EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, 52(6), 592–613, 2016

Copyright 
C American Educational Studies Association
ISSN: 0013-1946 print / 1532-6993 online
DOI: 10.1080/00131946.2016.1231681

“They Think I Am a Pervert:” A Qualitative Analysis of

Lesbian and Gay Teachers’ Experiences With Stress
at School

Sally Lineback, Molly Allender, Rachel Gaines, Christopher J. McCarthy,

and Andrea Butler
The University of Texas at Austin

Qualitative methodologies were used to identify the demands and resources lesbian and gay (LG)
teachers face in their schools. Data sources included 2 interviews each with 11 teachers who each
identified as lesbian or gay. Analyses of interview data indicated 3 main findings. First, although all
teachers experienced demands because of their sexual orientation, the nature of the demands were
different depending on their level of openness. Second, social support from others (e.g., colleagues,
administrators, and partners) emerged as a particularly important coping resource for LG teachers.
Third, by identifying specific demands unique to participants’ roles as teachers, the results suggested
the importance of work context in understanding LG teacher stress. Implications for teacher educators
and LG teachers are discussed.

Many lesbian and gay individuals still face workplace discrimination, despite steadily increas-
ing acceptance of same-gender relationships in the United States (Flojo, 2005; Human Rights
Campaign, 2013). Twenty-eight states lack job protections based on sexual orientation (Move-
ment Advancement Project, 2015). Given this climate, it is understandable that some lesbian and
gay (LG) individuals experience stress as a result of their marginalized status in society (Meyer,
2003a) and the workplace.
America’s public schools have been identified as particularly discriminatory environments for
LG individuals (DeLeon & Brunner, 2013). Some research even suggests that education may be
the most homophobic profession in the United States, due to unfounded stereotypes about LG
individuals’ relationships with children, including stereotypes about increased sexual behavior,
pedophilia, molestation, and recruitment into a gay lifestyle (DeLeon & Brunner, 2013; Jackson,
2007; Mayo, 2008). As teaching involves working closely with children, individuals who hold
discriminatory views have even argued that LG persons should be excluded from the profession
entirely to mitigate the risk of sexual abuse (DeLeon & Brunner, 2013). The US government actu-
ally enacted legislation against LG teachers (Ferfolja, 2009), and international research finds that

Correspondence should be sent to Sally Lineback, Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Texas
at Austin, 1912 Speedway, Stop D5800, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: sallylineback@gmail.com
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 593

acceptance of LG individuals in schools lags behind the increasing acceptance of LG individuals

more generally (Ferfolja, 2014).
Given the difficult work context for LG teachers (Meyer, 2003b), we sought to examine the
types of demands that LG teachers face in the school setting and the variety of resources for coping
that help manage those demands. We were interested in the demands and resources that emerged
at the intersection of LG teachers’ sexual orientation and profession. We were also interested
in the potential impact of teachers’ levels of openness about their sexual orientation on their
perceived demands and resources in the workplace. We grounded our research in literatures on
the transactional theory of stress and coping as well as models of minority stress.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study drew primarily on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional theory of stress and
Meyer’s (2003a) theory of minority stress. Transactional theory is the dominant model in stress
(Hobfoll, Schwarzer, & Chon, 1998) and Meyer’s (2003b) theory complements this framework
becausee it accounts for the unique stressors that LG individuals face as a result of their sex-
ual orientation. Together, both models helped inform this research by explicating the stress pro-
cess in general (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), while also accounting for the unique experiences of
LG individuals (Meyer, 2003b). However, they do not elucidate the particular demands and re-
sources that occur at the intersection of LG teachers’ identities as LG individuals and as teachers.
Thus, this study hoped to use these frameworks for beginning an investigation into LG teachers’
experiences with stress at school.
A central tenet of transactional theory is the role of appraisal, which refers to a cognitive
process in which demands are evaluated vis-a-vis existing resources (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-
Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). There are two components to this process: primary ap-
praisals of the demands placed upon us, and secondary appraisals of whether we can cope with
those demand successfully. Stress results when appraised demands outstrip appraised resources
(Lazarus, 2001). For example, for some LG teachers, the decision of whether to come out to their
students is a large demand (Endo, Reece-Miller, & Santavicca, 2010), and one that might exceed
the resources they have, and cause a great deal of stress. For other teachers, the decision could
still be a large demand, but other teachers might have the resources to meet the demand, so they
do not experience a high level of stress. In the end, such situations are fraught with perceptions,
which is why it is so important to capture a variety of subjective experiences that LG teachers
might identify as demands.
The demands experienced by members of minority groups often differ from those experi-
enced by their majority counterparts. Minority stress is “unique,” “chronic,” and “socially based”
(Meyer, 2003a, p. 676), and can be defined as “excess stress to which individuals from stigma-
tized social categories are exposed as a result of their social, often a minority, position” (Meyer,
2003a, p. 675). Thus, although Lazarus and Folkman (1984) posit that an individual appraises
whether a demand is stressful, Meyer (2003a) argues that an entire group of individuals, the LG
population, is susceptible to specific demands and appraisals based on their sexual orientation.
Meyer (2003a) found that among LG populations, four specific demands exist: actual events of
discrimination or violence, expectations of discrimination, internalized homophobia, and hiding
one’s sexual orientation. Events of discrimination refer to overt behaviors, such as name-calling,
594 LINEBACK ET AL.

physical assault, or being fired for one’s sexual orientation. For LG individuals, simply the ex-
pectation that one will be discriminated against (expectations of discrimination), even without a
discriminatory event occurring, can be a psychological stressor. An individual who expects to be
discriminated against feels the need to be increasingly vigilant to combat perceived discrimination
(Wang, Stroebe, & Dovidio, 2012). Internalized homophobia refers to hatred of the self and other
LG individuals based on society’s homophobia—individuals might wish they were heterosexual
or might denigrate other LG individuals who fulfill gay stereotypes. Last, hiding one’s sexual
orientation (or, colloquially, being in the closet) creates a “cognitive burden” that can result in
emotional strain (Meyer, 2003a, p. 281). Though all LG individuals are susceptible to minority
stress, members of the LG community experience different amounts of minority stress depending
on their lived or observed instances of discrimination and the presence of different resources they
have to cope (Meyer, 2003b), which is congruent with Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transac-
tional model.
Coping is a subsequent and separate process that occurs once events are appraised as exceeding
resources and, therefore, become stressful. Coping involves cognitive and behavioral efforts to
manage or mitigate a stressor through use of available resources (Folkman et al., 1986). Acquir-
ing and developing sufficient resources serve as the foundations for coping strategies (Wheaton,
1983). Coping strategies refer to the way individuals utilize resources in combating demands
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) describe two main types of coping
strategies—emotion-focused and problem-focused. Problem-focused coping attacks the demand
directly, and emotion-focused coping helps individuals deal with the emotions triggered by the
stressor. For example, if a child disrupts class, a teacher using problem-focused coping might at-
tempt to stop the behavior; a teacher using emotion-focused coping might engage in deep breath-
ing (McCarthy, Lineback, & Reiser, 2014).
In addition to problem- and emotion-focused coping, other researchers discuss a third cat-
egory called social-based coping, which refers to coping achieved when seeking support from
one’s perceived social networks (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Denton, Rostosky, & Danner, 2014;
Moller, Fouladi, McCarthy, & Hatch, 2003). Social-based coping has been shown to be par-
ticularly important within the LG community (Lindquist & Hirabayashi, 1979; Meyer, 2003a).
Meyer (2003a) states that the support from an ingroup of other LG individuals can be particularly
helpful in buffering stress. Unfortunately, closeted individuals might not have access to the LG
groups that could otherwise serve as a social-based coping resource (Meyer, 2003a). Lindquist
and Hirabayashi (1979), on the other hand, found that participation in both gay and nongay social
circles mitigated gay men’s stress.

REVIEW OF RELEVANT RESEARCH WITH LG TEACHERS

Previous research has discussed sources of LG teacher stress, including the decision about how
open to be about one’s sexual orientation (Endo et al., 2010) and the fear of being fired for one’s
sexual orientation (Jackson, 2007). However, the lack of research examining specific demands
and resources experienced by LG teachers in the school context inhibits development of compre-
hensive understanding of LG teacher stress, particularly with respect to their level of openness
about sexual orientation. This study sought to examine and identify LG teacher demands and re-
sources using the existing frameworks for stress (the transactional model and the minority stress
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 595

model) while paying attention to the role of teachers’ level of openness in their appraisal of de-
mands and use of resources specific to being an LG teacher. The subsequent section will review
relevant literature on LG teachers, and will be followed by an explanation of the goals of this
study.
LG educators’ concerns about workplace discrimination and job security force many to grapple
with their level of openness about their sexual orientation at school (Anderson, Croteau, DiSte-
fano, & Chung, 2001). This decision-making process can be considered a demand for LG teach-
ers (Cox, Dewaele, Van Houtte, & Vincke, 2013; Endo et al., 2010), as there can be inherent
risks in both coming out and remaining closeted. To protect against, and cope with, some of
these risks, many teachers are not completely out at school (Endo et al., 2010). Hiding parts of
themselves from their students can be especially difficult because personal relationships with stu-
dents are central to teaching (Chang, 2009). Although not typically identified as a demand in
the literature, being closeted could be viewed as adding to teachers’ demand levels, as it pre-
vents them from sharing important aspects of themselves when building relationships with stu-
dents. On the other hand, being open about sexual orientation can make teachers vulnerable to
prejudice.
The term workplace sexual identity management has therefore been created by researchers
in the field to denote strategies LG individuals use to manage how open they are about their
sexual orientation at work (Anderson et al., 2001). Research has shown that many teachers
end up compromising by being out to varying degrees, such as disclosing their identity to
some, but not all teachers, or disclosing to all teachers, but remaining closeted with students
(Hooker, 2010). However, researchers have not used this form of sexual identity management
in the workplace to investigate how LG teachers’ level of openness might influence the dif-
ferent types of demands that LG teachers experience or the resources they use to meet those
demands.
Some researchers have found that being more open about sexual orientation is associated
with better outcomes than remaining closeted. In one study, teachers who were more open
about their sexual orientation were more satisfied with their jobs and experienced less stress
than those who were more closeted (Juul, 1994). Similarly, a study of K–12 lesbian teach-
ers found that, generally, teachers who felt supported in their sexual orientation felt genuinely
happy at work, and all teachers noted the “costs of silence,” both personal and psychological,
that came from remaining closeted (Rudoe, 2010, p. 32). Based on the current body of litera-
ture, we were curious how teachers’ level of openness might have an impact on the types of
demands LG teachers experienced, beyond the outcomes that might be associated with more
or less openness. It is possible that the different demands faced by teachers at different levels
of openness actually play a mediating role between level of openness and outcomes such as job
satisfaction.
Other researchers argue that coming out is not the only authentic choice for LG teachers (Fer-
folja, 2009; Rasmussen, 2004). Ferfolja (2009) argued that viewing coming out as imperative
paints LG teachers as “powerless” and without agency (p. 389). Coming out is, most of the time,
a conscious choice, and many who stay in the closet may do so for important reasons: to preserve
other relationships and social connections, to remain financially stable (Rasmussen, 2004), and to
use and gain power in their jobs (Ferfolja, 2014). Others might decide to remain closeted because
they reject the categories of sexual orientation and choose not to identify within the structure of
categories (Gray, 2013). LG teachers have reported feeling fearful of others’ reactions to their
596 LINEBACK ET AL.

disclosure (Neary, 2013), guilty for staying in the closet (Ferfolja, 2009), and pressured both to
disclose and to remain in the closet (Gray, 2013, Neary, 2013). Ferfolja (2009) wrote that identi-
fying as LG teachers made teachers want to be nearly perfect “to potentially counteract the loss
of credibility the teachers felt they would experience if their sexuality became public knowledge”
(p. 384).
Regardless of whether teachers decide to disclose their sexual orientation, the decision-making
process is one that is, many times, fraught with anxiety. Gray (2013) argued, “Existing as an
LGB teacher is riddled with complexity as well as the notion that LGB staff may be placed under
psychological pressure that can result in stress, anxiety, and depression” (B refers to bisexual;
p. 707). This review suggests that although a number of researchers have studied LG teachers’
experiences of coming out and have begun to identify challenges of identifying as an LG teacher,
systematic inquiry into the demands and resources this population faces, informed by theoretical
models of stress, are often lacking.

THIS STUDY

We investigated LG teachers’ experiences in the workplace to explore how the negotiation be-
tween sexual identity and the role of teacher created unique demands and called for particular
resources. Specifically, we examined transcripts of interviews with 11 LG teachers who repre-
sented diverse experiences working in public or charter schools. Although the study was informed
by both the transactional theory of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and the minority stress
model (Meyer, 2003a), we wondered whether these frameworks would sufficiently account for de-
mands stemming from the interaction between membership in the LG population and the teaching
profession.
To address these aims, the study asked the following research questions: (1) What demands do
LG teachers face specific to their sexual identity in the school setting? (2) What coping resources
and strategies do LG teachers use in managing those demands? (3) How do the school context
and teachers’ level of openness impact LG teachers’ experiences of demands and resources?

METHODS

Participants

Participants were recruited using snowballing procedures (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003), which in-
cluded e-mailing organizations that serve the LG community, contacting friends in LG and teach-
ing communities, and posting on social media. To be included in the study, participants had to
currently be or recently have been (within the past two years) public or charter school pre-K-12
teachers with at least 2 years of teaching experience. They also had to identify as gay or les-
bian. Research has found that the experiences of individuals whose sexual orientations are more
fluid (e.g., bisexual, pansexual, and queer) are different from the experiences of LG individuals
(Green, Payne, & Green, 2011; Juul, 1994; Mitchell, Davis, & Galupo, 2015). This study focuses
on the experiences of LG teachers, rather than focusing on the experiences of all nonheterosex-
ual teachers, because the experiences of LG and pansexual/bisexual teachers would likely be
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 597

distinct, and therefore warrant separate analysis. The guidelines of Consensual Qualitative Re-
search (CQR) developed by Hill, Thompson, and Williams (1997) suggest having eight to 15
participants. The principal investigator (PI) decided a saturation point had been reached at 11
participants. Contact was lost with one participant, but data from her initial interview was
included in the study.
The 11 participants (see Table 1 for biographical information) had taught between 2 and
28 years (M = 8.77) and primarily identified as White (one identified as Hispanic, and one as
biracial). Seven were women, and participants ranged in age from 24 and 50 (M = 33.18). Eight
participants worked as public or charter school teachers. One participant recently retired, one was
a former teacher working in district administration, and one was a former public school teacher
working at a private school at the time of her interview. The participants were geographically
diverse, living in the Southwest, Northeast, Midwest, and Southeast, and teaching in rural, urban,
and suburban environments. Seven participants were open about their sexual orientation with all
staff members/teachers, and the remainder were open with only some staff members/teachers.
Only two participants were open with their students. Pseudonyms were assigned to all
participants.

Interviewer and Analysis Team

To minimize the potential influence of researcher bias (Hill et al., 1997), a team of four researchers
with varying experience in teaching and the LG community analyzed the data. The PI, a gay
female graduate student who is a former teacher, conducted all interviews and led the analysis
team. All members of the analysis team were White women; two were straight and two were gay.
Two were former teachers. Three were Educational Psychology doctoral students. The auditor
was a straight, White, male professor with expertise in stress and coping in education.

Procedures

The semistructured interview protocol used in this study was created as part of a larger inquiry
into LG teachers’ experiences with sexual identity at school. (The entire interview protocol for
the larger inquiry and this study can be found in Appendix A.) The PI piloted the questions with
two LG teachers and revised the protocol using their feedback. A demographic questionnaire
was administered to ensure that participants met study qualifications. The PI then conducted a 1-
to 2-hr interview with each participant, either in-person or via video-telephone service. The PI
conducted a 15- to 45-min follow-up interview to clarify answers. Transcriptions of initial and
follow-up interviews were sent to each participant for final member checking, a process in which
participants are invited to read their interview transcriptions and make corrections.

Data Analysis

Interviews were analyzed following the guidelines of CQR (Hill et al., 1997). The analysis
team developed domains, or large categories of data, informed by the research questions and
598
TABLE 1
Profile of Study Participants (N = 11)

Is Participant How Many

Open about LG Teachers/Staff
Identity With is Participant
Pseudonym Race/Ethnicity Age Type of School Years Taught Grade Level Taught Content Area Students? Open With?

Jacob White 29 Charter 4.5 5th Math No All

Brittany White 24 Public 2.5 High school Biology/ACT No Some
Ashlee White 24 Public 2.5 7th & 8th∗ Science No Some
Julie White/Hispanic 27 Public 5 4th & 5th Interventionist No Some
Grace∗∗∗ White 50 Public 28 9th & 10th Science No Some
Jessica Hispanic 47 Public 14 2nd All No All
John White 28 Charter 5 Middle school Spec. Ed. No All
Therese∗∗ White 39 Public 7 8th Humanities Yes All
Steve∗ White 26 Charter 4 3rd & 4th All No All
Liz White 46 Public 20 11th & 12th Gov’t, Psych. Yes All
Max White 25 Charter 4 8th Science No All

Note. LG = lesbian and gay. ∗ Steve recently became a district administrator. ∗∗ Therese taught in a public school for years and recently moved to a private school.
∗∗∗ Gracerecently retired.
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 599

TABLE 2
Domains, Core Ideas, and Percentages∗

Domains and Core Ideas n∗∗ (%)

Demands as a gay teacher

Derogatory comments from students 4 (36.4)
Personalizing 7 (63.6)
Negative interactions with parents 3 (27.3)
Overt discrimination 7 (63.6)
Fear of discrimination 11 (100)
Fear of impact on student outcomes 6 (54.5)
No extra stress or no reported discrimination 6 (54.5)
Stress of censoring 6 (54.5)
Guilt over being closeted 4 (36.4)
Internalized homophobia 2 (18.2)
Heteronormative experiences 4 (36.4)
Perception that coming out to students makes teaching harder 3 (27.3)
Stress of inconsistency in partner openness 3 (27.3)
Passive participation in bullying 2 (18.2)
Resources and coping as a gay teacher
Verbal processing 6 (54.5)
Staff support 10 (90.9)
Social support 5 (45.5)
Partner support 4 (36.4)
Humor 2 (18.2)
Suppression 2 (18.2)

Note. N = 11. ∗ Core Ideas that included fewer than two cases not shown. ∗∗ n = number of participants endorsing each
core idea.

participant responses. Specifically, researchers independently read two randomly selected inter-
views, noting comments and issues relevant to guiding research questions. All researchers’ notes
were compiled and consensually organized into broad categories that would become domains. In
total, six domains were derived; however, this study is part of a larger study based on this data, and
the research team agreed that only two of the six domains were relevant to the research questions
guiding the current study.
Once domains were established, the team used four randomly selected interviews to develop
an initial set of core ideas or recurring themes within each domain (see Table 2 for all domains
and core ideas). Randomly selecting a small number of interviews to develop core ideas is sug-
gested by Hill et al. (1997). Each researcher completed the process of coding interviews indi-
vidually, then met to share her analyses and reach consensus, according to the guidelines of
CQR (Hill et al., 1997). Next, researchers revised and combined core ideas based on two ad-
ditional interviews. The core ideas developed from these interviews were used to recode the
four initial interviews, as well as the five previously uncoded interviews using the same con-
sensual procedures. Throughout the analysis process, however, researchers were encouraged
to suggest additional core ideas based on their continued engagement with the data. Addition-
ally, the auditor periodically reviewed the codes, and, in some cases, codes were revised based
on his suggestions. When the team agreed that core ideas should be added or removed, they
600 LINEBACK ET AL.

inspected all previously coded transcripts for the presence of the new codes, ensuring that the
same set of codes was applied to all interviews. For example, after six interviews had been
coded, the auditor recommended adding the core idea Personalizing. This iterative process of
revising and recoding is essential for ensuring consistency in the application of codes across all
interviews.
Once all coding was finalized, the PI entered codes and relevant excerpts into Dedoose, a
software program used to organize qualitative data, to determine core idea frequencies and to
organize representative excerpts. Hill et al. (1997) recommend dropping core ideas that apply to
only one case, because they do not describe the sample. However, core ideas that apply to just
two or three cases should be retained, because it is important to include variant core ideas. After
applying these guidelines and dropping core ideas that applied to only one case, 14 core ideas
within demands and six within resources remained

Validity Concerns

We addressed threats to validity in several ways. First, we engaged in member checking (Maxwell,
2013), by having participants review their transcriptions. None of the participants wished to make
corrections to their interviews. Second, members of the data analysis team had diverse experiences
with the LG community and with teaching, reducing the likelihood of researcher bias. Third, the
PI asked for clarification in follow-up interviews, allowing any ambiguity in the initial interview
to be settled. Fourth, the length of the initial interview and inclusion of the follow-up interview
prolonged the PI’s engagement with the participants. Fifth, we looked for data that did not fit
into our core ideas and discussed these negative cases at length (Maxwell, 2013) to determine if
codes needed to be revised. We discussed and included core ideas that were endorsed by as few
as two participants. Sixth, throughout the process, peer debriefing with a professor who was not
participating in the research itself served as both confirmability and inquiry audits (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985).

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Our findings are based on participants’ responses to interview questions that were designed to
address three primary research questions: (1) What demands do LG teachers face specific to their
sexual identity in the school setting? (2) What coping resources and strategies do LG teachers
use in managing those demands? (3) How do the school context and teachers’ level of openness
impact LG teachers’ experiences of demands and resources? Within each of the domains, data
from participants were organized into core ideas, which mapped onto research questions one
and two (demands and resources, respectively). Research question three was addressed through
analyzing responses to questions one and two relative to reported levels of openness in the work
place.
Demands are grouped based on reported level of openness with students, and resources are
grouped by the type of coping they use. Although LG teachers’ demands can be understood from
various perspectives, we are most interested in the intersectionality of participants’ identities as
teachers as well as identities as LG individuals. The number of participants who endorsed each
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 601

core idea is provided in Table 2 to represent how common or uncommon certain experiences
may be for LG teachers in the sample. In using CQR, Hill et al. (1997) recommend reporting the
frequency to determine representativeness, rather than the importance of the codes (see Lee, Heo,
Lu, & Portman, 2013, and Schlosser, Knox, Moskovitz, & Hill, 2003, for examples). Additionally,
a definition of each core idea will be provided, along with at least one illustrative quotation from
an interview. Refer to Table 2 for a list of all domains and core ideas.

Demands of LG Teachers

As defined by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), demands are potential stressors that an individual
faces. The 14 core ideas that emerged from the interviews were placed within this domain either
because they arose when participants were asked what they found stressful about being an LG
teacher, or because participants mentioned stressful experiences as part of another answer. Several
patterns emerged when teachers’ demands were analyzed based on level of openness in school.
Consistent with previous research, LG teachers at all levels of openness experienced demands re-
lated to their sexual orientation (Gray, 2013). Generally, differences in demands emerged between
teachers based on their level of openness with students, rather than with colleagues, and it should
be noted that teachers who were closeted with students endorsed a wider variety of demands than
teachers who were open with students.

Closeted with students. LG teachers who were closeted with students identified five
unique demands. Two of the demands were not specific to the teaching profession, while three
demands were specific to the intersection of participants’ identities as teachers and as LG
individuals.
Guilt over being closeted and internalized homophobia are both demands that could be present
for all LG individuals, regardless of their occupation. Jessica described the guilt of being clos-
eted in the Hispanic community where she taught. She stated that she was “ashamed to present
myself with the community because I feel like I’m hiding.” Brittany also mentioned, “I have
had a lot of guilt … because there aren’t any openly gay role models that [students] have.”
Brittany believed that she was doing her students a disservice by remaining closeted, but other
concerns kept her and other individuals closeted, exposing them to the demands inherent in
guilt.
The research team was cautious in assigning the core idea internalized homophobia, given
that this was not a focus of the study questions. Two interviews, however, included clear descrip-
tions of this construct. Julie, for one, recalled experiences from her life before teaching where
she wanted to be straight. “Growing up in the church, I thought, ‘I’m gonna go to hell. … I need
to change now.”’ Research indicates that one’s level of openness has a negative relationship with
internalized homophobia, meaning that those who are more open about their sexual orientation
tend to have lower scores on measures of internalized homophobia (Allen & Oleson, 1999). Al-
though this core idea was likely undercoded, and, thus, conclusions from this code are tentative,
our findings that neither of the teachers who were open with their students mentioned internalized
homophobia seems to fit with the results of previous research.
Unlike the internalized homophobia and guilt over being closeted, the remaining three
core ideas from closeted teachers related to the demands specific to being an LG teacher. A
602 LINEBACK ET AL.

majority of the teachers worried that being open about their sexuality could negatively impact their
students’ academic outcomes. Max was worried that “adding the whole gay part … would have
just decimated my ability to do anything in the classroom.” Though the quality or nature of in-
struction would not change, these participants feared that negative perceptions of lesbian and
gay people would interfere with how students responded to or felt about them, and inhibit their
learning as a result. Similarly, some participants expressed concerns about how coming out could
make teaching more difficult. John thought working with parents would be more difficult: “I don’t
know how to … defend myself to a parent. … There’s a lot of ignorance out there. … No one’s
ever told me what the procedures are.” John felt a lack of guidance for how open he could be, so
he chose to remain closeted. John thought that being open could create a need to defend himself,
which he found “upsetting” and “frustrating.”
Another demand, stress of inconsistencies in partner openness, appeared to be directly related
to LG teachers’ profession. In these cases, a participant and her partner were open to different
degrees. Jessica plainly stated that she preferred to shop “far away because if I’m with my girl-
friend … she loves to touch me and hold hands. … There’s 50 kids running around. She doesn’t
understand.” Julie also stated that her girlfriend “gets mad whenever I don’t want her to hold
my hand when we are on campus.” Although there is no way of knowing whether these teachers
would be more open in other work environments, they specifically cited teaching as a reason for
staying in the closet, which caused stress in their relationships. The intersection of their identity
as LG individuals and their profession seemed to cause additional stress for participants in ways
for which Meyer’s (2003a) model does not account, but researchers of LG couples have identified
as stressors (Gonsiorek, 1993).
In spite of the negative impact that remaining closeted had their relationships, many teachers
anticipated that being open about their sexual orientation would detrimentally affect their very
ability to do their jobs well, to keep students in their classes, to build relationships with students
and parents, and to impart academic content. As such, many decided to remain closeted. In an age
of high-stakes testing where many teachers already stress over their students’ test scores (Berry-
hill, Linney, & Fromewick, 2009) and in a work environment that researchers have identified as
particularly stressful (Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998), adding another stressor that is perceived as
a barrier to performing well can be challenging for LG teachers. Such additional stressors could
push LG educators out of the classroom and into other professions where they do not perceive
that their sexual orientation is a barrier to job performance, especially into other professions that
are not as historically discriminatory to LG individuals (Jackson, 2007).

Across all levels of openness. The demands that were present for LG teachers at all lev-
els openness fell into two recognizable groups. The first group included demands that stemmed
from behaviors and attitudes expressed by other individuals in the school community. The second
group was made up demands that were more closely linked to the attitudes and emotions of the
participant himself/herself. The core idea no extra stress/no discrimination also appeared across
levels of openness, and will be addressed in brief at the end of this section.
In presenting the core ideas that were present across all levels of openness, it is important to
acknowledge the small subsample of two teachers who were open with students. It is possible
that with more teachers who are open, other core ideas might have emerged. Generalizations
about the larger population of teachers who are open with students were deliberately avoided.
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 603

Nonetheless, endorsement of these core ideas by even a single teacher who is open with students is
informative.
The first group of demands that were endorsed by teachers across levels of openness was
comprised of those core ideas that reflected experiences of stress originating in the behaviors
and attitudes of other members of the school community (i.e., students, other teachers, admin-
istrators, and parents). All 11 participants noted that a fear of discrimination permeated their
work, and many teachers included fear as the reason they remained closeted with students. Par-
ticipants described several types of fears. Although some worried that they would be fired for
being gay, others were anxious that their colleagues would not accept their sexuality because
they had seen staff members or administrators make derogatory comments about gay individu-
als. Some participants voiced the fear that others would perceive them as sexually deviant be-
cause they worked with children. Grace explained, “There’s always those closed-minded peo-
ple, and they catch that label and they think I am a pervert or a molester.” For these teachers,
their fear of discrimination was related to negative stereotypes of LG individuals who work with
children.
For members of stigmatized groups, there is a strong association between expectations of
discrimination and exposure to instances of discrimination against members of the same group
(Pinel, 2004). Considering the overwhelming endorsement of fear of discrimination, it is not sur-
prising that three of the demands that crossed all levels of openness dealt with LG teachers’ expo-
sure to homophobic and/or heteronormative behavior and speech within the school community.
For instance, among the teachers who endorsed overt discrimination as a demand, some reported
first-hand discrimination and others witnessed overt discrimination against other LG individuals.
Several reported overhearing fellow teachers make derogatory comments about students’ gender
expression or perceived sexual orientation, like Julie, who reported hearing another teacher say,
“He is such a little gay boy, such a pansy” about a seven-year-old who played with dolls. Other
teachers faced overt discrimination themselves, like Max, who saw students “mimicking me … in
a way that amplifies my gayness.” Liz shared a story about being denied sick leave to care for her
wife after surgery on the grounds that Liz’s wife was not legally recognized as her family in her
home state. These and similar instances of overt discrimination against LG individuals within the
school were demanding for teachers in part because they reinforced LG teachers’ understanding
of their schools as discriminatory environments.
Negative interactions with parents was endorsed by both participants who were out with stu-
dents and one participant who was closeted with students. For those individuals who were open
with their students, being open about their sexual identity protected them from the guilt of remain-
ing in the closet and the worry that coming out would negatively impact their teaching. However,
it also put them at a greater risk for negative interactions with parents. Liz described a harrowing
experience with the father of a student she coached on a sports team. After suspending the player
for disciplinary issues, the girl’s father “literally jumped over the fence and came barreling over,”
and yelled at her. When talking with him did not work, Liz said, “Are you going to hit a woman
right here in front of all these kids?” to which the father responded, “You’re not a woman, you’re
a dyke!” Liz reflected, “I was really shook up. … There’s this terrible word, but also he had
physically … confronted me. And I felt afraid.” In his anger, the father had threatened Liz in a
way that focused on and brought attention to her sexual orientation. Moreover, he insinuated that
Liz’s sexual orientation justified the use of physical violence against her.
604 LINEBACK ET AL.

Remaining closeted, however, did not entirely protect against negative interactions with par-
ents regarding sexual identity issues. John, how was closeted with students, stated that he was
“reprimanded” after a parent complained about an assigned in-class student debate on gay mar-
riage. Liz also mentioned that parents complained about gay marriage debates in her government
class. Teachers must appeal to a number of stakeholders, and parents can often act as a resource or
a demand for all teachers (Lambert, McCarthy, O’Donnell, & Wang, 2009). However, LG teachers
who are open with students or who wish to include LG themes in their classes may face particular
difficulty in interacting with parents, given the prevalence of homophobia in our society and the
many negative stereotypes associated with being gay or lesbian.
There were also covert reminders of the hostility toward LG individuals, including demands
within the core idea heteronormative experiences. This core idea was applied to stressful experi-
ences in participants’ schools that involved heteronormativity, or “the insidious assumption that
heterosexuality is … the preferred way of being” (Smith, Shin, & Officer, 2012, p. 10). Brittany,
for example, detailed the experience she had with a much older employee: “Oh it was awkward,
and I still have like this one really gnarly 58-year-old … coach who is constantly hitting on
me.” Though the man in Brittany’s story did not overtly denigrate lesbian and gay individuals,
the experience nonetheless demonstrated how exposure to others’ heteronormative attitudes at
school could be demanding for LG teachers in its insistence that heterosexuality is normal, and
homosexuality abnormal by default.
Similarly, when it came to derogatory comments from students, in some cases participants
understood that a student using a derogatory term did not know the exact meaning of the word
he/she was using, as in Max’s recollection of when a boy called another boy a “faggot.” In this
case, even though Max was not the target of the slur, nor did he think the student understood
the gravity of what he had said, it did remind Max of the latent homophobia embedded in his
students’ discourse and beliefs.
Both heteronormative experiences and derogatory comments from students reinforced for
teachers that they were working in environments that did not think of them as normal or deserving
of equal treatment and respect, which, along with overt discrimination, may very well be related
to the pervasive fear of discrimination among participants in this sample. Moreover, a teacher’s
decision to be open or remain closeted with students cannot protect against such demands, as
they originate and propagate in the school community and its social environment. This first group
of demands suggests that elements like school climate and gender may be highly influential in
moderating how LG teachers’ dual-identity demands interact.
The second group of core ideas that crossed all levels of openness dealt with the demanding
nature of participants’ own attitudes and thoughts. One core idea in this group was personaliz-
ing, defined by the team as internalizing negative comments from others as a threat to one’s own
identity. Although this appears similar to the demands included in the first group of core ideas,
personalizing is the experience that occurs after participants heard such comments. Personalizing
created potential stress for these participants when they felt unwelcome in the school environ-
ment, and when they were reminded of others’ prejudices against the LG community. One of the
most salient examples came from Steve’s description of overhearing a child in his classroom say,
“That’s gross” in response to learning what gay meant. Steve thought, “I spend all day loving you.
… That hurts so deep down.” Therese mentioned that “if you hear ‘gay’ or ‘fag’ or whatever, it’s
like your first reaction is as a person, like, ‘Oh God, not another one. … Do I want to deal with
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 605

this because it’s gonna be upsetting?”’ Therese’s personalization caused her to question whether
to intervene with students.
Similarly, a small number of participants identified passive participation in bullying as a de-
mand. This core idea applied to experiences wherein the participant or other teachers ignored
negative comments (i.e., “That’s so gay”) or gay slurs and the participant described these situa-
tions as stressful. Julie described ignoring these types of comments as “disappointing … either
they [other teachers] join in or they ignore it, and I ignore it too sometimes, so I guess I’m disap-
pointed in myself too.” In this case, Julie’s stress was not derived from the derogatory comment
she heard, but rather from her own and other teachers’ unwillingness to speak out against it.
Stress of censoring, like passive participation in bullying, focused on LG teachers’ decisions
to remain silent when they would rather be able to speak freely. For John, hiding his sexuality
while teaching created an extra cognitive demand, as he had to monitor and revise his language
while teaching. In times when he wanted to use personal anecdotes, he stated, “I wanna jump in,
but then I’m realizing that when I’m telling a story, it’s about my partner and … I have to …
take it somewhere else, … so that’s frustrating and … upsetting.” Julie spoke to the mental strain
of censoring her speech around other teachers at school. She explained that when talking with
coworkers, she was “constantly thinking about what you are going to say and who you are going to
say it to before you say it.” Teachers who mentioned the stress of censoring their speech described
a hyper-vigilance in even the simplest daily interactions that created an additional cognitive strain
that did not exist for their heterosexual colleagues.
In looking at this second group of demands that crossed all levels of openness, we were stuck
by the fact that being open at school did not entirely protect LG teachers from demands like stress
of censoring or passive participation in bullying. For instance, one might expect those who were
closeted with students to avoid intervening in conflicts related to sexual identity in order to pro-
tect themselves. However, one of the teachers who endorsed passive participation in bullying as a
demand was open with students. Her openness did not afford her a complete sense safety or free-
dom at school as evidenced by her discomfort in approaching conflicts centered on sexual identity.
The unpredictable and somewhat counterintuitive endorsement of the core ideas in this group by
a portion of teachers from all levels of openness highlights the complex intersectionalities that
inform LG teachers’ appraisals of demands.
Interestingly, six participants endorsed the code no additional stress/no discrimination, which
does not fit into either of the groups previously described. This core idea will not be addressed
in detail, as the two teachers who stated that they faced no extra stress both mentioned experi-
ences that were classified as fear of discrimination. Additionally, the four teachers who reported
no discrimination qualified their answers, explaining that they did not think they faced direct dis-
crimination because they had chosen to remain closeted. Many of these teachers still described
discriminatory experiences that happened to students, which they described as having an impact
on them as well. Even though teachers at all levels of openness made statements appropriate for
the no extra stress/no discrimination core idea, they also contradicted those statements throughout
their interviews by providing anecdotal evidence and expressing sentiments that related to other
demands.
The demands reported within the domain demands of lesbian and gay teachers result from
primary appraisals, which is a perception of whether a potential stressor is significant. According
to the transactional model, however, the individual then makes a secondary appraisal, which in-
volves taking into account one’s resources to help meet the demand (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
606 LINEBACK ET AL.

Resources are only helpful if an individual perceives them as helpful in meeting a particular
demand. Thus, the secondary appraisal is also a perceptual and subjective process (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). Our second domain, discussed in the following section, reflects participants’
subjective perceptions of the resources that help them manage the demands of being an LG
teacher.

Resources and Coping of Lesbian and Gay Teachers

In asking our participants about resources, they mentioned six core ideas that describe things they
did or used in managing the stressors that arose from being a lesbian or gay teacher. These six
core ideas were organized into two coping categories: social-based coping and emotion-focused
coping. A major form of coping known as problem-focused coping was missing from the results;
this will be addressed further below.

Social-based coping. For LG teachers, social-based coping was the most frequent type of
resource, which is supported by previous research on LG individuals (Lindquist & Hirabayashi,
1979, Meyer, 2003a). Social-based coping involves seeking support through one’s perceived so-
cial networks (Denton et al., 2014; Moller et al., 2003). Our findings align with earlier findings of
Lindquist and Hirabayashi (1979), which revealed that connecting with both the majority com-
munity and the gay community can serve as an important resource in helping gay individuals
achieve positive outcomes.
It is particularly significant that 10 out of 11 participants mentioned staff support as beneficial.
Prior research has shown that social support within a school can protect against teacher burnout,
because fellow staff members can validate a teacher’s beliefs about his/her ability and success
in the classroom (Russell, Altmaier, & Van Velzer, 1987). For instance, when Liz’s principal
informed her that her request for sick leave to care for her wife was denied, Liz went to the
superintendent, who granted her an extra personal day instead. Liz “went, ‘Wow.’ And so, from
something that started as a stress … it actually ended up being pretty good.” A few teachers felt
supported when their colleagues addressed the derogatory comments that students made about gay
individuals. Steve reported that he “really appreciated that it didn’t go straight to punishment.”
He appreciated that teachers approached these situations with, “‘a conversation about the words
you’re saying and what they mean.’ And to me, that is a transferrable life lesson, whereas just
‘don’t say that ever again.’ … I don’t want you to think those words have a negative connotation.”
Our findings suggest that being open with at least a small number of colleagues granted LG
teachers access to much needed Staff Support, which allowed them to use more social-based
coping. Fully closeted teachers would not be able to take advantage of this vital resource.
For some teachers, social-based coping through verbal processing happened outside of school.
Julie stated that when she encountered a demand at school, “I probably go home and vent, like
I don’t know what to say to these people who aren’t ok with it.” Likewise, Ashlee sought the
perspective of friends: “especially my friends who are in counseling, and I was like ‘how do I
deal with this?”’ Other teachers processed with coworkers. Brittany mentioned that she had a
“support network … if anything happens at school, other TFA [Teach For America] teachers are
who I turn to.” Although Brittany was only open about her sexual orientation with some of her
colleagues, they provided much needed support. Max expressed how verbal processing helped
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 607

him: “When you bottle everything up … [it] just kind of builds up pressure. I guess finding a
time, putting things into words and sharing it takes away some of the stress.”
Others felt that social support outside of school was important as well. Julie noted that “going
to Pride and going to gay bars” helped her cope. It reminded her that “other people are gay too. It’s
not just me. … I don’t feel so bad when I’m around those other people.” Steve felt supported by
his “roommate … [who] was also a gay teacher.” Steve asked for his roommate’s opinion when he
encountered difficult situations at work. Ashlee, Liz, and Therese all mentioned that their friends
supported them in difficult times.
Romantic partners were another source of support for some participants. Liz said that her wife
helped her through the process of coming out at work, and she leaned on her wife for support as
she negotiated that stressful experience. Steve also mentioned that his boyfriend served as a great
support.

Emotion-focused coping. There were only two core ideas in the resources domain that
would not be considered social-based coping. Using humor to cope and suppression are both
instances of emotion-focused coping, which involves dealing with the emotions that emerge as the
result of a stressor, rather than dealing with the problem of the stressor itself (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). Humor and suppression are not included in the minority stress literature (Lindquist &
Hirabayashi, 1979; Meyer, 2003a), but they are known in the coping literature (e.g., Geisler &
Weber, 2010; Petkus et al., 2012; Szentagotai & Onea, 2007).
Suppressing thoughts about challenging situations might be considered an unhealthy coping
strategy, but suppression can help manage emotions in the moment. Julie said that when she faced
challenging situations with colleagues, “I try to not talk about it. That’s not coping. That’s what
I do. … I just try to ignore it or, like, change the subject.” Julie did not recognize this process
as coping, but it allowed her to finish her day at school before going home to “vent,” and it
prevented bad situations from escalating. John mentioned frustration when censoring his speech,
and he stated he would “kind of ignore it [the frustration], like it never happened, … cause I don’t
know what to do.” John mentioned that he used this strategy because he lacked other strategies.
Although healthier coping strategies exist, suppression allowed individuals to disengage from
challenging situations and refocus on job tasks.
Other participants mentioned using humor to defuse awkward or upsetting situations. Liz ex-
plained how she uses humor when dealing with coworkers’ derogatory comments:

I’ve always found that humor goes a really long way in those moments where somebody’s like, “That’s
so gay.” And then they look at me like, “Oh shit.” And sometimes I try to wave, like, “Yup, here I am.
The gay person,” or I look at them and laugh. … There are moments where … they check themselves,
and look at me kind of horrified; isn’t that kind of the point?

Liz used humor to defuse a challenging situation and make others think twice about their lan-
guage. Jacob, on the other hand, used humor to cope with parents asking about his love life: “If
the parents say, ‘Do you have a girlfriend? Or are you married?’ … I turn it into a joke.” Jacob
used humor to deflect questions about his personal life, which allowed him to remain closeted.
In both cases, humor allowed interactions to move forward smoothly, despite the initial potential
for a stressful interaction.
608 LINEBACK ET AL.

Problem-focused coping. Notably missing from our results was an important component
of coping: problem-focused coping. Problem-focused coping refers to coping that directly ad-
dresses the demand itself (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and is an adaptive coping strategy for
changing one’s circumstances. Although our participants did not describe their level of openness
as a coping strategy, research has demonstrated that managing the visibility of sexual orientation
is an important coping strategy (Dewaele, Van Houtte, Cox, N., & Vincke, 2013). Remaining
closeted about sexual orientation can protect an individual from discrimination and being open
can protect one from the intrapersonal demands of remaining closeted (Dewaele et al., 2013).
Thus, managing the visibility of one’s sexual orientation could be seen as a method of problem-
focused coping, and, viewed from this lens, participants in this study might have actually em-
ployed problem-focused coping strategies without describing them as such.

CONCLUSION

Limitations and Delimitations

Although much of the literature on sexual minority populations includes the entire LGBTQ pop-
ulation, we purposely limited our sample to LG teachers. In their article reviewing research in
the transsexual community, Pepper and Lorah (2008) made a distinction between issues of sex-
ual orientation (which includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer individuals) and gender identity
(which includes transgender/transsexual and gender-queer individuals), and critique research that
appears to include transgender issues (by lumping LGBTQ in the title or abstract) without actu-
ally addressing them. Additionally, we did not include bisexual individuals in the study. In his
quantitative study of LGB teachers, Juul (1994) found that his bisexual participants functioned as
a separate group from LG participants and had very different results. We believe studies including
bisexual and transgender teachers warrant their own research.
Limitations of the study include the fact that our teachers were mainly female, White, and rela-
tively young, though our demographics did closely match the overall demographics of teachers in
the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). It will be important for future
researchers to include older participants, especially because older generations were raised when
homosexuality was more taboo. They might introduce new or different demands not identified
by our current participants. The lack of individuals of color is also a noteworthy limitation. Core
ideas of intersectionality did not appear in our results because only one participant mentioned
intersectionality of race and sexual orientation in her interview. This is likely an added demand
for LG teachers of color, and future research should aim to include a greater number of racial
minority teachers.

Implications

Results from this study suggest that Meyer’s (2003a) minority stress model helps to understand
the experiences of LG teachers, but this model is insufficient in accounting for all of the demands
faced by LG teachers due to the particular intersectionality of sexual identity and professional
context. As the research team revisited and revised the core ideas within the domain of demands
on LG teachers, it was recognized that although participants reported experiences within all four
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 609

categories of the minority stress model (Meyer, 2003a), themes not encompassed in the model
existed. Of the 14 core ideas that emerged from our data, eight fit into Meyer’s (2003a) minor-
ity stress model. Four core ideas fit into the first category in the minority stress model, which is
actual events of discrimination. These cores ideas are derogatory comments from students, per-
sonalizing, negative interactions with parents, and overt discrimination. The second category of
the minority stress model, expectations of discrimination, is fairly similar to our core idea fear of
discrimination, which was the only core idea endorsed by all 11 participants. Stress of censoring
and guilt over being closeted are core ideas that would fit in the category of hiding one’s sexual
orientation; and the fourth category, internalized homophobia, emerged as a core idea in our data
as well.
Five core ideas do not fit into the minority stress model, and speak to the unique, contextu-
alized demands that emerge for LG teachers (the final core idea was no extra stress of reported
discrimination). Those core ideas are fear of impact on student outcomes, heteronormative experi-
ences, perception that coming out to students makes teaching harder, and stress of inconsistency
in partner openness. These core ideas represent demands that LG teachers face specifically in
their roles as LG teachers, and understanding this unique context is important in elucidating the
stress process for LG teachers. The minority stress model (Meyer, 2003a) does not account for all
demands faced by LG teachers. It is vital that teachers-in-training and teacher educators be made
aware of all of the potential demands that LG teachers face, o help them gain resources they need
to combat the demands they could face. Beginning a profession with the full understanding of
its challenges is likely to be more beneficial than beginning it naïve and being blindsided by the
demands.
The results from this study would suggest that LG teachers all face demands unique to their
sexual identity, regardless of level of openness. As previously discussed, some demands were
found to be specific to LG teachers closeted with students, but LG teachers open with their stu-
dents still faced demands not experienced by their heterosexual colleagues. This is an important
consideration for teachers and teacher educators. LG teachers are facing additional demands in
a profession that is already well known for its high levels of burnout and high rate of turnover
(Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998). Furthermore, it would be important for teacher educators to help
LG teachers-in-training understand the different demands they would likely face, whether they
were closeted with their students or open with students. Teachers-in-training can then make in-
formed decisions about their level of openness, understanding that neither being closeted nor
being open protects one from all demands.
Additionally, future research should also include administrators’ perspectives to investigate
how they help create a welcoming environment for LG teachers. Studying LG and straight ad-
ministrators’ perspectives on supporting gay teachers is an integral part of creating a safe space
for LG teachers.

REFERENCES

Allen, D. J. & Oleson, T. (1999). Shame and internalized homophobia in gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 37(3),
33–43.
Anderson, M. Z., Croteau, J. M., DiStefano, T. M., & Chung, Y. (2001). Developing an assessment of sexual identity
management for lesbian and gay workers. Journal of Career Assessment, 9(3), 243–60.
610 LINEBACK ET AL.

Berryhill, J., Linney, J. A., & Fromewick, J. (2009). The effects of education accountability on teachers: Are policies
too-stress provoking for their own good? International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 4(5), 1–14.
Chang, M.-L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational
Psychology Review, 21(3), 193–218.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
Cox, N., Dewaele, A., van Houtte, M., & Vincke, J. (2011). Stress-related growth, coming out, and internalized homoneg-
ativity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. An examination of stress-related growth within the minority stress model.
Journal of Homosexuality, 58(1), 117–137.
DeLeon, M.J. & Brunner, C. C. (2013). Cycles of fear a model of lesbian and gay educational leaders’ lived experiences.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(1), 161–203.
Denton, F. N., Rostosky, S. S., & Danner, F. (2014). Stigma-related stressors, coping self-efficacy, and physical health in
lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(3), 383.
Dewaele, A., Van Houtte, M., Cox, N., & Vincke, J. (2013). From coming out to visibility management—A new
perspective on coping with minority stressors in LGB youth in Flanders. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(5), 685–
710.
Endo, H., Reece-Miller, P. C., & Santavicca, N. (2010). Surviving in the trenches: A narrative inquiry into queer teachers’
experiences and identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1023–1030.
Ferfolja, T. (2009). Stories so far: An overview of the research on lesbian teachers. Sexualities, 12(3), 378–396.
Ferfolja, T. (2014). Reframing queer teacher subjects: Neither in nor out but present. In A. Harris, & E. M. Gray (Eds.),
Queer teachers, identity and performativity. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter:
Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992–1003.
Flojo, J. R. (2005). Disclosure, identity, and discrimination: Lesbian, gay, and bisexual minority stressors in the workplace
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest Dissertations and Theses. University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter:
Cognitive appraisal, Coping, and Encounter Outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992–1003.
Geisler, F. M., & Weber, H. (2010). Harm that does not hurt: Humour in coping with self-threat. Motivation and Emotion,
34(4), 446–456.
Gonsiorek, J. (1993). Threat, stress, and adjustment: Mental health and the workplace for gay and lesbian individuals. In
L. Diamant (Ed.), Threat, stress, and adjustment: Mental health and the workplace for gay and lesbian individuals.
Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Gray, E. M. (2013). Coming out as a lesbian, gay or bisexual teacher: Negotiating private and professional worlds. Sex
Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 13(6), 702–714.
Green, H. B., Payne, N. R., & Green, J. (2011). Working bi: Preliminary findings from a survey on workplace experiences
of bisexual people. Journal of Bisexuality, 11(2/3), 300–316.
Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. Counseling
Psychologist, 25(4), 517–572.
Hobfoll, S. E., Schwarzer, R., & Chon, K. K. (1998). Disentangling the stress labyrinth: Interpreting the meaning of the
stress as it is studied in the health context. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 11, 181–212.
Hooker, S. D. (2010). Closeted or out? Gay and lesbian educators reveal their experiences about their sexual identities in
K–12 schools (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from OAIster at http://oaister.worldcat.org/. University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, OH.
Human Rights Campaign. (2013, January 3). Issue: Federal advocacy: Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Retrieved
from http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/federal-legislation/employment-non-discrimination-act
Jackson, J. M. (2007). Unmasking identities: An exploration of the lives of gay and lesbian teachers. Landham, MD:
Lexington Books.
Juul, T. P. (1994). A survey to examine the relationship of the openness of self-identified lesbian, gay male, and bisexual
public school teachers to job stress and job satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest Dissertations
Theses Full Text. New York University.
Lambert, R. G., McCarthy, C., O’Donnell, M., & Wang, C. (2009). Measuring elementary teacher stress and coping in
the classroom: Validity evidence for the classroom appraisal of resources and demands. Psychology in the Schools,
46(10), 973–988.
Lazarus, R. (2001). Relational meaning and discrete emotions. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Ap-
praisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research. Series in affective science. (pp. 37–67). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 611

Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Lee, J. H., Heo, N., Lu, J., & Portman, T. A. A. (2013). Qualitative exploration of acculturation and life span issues of
elderly Asian Americans. Adultspan Journal, 12(1), 4–23.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lindquist, N., & Hirabayashi, G. (1979). Coping with marginal situations: The case of gay males. Canadian Journal of
Sociology/Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie, 4, 87–104.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach, 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Mayo, J. B., Jr. (2008). Gay teachers’ negotiated interactions with their students and (straight) colleagues. High School
Journal, 92(1), 1–10.
McCarthy, C. J., Lineback, S., & Resier, J. (2014). Teacher stress, emotion, and classroom management. In E. T. Emmer,
& E. Saborine (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management (2nd ed., pp. 301–321). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor
& Francis.
Meyer, I. H. (2003a). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual
issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697.
Meyer, I. H. (2003b). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. In L. D. Garnets, & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psy-
chological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences (2nd ed., pp. 699–731). New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Mitchell, R. C., Davis, K. S., & Galupo, M. P. (2015). Comparing perceived experiences of prejudice among self-identified
plurisexual individuals. Psychology & Sexuality, 6(3), 245–257.
Moller, N. P., Fouladi, R. T., McCarthy, C. J., & Hatch, K. D. (2003). Relationship of attachment and social support to
college students’ adjustment following a relationship breakup. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81(3), 354–369.
Movement Advancement Project. (2015, December 23). Non-discrimination laws: Employment. Retrieved from
http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of education statistics. Table 209.10. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_209.10.asp
Neary, A. (2013). Lesbian and gay teachers’ experiences of ‘coming out’ in Irish schools. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 34(4), 583–602.
Pepper, S. M., & Lorah, P. (2008). Career issues and workplace considerations for the transsexual community: Bridging
a gap of knowledge for career counselors and mental health care providers. Career Development Quarterly, 56(4),
330–343.
Petkus, A. J., Gum, A., & Wetherell, J. L. (2012). Thought suppression is associated with psychological distress in home-
bound older adults. Depression and Anxiety, 29(3), 219–225.
Pinel, E. C. (2004). You’re just saying that because I’m a woman: Stigma consciousness and attributions to discrimination.
Self and Identity, 3(1), 39–51.
Rasmussen, M.L. (2004). The problem of coming out. Theory into Practice, 43(2), 144–150.
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Rudoe, N. (2010). Lesbian teachers’ identity, power and the public/private boundary. Sex Education, 10(1), 23–36.
Russell, D. W., Altmaier, E., & Van Velzen, D. (1987). Job-related stress, social support, and burnout among classroom
teachers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2), 269–274.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout component to study and practice. London, England: Taylor &
Francis.
Schlosser, L. Z., Knox, S., Moskovitz, A. R., & Hill, C. E. (2003). A qualitative examination of graduate advising rela-
tionships: The advisee perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 178–188.
Smith, L. C., Shin, R. Q., & Officer, L. M. (2012). Moving counseling forward on LGB and transgender issues: Speaking
queerly on discourses and microaggressions. Counseling Psychologist, 40(3), 385–408.
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Szentagotai, A., & Onea, D. (2007). Is repressive coping associated with suppression? Journal of Cognitive and Behav-
ioral Psychotherapies, 7(2), 127–138.
Wang, K., Stroebe, K., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Stigma consciousness and prejudice ambiguity: Can it be adaptive to
perceive the world as biased? Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3), 241–245.
Wheaton, R. B. (1983). Stress, personal coping resources, and psychiatric symptoms: An investigation of interactive
models. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(3), 208–229.
612 LINEBACK ET AL.

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR LARGER INQUIRY AND THE

PRESENT STUDY

1. Before we get started, do you have any questions about the study?
2. Tell me about how you came to be a teacher.
3. What factors influenced your decision to teach at your current school (or the last school
where you worked)?
4. What is the overall climate or morale of teachers in your school?
5. What are some of the most demanding parts of your job as a teacher?
6. When parts of your job are demanding what do you do?
a. What resources do you turn to when parts of your job are demanding?
7. In general (in your life outside of school), when you feel stressed what resources do you
seek or how do you cope?
8. Do you consider teaching to be an important part of your identity or who you are? If so,
how so?
9. Do you consider your sexual orientation to be an important part of your identity or who
you are? If so, how so?
10. What is it like for you being a gay/lesbian teacher in your school?
11. What role, if any, does your sexual orientation play in your school setting and job as a
teacher?
12. Describe your general level of openness about your sexual orientation in the following
areas and what influences your level of openness in these areas?
a. Your family of origin (What motivates your level of openness?)
b. Your school—with coworkers and staff
c. Your school—with students
d. Your school—with parents
e. Your school principal/administration
f. Your social network
13. [If needed for clarification on the above question]: In situations at work when coworkers
are talking about their weekend plans and yours involved some activities with a same-sex
boyfriend/girlfriend/partner, how did you deal with that situation?
14. What would be your ideal level of openness in your workplace?
a. What resources would you need or want to get to your ideal level of openness?
15. Does your geographic location affect your openness at your school in general? If so,
how?
16. How do you feel about your current level of openness about your sexual orientation in
the workplace?
17. Have you ever encountered any awkward situations with regard to your sexual orientation
in your role as a teacher? If yes, can you describe the experiences?
18. Have you ever encountered any experiences in which you felt discriminated against be-
cause of your sexual orientation in your role as a teacher? If yes, can you describe the
experiences? [If answered “no” or “unsure,” ask the follow-up question, For example,
have any of your students asked you if you are married or if you are gay? If so, how did
you respond?]
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 613

19. Have you ever encountered any experiences in which you felt affirmed about your sexual
orientation in your role as a teacher? If yes, can you describe the experiences?
a. What kinds of affirming situations would you like to see?
20. Do you ever find it stressful to be a teacher who is gay or lesbian? Can you please describe
those situations?
21. When you encounter a stressful situation as a result of your identity as gay or lesbian
while at work, what do you do?
22. In those situations, what resources do you turn to?
23. Do you think there are any benefits to being a teacher who is gay?
24. Do you have any fears about being a teacher who is gay?
25. Have you ever overheard students or teachers say things like “that’s so gay” OR make
fun of students who they thought might be gay OR derogatory terminology?
a. What were others teachers’ responses?
b. What was your response?
c. How did students respond?
d. How do you feel about these responses from other adults at school?
e. Does your sexual orientation influence how you respond?
26. Do you have a significant other?
a. If you have a significant other, has your role as a teacher ever caused conflict in your
relationship? If so, how?
b. If you have a significant other, are you both at the same level of outness in your
workplaces? If not, does that affect your relationship? If it does, how so?
c. Does your relationship status affect how much you choose to disclose?
27. Are you aware if your district has policies regarding legal protections, job nondiscrimi-
nation policies for lesbians and gays? Same-sex partner benefits? If yes, do these policies
impact how you conduct yourself at work and your level of openness? If yes, how so?
28. Is there anything else that I did not ask, but that you think is relevant to this study that
you would like to tell me?
Copyright of Educational Studies is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.