Developing a Socially-Just Research Agenda for Inclusive Physical Education in Japan

ABSTRACT

Ethnocentric models of disability have resulted in an ontology that rarely embraces the cultural nuances and social structures of specific countries. There have been increasing calls from scholars to expand understandings of disability beyond this hegemonic focus and develop new ways to do culturally specific and respectful inclusive work. Utilizing a novel methodological approach based on Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”, we problematized past research and the current knowledge landscape of inclusive physical education (PE) in Japan. We identified that PE teachers were constantly “Grappling with Conflict” regarding their intrinsic desire to include disabled students in PE, and the cultural, institutional demands that instructed them how to teach. We drew upon numerous holistic, cultural, and Globally Eastern philosophies of thought to interpret these findings. Through reinterpreting past research, we developed a future research agenda for improving inclusive PE in Japan to support teachers and students through cultural praxis.

KEYWORDS:

• Physical education
• cultural praxis
• social justice
• cultural studies
• disability studies

Introduction

Japan is a collectivist culture where hierarchical relationships, contribution to society, respect, and conformity are highly valued (Miller & Kanazawa, 2000). This bleeds into expectations of job roles, including that of teachers. Japanese teachers are expected to be self-sacrificing and conform to higher levels of authority (Yamada & Hasegawa, 2010). This can result in teachers pressured to work long hours and teach in a way that does not fit within their own personal teaching philosophy (Kayama & Haight, 2014a). Further, rather than specific descriptions of responsibilities of duties, teachers’ practice aligns with policy crafted by higher levels of governance applied to all schools across the country (Yamada & Hasegawa, 2010). Thus, recognition of education policy is essential to better understand expectations and constraints placed on teachers, particularly as policies regarding disability have evolved over the past 15 years. First, an appreciation of how disability is perceived in Japan is warranted to further contextualize the world within which teachers and students live.

In contemporary Japan, disability awareness has increased following the Tokyo 2020 Olympics and Paralympics as the government promotes accessible physical activity (Kolotouchkina et al., 2021) and disability representation increases in media through, for example, disabled roles in TV dramas (Mithout, 2020). While hopefully a positive trend toward disability inclusion in Japan, historically, disabled people have been perceived as a burden and passive individuals requiring care (Kayama & Haight, 2014a, Kayama & Haight, 2018). Disability has been—and for many still is—considered inferior and separate from a mainstream society that is “normal” and conforms to standards of normalcy (Goto, 2008). Thus, to be disabled in Japan carries great stigma (Kayama & Haight, 2014, Kayama & Haight, 2018). This may be linked to Japanese culture where there is typically distain to difference, and a mistrust or consternation to those that do not conform to accepted social values (whether through choice or circumstance) (Miller & Kanazawa, 2000). What “disability” is in Japan tends to align to a medical diagnosis as disability policies and social services for disabled people are tied to a diagnosis certificate system. Here, medical doctors verify the individual has a disability based on functional assessments (Lindqvist & Lamichhane, 2019). This suggests that the label of disability is put upon an individual and they are categorized as such for their lifetime, or until another medical professional decides to remove the label. Lindqvist and Lamichhane (2019) concluded that Japanese policy aligns to the medical model, is paternalistic and infantilizes disabled people more compared to Western counterparts. However, as we state in a previous paper (Richardson et al., in press), models of disability are a Western/Global North conception that do not always translate to other languages and cultures. Thus, a more culturally appropriate exploration of disability in Japan is warranted that embraces the specific contexts, policies, norms, languages, histories, faiths, and people that create that social world.

Though disability in wider Japanese society may be seen as a burden, stigmatized and inferior due to difference, a dramatic shift in perceptions and understandings of disability in the education system was instigated in 2007. The term Tokubetsu-Shien-Kyoiku (special support education) was included in the “School Education Law in Japan” for the first time (Kayama & Haight, 2014) which resulted in disabled and nondisabled students being educated in the same school. Previously, disabled students had been educated in Tokusyu-Kyoiku (disability-specific specialized education) through bunri kyoiku (segregated education). Tokubetsu-Shien-Kyoiku, in contrast, prioritized independence and social participation of disabled students and a promise to support all disabled students, including those who were in mainstream schools. Tokubetsu-Shien-Kyoiku steadily developed, and rather than bunri kyoiku, koryu kyoiku (integrated education) became more common with disabled and nondisabled students educated in the same building (Sato et al., 2007). Oftentimes however, disabled students were educated in separate classrooms or spaces (Maeda et al., 2021). Japan took further steps in 2012 toward a more inclusive kyoiku (inclusive education) system akin to worldwide practice when the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport Science, and Technology (MEXT) directed teachers to educate disabled and nondisabled students in the same space (MEXT, 2012). Japan further committed to inclusive kyoiku via the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2014).

The elementary and secondary school educational curricula shaping koryu kyoiku are determined by the MEXT, specifically in its published guidelines called Gakushu Shido Yoryo (GSY). The GSY was posited as the foundation for standardized education across all Japan and provides content for each subject, each grade, and how to evaluate students. The GSY claims that it is only a guide, with room for each teacher to make adaptations for their students to meet the objectives of a respective subject, but advice and guidance for how to make adaptations to meet objectives are scant (Nakai & Metzler, 2005). For example, the current objective of physical education (PE) is “Through the experience of appropriate physical activity and an understanding of health and safety, the mind and body are considered as one, and the foundation of qualities and abilities to become familiar with physical activity throughout life is nurtured.” (MEXT, 2021). What is appropriate physical activity? What are essential foundations and abilities? What is “familiar” physical activity? How do these differ between disabled and nondisabled students? Should these differ between disabled and non-disabled students? Such questions are central to teachers’ practice, and answers are restricted to classroom boundaries. A typical class size may be around 30 to 40 students (Nakai & Metzler, 2005), lasts about 45–50 minutes, and the class meets a total of 90 hours per year. Very rarely, however, do PE teachers have an assistant to share responsibilities of a large group or help facilitate an adapted session for students that could thrive with a related, but different, delivery or goal (Hodge et al., 2009b).

The policy and structure of koryu kyoiku through GSY has not had the inclusive impact hoped for as, rather than being “included,” approximately 2/3 of disabled students are still placed in segregated classes offering different courses. While Japanese teachers do work to educate these children, they typically see disabled students as beyond their responsibility (Kudomi et al., 2018). This is perhaps caused by the authoritative, historical justification of bunri kyoiku being so pervasive that teachers have not easily transitioned to inclusive kyoiku (Miyoshi, 2009), despite changed policy. Indeed, in PE, there are still concerns regarding teachers’ negative attitudes toward disabled students (Hodge et al., 2009a), lack of training (Sato et al., 2022), ableist standards of “normalcy” (Sawae et al., 2017), and limited disabled students’ involvement (Haegele et al., 2017).

While research has attempted to explore ways to address these concerns (e.g., Sato & Hodge, 2009; Sato et al., 2007), they have been minimally effective; arguably due to ethnocentric values and theories as their underpinnings. It is our hope that applying a cultural praxis framework may address aforementioned issues and craft an emancipatory path for social justice in future research. As such, the purpose of this research was to craft a socially-just research agenda for inclusive PE in Japan. To do so, we posed the following questions:

1. What is the current landscape of research regarding inclusive PE in Japan?

2. What are the main problems/issues that need to be addressed regarding facilitating inclusive PE?

3. What necessary research is required to address these issues?

Methods and methodologies

A detailed account of how we did this is available in our article outlining a cultural praxis approach to critical disability studies (CDS). In summary, this approach is underpinned by a cultural praxis paradigm with congruent assumptions of ontological relativism and epistemological constructionism. We adopted pluralistic methods and analytical lenses to explore and problematize the current landscape of inclusive PE in Japan. Using Ganzen’s (1984) systems theory as a framework to ensure rigor of using different methods, we (i) conducted a scoping review (Arksley & O’Malley, 2005) of all English and Japanese based language literature pertaining to inclusive PE in Japan published from 2007 onwards; (ii) applied a deductive, semantic reflective thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021) on these published works to produce themes reflecting inclusive PE in Japan, and (iii) applied cultural studies and CDS lenses to themes to contextualize and problematize our findings within the wider realm of Japanese culture and education. We ask readers to judge our work on its substantive contribution, coherence, and transparency.

We identified 23 papers in total. Ten were written in English and 13 in Japanese. Sixteen publications were peer-reviewed journal articles, four were Japanese college bulletins, 2 were published in non peer-reviewed university journals, and 1 was a book chapter. Most of the literature were quantitative in design (10), 6 were qualitative, 2 mixed-methods, 3 were position papers, and 2 were literature reviews. Of note, participants in these studies were mainly PE teachers, other teachers, classroom assistants, or teachers in training. Only 2 studies focused on disabled students and through mixed methods in design, the testimonies of this group are still missing in literature.

Results and discussion: Grappling with conflict

A “golden thread” through our analysis was the idea of “grappling with conflict” and this conflict was perceived at different levels of organization and practice. We argue that such conflict exists because the infrastructure of inclusive PE in Japan still aligns to ableist ideologies that are not compatible with inclusive philosophies. To develop this further, we crafted themes focusing on (i) gaps between inclusive kyoiku policies and practice, (ii) restrictions on teachers’ practice, and (iii) (un)conscious biases in the classroom.

Gaps between inclusive kyoiku policies and practice

Japan has been through significant transitions of inclusive education policies, especially the shift from Tokusyu-kyoiku to Tokubetsu-shien-kyoiku and continued aspirations of inclusive kyoiku. We noted two key infrastructural issues that made inclusive kyoiku in practice difficult; (i) unadapted curriculums, and (ii) ableist evaluations.

Unadapted curriculums

All school subjects in Japan are constrained within a strict national curriculum set by the MEXT (Yamanaka & Suzuki, 2020). National Curriculum Standards, the GSY, set out a legal framework of duties and responsibilities for each year of elementary, junior high and high school education (Yamanaka & Suzuki, 2020). Although there is some curriculum guidance for specific impairments (e.g., visual impairment, D/deaf), these curriculums have been designed and written in the context of bunri kyoiku and have yet to be adapted for inclusive kyoiku (National Institute of Special Needs Education, 2021). Thus, teachers are made responsible for ensuring disabled students’ education aligns with GSY. This often led to teachers situating disabled students as the problem rather than the curriculum. For example, in Sato et al. (2007) study, a PE teacher stated “general education requires that all students perform at a certain academic level … When disabled students cannot achieve this without assistance, they need to leave this school and go to special classes to get appropriate individualized instruction.” (Mori, 55, p. 218); “When disabled students have trouble participating in various activities, I do not let them.” (Kono, 28, p.222).

At the time of this article’s publication, PE teachers had just been introduced to the concept of bunri kyoiku and would not have received any training regarding how to teach disabled students, nor would they have any guidance from curriculums, programs, or GSY. Thus, an important consideration throughout this work is the time of article publication as teachers’ perceptions will be of that time, and be influenced by ongoing policy changes and regulations. Nonetheless, the early indications of teachers’ perceptions suggest an inherently ableist reaction to the idea of inclusive kyoiku as curriculums were designed on functional standards of “normalcy” (Sawae, 2020). Ableism is “a network of beliefs, processes and practices that produces a particular kind of self and body (the corporeal standard) that is projected as the perfect, species-typical and therefore essential and fully human form. Disability is cast as a diminished state of being human” (Campbell, 2001, p. 44). In the context of ableism within education, disabled students may experience discrimination, segregation, and exclusion when they fail to meet a majority “norm;” this is evident in our findings as the ableist GSY framework is not questioned in the context of inclusive kyoiku. We explore ableism throughout our work, as we believe this more holistic lens may be applied within different cultural settings. Led by our cultural praxis approach, we learned that disability models proposed in the Global North and West do not fit within Japanese understandings of disability, nor its language. Through our method, we drew upon ableism as a key starting point for much interpretation, and included more culturally nuanced theories and concepts to add complexity, and ensure respect and relevance.

Ableist evaluations

As well as rigid GSY guidelines, evaluations and assessments of PE aligned to an inflexible grading framework. Teachers noted that these evaluations were unfair to disabled students; “(I)n an assessment, I would like to assess (students with and without disabilities) with the same assessment criteria, but if I do use the current set of criteria, I have no way of giving a good grade for students with disabilities.” (details of teacher not available, Sawae, 2020, p. 35). Teachers expressed feelings of conflict as they wished to acknowledge and reflect the personal developments, improvements, and achievements of disabled students, but were restricted to awarding grades on national assessments based on performance alone:

My concern when I assess students with disabilities is which components I have to measure: motor performance, social interaction or cooperation skills. It is hard to identify. He [student with disabilities] has improved significantly in his social interactions. However, his motor performance does not meet the requirement of the standard. Should I grade based on his motor performance? I do not want him to have a bad grade because he has a disabilities … If I give him a good grade, I have to explain to all the other students why he should receive that particular grade.

(Takahashi, 57, M; Sato & Hodge, 2009, p. 167).

Some teachers did try to be inclusive of disabled students, but stated that this too resulted in lower grades; “I evaluate students with disabilities in consideration of the status of the student … I would give certain levels of good grades if the student makes an effort. However, the grade for PE skills may be low.” (“Teacher-B;” Hirata et al., 2015, p. 238).

An essential requirement for Japanese further education (e.g., university) is a grade point average across all subjects, including PE, and prospective students are compared to each other regardless of impairment status (Sato & Hodge, 2009). Thus, teachers may experience conflict and pressure from outside sources such as administrators, other teachers, and parents of nondisabled students (Sato & Hodge, 2009) to assess disabled students using GSY guidelines only rather than other improvements they may have achieved in PE. A focus purely on specific types of motor development, social interaction, and cooperation again highlights the underpinning ableism that is central to PE in Japan. Ableism can seep into institutions (such as education) and create biases toward independent, autonomous, “able” bodies (Campbell, 2001). Such institutional ableism is apparent in the curriculum and evaluations of PE where there is one “norm” of physical and motor competence.

Informed by the cultural praxis approach we developed, we were able to further explore potential underpinnings for why curriculum and evaluations were crafted in an ableist way by embracing the wider cultural context of Japan. “Independence” in Japanese culture is highly valued as emphasis is placed on individuals being productive citizens and contributing to the collectivist culture (Kayama & Haight, 2014a). As such, standards of PE assessment regarding motor performance, social interaction and cooperation skills align to wider social norms and values expected from “productive citizens” (Kayama & Haight, 2014b) and may have implications for attitudes toward disability in this country. Thus, the cultural values and social expectations of Japan may have permeated into the curriculum to ensure children develop skills required to become meaningful members of the wider collective.

Restrictions on teachers practice

The GSY and ableist evaluations that shape inclusive kyoiku are but one layer of restrictions that are placed on teachers’ practice. Teachers experienced (i) limited teacher training, (ii) lack of resources to enact policy, and (iii) tension between equality and equity.

Limited teacher training

Early research (e.g., Sato et al., 2007) highlighted that PE teachers did not receive any formal specialist or preparatory training for inclusive PE at the time of structural transition from bunri kyoiku to inclusive kyoiku. Rather they relied on workshops that were not specific to their context and did not improve confidence:

I do not have any confidence at all. I have attended workshops which deal with disability but who knows the best way to teach? It depends on the disability. When I thought that this is the best solution, he [student with disabilities] may feel my solution is completely off base. There are many different factors involved in teaching him. This is a reason that I do not have any confidence to teach students with disabilities.

(Akira, 24; Sato & Hodge, 2009, p. 168).

Though stipulations were placed regarding including disabled students in PE, many trainings or resources did not come to fruition. PE teachers were meant, for example, to receive training on how to develop and implement individual teaching plans (Kobetsuno-shido-keikaku) (Hodge et al., 2009b) to include children with various impairments within class. As of 2010, however, only 30% of teachers in public schools had any experience developing or using said teaching plans (Kanayama & Yamasaki, 2010). Further, no formal training or pathway of inclusive PE was in place during this time to support or “upskill” teachers that practiced during the era of bunri kyoiku (Hodge et al., 2009a, Hodge et al., 2009b; Sato & Hodge, 2009; Sato et al., 2007). This is concerning as many of these past teachers now train pre-service teachers. Indeed, a contemporary study concluded trainee teachers still felt unprepared to work with students with “severe” impairments (Sato et al., 2022); “I do not think I have been trained enough for teaching students with severe and profound disabilities in the practicum experiences … I am not confident enough to teach students with severe and profound disabilities” (Asami, 24, p. 10).

Historically, a line of research explored how to improve the confidence and self-efficacy of trainee and current PE teachers to implement inclusive kyoiku in Japan, however this work utilized an ethnocentric behavior change framework (i.e., Theory of Planned Behavior) (Hodge et al., 2009a; Sato & Hodge, 2009; Sato et al., 2007). This did not, and does not, fit within Japanese social and cultural structures. Japan is a collectivist culture where the needs of the collective or group is prioritized over the needs or wants of an individual (Miller & Kanazawa, 2000). Indeed, the Japanese word for “self” (jibun) means “one’s share” (Kayama & Haight, 2014a), contrary to English definitions of “self” meaning to be distinct from others. Further, Japanese do not have autonomy in their own practice but are restricted to act in a way dictated by higher levels of authority (Yamada & Hasegawa, 2010). These Western conceptions are therefore not compatible.

We also argue that the way teachers are trained may be setting them up for difficulty. Trainee PE teachers are currently taught within a collective, supportive, cooperative group that includes professors and peers rather than a focus on independent study or practice (Sato et al., 2022). Thus, while trainee teachers may initially feel supported and confident facilitating inclusive PE (to students with mild to moderate impairments) within a collective group (Sato et al., 2022) this does not necessarily prepare them for real world practice where they may be a lone teacher in front of a large class with a variety of impairments (Qi & Ha, 2012). Such experiences are common in literature and described by Haegele et al. (2017) as a “reality shock” for new teachers that can ultimately result in them leaving the profession.

Further, within this collective learning environment students have a subordinate relationship to professors who act as role models exhibiting good practice and facilitate professional and occupational socialization (Sato et al., 2022). Issues with this are that such professors (who may have been trained and taught when schools were segregated) may themselves be inexperienced facilitating inclusive PE, have unfavorable opinions of inclusive PE, or may hold beliefs or share practices that are not compatible with current inclusive policy. The professional and occupational socialization that shape a trainee teacher’s education may therefore not be effective, and important knowledge missed, if professors do not have a particular teaching experience or their values to not align with inclusive education.

Lack of resources

PE teachers in Japan expressed concerns about the lack of resources provided to embrace inclusive kyoiku which included equipment, budget, facilities, training, and support from other teachers (Hodge et al., 2009a; Hodge et al., 2009b; Sato & Hodge, 2009; Sato et al., 2022). This is of particular concern as the number of disabled students attending public school is set to increase (Sato et al., 2022). For some teachers, lack of resources and autonomy to request necessary facilities, materials or equipment was the primary reason they struggled to facilitate inclusive kyoiku:

The most disconcerting part is the facility issue. I cannot do anything about this kind of issue. I request from the administration what I got teaching. Sometimes they cannot give me what I want. In that situation, it is very tough teaching students with and without disabilities together. My lesson plan does not work at all. It does not matter whether I teach students with mild to severe disabilities in my class, but it does matter that I cannot get equipment, have facility issues, and no supports.

(Takashi, 57; Sato & Hodge, 2009, p. 166).

The lack of facilities, equipment and resources is not particular to Japan but a Global problem that highlights wider, international issues surrounding the value and prioritizing of inclusive PE (Haegele et al., 2021). A solution to this problem in Japan, however, will be markedly different to other countries due to cultural, organizational, and social structures. For example, under the Education Law of Japan (section 22), “placement and programming decisions about students with disabilities are left to the authority of administrators of schools and the department of education and parents” (Sato et al., 2007, p. 212). Teachers do not have autonomy regarding how inclusive PE is delivered, nor are they empowered to request additional resources or support. This is reflective of Japanese social norms and behaviors regarding social order and hierarchy (Miller & Kanazawa, 2000). Thus, any suggestions to support teachers must embrace a cultural praxis approach to ensure interventions are culturally relevant and contextually meaningful within Japanese education structures.

Tensions between equality and equity

Common findings across literature were that PE teachers were agreeable to students with mild to moderate impairments being part of their class, but were inherently against students with severe impairments being included (Hodge et al., 2009a; Hodge et al., 2009b; Hodge et al., 2013; Qi & Ha, 2012; Rekaa et al., 2019; Sato & Hodge, 2009; Sato et al., 2007, 2022). While tangible issues such as lack of training, equipment, and support were noted, an important cultural consideration is that teachers in Japan are told to treat each student equally. This expectation and pressure may have influenced teachers perceptions:

I have had a student with a mild hearing impairment in my class. The student was cognitively able to communicate with me and other students, so I have not had any issues in teaching him. I treated him the same as students without disabilities in my class. If I have to teach students with other types of disabilities, I may freak out. I may not have any confidence to teach students with other types of disabilities, especially students with severe and profound disabilities … How effective I am depends on whether or not I can instruct the same way as when I teach students without disabilities in the class.”

(Rikako, 24; Sato & Hodge, 2009, p. 168)

Indeed, some teachers were against changing lessons altogether stating they did not believe this constituted inclusive kyoiku; “modifying rules or equipment is not integrated PE because regular students may not receive appropriate instruction, and disabled students cannot follow the same instructions and rules which classmates do” (Mori, 55; Sato et al., 2007, p. 221). As such, teachers were confident including students in class if they did not require any adaptations or modification; “I have confidence that I can teach a student with mild disabilities because I do not have to change lesson plans, teaching styles, or need assistants but students with “severe disabilities, if they need extra help, I lose all confidence to teach them” (Misaka, 62; Hodge et al., 2009b, p. 48). These findings reinforce the importance of culturally sensitive and reflexive research. Culturally, teachers in Japan were bound by “fairness” and “equality” in their teaching; that is, they are told to avoid treating students differently regardless of additional challenges they may face (Morimitsu, 2011). The reasoning behind this is that many students face different kinds of challenges, and it is impossible to give special treatment to all; teachers are therefore instructed to teach everyone the same way (Morimitsu, 2011). This highlights the conflict teachers may experience wanting to meaningfully include disabled students, but not wanting to treat them differently to other students by, for example, adapting practice. In essence, teachers may wish to engage in equitable practice, but are constrained to “equal” practice.

Cultural praxis calls upon us to problematize and transform taken for granted, unjust practices into more socially-just, emancipatory ways of being (Freire, 1970, 2007). A key injustice within inclusive kyoiku is this commitment to “equal” treatment of all students, and this is unjust to students and teachers alike. There has been a global call to focus on equity among disabled persons and a specific calling for equitable practice in PE (Modell & Gerdin, 2021). We believe that such a transition from equal practice to equitable practice is timely in Japan, as well as a necessary measure as teachers’ perceptions of disabled students may remain inherently negative without a more emancipatory approach.

(Un)conscious biases in the classroom

The ableist structure of inclusive kyoiku and limited freedom for teachers to engage with disabled students arguably resulted in both conscious and unconscious ableist biases. These biases influenced teachers’ practices through creating (i) a hierarchy of preferred students, (ii) implicit ableism and (iii) resistance through ninjo.

Hierarchy of preferred students

The combination of ableist structures and cultural, institutional requirements to treat students equally may have caused some teachers to place the “fault” of being unable to do inclusive PE upon the disabled students; “One of the reasons why PE teachers hesitate to do inclusive PE class is the differences in abilities because of having or not having a disability. PE teachers problematize differences in abilities because it is difficult to teach.” (Hagiwara & Kihara, 2021, p. 24). This may be the crux for why teachers showed preference or favoritism to certain students (nondisabled, those with mild or moderate impairments) over others (those with severe impairments); which inherently goes against cultural demands to treat all students equally. Preferring students with mild to moderate impairments was related to their ability to “fit in” the class without adaptations whereas students with severe impairments were deemed too difficult to include as this would require adaptations, time, specialist focus and training that teachers believed they did not have (Hodge et al., 2009a; Hodge et al., 2009b; Hodge et al., 2013; Rekaa et al., 2019; Sato & Hodge, 2009; Sato et al., 2007, 2022). Ironically, this preference of students could be interpreted as negating the cultural, institutional demands of equality, but the ability to “fit in” aligns to wider social norms of conformity in Japan where to look or to act contrary to accepted standards is met with derision (Miller & Kanazawa, 2000). Japanese teachers cannot separate themselves from their cultural background—like any other person—and therefore may be bringing perceptions of disability dictated by Japanese culture with them into the classroom. They therefore experience conflict between narratives of disability they have been brought up with and the demands of the GSY regarding including disabled children in PE.

Utilizing disability theory, the concept of a “hierarchy of impairments” is useful here. This concept brings attention to society’s propensity to divide the disabled community into subgroups of impairment to reflect almost a spectrum of “good” or “acceptable” impairment types and “bad” or “unacceptable” impairment types (Deal, 2003). This results in a particular group of people experiencing more discrimination and stigma than others, from disabled and nondisabled people alike (Deal, 2003). Oftentimes, those individuals that conform most closely to the ableist norms of a society are deemed more favorable. For example, people with impairments embodying traits “least preferred” by wider society (e.g., dependence, perceived non-contribution) experience more prejudice and difficulty being accepted and included (Thomas, 2000). This is apparent within inclusive PE in Japan, but this theory developed in the Global West and North must be applied with care and consideration of the aforementioned tensions and cultural underpinnings of this country.

Implicit ableism

Literature highlighted that teachers’ overt perceptions of inclusive PE were ambiguous; some were in favor, some indifferent and others were against inclusive PE (e.g., Hagiwara et al., 2019; Sato & Hodge, 2009; Sato et al., 2007). What is important to note, however, is the implicit, unconscious biases that teachers brought to their practice as these illuminated why teachers thought and acted as they did. Some teachers that supported inclusive PE, for example, did so as they believed this would benefit nondisabled students’ personal, social development (Fujita et al., 2009; Hagiwara et al., 2019; Kanayama et al., 2007, 2008; Nakata, 2006; Saito, 2008; Sato et al., 2007):

When disabled students are in general education classes, many students influence and socially interact with them in positive ways. Many students become thoughtful at giving them special attention … regular students look at the disabled student in strange ways. When students with disabilities were doing something wrong, the regular students did not say anything to them. They never complained at all. After a while, they started to help them.

(Mori, 55; Sato et al., p.218).

A further reason teachers supported disabled students in their class was they believed their own skills and development could be enhanced (Sato & Hodge, 2009; Sato et al., 2007, 2022), but again mainly to benefit nondisabled students (Fujita et al., 2009), rather than disabled students. No reflection or consideration of this being problematic is apparent in the literature. This is not to criticize previous literature, but to highlight the taken-for-granted notions of ableism and lack of consideration given to culture that arguably shaped teachers’ perspectives and practices of inclusive PE.

Ableism as a concept can be broken down to different types and we argue teachers that supported inclusive kyoiku were being aversively ableist. Aversive ableism is typified by a person being outwardly well-meaning and progressive, but implicitly having biased or prejudiced thoughts (Friedman, 2019). Teachers were perhaps unaware that their reasons for supporting inclusive kyoiku were little to do with disabled students’ participation and inclusion, but more to do with their own and nondisabled students’ psychological and social advancements. This situated disabled students’ purpose in PE not as an opportunity for inclusion, but a commodity to benefit an already privileged group. Drawing further from CDS, Lett et al. (2020) spoke of ableist microaggressions being subtle slights that send a derogatory message based on someone’s social status. The person committing the microaggression is often unaware of how their behavior has negatively impacted another person, instead thinking their actions are helpful (Keller & Calgay, 2010). This concept adds to aversive ablism by highlighting how PE teachers may be performing microaggressions in Japanese PE; they perceive some secondary gain or reward (Lett et al., 2020) for teaching disabled students (enhanced skills to teach nondisabled students), rather than the fulfillment or duty of teaching disabled students.

Similarly, reasons teachers were against inclusive PE were ingrained in ableism as they perceived that integrating disabled and nondisabled students would negatively affect nondisabled students’ learning experiences (Fujita et al., 2009). For example, “I would like to adjust the class activities for students with disabilities, but if I do it, I am afraid students without disabilities would not be satisfied with the contents” (Sawae, 2020, p. 35). Teachers were further concerned that disabled students would take too much time away from nondisabled students (Sato et al., 2007), and that disabled students did not belong in their class, “when students with disabilities attend my class, they are like guests or customers in my class. They are not effectively involved in my class. I tried to bring them in and teach them what they are supposed to learn, but it does not work.” (Sato & Hodge, 2009, p. 171).

For teachers explicitly against inclusive PE, such perceptions may have been shaped by implicit ableism. This holds that nondisabled people are unaware of the biases and prejudices they embody against disabled people nor how these influence attitudes and perceptions toward the oppressed group (Friedman, 2019). Within the inclusive PE in Japan literature, this was not a concept the authors explored perhaps because of the different discourses and languages that were used to study disability in Japan.

Ableist structure triggering ninjo

The conformity of teachers in Japan aligning to GSY, evaluation, and equal practices in PE is an example of gimu or social obligation to external policy and authority. However, some teachers began to question ableist structures to treat all students equally and were driven to ninjo; a human feeling such as compassion, humanity or kindness that inexplicably springs up from conflict with social obligation (Seki, 1971):

I had a chance to talk to PE teachers here and they told me that Japanese teachers show the cultural norm of Ninjo. Ninjo is a human feeling that complements and opposes the value of social obligation. Therefore, Japanese teachers thoughtfully care about students’ academic and social success. Even on the weekend, they spent time to find resources for their students. They spent tremendous effort teaching and evaluating students. However, inclusion is very difficult for students’ academic and social progress, because many teachers are frustrated, and students without disabilities and the classroom atmosphere are always changing. Japanese teachers do not like inclusive settings, because they believe that they may waste time and effort when they teach students with disabilities. (Yoichi, 24, M; Sato et al., 2022, p. 601).

This is a powerful quote highlighting the conflict teachers experienced regarding desired practice and ableist structures. As noted, Japanese teachers’ perceptions and practice are shaped by conformity to external policies and rules. They have been strongly motivated by these external factors which also informed their sense of professional obligation and role identity (Sato et al., 2007). However, Sato’s et al., (2022) contemporary study shows some resistance to gimu with teachers openly opposing the ableist structures they are forced to work within. Considering the embeddedness of social duty and conformity, this is an exciting and important experience to note as it is within sites of resistance that new more socially-just actions can be performed and there is potential for more equitable practices to be embedded.

Proposed praxis and research agenda

With the information gleaned from applying a cultural praxis approach to current inclusive PE knowledge, we can move to our final objective; creating a future research agenda based on cultural praxis. Our suggestions are but a start toward a more emancipatory knowledge base, but first we wish to fulfil an important part of cultural praxis; transformative action.

Propositions for transformative praxis

Though not initially an objective of this work, we realized that to show integrity toward a cultural praxis approach we would have to propose even some small opportunities for transformative social action (Freire, 1970, 2007) to support teachers and disabled students. Considering the hierarchical demands of the Japanese education system and collectivist conformity, we recognized praxis at this stage will be individual and we therefore propose the following for Japanese teachers’ with consideration to wider cultural norms.

Consider equality from a different lens

Do all students start on an equal path? Are some in more advantageous positions than others? Is it equality to treat every student the same if some students are in a favorable position? Considering equality as a start or end point may give teachers more room to treat disabled students in a way that supports potential without compromising cultural pressures.

Reflect on why you support/do not support disabled students in class

Potential microaggressions (Lett et al., 2020) may be seeping into practice and it’s important teachers reflect on their biases, background and practice to more meaningfully explore their motivations. Though constrained in practice, as supported through ninjo, there may be space for teachers to form their own opinions and motivations regarding disabled students that at a minimum can better support disabled students relationally.

Draw upon values of faith to direct individual interactions

Shintoism, Confucianism and Buddhism are the three main religious embedded within Japanese history and culture, and each can be used to embed inclusive practice for teaching disabled students (Nakamura, 2006). Confucianism has been embedded in Japan’s sociocultural-historical roots for over 2000 years and may culturally influence educators’ perspectives (Haight et al., 2016). Confucianism stipulates the group over the individual and the self is a self in relation to others, other peoples’ thoughts and action which explains the collectivist culture of Japan (Kayama & Haight, 2014a). Thus, disabled people who cannot contribute to the group may be marginalized (Nakamura, 2006). However, the Confucian virtue of filial piety (children’s return of parental love and sacrifice) requires informal support to be available to disabled people and over time this familial value has expanded to mutual support from across wider communities and society (Cnaan et al., 2014). This key virtue may help teachers that are having difficulty balancing desire to help disabled students while still aligning to a collectivist norm.

Similarly, Buddhism is a key faith where focus is placed on the stability of the internal self and the actions of that individual (Heim, 2007). While the Buddhist underpinning of karma may historically have led disabled people to be stigmatized for sins in a previous life (Nakamura, 2006), this is not necessarily adopted by in-service teachers today. But, a basic tenet of Buddhism, that all people are equal, deserve respect and dignity, and that all lives are connected; disability and nondisabled together (Haight et al., 2016), may be useful as a centering practice for in-service teachers.

Finally, Shintoism, or the way of Gods, is indigenous, and the oldest belief system in Japan (Ono & Woodard, 2011). Shintoism emerged and developed over thousands of years based on awe of nature where Japanese found Gods. Shintoism does not have a written scripture, and there is, in fact, only a few religious practices in Shintoism. A potentially useful spiritual orientation of Shintoism for inclusive physical education is the concept of Wa, or harmony (Konishi et al., 2009). Wa means that all people in the group contribute and be happy. In the context of inclusive physical education, the aim to achieve Wa would be well-accepted. Teachers would be expected to have disabled students to contribute to class, to achieve Wa in PE class.

Developing a Japanese ‘model’ of disability

We used ableism as a conceptual lens to problematize current inequities in inclusive PE in Japan, but more meaningful, contextual work may be done by exploring the history, language, values, politics, perceptions, and experiences of disability in Japan. Conceptualizing disability in such a way can make this phenomena more accessible and understandable for the facilitation of meaningful discussions and action. That is, by naming what disability is and is not, there is room for discourse, debate, challenge, and questions toward more empowering and socially just ways of being. A line of research developing Japanese disability scholarship will not only guide researchers and practitioners in emancipatory work, but also contribute to Global disability scholarship by showing why culturally specific models are needed to expand thought beyond ethnocentrism.

We tentatively suggest that this work be co-produced with an international group inclusive of Japanese scholars, disabled Japanese citizens and international scholars external to Japan. Our reasoning reflects the lessons we have learnt through this work and which we present in-depth in Part 1. Culture is something that becomes engrained, conditioned, and taken for granted such that we do not reflect or question the way things are. Within our work, it required the international authors to ask “why” Japanese cultural and social norms existed to critique and problematize taken for granted beliefs and practices. International and multicultural scholarship is required not only in Japan, but in all disability scholarship to do meaningful, reflective work for socially transformative change.

Who is part of the collective?

As previously noted (Miller & Kanazawa, 2000), and evidenced in this review, the collectivist culture of Japan strongly influenced what inclusive PE in Japan is and what PE teachers are expected to do. Therefore, our first recommendation is to explore more closely the different individuals that are part of this collective. From this review, we identified; (i) MEXT/government/policy makers, (ii) head teachers and administrators, (iii) PE teachers, (iv) other school teachers, (v) teaching assistants, (vi) pre-service teachers, (vii) disabled students, (viii) nondisabled students, (ix) disabled students’ parents, and (x) nondisabled students’ parents as influential members of the collective. By exploring the different motivations, influences, pressures, social roles and expectations of each group, this adds another level of understanding regarding how inclusive PE is shaped in Japan. This may be achieved, again, through a critical review of literature to ascertain past and present social relational structures that are the cultural fabric of how inclusive PE in Japan is designed, facilitated, and experienced. Thereafter, more focused research can be done with cultural sensitivity to transform potentially negative, oppressive perceptions toward more emancipatory and socially just perceptions and practices.

Inclusion of all voices

Related to ensuring the cultural sensitivity of collectivism is respected, a second recommendation we propose is for research to ensure that all members of the collective have a platform where their voices are heard. For example, a key omission we identified was that despite being the group inclusive PE is supposed to be about, disabled students have yet to be the focus of research. Global researchers highlighted that disabled students have one of the most important voices regarding inclusive PE (Coates & Vickerman, 2010), however this is, thus far, not evident in research in Japan. We do acknowledge the cultural embeddedness of hierarchy in Japan that may result in some voices being heard above others, and this may be a reason why disabled students are yet to be asked their views. We propose that a first necessary challenge researchers must do is to push back on perceived hierarchies regarding disability and youth to ensure that all voices are heard regarding inclusive PE in Japan – especially those of disabled children. This may be done through qualitatively driven research by a Japanese researcher, and we advise that to make the most impact, that results be widely shared in both academic journals as well as teachers, parents, and policy makers.

A place for equity?

A fourth recommendation for research is to more meaningfully explore the potential for reconceptualizing “equality” in teaching. A key finding from our research was the tension teachers experienced when wanting to adapt to disabled students’ needs whilst being restrained by the demands to treat students the same. Equitable practice in PE rather than equal practice has been advocated as a more empowering philosophy for both teachers and students (Johnson et al., 2022), and we urge researchers to explore what equitable teaching in Japan should look like whilst aspiring for cultural nuance and sensitivities. Such an undertaking may require a prolonged engagement in the field and multiple phases of research. To start, we recommend a co-production approach where researchers from Japan and global experts in inclusive PE work together with influential players in the collective (e.g., government, policy makers, teachers) to outline how an equitable approach in teaching may be designed and tested. This can help ensure “buy in” from such influential individuals and that research conducted on equity in this context is done with cultural specificity.

Shaping resources to support teachers

A key empirical finding of the literature was the tension and difficulty teachers experienced trying to be inclusive in practice but being restrained by cultural norms of compliance, pressures of treating all students equally and incompatible training and resources to enact inclusive teaching practice. Further, attempts to support teachers were shaped by Global North, Western frameworks and concepts that did not fit within the cultural norms of Japan. Teachers therefore still do not have culturally appropriate resources to support their inclusive practice. Teachers have explicitly stated they require equipment, resources, and support to facilitate inclusive PE and we emphasize that such resources must fit within the context of inclusive PE in Japan. Such an endeavor may be difficult however as we push for researchers to challenge and reshape the structure and delivery of inclusive PE to be more empowering. As such, resources in Japan may take some time to be developed and teachers are in need of support now. We therefore suggest a critical line of research exploring how current resources (educational and practical) that are used elsewhere could be adapted and applied in a Japanese context and with cultural specificity. Rather than an ethnocentric adoption of a framework or resource without cultural reflection, we encourage researchers to adapt models and frameworks to fit in a Japanese context. We suggest as a start to explore Universal Design for Learning and the Inclusion Spectrum (Grenier et al., 2017), and the Inclusive Planning Process (Foster & Barber, 2021) as inclusive, practical frameworks that have international recognition and are flexible enough to be applied in different contexts.

Conclusion

We welcome critique, debate, and dialogue from readers regarding this cultural praxis process as well as our interpretations of findings. Our intent was to show how a reinterpretation of previous research utilizing cultural praxis provides an additional layer of criticality regarding ethnocentric and hegemonic ontologies of disability, and that these ontologies do not work to create empowering, socially just research and practice in most countries. Cultural praxis may be the crux needed to move disability studies and work within inclusive PE toward a more culturally specific and sensitive way of doing and being.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).