Exploring LGBTQ+ pedagogy in

Japanese university classrooms

Luke Lawrence and Yuzuko Nagashima

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/152/6177611 by guest on 25 June 2021

Although ostensibly a free and open society, Japan is often seen to be
lagging behind in terms of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and
other (LGBTQ+) rights and understanding of LGBTQ+ issues. This lack of
understanding leads to a high degree of invisibility for LGBTQ+ members and
a lack of inclusivity in educational curriculums. In this article, the authors
document their explorations of introducing both explicit and implicit LGBTQ+
content into university English classes in Japan and their efforts to create a safe
and inclusive classroom environment. After reporting on students’ reactions and
feelings towards these activities, we recommend a varied approach to LGBTQ+
topics in the classroom that we hope will be of use to teachers not only in Japan,
but around the world too.

Introduction In terms of freedom of speech, religion, and political affiliation, Japan

can be seen as a modern, open society free of overt and explicit repression
(Vincent, Kawaguchi, and Kazama 1997). However, despite this apparent
freedom from repression, Japan is very far behind other so-called
developed nations in terms of not only legal rights and recognition of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other (LGBTQ+) members
of society, but also in their perceived acceptance in daily interactions. In
terms of legal rights, same-sex marriage is not legal in Japan, although
a number of local municipalities now recognize same-sex partnerships
as equal to marriage (Kokumai and Nishimura 2020). Alongside this,
LGBTQ+-identifying individuals are often invisible. In a global online
survey by IPSOS (2013), 46 per cent of participants worldwide reported
that they had an LGBTQ+ friend, relative, or colleague; however, the figure
for Japan was only 5 per cent. Although varied and complex, Tamagawa
(2018) found that fear of bullying and causing family problems were given
as the primary reasons for not coming out. Against this background,
creating an LGBTQ+-friendly pedagogy in Japanese ELT classrooms
can pose a number of problems, but may be seen as an important and
worthwhile undertaking for language teachers interested in critical
pedagogy and inculcating inclusivity.

152 ELT Journal Volume 75/2 April 2021; doi:10.1093/elt/ccaa083

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication 18 March 2021
 In this paper, we, two ELT instructors working in Japanese universities,
report on three examples from our own pedagogic explorations over the
last few years to create LGBTQ+-friendly classes at the university level
in Japan. These explorations were informed by queer inquiry (Nelson
2009) which have taken the form of explicit LGBTQ+-focused lesson
content, implicit incorporation of LGBTQ+ characters and scenarios into
lesson content, and the fostering of an open and inclusive classroom
environment in which students feel able to introduce their own ideas
and express their identities. It should be clarified that this paper does not
report on an empirical study; instead we document our experiences of
using queer inquiry in the classroom by outlining example activities and
lesson plans and showing the reactions that we received from students.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/152/6177611 by guest on 25 June 2021

Gender and In the field of ELT, gender and sexuality have become prominent areas of
sexuality in ELT: pedagogy as applied linguistics has started to shift focus and take a more
implicit and fluid, multiple, and dynamic stance on language teaching. One form of
explicit teaching, pedagogic practice, queer inquiry in ELT, developed by Nelson (2009),
and creating treats gender and sexuality not as innate, fixed, biological traits, but as
safe spaces discursively constructed and enacted, and constantly changing over time
and place. She demonstrates that queer inquiry can play an instrumental
role in critically examining and possibly dismantling dominant discourses
(Nelson 2009). One example of this, especially salient in this article, is
the notion of heteronormativity, which can be defined as ‘the system
which prescribes, enjoins, rewards, and naturalizes a particular kind of
heterosexuality—monogamous, reproductive, and based on conventionally
complementary gender roles—as the norm on which social arrangements
should be based’ (Cameron 2005: 489).
However, there is a distinct possibility that teachers may face challenges
from their students when attempting to queer their classrooms. For
instance, Nelson (2009) shares lived experiences of ELT teachers when
they encountered homophobic comments about LGBTQ+ individuals in
classroom discussions. Utilizing queer inquiry, teachers could turn such
incidents into a starting point to open up a new discussion to critically
examine where such homophobic tendencies stem from and help raise
students’ awareness of their own internalized bias.

Implicit teaching The most common form of queer inquiry involves inserting non-
heteronormative, gender-diverse, and sexually diverse characters and
scenarios into teaching materials. By making LGBTQ+ identities part
of the content, but not the focus of the lesson or the activity, the aim is
to normalize the existence of LGBTQ+ identities and make sure that all
students feel a sense of inclusivity (Nelson 2009; Paiz 2020).
For example, Gray’s (2013) study of ELT materials found that
LGBTQ+ identities were largely invisible in commercially available lesson
materials, a finding that he linked to the demands of global capitalism
in producing content that was viable in all ELT markets around the
world. In the context of ELT in higher education in Japan as well, the
heteronormative landscape is still pervasive not only in classroom
interactions but also in material and curriculum design (Grote 2020).

Exploring LGBTQ+ pedagogy in Japanese university classrooms 153

Explicit teaching With explicit teaching, various topics related to LGBTQ+ issues are
presented to students and they are invited to critically examine them
in the context of the society where the teaching is taking place. Within
queer inquiry, focusing on LGBTQ+ issues as a topic of study has been
problematized because of its essentialized, ‘us versus them’ approach
(Paiz 2020). However, others have argued that as long as it is situated
within a wider curriculum framework of antidiscriminatory practice
it may be acceptable (de Vincenti, Giovanangeli, and Ward 2007). In
addition, advocates of queer inquiry suggest a localized approach that
matches the needs of each individual teaching context (Paiz 2020). In
an example of explicit pedagogy in a study in Japan, Yoshihara (2011)
reported that when it comes to critical social issues related to gender and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/152/6177611 by guest on 25 June 2021

sexuality, university students in her study were willing to learn about such
issues in order to satisfy their intellectual curiosity and personal growth.

Creating a safe The idea of creating a safe space has emerged as an important part of
space in the classroom pedagogy in queering the classroom. By demarginalizing the
classroom voices of those with hidden identities such as LGBTQ+, classrooms could
become a transformative space to use such voices as a valuable resource
to raise awareness of LGBTQ+-related issues. For example, O’Mochain
(2006) utilized a life-story narrative in order to integrate diverse sexual
identities into classroom inquiry and open up a critical space for
classroom discussion even in a conservative, religious educational context
in Japan. At the same time, it is also important to critically reflect what it
means to create a safe space from the standpoint of the marginalized. It
should be up to the students and teachers to make a decision whether they
disclose their sexual identities or perform their chosen identity positions
in the classroom, and that should not determine the degree of queering
the classroom.
The following three examples are intended to demonstrate our attempts to
create more inclusive, queer-friendly classrooms in the context of Japanese
higher education.

LGBTQ+-friendly The examples presented below are taken from various classes that we
pedagogy: have taught in different universities in Japan. Although, as mentioned
examples from above, this is not an empirical study, our approach to these pedagogic
practice explorations were informed by ideas around action research (see Burns
2009 for an overview) as well as reflective practice (Farrell 2015). Action
research advocates for teachers to instigate critically informed actions and
interventions in their teaching and observe and reflect on these actions
(examples 1 and 2 below). Reflective practice adds to this by encouraging
teachers to maintain a constant attention to their practices by recording,
documenting, and assessing what goes on in their classroom using
reflective devices such as teacher diaries (example 3).
Example
1: implicit In this example the students were all intermediate learners in the faculty
integration of sociology, taking the first author’s (L.L.) English class as a weekly
of LGBTQ+ compulsory course. As part of a lesson focusing on ‘values’ and difficult
characters into decisions, L.L. decided to supplement the textbook exercises with an
lesson content original reading passage. The activity describes a Japanese student

154 Luke Lawrence and Yuzuko Nagashima

 (Koji—a common name for men in Japan) who is studying in the UK,
where he also has a partner (Steve). Koji’s father falls ill and Koji is
presented with the dilemma of staying in the UK with his partner or
returning to Japan to attend to the family business. L.L. intentionally
used the word ‘partner’ to indicate that the relationship was romantic and
chose a well-known male Anglophone name, Steve, to indicate that both
characters were male. In addition to this, in the final line of the activity,
Steve refers to himself and Koji as ‘us’. If there was any remaining
ambiguity, the final question of the exercise (Why doesn’t Steve want Koji
to go back to Japan?) should have made it clear that although not central
to the purpose of the activity, the exercise was describing a same-sex
romantic relationship.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/152/6177611 by guest on 25 June 2021

In-class reactions As L.L. monitored each group and elicited answers from students, it
became clear that a number of students had not picked up on what he
perceived as clear indicators. Many students referred to Steve as Koji’s
friend despite the fact that the word ‘friend’ did not appear at any point
in the exercise. This led to difficulties for the students in answering the
final question. When L.L. prompted the students to check the exercise
again to ascertain the relationship between Koji and Steve, again there
was confusion and L.L. was forced into explaining explicitly that Steve was
Koji’s boyfriend. The answers were checked in plenary, and as the answer
to the final question was given, the nature of the relationship between
Steve and Koji was made explicit to all students.
For the homework task, students were asked to submit a paragraph on the
class online learning platform giving their opinions on what they think
Koji should do. Despite the confirmation given in class, it appears that a
certain amount of heteronormative disbelief remained, shown by (mis)use
of pronouns and relationship signifiers.
Examples of pronoun misuse included:
I think Koji shouldn’t break up with her.
I think I should bring her back to Japan.
Other submissions referred to Steve as Koji’s girlfriend:
So he has to help his family. And his girlfriend should go to japan after
graduate university.
If he stay his girlfriend he cannot meet his father again. but it is
important to contact her.
One submission referred to Steve as a friend:
I understand my friends’ opinions well, but it makes sense to return
home because it’s not good to regret not returning home.
Although no submissions referred to Steve using the male pronoun, some
answers used the term boyfriend:
Boy friend is important but father is more important.

Exploring LGBTQ+ pedagogy in Japanese university classrooms 155

 Koji should first listen to his boyfriend’s opinion. After that, he should
based on his boyfriend’s opinion and think about his own opinion.
That’s because Koji’s boyfriend is most affected by koji’s leaving
America.
Only one homework submission explicitly tackled homosexuality as an
issue that may need to be taken into consideration in Koji’s dilemma:
Long-distance love is so difficult that he will break up with Steve. Also,
homosexuality is not a very good image in Japan.
This statement was followed by a short exchange in the comments section:
L.L. Why do you think that homosexuality does not have a good image

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/152/6177611 by guest on 25 June 2021

in Japan?
(Student A) I think it’s because people in Japan think it’s natural to love
the opposite sex.
Although a certain amount of inattention and the possibility of
misunderstanding due to a lack of language ability may partly explain
the misconstruance shown in the homework comments, there is also
evidence of deeply held heteronormative disbelief. The fact that a number
of students persisted in reading the relationship as a heterosexual one
despite numerous hints and even explicit statements may imply a certain
wilful blindness to the existence of sexual minorities. It may also be the
case that they simply did not expect to encounter an LGBTQ+ character
as part of an English lesson, which produced a degree of cognitive
dissonance (Lawrence and Nagashima 2020). However, the fact that the
majority of respondents completed the activity without explicit reference
to the presence of an LGBTQ+ character can be seen as neutral acceptance
of sexual diversity. Additionally, the handful of students who explicitly
referenced the relationship as an LGBTQ+ one points to a positive
understanding and acceptance of LGBTQ+ members as part of everyday
discourse and learning and the value of this type of implicit queer
pedagogy in the Japanese ELT classroom.

Example 2: The next example reports on an elective advanced-level class taught by L.L.
reactions to an In this class, students were put into small groups and after checking their
explicit teacher- understanding of the term LGBTQ+, they were asked to briefly discuss
led lesson their opinions on same-sex marriage and transgender bathroom use. They
focused on were also asked to brainstorm a list of prominent LGBTQ+ sportspeople,
LGBTQ+ issues artists, politicians, and businesspeople in Japan as well as to reflect on
the lack of LGBTQ+ clubs at their own and other universities in Japan.
After this introduction to the topic, they were given a selection of useful
phrases for discussion and asked to engage in a longer and more formal
discussion of whether or not same-sex couples in Japan should be able to
adopt children. They were also presented with a fictionalized (although
based on real-life events) e-mail from a Japanese friend of L.L. who
identifies as gay. Finally, students were asked to give a short presentation
on an LGBTQ+-related topic of their choice related to topics covered in
the class. After the class, as part of their weekly homework assignment,
all students were asked to submit a reflective diary giving their thoughts
on the class. These diaries were completed every week by students and

156 Luke Lawrence and Yuzuko Nagashima

 were intended as a form of reinforcement of the lesson’s main ideas and
to promote autonomy and independent thinking, as well as forming part
of L.L.’s commitment to action research. For some students the diaries
were used to write simple summaries of what had happened in the
class, but for others they provided a space to express their opinions and
thoughts freely. No guidelines were given for what to write about, they
were simply asked to reflect on the class. The comments below are taken
from students’ reflective diaries over two years of teaching the course. The
responses were diverse, but two main themes emerged:
Theme 1: lack of For some students, although they were familiar with lesbian, gay, and
previous knowledge bisexual as categories of sexuality, the concept of queer was new to them
and personal and initially confusing:

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/152/6177611 by guest on 25 June 2021

experience of LGBTQ+
I have known about LGBT, but never heard LGBTQ. So I wanted to
know about LGBTQ more.
Looking back my school life, I have never learned about LGBTQ. I heard
this word after I enter this university.
I talked about LGBTQ for the first time today. And it was the first time
to think about LGBTQ. There is no one around me who is LGBTQ, but
I thought that there maybe some people who can’t tell the truth.
This lack of basic knowledge and exposure to LGBTQ+ as a topic of
discussion indicates that sexual diversity is not something that is
addressed in other areas of the students’ educational life and experiences,
and therefore this kind of explicit approach may be a necessary step in
introducing queer inquiry into ELT classes.
Theme 2: personal The second theme that stood out was an overwhelmingly positive position
support and towards the LGBTQ+ community from the students combined with a
societal rejection belief that ‘other people’ in Japan are not accepting of LGBTQ+ people.
This was usually done without explicitly explaining who the people are
who may have negative attitudes and prejudice:
My classmates and I agreed with marriage with same-sex couple. We
thought it depends on their mind, but some people don’t want to
recognize such couple.
Especially in Japan, not many people show understanding over LGBTQ
and adoption.
Sadly there are many people who regard them as strange in Japan.
Although only representative of one group, this positive attitude may
be seen as encouraging and signals a green light for teachers who may
be concerned about students’ willingness to engage in queer inquiry, a
process that inevitably involves a critical examination of Japanese society.
Although explicit use of LGBTQ+ issues has been problematized as
essentalizing and othering, it appears that in this instance it provided
students with a chance to engage with LGBTQ+ concepts for the first
time. The self-confessed lack of knowledge by the students prior to the
class suggests that engagement with LGBTQ+ discourse is something that
is not discussed in other areas of their academic and daily life. Although

Exploring LGBTQ+ pedagogy in Japanese university classrooms 157

 it may appear heavy-handed by Western standards, in a society such as
Japan, where rights are restricted and coming out rates are low, it may
be necessary for educators like ourselves to introduce these topics in
order to give students exposure to ideas surrounding gender, sexuality,
and diversity in explicit ways. The positive attitude shown by all of the
respondents is encouraging for language teachers interested in, but
hesitant about, introducing LGBTQ+ topics in the classroom.

Example 3: The second author (Y.N.) designed and taught a course that focused on
student-led critical issues, such as racism and gender equality in Japan, for one of the
explicit speech advanced speaking classes at the university where she worked. The focus
about LGBTQ+ of the course was intentionally limited to domestic issues in Japan. The

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/152/6177611 by guest on 25 June 2021

learning outcome that she set was to help raise students’ awareness that
these critical issues are not merely ‘foreign’ topics, but rather have a lot
to do with their daily lives, and they should be able to discuss these issues
openly and comfortably in a safe space. As well as weekly discussion in
class, students were assigned to give several speeches throughout the
course. Y.N. kept a teacher diary over the course of an academic year as
a form of reflective practice in order to explore critical incidents (Farrell
2015) in her classroom and examine how they have affected her teaching
philosophy and practice.
The following example is one of the first critical incidents in the classroom
that Y.N. still remembers vividly because this incident shows the way in
which students can bring their complex yet diverse identities as critical and
powerful resources into an open and safe space in the classroom. For one of
the speech assignments for the course, students selected one topic or issue
in Japan that they were learning about or were interested in learning more
about. One student, Yuki (a pseudonym), picked as a topic ‘lack of awareness
of sexual minorities in Japan’. After the class, in which students had
brainstormed and discussed their possible topics for the speech, Yuki stayed
behind in the classroom while Y.N. was cleaning up. When Y.N. mentioned
that Yuki’s speech topic was quite timely and important for everyone and
how passionate she (Y.N.) felt about these issues in her life, Yuki casually
came out as non-binary (she went by ‘she/her’ at the time). In response
Y.N. also came out as bisexual to her and Yuki shared her feeling about how
this topic is personal and relevant to her life as well. From Y.N.’s experience
of observing the way Yuki interacted with other students, it seems that she
did not intentionally conceal her sexuality in her daily life. However, at that
point, based on Y.N.’s reading of the atmosphere of the classroom, most of
the students had seemed to assume that everyone in the class, including the
instructor, would be heterosexual, which is a common presumption that
many students tend to bring to the classroom.
On the day the speeches were given, after each student had given their
speech, the other students were given some time to ask the speaker
questions or make comments. After Yuki gave her speech, one (male)
student asked her:
Do you know anyone who is LGBTQ+?

158 Luke Lawrence and Yuzuko Nagashima

 This question, asking about the presenter’s degree of familiarity with
LGBTQ+ individuals, is possibly one of the most common questions
that students tend to come up with whenever someone gives a speech
related to LGBTQ+ issues. Although it may have been simply out of
curiosity, it shows the pervasiveness of heteronormativity in the way they
perceive sexual minorities. The question itself seems to be based on a
heteronormative assumption that the speaker is in fact heterosexual and
LGBTQ+ individuals are discursively constructed as the foreign ‘other’,
who have little to do with their daily lives or their sexual identities. To this
question, Yuki responded,
Um, yes, I have some friends … *silence* … Actually, I am one of them.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/152/6177611 by guest on 25 June 2021

At first, she only answered his question literally by saying ‘I have some
friends’, but after some hesitation she decided to come out and identify
herself as LGBTQ+, not only to the student who asked the question, but
also to the entire class. Although she could have just responded ‘Yes’ to
his question without any further elaboration in order to control the level of
disclosure, the fact that she chose to come out as a sexual minority, even
though it was not necessarily on her own terms, illustrates the emotional
burden that sexual minorities often deal with in their daily lives filled
with heteronormative assumptions. At the same time, her spontaneous
decision to come out may have provided a significant learning opportunity
for other (non-LGBTQ+) students that a seemingly innocent question has
the possibility of turning someone into the target of scrutiny. In addition,
it also signals that LGBTQ+ is not just a topic or an issue for presentations
or discussions, but rather a critical part of their identities for some,
even if they may be invisible in the mind of non-LGBTQ+ individuals.
Simultaneously, it may be helpful for educators to lay some ground rules
for discussions beforehand in order to reinforce a safe space in classrooms
so that students have an opportunity to become aware of their own
possible heteronormative bias concealed in their language in advance.

Conclusion This article has discussed aspects of our practice that seek to introduce
LGBTQ+-related topics into the classroom, and our efforts to create a
more diverse and critical space in English language university classes
in Japan. First, although highly context-dependent and not able to be
generalized, it is clear from our examples that there is a strong need to
transform our classroom climates into more sexually diverse spaces.
In addition, university students from our examples seem to recognize
and accept the existence of sexual minorities in generally positive ways.
Nonetheless, they tend to bring strong heteronormative assumptions into
the classrooms where LGBTQ+ individuals are viewed as the ‘other’ and
thus treated as a dehumanized, decontextualized issue. Our examples
indicate such heteronormative discourse can affect the classroom
dynamics and learning outcomes.
As an LGBTQ+-identifying teacher and a LGBTQ+ ally teacher, we are
both hesitant and sympathetic toward treating LGBTQ+ communities
and individuals as ‘topics’ or ‘issues’ because such an approach can
essentialize and possibly dehumanize the lived experiences and identities
of LGBTQ+ individuals. However, in the context of Japanese university

Exploring LGBTQ+ pedagogy in Japanese university classrooms 159

 classrooms, many of the (non-LGBTQ+) students had barely been exposed
to the concept of LGBTQ+ either in their school lives or in the prevalent
heteronormativity and normative discourses reified in their daily lives.
In such an educational context, we concede that it may be a necessary
step to explicitly introduce LGBTQ+ as a focus of discussion with a vision
in mind to gradually advance toward more critical and queer language
classrooms in the long run (Paiz 2020). Although we recognize that in the
explorations that we have documented here that we were fortunate not to
have encountered resistance from students to this pedagogic approach, it
is necessary for teachers wishing to implement a similar approach to be
aware of the possibility of resistance and to have strategies such as those
suggested by Nelson (2009).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/152/6177611 by guest on 25 June 2021

Drawing upon our own selective examples described above, we suggest
that the combination of introducing and explicitly teaching LGBTQ+
topics, implicitly including LGBTQ+ in lesson plans and materials, and
creating a space that offers an inclusive atmosphere in which students
can feel comfortable to perform their own chosen identities can be an
appropriate and effective way to imbue language classrooms with more
critical inclusivity and diversity.
Final version received December 2020

References
Burns, A. 2009. ‘Action research in second language
education’ in A. Burns and J. C. Richards (eds.).
Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher
Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, D. 2005. ‘Language, gender, and sexuality:
current issues and new directions’. Applied
Linguistics 26/4: 482–502.
de Vincenti, G., A. Giovanangeli, and R. Ward.
2007. ‘The queer stopover: how queer travels in the
language classroom’. Electronic Journal of Foreign
Language Teaching 4/1: 58–72.
Farrell, T. S. C. 2015. Promoting Teacher Reflection in
Second Language Education: A Framework for TESOL
Professionals. New York: Routledge.
Gray, J. 2013. ‘LGBT invisibility and
heteronormativity in ELT materials’ in J. Gray (ed.).
Critical Perspective on Language Teaching Materials.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Grote, Y. 2020. ‘Supporting diversity in the
classroom community’. The Language Teacher 44/6:
7–8.
IPSOS. 2013. ‘Strong international support
(73%) among developed nations for legal
recognition of same-sex couples: majorities
in all 16 countries support recognition’.
Available at https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/
strong-international-support-73-among-developed-
nations-legal-recognition-same-sex-couples (accessed
on 27 November 2020).
Kokumai, A. and N. Nishimura, 2020. ‘Sexual minorities
still struggling five years after LGBT ordinance’. Asahi
Shinbun. Available at http://www.asahi.com/ajw/
articles/13736186 (accessed 27 November 2020).
Lawrence, L. and Y. Nagashima. 2020. ‘The
intersectionality of gender, sexuality, race, and
native-speakerness: investigating teacher identity
through duoethnography’. Journal of Language,
Identity & Education 19/1: 42–55.
Nelson, C. 2009. Sexual Identities in English
Language Education: Classroom Conversations. New
York: Routledge.
O’Mochain, R. 2006. ‘Discussing gender and
sexuality in a context-appropriate way: queer
narratives in an EFL college classroom in Japan’.
Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 5/1:
51–66.
Paiz, J. M. 2020. Queering the English Language
Classroom. Sheffield: Equinox.
Tamagawa, M. 2018. ‘Coming out of the closet in
Japan: an exploratory sociological study’. Journal of
GLBT Family Studies 14/5: 488–518.
Vincent, K., K. Kawaguchi, and T. Kazama. 1997. Gay
Studies. Tokyo: Seidosha.

160 Luke Lawrence and Yuzuko Nagashima

Yoshihara, R. 2011. ‘Learning and teaching gender
and sexuality issues in the EFL classroom: where
students and teachers stand’. Journal and Proceedings
of Gender Awareness in Language Education 4: 5–20.
The authors
Luke Lawrence is a lecturer in the Faculty of
Sociology at Toyo University. His research centres
around issues relating to teacher identity, especially
native-speakerism and how linguistic status
Exploring LGBTQ+ pedagogy in Japanese university classrooms
intersects with other aspects of identity. He is also
interested in critical pedagogy and group dynamics
in the English language classroom.
Email: lawrence@toyo.jp
Yuzuko Nagashima works at the Practical English
Center at Yokohama City University. Her research
interests include intersectional identities in language
learning and teaching, and critical and feminist
pedagogy in language classrooms.
Email: yuzukon@yokohama-cu.ac.jp
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/152/6177611 by guest on 25 June 2021
161