Yoshihara (2013) carried out research among 97 college students and 33 college teachers in Japan who were first asked in a questionnaire and then interviewed about their attitude towards the incorporation of topics connected to gender and sexuality. Based on the questionnaire data, students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards issues like domestic violence, global warming, homosexuality, children’s rights and corporate social responsibility were significantly different. The students were genuinely open and curious about these topics and based on the initial questionnaire results, the instructors also seemed to be positive about the treatment of global and cultural issues in their lessons. However, while most of the teachers acknowledged the importance of their incorporation, they also expressed some concerns in the interviews: the fear of indoctrinating the students, not having sufficient knowledge about the issues, the lack of materials, and anxiety over unexpected consequences (e.g., disclosure of one’s sexual identity). Because of these fears, most of these teachers admitted to avoiding these issues, despite being interested in them.

In Cyprus, Evripidou and Çavuşoglu (2014) sought to gain insight into teachers’ attitudes towards the incorporation of gay and lesbian-related topics by collecting questionnaire data from 58 ELT teachers. The results indicated that the teachers’ attitudes were mainly neutral but “tending to be more positive than negative” (p. 74). They showed more positive attitudes when the topics were part of the students’ textbook, as in this way, they did not have to introduce them. The teachers also favoured the incorporation of these issues if they knew that they would arouse the students’ interest. Apart from the positive comments, there were some negative ones which highlighted the participating teachers’ concerns: they felt they were “unequipped to discuss such topics in the classroom”, did not know how to “respond to homophobic comments”, they were afraid of how the institution they work for would react if they found out they were discussing such issues in class; and finally, they were afraid “what their colleagues and students would say about them” (p. 74). The researchers also set out to examine whether there were any differences in the way teachers perceived controversial issues (CI) based on their age, gender, level of education, country of studies and years of teaching experience. A significant difference between the groups was found based on their sex and country of education: those teachers who completed their studies in the UK had more positive attitudes towards teaching sensitive issues than Greek or Cypriot university graduates and overall, female teachers had more positive attitudes than their male counterparts. Although the results were not significantly different, it is worth noting that based on the results, younger teachers, with fewer years of experience, seemed to have a more positive attitude to the incorporation of gay/lesbian issues.

Yakovchuk (2004) intended to find out how 22 qualified English teachers doing an MA in ELT in the UK perceived the incorporation of global issues in the EFL class. The participating teachers came from 14 different countries, and they had different levels of teaching experience. Most of her respondents (82%) felt that it was important to incorporate global issues in their lessons. They indicated that the successful inclusion of these topics mostly depends though on the students’ characteristics and interests, the availability of materials, and teacher knowledge.

Gürsoy and Saglam’s study (2011) focused on teacher trainees’ attitude towards the treatment of environmental issues at EFL lessons. They conducted a questionnaire study among 224 third year ELT teacher trainees at a Turkish university, which indicated mildly positive attitudes towards the use of environmental topics. Although most of the participants (98%) reported that it was the responsibility of every teacher to include environmental topics in their lessons, only roughly half of the participants (53%) felt that they had sufficient knowledge to teach these issues. It is also interesting to note that the majority of the trainees (87.5%) stated that environmental education is among the English teachers’ responsibilities, and they would like to “associate foreign language education with environmental education” (p. 50).

Macfarlane (2015) aimed to investigate teachers’ perception of the pedagogical value of controversial and taboo topics by interviewing three experienced and three novice EFL teachers. The participants agreed that the discussion of such sensitive topics has “some pedagogical relevance” (p. 13). The positive comments included a “higher level of engagement from the learners” and the potential of these issues to “widen the learners’ understanding of the attitudes and values the target culture has” (p. 13). The roles teachers assumed had a huge impact on how they viewed the incorporation of CI: those teachers whose main purpose was teaching the language frowned upon the possibility of including CI or taboo topics in classes; however, those teachers who regarded themselves as “social facilitators” (p. 13) were more welcoming of the idea of their incorporation for cultural enrichment. From the interviews, it became apparent that only few of the participants had previously introduced CI during their lessons, but they would do so, and they thought that their institution and colleagues would support them. Nevertheless, the trainee teachers were less confident about the potential support, and they did not believe in their abilities to deal with these issues.

In a pilot study into teachers’ attitudes towards teaching controversial issues, Divéki (2018) investigated 35 Hungarian EFL teachers’ attitudes using a questionnaire. Based on the results, it seems that the participants’ attitudes were predominantly positive: Most teachers feel that it is important to talk about these issues and their reasons mirror the literature on the topic. Their attitudes differ in some topics based on their age and teaching experience, but there are no significant differences in most cases. Considering the topic choice, teachers are more likely to bring CI into class if they think that their students would be interested in them, if the teachers themselves are interested in them, if they feel prepared in the topic, and if they think that they would be able to cope with potential conflicts. It is also safe to say that they deal with a wide range of issues, including global, local, intercultural, and controversial issues as well. The highest scoring controversial issues, the ones that teachers are likely to include, do not have a sensitive dimension, however, the ones that teachers tend to omit are those that might affect their students on a personal level. The topics that most teachers consider taboo for class discussion include politics, religion, and sex, i.e., the general PARSNIPS topics in Divéki’s (2018) study.

Although the above-mentioned studies were carried out in very different contexts among teachers with different levels of teaching experience, it is possible to identify some recurring problems that can contribute to a rather negative perception of teaching controversial global issues. Some common obstacles include teacher knowledge about the issues (Divéki, 2018; Gürsoy & Saglam, 2011; Yakovchuk, 2004; Yoshihara, 2013), teachers’ pedagogical skills to deal with them (Divéki, 2018; Evripidou & Çavuşoglu, 2014; Gürsoy & Saglam, 2011; Macfarlane, 2015; Yoshihara, 2013), the fear of unexpected situations during the lessons (Divéki, 2018; Evripidou & Çavuşoglu, 2014; Yoshihara, 2011) and the lack of materials (Yakovchuk, 2004; Yoshihara, 2013). Other factors that seem to influence teachers’ decision of incorporating global topics into the classroom include their students’ interests (Divéki, 2018; Macfarlane, 2015), the coursebook (Evripidou & Çavuşoglu, 2014), and support from their colleagues and the parents (Evripidou & Çavuşoglu, 2014; Macfarlane, 2015).