom
Presenting Author:Schools are predominantly and actively heteronormative spaces, within this a teacher is an awkward combination of asexual, heterosexuality (Llewellyn, 2022, 2023). As such, historically LGB teachers have struggled with their identity formation particularly around the discordance of private and professional identities (Connell 2015; Neary 2013). However, with recent movements towards LGBT inclusion in aspects of English education policy and practice, recent research has suggested that there are more spaces for LGB teachers, to inhabit an LGB identity within their schools (Llewellyn, 2022, 2023; Brett 2024), although this position is not equally available across schools.
Within this body of research, there is a growing awareness of differences within the LGBT categories (for example Brett, 2024), and some awareness of intersectional identities, however, there is very little acknowledgement of a teachers’ social class and how this may impact decision-making processes, knowledge formation, and identity negotiation. This is important, as teaching in the UK is largely a middle-class profession, both in terms of who constitutes the profession and how the profession is produced. This is prominent within official discourses, where recent governments have sought to ‘make up the middle classes’ with various strategies including, the promotion of a “standard English” (Cushing, 2021). These approaches are in accordance with previous governments, such as New Labour (1997-2008) who worked to re-socialize working-class parents within narratives of middle-class norms (Gewirtz, 2000). However, crucially these strategies are constructed through the appearance of “classlessness” (Reay, 1998), or around ‘appropriate’ aspirations of levelling up. As such, there is largely an invisibility to a teacher’s social class, within schools, educational policy and within public rhetoric.
Arguably, this is a vital discussion at this current time, as some level of equality, diversity and inclusion is expected in English schools. Although, how this is enacted will take on specific forms and practices in each location. Therefore, the impact on ‘working class’ LGBT teachers is potentially precarious.These discussions are also relevant more globally as LGBT people are in a precarious position, where increased rights and laws, sit alongside a rise in populism and ‘anti-woke’ rhetoric.
Specifically, schools are institutions designed to encourage conformity and normalisation (Walshaw 2007). In addition, the English education systems operates under the lens of neoliberalism, hence there is an expectation of the autonomous entrepreneurial individual (Rose, 1999). As such, LGBT inclusion is often actioned by individuals, rather than an organised school response (Llewellyn, 2023).
In relation to sexuality, whilst there is a movement towards treating all people as human beings, neoliberalism’s take on sexuality has been described by Duggan (2003) as “homonormative” and Puar (2017) as “homonational”, where there is a contracted version of liberation for LGBT people. As such, arguably state power encourages a very specific appropriate kind of sexuality, that is presented as a normal, family and a loving relationship. In a societal sense, this can be seen through the premise of equal rights, or the framing of equal love.
Moreover, power operates within locations (Yuval-Davis, 2006), and is a strategy within systems. Where there is power there is also resistance, and individuals have a constrained agency. However, resistance – such as creating a LGB teacher identity within a heteronormative space - does not eradicate norms, but instead creates new sets of norms (Jakobsen, 1998). Furthermore, structures facilitate a ‘network of norms’ (Jakobsen, 1998), which constitutes normativities.
If schools, on the whole, are no longer overtly homophobic, and some levels of LGBT inclusion are supported, the question becomes what are the new normativities that are created, with regards to LGBT, EDI and the professional LGB teacher? And are these supportive of everyone?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
This research thus explores the case of a single, gay, male, teacher from a working-class background, who teaches in a secondary school (ages 11 – 18) in the North of England. Through the use of a semi-structured interview, an email exchange, and Foucauldian theory, the article examines John’s discursive constructions of being a teacher in two schools - in relation to his sexuality, and his subsequent teacher identity. It therefore considers how someone fits (or not) within the available (or not) discursive norms of an LGB teacher identity.
John’s interview was part of a larger project, where 50 LGBT teachers were interviewed in the summer of 2020. These teachers were recruited via social media advertising, therefore there was a mixture of targeted and snowball sampling, which is commonplace in LGBT research that advocates social justice (Bell, 1997).
Participants were asked about their experiences through a range of topics, the interviews were also active (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003) such that the other areas could be led by the participant.
John’s interview lasted one hour, 14 minutes. Prior to the interview John had sent an email with an attached Word document entitled ‘Homophobic experiences within my fifteen-year career as a secondary school teacher’.
Analysis was conducted through immersion in the data, multiple readings, and a movement between inductive and deductive coding. John’s interview stood out as different to many of the other participants who routinely drew on narratives of progress. Whilst many of the participants had experienced some levels of homophobia, John was unique in routinely experiencing sustained levels of homophobia. Hence, further analysis of John’s interview, and the email document were conducted, in relation to a Foucauldian lens and subsequent discursive framings.
In the interview, John describes himself as “a teenage pregnancy product, council estate, domestic violence in the family” – his route into teaching was through college and ‘non-standard’ qualifications. He also positions himself as resilient “I was determined that I wouldn’t go to the scrapheap”. Furthermore, he references the multiple levels of leadership he has held.
John describes the two secondary schools he has worked in as within “economically deprived postal codes and low aspiration” within this, he states he has “gone from a wholly white demographic to a non-white demographic. But the homophobia is consistent across the two”.
An ethic of care (Christians, 2000) was adhered to throughout the research, with particular regards to John’s wellbeing.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
By examining John’s construction of sexuality, and his professional teacher identity, I demonstrate how the position of the LGB teacher found in recent literature (Llewellyn, 2022, 2023) largely centres around a homonormative middle class LGBT identity, and that this may be discordant for John. I do this by drawing on John’s construction of his students, his school, sexuality, and his role.
Whilst John’s own positioning shares commonalities to the neoliberal teacher of previous research (Llewellyn, 2022, 2023), such that he claims responsibility for practices in school, it is different in that whilst John is aware of his individual rights, to some extent he is encompassed by the view that sexuality is problematic, and this is a problem he needs to fix. This is demonstrated through his concern around how he is sexualised, and his awareness that this may be read as ‘his fault’. Beyond this, there is no place in schools for pride or celebration of sexuality or for staff or children to exhibit sexuality. Furthermore, in contrast to literature where the LGBT professional identity is present, there is a clearer separation between children and adults/ teachers. This is compounded by John’s school, who whilst being reactive to homophobia, advocate John’s role in determining punishments. As such, John is always the responsible neoliberal teacher, and thus why he feels he is “fighting against homophobia constantly, but not actually having any impact.”
It is important to note here the level of constant homophobia experienced by John, one student even taunts - “I’d hate to be gay, wouldn’t you? I’d kill myself!” Therefore, why, John states “I can no longer be a secondary school teacher, cos I’m openly gay”. As such, I suggest the LGBT professional identity may not be as available to a single, gay, male teacher from a working-class background.
References
Bell, D. (1997). Sex lives and audiotape: Geography, sexuality and undergraduate dissertations. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21(3), 411–417.
Brett, A. (2024). Under the spotlight: exploring the challenges and opportunities of being a visible LGBT+ teacher. Sex Education, 24(1), 61-75.
Connell, C. (2015). School’s Out: Gay and Lesbian Teachers in the Classroom. University of California Press
Christians, Clifford G. 2000. "Ethics and politics in qualitative research." In Handbook of qualitative research 2, edited by Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln, 133-155. Sage
Cushing, I. (2021). ‘Say it like the Queen’: the standard language ideology and language policy making in English primary schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34(3), 321-336.
Duggan, L. (2003). The twilight of equality? Neoliberalism, cultural politics, and the attack on democracy. Beacon Press.
Gewirtz, S. (2001). Cloning the Blairs: New Labour's programme for the re-socialization of working-class parents. Journal of Education Policy, 16(4), 365-378.
Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. F. (2003). Active interviewing. In J. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Postmodern Interviewing (pp. 67-80). Sage
Jakobsen, J. R. (1998). Queer is? Queer does? Normativity and the problem of resistance. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 4(4), 511-536.
Llewellyn, A. (2022). Bursting the ‘childhood bubble’: reframing discourses of LGBTQ+ teachers and their students. Sport, Education and Society, 1-14.
Llewellyn, A. (2023). “Because I live it.”: LGB teacher identities, as professional, personal, and political. Frontiers in Education. 8, 1-12
Neary, A. (2013). Lesbian and Gay Teachers’ Experiences of ‘Coming Out’ in Irish Schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 34(4), 583-602.
Puar, J. K. (2017). Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times. Duke University Press.
Reay, D. (1998). Rethinking social class: Qualitative perspectives on class and gender. Sociology, 32(2), 259-275.
Rose, N. (1999). Governing the soul (2nd ed.). Free Association Books.
Walshaw, M. (2007). Working with Foucault in education. Sense Publishing.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2006) Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of Prejudice, 40(3), 197-214
Paper
Teacher Gender Matters for Their Emotion Regulation, Wellbeing and Teaching Efficacy: a Meta-analysis
1Chinese University of Hong Kong; 2Chinese University of Hong Kong
Presenting Author:Teaching is by nature an emotional-burden endeavor for which emotion regulation is of crucial importance for teachers' effective teaching and well-being. Teachers' burnout and turnover rate have been an global issue. The present study aims to explore whether teacher gender impacts how they regulate emotions and related outcomes with the intersect impact from teaching grade level and culture/region norms.
Two research questions were addressed:
1. What are the relationships between teacher gender, their emotion regulation strategies, teaching efficacy and well-being?
2. Are the relationships between teachers’ emotion regulation strategies and related outcomes moderated by (1) teaching grade level, or (2) culture/region?
By answering these questions, three related emotion regulation theories were utilized to form the key conceptual skeleton of this study:
(1) Gross's process model of emotion regulation refers to that emotions are generated and regulated through situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change/reappraisal, and response modulation processes.
(2) Emotional labor theory: three emotional labor strategies have been discussed widely, namely, deep acting, surface acting and expression of naturally felt emotions.
(3) Grandey proposed that emotional labor as emotion regulation by focusing on two broad strategies: antecedent- and response-focused strategies.
Baesd on that, this study classified teachers' emotion regulation into antecedent-focused strategy (e.g., deep acting and reappraisal) and response-focused strategy (e.g., surface acting and suppression). The related outcomes included teaching efficacy and well-being (e.g., job satisfaction and burn out).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
Although previous empirical studies have examined the influence of teacher gender on emotion regulation, the quantitative review evidence is still scarce. This present meta-analysis included 21 quantitative articles and 141 correlations published between 2006 and 2023.
A systematic literature search including the eletronic search and the hand search was adoptedd. The Web of Science, ProQuest, Eric, University Library, Google scholar and the reference list of each existing related review have been searched.
The Comprehensive Meta-analysis version 3 was used to analyze the data, such as correlation, moderation, and publication bias analysis.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
It was found that there was no significant gender difference in using response-focused emotion regulation strategies (e.g., surface acting and suppression), while females were more likely to use antecedent-focused strategies (e.g., deep acting and reappraisal) and expressions of naturally felt emotions. Regarding the related outcomes, it was found that teachers who adopted antecedent-focused emotion regulation strategies more often tended to have greater teaching efficacy and well-being. By contrast, teachers who were more likely to use response-focused strategies tended to report less teaching efficacy and well-being. This gendered emotion regulation may be due to the gendered emotional display rule, which expects female teachers to be caring and emotionally available. Besides, the teaching grade with different pressures on teachers and the cultural/region norms may moderate the relationship between teacher gender and emotion regulation.
This study provides review evidence from a quantitative relationship perspective for examining the role of teacher gender in their emotion regulation and outcomes, which echoes what the content-analysis review found that female teachers used more deep acting. However, there is also inconsistency on whether male teachers used more response-focused strategies.
This study extended the existing review evidence by examining the strategy of expressing naturally felt emotions that has been neglected and can not be attributed to antecedent-focused or response-focused emotion regulation.
References
<1> Wang, H., Burić, I., Chang, M.-L., & Gross, J. J. (2023). Teachers’ emotion regulation and related environmental, personal, instructional, and well-being factors: A meta-analysis. Social Psychology of Education, 26(6), 1651–1696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09810-1
<2> Olson, R. E., McKenzie, J., Mills, K. A., Patulny, R., Bellocchi, A., & Caristo, F. (2019). Gendered emotion management and teacher outcomes in secondary school teaching: A review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 80, 128–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.01.010
<3>Thomsen, D. K., Mehlsen, M. Y., Viidik, A., Sommerlund, B., & Zachariae, R. (2005). Age and gender differences in negative affect—Is there a role for emotion regulation? Personality and Individual Differences, 38(8), 1935–1946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.12.001
<4>Lee, M., Pekrun, R., Taxer, J. L., Schutz, P. A., Vogl, E., & Xie, X. (2016). Teachers’ emotions and emotion management: integrating emotion regulation theory with emotional labor research. Social Psychology of Education, 19(4), 843–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-016-9359-5
<5> Grandey, A. A., & Melloy, R. C. (2017). The State of the Heart: Emotional Labor as Emotion Regulation Reviewed and Revised. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000067
<6>Gross, J. J. (2015). The Extended Process Model of Emotion Regulation: Elaborations, Applications, and Future Directions. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015.989751
<7>Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. University of California Press.
<8>Yin, H., Huang, S., & Chen, G. (2019). The relationships between teachers’ emotional labor and their burnout and satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Educational Research Review, 28, 100283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100283