This qualitative case study investigates how three rural secondary social studies teachers conceptualize and enact global citizenship education (GCE) through curricular–instructional gatekeeping. Grounded in Thornton’s framework of teacher autonomy and constraint and informed by Pashby et al.’s typology of neoliberal, liberal, and critical GCE outlooks, the study draws on two rounds of semi-structured interviews in one southeastern U.S. district. Findings reveal that teachers favored pragmatic, community-compatible forms of GCE emphasizing empathy, perspective taking, geographic awareness, and workforce preparation. Political polarization and local conservatism created climates of constraint that encouraged moderation and avoidance of advocacy. State standards simultaneously limited time for deeper inquiry and offered protection when teaching controversial issues. Participants largely reflected neoliberal and liberal orientations, with critical outlooks absent. The study extends gatekeeping theory to rural contexts and highlights the need for teacher preparation that supports globally minded yet context-responsive instruction.
AndreottiV. O. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 3, 40–51.
2.
AnyonJ. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162(1), 67–92.
3.
ArchibaldM. M.AmbagtsheerR. C.CaseyM. G.LawlessM. (2019). Using zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, Article 1609406919874596.
4.
BeckerJ. M. (1982). Goals for global education. Theory Into Practice, 21(3), 228–233.
5.
BulloughR. V.JrGitlinA. D.GoldsteinS. L. (1984). Ideology, teacher role, and resistance. Teachers College Record, 86(2), 339–358.
6.
ByrnesR. S. (1997). Global education’s promise: Reinvigorating classroom life in a changing, interconnected world. Theory Into Practice, 36(2), 95–101.
7.
CornblethC. (2015). What constrains meaningful social studies teaching? In ParkerW. C. (Ed.), Social studies today (pp. 266–274). Routledge.
8.
EvansR. (2004). Social studies wars: What should we teach the children?Teachers College Press.
GlesneC. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5th ed.). Pearson.
11.
GroenkeS. L.NesporJ. (2010). “The drama of their daily lives”: Racist language and struggles over the local in a rural high school. In SchafftK. A.JacksonA. Y. (Eds.), Rural education for the twenty-first century (pp. 51–71). Penn State Press.
12.
GrossmanD. L. (2017). Global education. In ManfraM. M.BolickC. M. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of social studies research (pp. 518–568). Wiley Blackwell.
13.
HanveyR. G. (1982). An attainable global perspective. Theory Into Practice, 21(3), 162–167.
14.
HawleyT. S.WhitmanG. M. (2020). Fear and learning in student teaching: Accountability as gatekeeper in social studies. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 44(1), 105–115.
15.
HeilmanE. E. (2008). Including voices from the world through global citizenship education. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 20, 30–32.
16.
JennerB. M.MyersK. C. (2019). Intimacy, rapport, and exceptional disclosure: A comparison of in-person and mediated interview contexts. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(2), 165–177.
17.
KennaJ. L.RussellW. B. (2018). The culture and history of standards-based educational reform and social studies in America. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 1(1), 26–49.
18.
KimM. S. (2014). Doing social constructivist research means making empathic and aesthetic connections with participants. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22(4), 538–553.
19.
KobakhidzeM. N.HuiJ.ChuiJ.GonzálezA. (2021). Research disruptions, new opportunities: Re-imagining qualitative interview study during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, Article 16094069211051576.
20.
LeeC. J. G. (2012). Reconsidering constructivism in qualitative research. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(4), 403–412.
21.
McNeilL. (1983). Defensive teaching and classroom control. In AppleM. (Ed.), Ideology & practice in schooling (pp. 114–143). Temple University Press.
22.
MerryfieldM. M. (1998). Pedagogy for global perspectives in education: Studies of teachers’ thinking and practice. Theory & Research in Social Education, 26(3), 342–379.
23.
MerryfieldM. M. (2002). Rethinking our framework for understanding the world. Theory & Research in Social Education, 30(1), 148–151.
24.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage.
25.
MoffaE. D. (2019). A paradox of place: Civic education in the rural South. Social Studies Research and Practice, 14(1), 105–121.
26.
MoffaE. D. (2020). Teachers’ perspectives on global citizenship education in central Appalachia. Journal of International Social Studies, 10(3), 40–65.
27.
MoffaE. D. (2022). Hard history in hard contexts: Teaching slavery and its legacy in a Neo-Confederate space. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 46(4), 293–302.
28.
MyersJ. P. (2006). Rethinking the social studies curriculum in the context of globalization: Education for global citizenship in the US. Theory & Research in Social Education, 34(3), 370–394.
29.
MyersJ. P.RiveroK. (2020). Challenging preservice teachers’ understandings of globalization: Critical knowledge for global citizenship education. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 44(4), 383–396.
NesporJ. (2008). Education and place: A review essay. Educational Theory, 58(4), 475–489.
34.
OliffeJ. L.KellyM. T.Gonzalez MontanerG.Yu KoW. F. (2021). Zoom interviews: Benefits and concessions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, Article 16094069211053522.
35.
OxleyL.MorrisP. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2013.798393
36.
PashbyK.da CostaM.SteinS.AndreottiV. (2020). A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education. Comparative Education, 56(2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2020.1723352
37.
RapoportA. (2010). We cannot teach what we don’t know: Indiana teachers talk about global citizenship education. Education, Citizenship & Social Justice, 5(3), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197910382256
38.
RapoportA. (2020). The C3 framework and representation of global citizenship in state standards. In MyersJ. P. (Ed.), Research on teaching global issues: Pedagogy for global citizenship education (pp. 51–68). Information Age.
39.
ReillyJ.NiensU. (2014). Global citizenship as education for peacebuilding in a divided society: Structural and contextual constraints on the development of critical dialogic discourse in schools. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 44(1), 53–76.
40.
RomanowskiM. H. (1996). Issues and influences that shape the teaching of US history. Advances in Research on Teaching, 6, 291–312.
41.
SaldañaJ. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
42.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.
43.
SteinS. (2015). Mapping global citizenship. Journal of College and Character, 16(4), 242–252.
44.
StuttsC. (2020). Practice, purpose, and master narrative: Teachers face race and the South in lesson design. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 44(3), 291–305.
