This paper critically analyses two research articles,

which explore the impacts of homophobia and transphobia

experienced within physical education and sport settings.

The first article by Anderson et al., (2014) subtitled The Equal

Play Study follows a case study undertaken to understand

the effects of homophobia and transphobia against Same

Sex Attracted and Gender Diverse (SSAGD) youth. In this

research article the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales

(DASS) of SSAGD and heterosexual youth were measured to

determine both areas of concern and protective factors.

The second article, titled Uncovering the secrets:

Homophobia in Physical Education is a case study

conducted by Ayvazo and Sutherland (2009) which

examined the experiences of lesbian physical education

teachers who felt they were perceived as more masculine

than their heterosexual counterparts. This led to several

teachers concealing their lesbian identity or distancing

themselves from other teachers.

Anderson et al, (2014) article, is a predominantly

quantitative article with limited qualitative elements on

sexuality discourse. The second article is qualitative report,

which focuses heavily on the experiences of the participants.

Although, the two studies use different approaches they are

both highly descriptive of their methodologies and findings.

Anderson et al., (2014) and Ayvazo and Sutherland (2009)

both concluded that physical education is a difficult place

for SSAGD youth, as they appear to experience increased

verbal and physical abuse within a school context.

The Equal Play Study (Anderson et al., 2014) is a

generally well-written, descriptive, quantitative report

researching the mental health and wellbeing of SSAGD

youth within physical education, school sport and club sport.

Additionally they examine any barriers that may already exist

for youth participating in these sports. The article has a strong

literature review, with a wide variety of relevant and

reputable sources, including government departments and

other case studies on homophobia in sports or athletics

(Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2010; Gay Lesbian

Straight Education Network, 2013; Australian Bureau of

Statistics, 2007). Additionally they are all relatively recent

publications, which adds to the credibility of the literature

review. In Locating and Reviewing Related Literature in

Educational Research McMillan (2012), states the

importance of research, is that it is, recent and up to date.

This topic thoroughly intertwined with current social justice

issues, such as, homophobia, transphobia and gender

diversity and fluidity needs articles up to date with changing

discourse. On the other hand, there is one publication dated

1996. This article is about sexuality in rural areas. This suggests

that current research is lacking in this area. The research is

prominently quantitative as most references are statistical in

nature.

The second section of the article contains the

approach or methodology of the case study. The approach

undertaken by Anderson et al, (2014) was not ideal from two

major aspects. The online format of the study and the

disproportionate participation sampling. The methodology

provided by Anderson et al, (2014) states that the study was

performed using an online survey promoted via Facebook

and other targeted online advertising through SSAGD and

sporting networks. They used both forced choice and open-

ended questions meaning they received both quantitative

and qualitative data. This is interesting as Anderson et al,

(2014) has focused predominantly on the quantitative data.

The survey was run through a number of human rights and

LGBTIQ commissions to approve the survey before it was

released. While, this suggests the research was undertaken

ethically, an online study is a delicate format to work with

which needs careful consideration.

Roberts and Allen (2015) studied the ethical use of

online surveys and identified five different ethical points: dual

teacher/researcher roles; informed voluntary consent; use of

incentives; privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality; and data

quality. Anderson et al, (2014) does not mention any of these

categories but instead breaks down the categories of the

survey itself.

Following on from this issue is the significant

disproportion between sampling approaches and sizes. Gall

and Gall (2014), asserts that good research articles state

what type of sampling is taking place within the study either

proportional random sampling or stratified random sampling.

Anderson et al., (2014) appears to have used neither and

seems completely random in nature. As a result the sampling

sizing are drastically unequal. For example, of the 536 eligible

participants there were 399 SSAGD youth compared to 187

heterosexual youth. This is not an accurate representation of

the wider general public and is definitely not comparable

statistically. Additionally, the study only comprised 21 gender

diverse participants, which is only a small group to draw

conclusions from.

The results included in Anderson et al, (2014) are very

clear-cut as it is a quantitative article. This means there are

several graphs with small summaries accompanying each

graph. The article states that a third party program called

Demographix, hosted the data, and the statistical

significance was set at p < .05. The report has omitted a lot of

their raw data analysis in order to make the report more

accessible (Anderson, 2014, p8). This then informed the DASS

scores reported in the article. The study then concluded that

bullying occurs most significantly within physical education

when compared to both school sport and club sport. The

article also discusses the raw scale mean for the DASS and

splits it into many categories such as gender, age and

sexuality. Overall the results in Anderson et al., (2014) appear

to be very thorough.

However, due to the rearranged layout of the article, it

is somewhat difficult to locate a definitive conclusion. The

conclusions have been interspersed throughout the many

headlined paragraphs preceding the results. For example,

the articles calls for future research on SSAGD youth. This is

interesting as the first recommendation is increased research

on gender diverse youth, which is only just touched on in

Anderson et al., (2014). The two remaining recommendations

revolve around interventions and positive educational

environments. It would have been of value to include

sexuality in rural areas and the accessibility of help, to be

another area for future research.

The second article by Ayvazo and Sutherland (2009) is

an insightful qualitative article surrounding the experiences

of self-identified lesbian physical education teachers. While

the article concludes with similar findings as Anderson et al.,

(2014) there were some powerful contextual differences

between the aims of the articles themselves. Anderson et al.,

(2014) focuses on a wide variety of students including

homosexual, heterosexual and gender diverse of many

ages. Meanwhile, Ayvazo and Sutherland only examine the

experience of lesbian teachers. Secondly, both studies are

undertaken in different countries; Anderson et al., (2014) in

Australia and Ayvazo and Sutherland (2009) in the UK. In the

meta-analysis article Uncovering the secrets: Homophobia

in Physical Education (Ayvazo and Sutherland, 2009), two

main purposes are identified. The first, a review of current

and past research and secondly to provide future

suggestions for physical education programs to assist those

suffering from homophobia.

The article has a very extensive literature review and

even identifies shortcomings in the research. For example,

there appears to be more about homophobia against

lesbians rather than gay physical education teachers.

Secondly, that a majority of research on homophobia was

undertaken during the 1990s with considerably less research

since then. This is an interesting point as this research was

conducted 5 years before Anderson et al., (2014) which

provides a comprehensive reference list with current and

relevant research. This suggests either, Ayvazo and

Sutherland (2009) did not look wide enough or there was a

sudden boom in research on homophobia after 2009. The

latter is probably more likely as recently homophobic issues

have become widespread in mainstream media.

As the article by Ayvazo and Sutherland (2009) is

primarily a review of current literature, the methodology is

quite straightforward. It mechanically describes the process

of literature selection. Each article needed to be research

based on homophobia in the physical education setting. The

articles were chosen from nine different search databases,

which suggests a wide net for research. However, in general

the methodology appears to be brief and asks the reader to

engage with additional readings in order to understand the

theories discussed within Ayvazo and Sutherland (2009).

These include oppression theory and queer theory. These

articles, (Clarke, 1996 & 1998; Sparkes, 1994 & 1996) were

dated from the early 1990s and would probably be out of

date in terms of theoretical information. Whereas, Anderson

et al., (2014) failed to mention any theories related to

homophobia and remained purely statistical. Additionally

Anderson et al., (2014) provided a far better description of

their methodologies.

The results found by the sophisticated literature review

in the UK study were somewhat similar to Anderson et als.,

(2014) study. They both concluded that physical education is

a challenging environment for LGBTIQ students and teachers

alike for a number of reasons. Anderson et al., (2014) found

that the amount of homophobia experienced in physical

education was detrimental to the mental health and

wellbeing of SSAGD youth. While Ayvazo and Sutherland

believed that lesbians suffer greater levels of abuse during

physical education, as sport is seen as a demonstration of

masculinity. The statistical findings of Ayvazo and Sutherland

(2009) reinforce the results of Anderson et al., (2014) for

example one-third of research participants experiences

verbal homophobic remarks on a regular basis in physical

education. Likewise a quarter of lesbian physical education

teachers in the review witnessed homophobic remarks from

students.

Lastly, Ayvazo and Sutherland (2009) similar to

Anderson et al., (2014) drifts off towards the conclusion

section of the article. Ayvazo and Sutherland (2009, 65)

jumps straight into strategies to Combat Homophobia in

Physical Education. Under this section only one real solution

is actually suggested; the creation of PETE (Physical

Education Teacher Education) programs which enhances

teachers awareness of social justice areas such as

homophobia and better equip teachers with the tools to

support LGBTIQ students and colleagues.

This paper has analysed and identified a number of

similarities and differences between the two papers by

Anderson et al, (2014) and Ayvazo and Sutherland (2009).

Using the above analysis we can evaluate the implications

for future teaching practices. Both papers clearly outline the

need for increased support for SSAGD youth and

homosexual teachers in schools. Anderson et al, (2014)

stated that the online survey found that almost two thirds of

the SSAGD participants had explored thoughts of self-harm

or suicide. This shows that homophobia in schools could have

a significant effect on the wellbeing and mental health of

students. Another suggestion by McCaughtry (2005) asserts

that in order to decrease the prevalence of homophobia in

physical education or sports is to break down the masculine

stereotypes that dominate physical education and sport.

Ayvazo and Sutherland (2009) also supports this view and

insists that stronger pre-service teachers need to undergo

further diversity training (PETE training) to better attend to

their students needs. This may mean changes to the

curriculum to support SSAGD youth. In Australia, this may be

reminiscent of the Safe Schools Coalition as described by Roz

Ward (2011). Ward suggests that 33% of SSAGD youth could

not concentrate in classes, 20% saw decreases in their marks

and 10% avoided using bathrooms out of fear. Suggesting

that creating a supportive, safe and inclusive learning

environment is incredibly important.

 In conclusion, both Anderson et al, (2014) and Ayvazo

and Sutherland (2009) present important articles on

homophobia and transphobia in physical education and

sport. They both found that there was a significant amount of

verbal abuse against SSAGD youth and teachers. The articles

were generally well written although they were vastly

different types of research. Both Anderson et al., (2014) and

Ayvazo and Sutherland (2009) could have done better with

their methodologies, procedures and conclusions but

presented fairly standard results and recommendations for

future research. Lastly, both articles highlighted how

homophobia and transphobia can have significant and life

threatening implications for teaching.

Anderson, M.B., Borkoles, E., Osullivan, G., Polman, R.C.J., Symons, C. (2014,
March 14).

The Impact of Homophobic Bullying during Sport and Physical Education

Participation on Same-Sex-Attracted and Gender-Diverse Young Australians

Depression and Anxiety Levels. Victoria University.

Ayvazo, S., Sutherland, S. (2009). Uncovering the Secrets: Homophobia in Physical

Education, Action in Teacher Education. The Journal of the Association

Lynne D. Roberts & Peter J. Allen (2015) Exploring ethical issues associated with using online surveys
in educational research, Educational Research and Evaluation, 21:2, 95-108, DOI:
10.1080/13803611.2015.1024421

McMillan, J.H. (2012). Locating and Reviewing Related Literature in Educational

Research:

Fundamentals for the Consumer (pp.57-92). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Ullman, J. (Ed.). (2015). Applying Educational Research. (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ:
Pearson

Education, Inc.