Does peace education really make a difference?

Abstract

An inconsistency is pointed out between formidable and thus discouraging hurdles facing peace education in the context of intractable conflicts and actual, encouraging research findings of such programs. It is suggested that the hurdles pertain to the most deep-seated and thus unchangeable convictions constituting the backbone of a group's collective narrative. On the other hand, the change-objects affected by peace education programs pertain to more peripheral attitudes and beliefs, which are more easily changeable, more weakly associated with behaviors, and thus less consequential. This hypothetical possibility is briefly examined from both a theoretical and practical perspective, leading to three clusters of research questions: (a) Is the proposed distinction between central and peripheral attitudes and beliefs applicable to peace education programs?, (b) How stable are changes of peripheral attitudes in the absence of changes of the more central ones?, and (c) To what extent can only long-term, socialization-like programs affect core beliefs and attitudes?Peace education in contexts of intractable conflict faces formidable challenges that are unique to such contexts (Bar-Tal, 2004;Salomon, 2004a) and thus raise questions about its possible effectiveness. In this article I wish to discuss one such question and formulate researchable hypotheses that might provide explanations for some of the perplexing issues facing peace education. The kinds of peace education programs referred to here are the ones deliberately designed as relatively structured in-school or out-of-school programs with specific goals, such as changed attitudes, stereotypes and prejudices, and increased tolerance and understanding of the "other side" (e.g., Burns & Aspeslagh, 1996).The context of intractable conflicts was described by Azar (1990) as conflicts based on "ethnic hostilities crossed with developmental inequalities that have a

Reducing prejudice and promoting positive intergroup attitudes among elementary-school children in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

“…Indirect contact interventions include programs such as extended contact (Turner, Hewstone, Voci, Paolini, & Christ, 2007), internet contact (Alvídrez et al, 2015;Amichai-Hamburger et al, 2015) and para-contact (Harwood, Hewstone, Hamburger, & Tausch, 2013). Information-based interventions include interventions such as diversity training (Cameron & Turner, 2010) and peace education (Salomon, 2006). To our knowledge, there has been no prejudice-reduction studies focusing exclusively on social-cognitive skill training, few programs did manipulate children's perspective taking and attempted to instill empathy in them (Lustig, 2003;Slone, Tarrasch, & Hallis, 2000).…”

Priming effects of a reconciliation radio drama on historical perspective-taking in the aftermath of mass violence in Rwanda

“…Perspective-taking may transform mutually exclusive narratives of the conflict into more inclusive narratives. Indeed, because of its potential, perspective-taking has become an important tool in conflict resolution workshops (Kelman, 2010), intergroup dialogues (Dessel & Rogue, 2008;Nagda, 2006), and peace education (Adwan & Bar-On, 2004;Salomon, 2006). However, most of these programs target small groups, suffering from the problem of transferring effects to the whole population.…”

A Pedagogy of Social Justice Education: Social Identity Theory, Intersectionality, and Empowerment

“…We would also need to distinguish short-from long-term ripple eff ects. (49) Although there are data to support the notion that certain educational programs defi nitively lead to minor and major transformations among participants (Salomon 2004), some of these positive results are measured immediately after a program ends, which does not address long-term eff ects. As for evidence gathered months or even years after a program concludes, there are scholars who contend that transformations seem to evaporate altogether (Kupermintz and Salomon 2005).…”