This doctoral research builds on my MSc study at the University of Gothenburg, which investigated Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) views on how Global Citizenship Education (GCED) can serve as a framework to promote LGBTQIA+ inclusion and what changes they recommend in teacher education to better support inclusive pedagogies. It now expands into a comparative, theory-building project at the University of Bologna, exploring how GCED can be reimagined and integrated into secondary teacher education to promote LGBTQIA+ students’ wellbeing. Framed within a critical-interpretative epistemology, the project interrogates the dominant framing of GCED as a neutral or universalist model and reconstructs it as a context-responsive, queer-inclusive framework. It is grounded in Queer Theory (Butler), Critical Pedagogy (Freire and hooks), and Intersectionality (Crenshaw), conceptualising teacher education as a space of both normative reproduction and potential social transformation. The core research question guiding this multiple case study is: What visions, practices, and structural barriers shape the integration of GCED oriented toward LGBTQIA+ students’ wellbeing in initial teacher education across different European contexts? The study examines three national cases selected for their contrasting approaches, namely Italy, the UK, and Sweden. Italy, where LGBTQIA+ inclusion in education lacks national guidelines and is often left to individual educators or activist networks; the UK, marked by regional disparities—e.g., Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence mandates LGBTQIA+-inclusive education, while England’s RSE framework faces uneven implementation and local resistance; Sweden, where the National Agency for Education requires teacher education programmes to address gender and sexual diversity across curricula. The research adopts a qualitative multiple case study design combining (a) semi-structured interviews with approximately 10–15 teacher educators, policymakers, and recently qualified teachers per country, and (b) document analysis of teacher education policies, curricula, and national guidelines. The qualitative sample includes teachers who completed their training within the last three-five years, ensuring temporal proximity to current educational frameworks. Data will be analysed using critical thematic analysis and interpreted through a cross-case comparative perspective. Early findings in Italy from the MSc phase, revealed a pervasive institutional silence around LGBTQIA+ topics, limited formal training, and a disconnect between GCED's aspirational goals and classroom realities. Teachers showed personal commitment but felt constrained by systemic barriers, including fear of backlash and lack of guidance. These insights inform the current project's focus on the structural and cultural conditions that either enable or hinder inclusive pedagogies. While results are not yet available, the study anticipates identifying both convergences and divergences across European contexts, particularly regarding how GCED is mobilised—or sidelined—in relation to LGBTQIA+ rights. The project will generate theory-informed, context-sensitive recommendations to enhance teacher education curricula and reposition GCED as a framework for inclusive educational justice. 

This study adopts a qualitative, interpretative research design grounded in critical epistemology. It employs a comparative multiple case study approach across three national contexts—Italy, the UK, and Sweden—selected for their contrasting frameworks for LGBTQIA+ inclusion in teacher education. Data collection will include: Semi-structured interviews (approx. 10–15 per country) with teacher educators, policymakers, and recently qualified teachers (within 3–5 years post-certification). Document analysis of national curricula, teacher education policies, and institutional training frameworks related to both GCED and diversity/inclusion. Interviews will explore participants’ understandings, practices, and perceptions regarding GCED and LGBTQIA+ inclusion. Thematic analysis, informed by Queer Theory (Butler), Critical Pedagogy (Freire, hooks), and Intersectionality (Crenshaw), will guide both within-case and cross-case analysis, allowing for the emergence of context-specific themes and comparative insights. The study is informed by insights generated in a previous MSc project focused on the Italian context.

While data collection is ongoing, preliminary findings from the Italian case (MSc phase) reveal an institutional silence surrounding LGBTQIA+ issues, limited formal training, and a mismatch between the aspirational goals of GCED and classroom realities. Teachers often show personal commitment but operate within systems marked by a lack of structural support, guidance, and fear of backlash. The broader study expects to identify: Key visions and barriers shaping the integration of queer-inclusive GCED in teacher education. Cross-national contrasts, particularly in policy mandates, curricular inclusion, and educator preparedness. How GCED is interpreted, mobilised, or resisted in relation to LGBTQIA+ students’ wellbeing. The project aims to generate theory-informed, context-sensitive recommendations to enhance teacher education curricula and reposition GCED as a transformative framework for educational justice, equity, and belonging.

André, G., & Westerveen, L. (2024). Contrasting approaches to educational equality: An intersectional perspective on educational policies in Belgium. Journal of Education Policy, 1–19. Boylan, M. (2018). Disrupting Oppressive Views and Practises through Critical Teacher Education : Turning to Education : Turning to Post-Structuralist Ethics. In The SAGE Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 369–386). SAGE Publications. Carter Andrews, D.J., Richmond, G., & Floden, R. (2018). Teacher education for critical democracy. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(2). 114–117. Clark, C.T. (2010). Preparing LGBTQ-allies and combating homophobia in a U.S. teacher education programme. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 704–713. Coulter R.W.S., Colvin, S., Onufer, L.R., Arnold, G., Akiva, T., D’Ambrogi, E., Davis, V. (2021) Training Pre-Service Teachers to Better Serve LGBTQ High School Students. J Educ Teach. 47(2):234-254. Coulter, R.W.S., & Miller, E. (2018) Professional Development and Research to Improve School Practises and LGBTQ Health in US Schools. American Journal of Public Health; 108(4):443–444. Demissie, Z., Rasberry. C.N., Steiner, R.J., Brener, N., McManus, T. (2018) Trends in Secondary Schools’ Practices to Support Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Students, 2008-2014. Am J Public Health; 108(4):557-564. Freire, P. (1996). Chapter 2: Pedagogy of the oppressed (revised). New York: Continuum Heinz, M., Keane, E., & Davison, K. (2017). Sexualities of initial teacher education applicants in the Republic of Ireland: Addressing the hidden dimension of diversity in teaching. J. Educ. Teach. 43, 99–116. Hurtado-Mellado A, Rodríguez-Hidalgo AJ (2024). Homophobic Bullying, Traditional Bullying, Cyberbullying, and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in Adolescents According to Their Sexual Orientation. Behav Sci (Basel). 14(8):729. Kearns, L.L., Mitton-Kukner, J., & Tompkins, J. (2014). LGBTQ awareness and allies: Building capacity in a bachelor of education programme. Canadian Journal of Education, 37(4), 1–26. Murphy G., & Ní Dhuinn M. (2022) The possibilities and potential of a pedagogical partnership between university and community-based initial teacher educators for LGBTQ+ specific inclusion and diversity. Front. Educ. 7. Parent MC, Johnson KE, Russell S, Gobble T. (2020) Homophobic Bullying and Suicidal Behavior Among US Heterosexual Youth. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 59(2):205-208.e1; Tarozzi M., Inguaggiato C., (Eds.) (2018) Teachers’ Education in GCE: Emerging Issues from a Comparative Perspective. Ricerca pubblicata all’intento del progetto “Global Schools”, Trento, Italy: Provincia Autonoma di Trento. UNESCO (2019). Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying, UNESCO, Paris. UNESCO. 2020. Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all. Paris, UNESCO.