Peace Education

Independent Research Project

Stephanie Knox Cubbon

Exploring the Culture of Peace at the University for Peace

June 29, 2010

Virginia Cawagas, Advisor

The concept of a culture of peace has been developed in recent years, and has gained greater attention through the United Nations (UN) declaration of the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence for the Children of the World, 2000-2010. While the concept of a culture of peace is well-developed and researched, the area of culture of peace assessment is relatively new. The University for Peace (UPEACE), as a UN-mandated graduate level institution, has a mandate to contribute to international peace and security by providing humanity with an institution of higher education devoted to peace-related studies. The current research explores the culture of peace at UPEACE at the local, institutional level, in order to elucidate the strengths and weaknesses of the UPEACE, and to contribute to local- and institutional-level culture of peace assessment. To conduct this research, a culture of peace framework was developed in conjunction with a community working group and literature review. This framework was then used to develop a comprehensive questionnaire, which was administered to the student body in order to explore students’ experiences of the culture of peace. Following the preliminary survey results, a discussion forum was held. Research results revealed a general trend that community members developed knowledge and values in most framework areas, but that not all community members developed skills in the framework areas, and sometimes the theory of what is taught and the practice of daily life were not consistent. The research offers policy, research, and educational suggestions through a UPEACE Community Culture of Peace Action Plan that can contribute towards strengthening the culture of peace at UPEACE.

University for Peace

Acknowledgements

To all who have taught me.

To all UPEACE community members, who contributed more to this project than

I could have ever hoped. I extend my deepest gratitude to you.

To my Peace Education classmates, who supported and encouraged me

throughout the year, and from whom I learned so much.

To Virginia Cawagas, Swee-Hin Toh, and Dina Rodriguez, for their constant sup-

port, generous spirits, and deep commitment to peace education.

To my parents, for giving me every opportunity in life, including this one.

To my husband Alistair, for his support, encouragement, love, and for helping

me to reach my highest potential each day.

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 7

2. History of a Culture of Peace 9

2.1 Culture of Peace as it Evolved at the United Nations 9

2.2 Evolution of culture of peace: Analysis by Groff and Smoker (1996) 11

3. The University for Peace 12

3.1 UPEACE and contributions to the UN Culture of Peace programme

12

3.2 UPEACE: The setting 13

4. Statement of the Research Topic 14

4.1 Purpose 14

4.2 Statement of the problem 15

4.3 Research questions 15

5. Research Methodologies 15

5.1 The Researcher’s Role16

5.2 Worldviews 16

5.3 Data Collection 16

5.4 Sampling 17

5.5 Data Analysis 17

5.6 Assumptions, Ethical Issues and Constraints 17

6. Literature Review 18

6.1 Culture of Peace Conceptual Frameworks 18

6.1.1 UNESCO framework 19

6.1.2 The flower model 20

6.1.1 The Integral model 21

6.2 Culture of Peace Indicators and Assessment 22

6.2.1 David Adams 22

6.2.2 Other culture of peace indicators and assessment tools 24

6.3 UPEACE related documents 24

6.4 UPEACE independent research projects 25

7. Culture of Peace Framework for this study 25

7.1 Education 26

7.2 Environmental sustainability 27

7.3 Human rights 28

7.4 Democratic participation 29

7.5 Equality between men and women 29

7.6 Understanding, tolerance, and solidarity29

7.7 Participatory communication and the free flow of information and

knowledge 30

7.8 International peace and security 30

7.9 Local peace and security 31

7.10 Inner peace 31

8. Working group on culture of peace framework and indicators 32

9. Questionnaire: Findings and analysis 37

9.1 Personal information for statistical purposes 38

9.2 A culture of peace through education 41

9.3 Environmental sustainability 46

9.4 Human rights 47

9.5 Equality between men and women 51

9.6 Democratic participation 52

9.7 Understanding, tolerance and solidarity 55

9.8 Participatory communication and the free flow of information and

knowledge 61

9.9 International peace and security 63

9.10 Local peace and security 64

9.11 Inner peace 67

4

9.12 Culture of peace 68

10. Feedback session and discussion 72

10.1 Discrimination72

10.2 Culture of peace comparison 73

10.3 Communication 73

10.4 Inner peace 73

11. Conclusions 74

12. UPEACE Culture of Peace Action Plan 78

12.1 Policy 78

12.2 Further research 80

12.3 Education and trainings 80

13. References 87

12. Appendices 93

A. Summary of UPEACE contributions to UN Decade Reports 2001-2005

93

B. Proposal for the Community Liaison Office 99

List of Figures

Figure 1: Flower Model 20

Figure 2: The Integral Model of Peace Education 21

Figure 3: Participants by Programme 39

Figure 4: Participants by Region 40

Figure 5: Participants by Gender 41

6

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of Culture of Peace Indicator Working 32

Table 2: Teaching Methods 42

Table 3: Programmes at UPEACE 43

Table 4: Environmental Sustainability 46

Table 5: Human Rights 47

Table 6: Equality between Men and Women 51

Table 7: Democratic Participation at UPEACE 52

Table 8: Democratic Participation in the Classroom 54

Table 9: Understanding 55

Table 10: Tolerance 56

Table 11: Solidarity 57

Table 12: Peer Pressure for School-related Events 58

Table 13: Institutional Pressure for School-related Events 59

Table 14: Peer Pressure for Social Events 59

Table 15: Harassment 60

Table 16: Communication at UPEACE 61

Table 17: Interpersonal Communication at UPEACE 62

Table 18: International Peace and Security 63

Table 19: Safety 64

Table 20: Personal Security Violations 65

Table 21: Conflict Resolution 66

Table 22: Inner Peace 67

Table 23: Awareness of a Culture of Peace Prior to UPEACE 68

Table 24: Knowledge, Values and Skills for Cultivating Peace Acquired at UPEACE 69

Table 25: Culture of Peace at UPEACE 69

Table 26: Summary of Participants’ Recommendations 71

Table 27: Summary of UPEACE Culture of Peace Strengths and Weaknesses 74

1. Introduction

     One of the greatest challenges humanity faces today is to create a cul-

ture of peace, a world free from violence, poverty, injustice, inequality, and

fear. A world free from conflict is not necessarily possible nor desirable, as con-

flict itself is not inherently negative, and can lead to positive change and trans-

formation; rather, we must find peaceful ways of handling conflict. However,

creating a peaceful world is more than simply finding peaceful solutions to con-

flict, or in other words, achieving negative peace. It also requires cultivating

positive peace, which encompasses the elimination of structural violence and

the promotion of principles such as equality, justice, and understanding. A cul-

ture of peace encompasses both negative and positive peace, and is a process

of dismantling the current culture of war and promoting human rights, multicul-

turalism, solidarity, respect, and environmental stewardship from local to

global levels. 

    A culture of peace is not an endpoint, but rather a process and a vision;

it is not static, but rather dynamic, always changing based on how a commu-

nity changes (Adams, 2009). According to Adams (1995), "a culture of peace

consists of values, attitudes, behaviors and ways of life based on nonviolence,

respect for human rights, intercultural understanding, tolerance and solidarity,

sharing and free flow of information and the full participation of women" (16).

This process does not imply the absence of conflict. Diverse communities will

always encounter conflict, and it is not the conflict itself that is negative, as

conflict can create tension that leads to creative solutions and actually improve

our lives; it is when we handle conflict violently that it becomes problematic. A

culture of peace is a constantly evolving process of nonviolence, in contrast to

the current culture of war in which violence and injustice are pervasive. 

8

Education is a key tool in both dismantling the culture of war and culti-

vating a culture of peace, and this is the primary goal of peace education. Ac-

cording to the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation

(UNESCO) charter (1945), “Since war begins in the minds of men, it is in the

minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.”  Through edu-

cation, we can learn the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for creating a

culture of peace.

The principle that education is crucial to creating global peace is the

foundation of the United Nations-mandated University for Peace (UPEACE), an

institution of higher learning devoted to master’s degree programs in peace-re-

lated specializations. The present research explores the culture of peace in this

unique environment.

2. History of a culture of peace

2.1 Culture of peace as it evolved in the United Nations    

   While the concept of a culture of peace has been developed over the

past two decades at the UN, the founding of the UN itself was a major step to-

wards building an international culture of peace. The UN's mission statement

includes the negative peace element of saving "succeeding generations from

the scourge of war," as well as human rights, justice and social progress

(United Nations, 1945). At its inception, the UN's concept of peace was broader

than merely the cessation of violent conflict.

In 1986, UNESCO convened a meeting of scientists in Seville, Spain to

discuss the question of whether violence is a natural human tendency. The at-

tending scientists agreed upon five principles, which are:

    1. It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a ten-

dency to         

    make war from our animal ancestors.

    2. It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent

behaviour is

    genetically programmed into our human nature.

    3. It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human

evolution     

    there has been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than

for other kinds of        behaviour.

    4. It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a 'violent

brain'. 

    5. It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by 'instinct'

or any                    single motivation (Adams, et. al., 1986).

From these principles, the scientists concluded that "the same species who in-

vented war is capable of inventing peace" (Adams, et. al., 1986). It followed

that that war and peace are essentially cultural, human-created phenomena,

and that humanity has the power to set our course, which led to the develop-

ment of the concept of a culture of peace

     This concept was first elaborated at the International Conference on

Peace In the Minds of Men, held in Yamoussoukro in 1989. The document that

resulted from the meeting was the Yamoussoukro Declaration on Peace in the

Minds of Men, which elaborated a programme for peace. Through this declara-

tion, the Congress invited states, intergovernmental and nongovernmental or-

ganizations, the scientific, educational, and cultural communities of the world,

and all individuals to "help construct a new vision of peace by developing a

peace culture based on the universal values of respect for life, liberty, justice,

solidarity, tolerance, human rights, and equality between women and men" (In-

ternational Conference on Peace In the Minds of Men, 1989). This declaration

directly referenced the Seville Statement, and recommended that UNESCO

should work towards disseminating the Statement and developing explanatory

material (ICPIMM, 1989). Furthermore, the document stated that the endorse-

ment of the Seville statement was the first stage in refuting the myth that or-

ganized human violence is biologically determined (ICPIMM, 1989). Heeding

this call, UNESCO began to mainstream the culture of peace concept into the

organization's work, which included the publication of From a culture of vio-

lence to a culture of peace (1996), and in 1997, the adoption of "Towards a cul-

ture of peace" as the theme for its transdisciplinary program. 

Subsequently, in 1998, the UN General Assembly drafted a resolution en-

titled Culture of Peace (A/RES/53/13, 1998), which acknowledged UNESCO's

work towards a culture of peace, and called for the promotion of a culture of 10

peace based on the principles established in the Charter of the United Nations.

The General Assembly then proclaimed 2000 to be the International Year for a

Culture of Peace (A/RES/52/15, 1998), and 2001-2010 to be the International

Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World

(A/RES/53/25, 1998; henceforth referred to as "The Decade"). To further elabo-

rate the concept, the UN General Assembly passed the Declaration and Pro-

gramme of Action on a Culture of Peace (A/RES/53/243, 1999), which created

eight program areas under the culture of peace theme: a culture of peace

through education; promoting sustainable economic and social development;

respect for all human rights; promoting equality between men and women; pro-

moting democratic participation; advancing understanding, tolerance, and soli-

darity; promoting participatory communication and the free flow of information;

and promoting international peace and security.

     As part of the International Year of a Culture of Peace, UNESCO (1999)

launched an awareness-raising campaign with Manifesto 2000, a personal com-

mitment by Nobel Peace Prize laureates that put the culture of peace principles

into a form that can be integrated into observance and practice in daily life.

The principles of the Manifesto 2000 are to:

“Respect the life and dignity of each human being without discrimi-

nation or prejudice;

Practise active non-violence, rejecting violence in all its forms:

physical, sexual, psychological, economical and social, in particular

towards the most deprived and vulnerable such as children and

adolescents;

Share my time and material resources in a spirit of generosity to

put an end to exclusion, injustice and political and economic op-

pression;

Defend freedom of expression and cultural diversity, giving prefer-

ence always to dialogue and listening without engaging in fanati-

cism, defamation and the rejection of others;

Promote consumer behaviour that is responsible and development

practices that respect all forms of life and preserve the balance of

nature on the planet; and

Contribute to the development of my community, with the full par-

ticipation of women and respect for democratic principles, in order

to create together new forms of solidarity” (UNESCO, 1999).

The Manifesto was signed by over one percent of the world's population (75

million people) during the year (UNESCO, 1999). 

  The Decade initiated a concerted, unified effort among the UN bodies,

Member States, international organisations, and civil society to promote a

global culture of peace. The emphasis of the Decade, according to its initial re-

port, was to put children at the centre and to priority to be given to education,

and more specifically, education for peace (UN General Assembly, A/55/377,

2000). For each year of the Decade, UN bodies, as well as some States and civil

society organizations, reported their efforts to the UN General Assembly and in-

dicated the actions they had been taking in the culture of peace framework.

These formal reports indicate the patterns within the Decade, and show trends

of greater involvement throughout the UN, and greater collaboration between

UN agencies. 

  While the UN has played a key role in promoting action for a culture of

peace, civil society movements have also been instrumental in taking actions

and implementing programs for a culture of peace. Some civil society efforts

were documented in the UN Mid-term report (A/RES/60/279, 2005), as well as

an independent civil society world report (Culture of Peace Foundation, 2005).

Certainly for all the efforts that were reflected in the report, more efforts ex-

isted that were not accounted for in these reports.

This year, 2010, is the conclusion of the Decade, and will be concluded

with final reports by the UN and civil society, as well as a civil society confer-

ence to be held in December in Spain. These reports and events will show the

progress that has been made in the Decade, and the areas that require empha-

sis for moving forward.

2.2 Evolution of culture of peace: Analysis by Groff and Smoker

(1996)

    In the UNESCO publication From a culture of war to a culture of peace

(1996), Groff and Smoker use six perspectives of a culture of peace that are

based on the evolution of the peace concept. These perspectives of the culture

12

of peace evolve as: the absence of war; the balance of forces in the interna-

tional system; for negative (no war) and positive peace (structural violence);

for feminist peace on macro and micro levels; for peace with the environment;

and for holistic inner and outer peace (1996). Their analysis of the culture of

peace concept traces how the concept of peace has evolved over time in West-

ern peace research, from the absence of war to the more holistic perspectives

that include dimensions of gender, the environment, and inner peace. Groff

and Smoker also propose working on culture of peace initiatives at local and

global levels as a key strategy for creating global cultures of peace (1996).

As the concept of peace has evolved over time, so has the concept of a

culture of peace. The concept of a culture of peace varies across cultures and

across time. By simultaneously working at the individual and international lev-

els, and applying a holistic approach, we can create an international culture of

peace. The University for Peace operates at both levels, by educating individu-

als to promote international peace.

3. The University for Peace  

     In efforts to strengthen efforts for international peace, the UN General As-

sembly established the University for Peace in Costa Rica through a petition by

then-president of Costa Rica, Rodrigo Carazo (General Assembly, 1979). The

university's mission explicitly states that it exists to

"…provide humanity with an international institution of higher edu-

cation

for peace and with the aim of promoting among all human beings

the spirit of understanding, tolerance and peaceful coexistence, to

stimulate cooperation among peoples and to help lessen obstacles

and threats to world peace and progress, in keeping with the noble

aspirations proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations". (Presi-

dential Commission for the University for Peace, 1982: 251).

During its first twenty years of existence, UPEACE went through periods

of high and low activity, but did not maintain a consistent student body. The

UPEACE Council is the governing body of the university, as established in the

UPEACE Charter (A/RES/35/55, 1980). The Council includes the Rector, two rep-

resentatives appointed by the UN Secretary-General and UNESCO Director-

General, two representatives of the host country government, the UPEACE

Chancellor, and ten representatives “of the academic community or other per-

sons eminent in the field of peace and security” (A/RES/35/55, Annex, Article 6,

1980). In 2001, the UPEACE Council adopted a 5-year revitalisation plan that in-

cluded four major goals:  the development and teaching of a coherent aca-

demic programme and its dissemination through state-of-the-art technologies;

building up a critical mass of students and faculty at UPEACE Headquarters; the

extension of UPEACE activities into major regions of the world in response to its

global mandate; and the establishment of a sound financial and management

structure (University for Peace, 2005).  This revitalisation marked a new begin-

ning for UPEACE, in which it would expand its reach and impact towards in-

creasing international peace.

    

3.1 UPEACE and contributions to the UN Culture of Peace Pro-

gramme

Simultaneously, the Decade began, and the 2001 report highlights the

role of UPEACE in the Decade (UN General Assembly, A/56/349). Education for

peace was established as a priority of the Decade (A/55/377, 2001), and UP-

EACE, as one of the UN bodies involved with education, along with UNESCO

and UNICEF, was called on to play a key role in the Decade and efforts towards

education for peace in a culture of peace. The 2001 report outlines the univer-

sity's plans during the Decade as they correspond to the eight program areas.

Through the Decade reports, UPEACE's efforts towards a global culture of

peace can be traced, and it is apparent that the university undertook many ef-

forts and actions that contribute to promoting an international culture of peace

(See Appendix A: Summary of UPEACE contributions to the UN Decade Reports

2001-2005).

       These reports show how UPEACE has been contributing to UN efforts to-

wards a culture of peace at the international level, indicating clear actions in all

culture of peace programme areas that the university has initiated. However,

they do not tell us what the culture of peace at UPEACE is like, nor if there is a

culture of peace at UPEACE at the local level. As noted by Groff and Smoker

(1996), it is important to work towards a culture of peace at all levels, and

hence a further exploration of how UPEACE is working towards a local culture of

peace is needed.

14

3.2 UPEACE: The setting

     UPEACE is a place where creating a culture of peace is not only desirable

but necessary for its greater aims. UPEACE is a unique, UN-mandated gradu-

ate-level institution which offers master’s programmes focused on peace, and

which draws students from approximately 60 different countries and even

more cultures. The university's setting, about 30 kilometers outside of San

José, Costa Rica in the small farming community and protected area of El

Rodeo, provides a unique opportunity for cultivating a culture of peace.  The

isolation and natural beauty of the campus contribute to its uniqueness and

tranquility, and while it is situated in the Costa Rican context, the overall cul-

ture is very international due to the diverse population of its student body, fac-

ulty and staff. UPEACE has a unique ability to have a culture of peace at the lo-

cal, campus level, and for community members to develop skills in promoting a

culture of peace and to return to their home countries to implement these

skills. Just as individuals can cultivate inner peace so that they can act more

peacefully, communities can cultivate peace in order to contribute to peace in

the wider world.

UPEACE has the potential to promote both a local and international culture of

peace. 

     Another unique aspect of the community is that its composition is always

changing. The one-year master’s programmes result in very little continuity

within the student body, with the exception of the American University stu-

dents, who overlap with two different graduating classes. Staff are also primar-

ily on one-year contracts, although many are renewed every year, and some

students are hired as staff upon graduation. The ever-changing population of

the community means that the culture of the community is also frequently

changing; however, this does not preclude it from developing a distinct culture,

a culture of peace or a sense of community. While there are many sub-cultures

at UPEACE, for example between programmes, or between students, staff and

faculty, there is also a unifying, overarching community culture. This would be

similar to other diverse communities, whose cultures are also be dynamic and

include subcultures, and are in constant contact with other cultures. As Avruch

(1998) notes, individuals in a population are organized in many different group-

ings, and each group has the potential for its own culture; thus no population

can be described by a single culture, and hence the need for the notion of sub-

culture. This does not mean that we cannot talk about the culture of a popula-

tion; it means that we need to be specific that this culture will be experienced

differently and to a different degree by individuals within that population. Thus

while at UPEACE there are many different subcultures, there are some factors

that lead to a community culture. Some institutional factors may contribute to

a culture of peace, such as policies, programmes, and practices, and through

institutional memory, may contribute to a certain level of cultural continuity.

Furthermore, as the UPEACE mission is to promote peace throughout the world,

it could be assumed that members who are drawn to the community are seek-

ing to cultivate global peace. UPEACE is a multicultural community whose

members are seeking professional development in order to promote interna-

tional peace.

     Another remarkable factor about UPEACE is that it is at a very interesting

stage of its development as it marks its thirtieth anniversary. Although it has

existed for 30 years, it is only since 2001 that it has been granting master’s de-

grees on a regular basis to a significantly sized student body. Since 2000, the

university has been growing at a very rapid rate, both in the student population

and in the programs offered. From 2003 to 2009, the student enrollment in-

creased from 22 to 164 students, and over the course of the decade, the num-

ber of programmes offered increased from two to ten (University for Peace,

2008). At this stage in its growth, it would be an ideal point in time for the uni-

versity to develop self-awareness, to better understand its present situation, so

that it can move forward to a clear vision of the future. As UPEACE alumnus

Rizzi Carlson (2009) notes, it is “a most opportune moment for...the formal es-

tablishment of a culture of peace on campus, as well as the transformational

shift that will add even more meaning to UPEACE’s 30th birthday.”

    A culture of peace at UPEACE is desirable in and of itself, and because

the students, staff and faculty have the opportunity to create at UPEACE what

they would like to see in the outside world. UPEACE, as a learning lab, can be a

center where we learn to create a culture of peace, and are better equipped to

foster one when we leave to our respective regions. Not only is this desirable, it

is critical for UPEACE to embody the culture of peace that it seeks its learners

to build in the outside world.

     The year 2010 signifies two important events for a culture of peace: the

final year of the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence 16

for the Children of the World and the 30th anniversary of the founding of the

UN-mandated University for Peace. It is a timely opportunity to study the cul-

ture of peace at UPEACE. 

4. Statement of the Research Topic

4.1 Purpose    

     The purpose of this research is to explore the culture of peace at the Uni-

versity for Peace, and to contribute to the larger field of community-level and

institutional-level culture of peace analysis. In investigating the culture of

peace at UPEACE, the strengths and weaknesses of the current culture of

peace at UPEACE can be determined, and recommendations can be made for

interventions based on a culture of peace analysis in order to strengthen the

culture of peace. With respect to the strengths that are found, they can be fur-

ther supported and also shared with other communities so that their culture of

peace may become stronger as well. Weaknesses that are found can also be

addressed and areas which are weaker can be improved upon. This research

will also contribute to the field of local culture of peace assessment, as this is a

new field. The audiences that will profit are the UPEACE community, as well as

any community or institution that is seeking to assess its progress towards cul-

tivating a culture of peace. 

4.2 Statement of the Problem

The problem that this research is addressing is that while a culture of

peace may exist at the University for Peace, we do not know to what extent it

exists because it has not yet been studied. In order to progress towards a cul-

ture of peace, we need to know the current status of the culture of peace to

move forward in a holistic, coherent, intentional way.

4.3 Research questions    

    To accomplish the purposes of this research, I seek to answer the following

central questions:

• Is there a culture of peace at UPEACE?

• What are students' experiences of a culture of peace at UPEACE?

• What policies, practices and behaviors contribute to cultivating a cul-

ture of peace at UPEACE? 

• What policies, practices and behaviors are detrimental to the culture of

peace at UPEACE?

• How can we assess or measure the culture of peace at UPEACE?

5. Research Methodologies and Assumptions

The research methods used to answer these questions are summarized

as follows:

1. Culture of Peace Framework and Indicator working group

2. Questionnaire (qualitative and quantitative data)

3. Presentation/Feedback session

To answer these questions, first I engaged in a literature review, and

compiled a conceptual framework for a culture of peace to begin my study. I

then held a working group in the UPEACE community on the culture of peace

framework and indicators. After this, I designed a comprehensive qualitative

and quantitative survey to gauge students' experiences of a culture of peace at

UPEACE. Then I conducted a presentation/feedback session with the members

of the community to present the preliminary results and to receive feedback

from the community as to what these results mean and the process as a whole.

Simultaneously, I analysed relevant UPEACE documents and policies, such as

the Student Bill of Rights and the Non-Discrimination Policy.

5.1 The Researcher’s Role

As I am a member of the UPEACE community, and thus know personally

most participants, and my role as a community member could compromise my

objectivity. However, I address this by making clear my conscious partiality

from the outset, which Creswell (2009) says is a technique to clarify the bias of

the researcher, and which creates a more open and honest narrative. I also feel

that my role as a UPEACE student will increase my effectiveness as a re-

searcher because I am familiar with the community and its culture. My role as

community member/researcher is also consistent with Adams' (2009) recom-

mendations for culture of peace assessment, that the assessment should come

from within the community and be conducted by community members rather

than outsiders.

18

5.2 Worldviews 

     The worldviews that are informing my research are a combination of con-

structivism, pragmatism, and participatory action. Pragmatism arises out of ac-

tions, situations and consequences rather than conditions, and is problem fo-

cused, thus using all available tools to analyze the problem (Creswell, 2009).

The pragmatic worldview is conducive to the mixed methods approach that I

will be using. The participatory action world view is in line with the nature of

this research, as I tried to involve community members in each step to explore

the culture of peace at UPEACE. The participatory action world view is also

compatible with culture of peace assessment principles (Adams, 2009; see Lit-

erature Review).

5.3 Data collection   

      In order to explore the culture of peace at UPEACE, I used a mixed meth-

ods approach, applying both quantitative and qualitative data collection and

analysis.  The participants in this study are current UPEACE community mem-

bers, with a primary focus on students through the questionnaire, and inclusion

of staff and faculty in the working group and feedback session.

     I began with a two-hour working group to look at the culture of peace

framework and collectively develop indicators for the UPEACE environment.

Participation of community members in the development of indicators ensures

that the culture of peace assessment reflects the campus community.  The in-

dicators were then used to develop the questionnaire questions.

     Following the indicator working group, I developed a questionnaire to as-

sess students’ experiences of a culture of peace. Through the questionnaire I

accumulated quantitative data, using a Likert scale (for example, strongly

agree/strongly disagree statements), several yes/no questions, as well as quali-

tative data, through open-ended comment boxes at the end of each section.

     Following the questionnaire collection, I presented the preliminary results

at a gathering of students, staff, and faculty (called a "brown bag" in UPEACE

parlance; see Chapter 10).

5.4 Sampling

For the working group, I used convenience sampling, which was most ap-

propriate here, as participants contributed up several hours of their time. I

compensated participants by providing coffee, tea, snacks so as to encourage

participation. For the questionnaire I used voluntary response sampling, as I

sent the survey to the entire student body, and participants had the choice to

participate. For the presentation and feedback session, I again used conve-

nience sampling, based on community members who were available, able and

willing to attend the session.

5.5 Data analysis

     I used Survey Monkey to analyze the quantitative data, which allowed

me to get an overall picture of how community members view the culture of

peace at UPEACE. For the qualitative data, which will provide greater detail

about the culture of peace at UPEACE, I coded the data by clustering by

themes in my analysis.     

5.6 Assumptions, Ethical Issues and Constraints

      A key assumption to this project is that cultivating a culture of peace is de-

sirable to the UPEACE community. This is based on the idea that all students,

staff, and faculty have chosen to work and/or study at this institution which

bears "peace" in its name, which has a mandate to support world peace, and

which is affiliated with the United Nations.

     Another key assumption is that there is some degree of continuity with

the community composition over time. While the student body changes year to

year, and certainly has a different culture every year, I am assuming that there

are some characteristics that will be similar from one population to the next.

For example, the student body is always highly diverse, coming from an ever-

increasing number of countries and cultures as the student body grows. For

these reasons, I assume that while the student body changes overall, students

are consistently culturally diverse and have an interest in peace.

I assumed that respondents were familiar with the concepts in the ques-

tionnaire, and it was up to the respondents to interpret the terms, and thus I

did not provide definitions of terms used in the questionnaire. I thought it was

important for respondents to identify with the terms as they understood them.

However, this may affect the results, as what one term (for example, "discrimi-

nation") means to one person might mean something else to another, particu-

larly of a different cultural-linguistic background. However, as all participants 20

are master’s degree candidates in the field of peace and conflict studies, I as-

sumed that they were familiar with these terms.

      In order to ensure ethical treatment of all participants, I clearly communi-

cated the goals and objectives of the research in the working group, question-

naire, and presentation. I asked participants for their consent, and guarantee

anonymity and confidentiality. Participants had the opportunity to withdraw at

any time.  I also gained approval to conduct this research from the Vice-Rec-

tor. 

   A constraint of this survey was its focus on the student population.

While the students make up the largest percentage of the UPEACE community,

they are the component of the community which changes the most. The staff

and faculty are the more consistent, stable part of the population. Due to time

limitations, as well to the limitation of length of this research project, I chose to

focus on students, although staff and faculty contributed to the working group

and feedback session. Ideally, in future culture of peace assessment projects,

all community members should be included. This will be explored in greater de-

tail in the recommendations section (Chapter 12).

    

6. Literature Review

In order to study the culture of peace at the University for Peace (UPEACE),

I have identified four main areas for theoretical research: frameworks for a cul-

ture of peace, culture of peace indicators and assessment, UPEACE-related doc-

uments, and relevant independent research projects written on UPEACE by

alumni relating to a culture of peace.

6.1 Culture of Peace Conceptual Frameworks    

    A number of different frameworks have been developed to conceptualize a

culture of peace. For this research, I have identified three key models for inves-

tigation: UNESCO (1999), the flower model (Toh & Cawagas, 2002), and the In-

tegral Model of Peace Education (2004).

While these frameworks provide useful guidelines for a culture of peace,

it is important to note that there is not a singular concept of culture of peace.

Groff and Smoker (1996) discuss the existence of different definitions for "cul-

ture" and "peace", noting that definitions can be narrow or broad for both

terms. These terms are inherently ambiguous and can be interpreted in many

different ways, ranging from a narrow definition focusing on the arts, to

broader definitions that include all socially learned behavior, and hidden ele-

ments such as values and underlying assumptions (Groff and Smoker, 1996). 

     As such, the concept of a “culture of peace” may have different mean-

ings across cultures. Brenes (2004) notes that the values and principles of a

culture of peace "can be expressed in diverse ways in different cultures" (79).

According to Wessells (1994), "it would be culturally insensitive to prescribe an

exact meaning of 'culture of peace'" (6). As there is not a singular definition for

culture, nor a single definition of peace, there is not a singular concept for a

culture of peace, which should have flexibility for cultural interpretation.

These issues are particularly relevant with respect to the UPEACE com-

munity, which has a very high level of cultural diversity, and requires the con-

cept of "culture of peace" at UPEACE to have room for cultural plurality. For this

reason, the UPEACE community was consulted before deciding upon the cul-

ture of peace framework and indicators used in this study, which are elabo-

rated in Chapter 7. 

The following models provide frameworks for conceptualizing a culture of

peace.

6.1.1 UNESCO Framework

According to the UN Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of

Peace, a culture of peace is:

"a set of values, attitudes, traditions, and modes of behaviour and

ways of life based on:

a) Respect for life, ending of violence and promotion and practice

of non-violence through education, dialogue and cooperation;

b) Full respect for the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity

and political independence of States and non-intervention in mat-

ters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any

State, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and in-

ternational law;

c) Full respect for and promotion of all human rights and funda-

mental freedoms;

d) Commitment to peaceful settlement of conflicts;

22

e) Efforts to meet the developmental and environmental needs of

present and future generations;

f) Respect for and promotion of the right to development;

g) Respect for and promotion of equal rights and opportunities for

women and men;

h) Respect for and promotion of the right of everyone to freedom of

expression, opinion and information;

i) Adherence to the principles of freedom, justice, democracy, toler-

ance, solidarity, cooperation, pluralism, cultural diversity, dialogue,

and understanding at all levels of society and among nations;

and fostered by an enabling national and international environment

conducive to peace" (A/RES/53/243, Art. 1, 1999). 

From this definition, the UN General Assembly elaborated the programme

of action, which includes the eight areas of education, sustainable social and

economic development, human rights, gender equality, democratic participa-

tion, participatory communication and the free flow of information, advancing

understanding, tolerance and solidarity, and international peace and security

(A/RES/53/243, 1999). As UNESCO was named the lead agency for promoting

the culture of peace, this framework is henceforth referred to as the UNESCO

model throughout this paper.

     The UNESCO model is perhaps the most widely-known framework for a

culture of peace, as it is disseminated by the UN. The framework is comprehen-

sive in its breadth, international in its scope. An important addition to this

model is the area of participatory communication and the free flow of informa-

tion, which is not explicitly found in the other models.

6.1.2 Flower model

  Figure 1: Flower Model (Toh & Cawagas, 2002)

 The holistic flower-shaped culture of peace model developed by Toh and

Cawagas (2002) has "educating for a culture of peace" at the center, and six

petals for: 1) dismantling the culture of war; 2) promoting human rights and re-

sponsibilities; 3) living with justice and compassion; 4) building cultural respect,

reconciliation and solidarity; 5) living in harmony with the earth, and 6) culti-

vating inner peace.

      This model offers several notable contributions. First is the area of dis-

mantling a culture of war, which most closely corresponds to promoting inter-

national peace and security in the UNESCO model. Ideally, in a culture of

peace, international security would be equated with total disarmament. The

flower model (Toh & Cawagas, 2002) goes farther by explaining that real inter-

national peace and security will require dismantling the culture of war, ranging

from disarmament at an international level, to nonviolent conflict resolution at

micro levels, such as in communities and schools, as well as promoting atti-

tudes and values of non-violence. This petal includes disarmament education.

     Secondly, the idea of "living in harmony with the earth" correlates to

"sustainable social and economic development," but goes deeper by highlight-

ing the harmonious relationship with the environment. The word "develop-

ment" has very different connotations and definitions, and the growth-centered

approach to development is arguably the source of much environmental degra-

dation. While these two themes imply similar ideas, the flower model (Toh &

24

Cawagas, 2002) emphasizes the need to live in a way that is not only sustain-

able, but in union with the natural world.

Finally, the inclusion of inner peace as a component to a culture of peace

is an important addition of this model. The petal of inner peace is not in the

UNESCO framework, and is a notable omission. The UNESCO framework

touches on interpersonal relations, between people, but not intrapersonal rela-

tions, within one’s self.

6.1.3 Integral Model of Peace Education

    Figure 2: Integral Model of Peace Education (Brenes, 2004: 83)

Another model for a culture of peace is the Integral Model of Peace Edu-

cation (IMPE; henceforth referred to as “the Integral model”), which was devel-

oped by the University for Peace and Central American governments during the

first phase of the Culture of Peace and Democracy Program, from 1994 to 1996

(Brenes, 2004). The Integral Model is a mandala-shaped, person-centered

framework, which incorporates the contexts of peace with oneself, with others,

and with Nature, at ethical, mental, emotional and action levels (Brenes, 2004).

This model "considers 'peace' as a state of integrity, security, balance and har-

mony" (Brenes, 2004: 83), and essentially considers the individual as the start-

ing point for peace. According to this model, an individual lives within three re-

lational contexts: to the self, to others, and to nature, and violence or peace

can be expressed in each one. 

     This model also emphasizes the importance of personal or inner peace,

with respect to the body, heart and mind, and also includes more public

spheres, and explicitly includes political and social participation, democratic

participation, and a culture of democracy. Its approach to ecological peace is

similar to the flower model (Toh & Cawagas, 2002), although more explicit in

its definition, but explaining that peace with nature encompasses ecological

consciousness, biodiversity, and natural balance. It is interesting that this

model was actually developed at the University for Peace, indicating that these

themes are important to the university, and that the university is contributing

to a culture of peace by facilitating the development of such theoretical mod-

els. Another interesting component of this model is that it explicitly includes

health, which is unique to this model compared to the other models. 

The Integral model includes principles from the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights (1948) and the Earth Charter (1997), which takes an ecological

sustainability-focused approach to a culture of peace. According to the Earth

Charter preamble (1997), at this critical moment in Earth's history, "we must

join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for

nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace." The

Earth Charter contains sixteen principles, guided by the following themes: re-

spect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, social and eco-

nomic justice, and democracy, nonviolence and peace. Each of the sixteen

themes is elaborated with more specific actions for how the principle translates

into action. In the Earth Charter, the principle of universal responsibility goes

beyond our relationship one another to include future generations and the bio-

sphere (Brenes, 2004). 

In Chapter 7, I will discuss how these conceptual frameworks informed

the development of the conceptual framework used for this study.

6.2 Culture of Peace Indicators and Assessment      26

     While the area of culture of peace indicator research is quite new, a num-

ber of indicator and assessment tools have been developed to assess a culture

of peace at local, national, and global levels. 

6.2.1 David Adams

David Adams, one of the scientists who developed the Seville Statement

(Adams, et. al, 1986), director of the UNESCO Culture of Peace program from

1992, and coordinator of the 2005 civil society World Report on a Culture of

Peace (Culture of Peace Foundation, 2005), writes extensively on assessing a

culture of peace in his book World Peace through the Town Hall (2009). This

book was highly influential in the development of this research project.

    Adams writes that

 "it is essential to measure progress toward a culture of peace at

the local level. But it should not be reduced to a simple formula, or

calling in experts to do the job. Instead, it needs to be a process of

regular assessment to know if the initiatives we take are successful

or not, what works and what doesn't work, and whether we are

making progress" (2009: 93). 

In measuring progress at the local level, the assessment, he elaborates, should

be "participatory and educational," involving the people who are concerned

with the various areas of a culture of peace (2009: 93). Adams states that "this

reflects the fundamental nature of culture itself which is a process that involves

the entire society and in which everyone is constantly learning and teaching at

the same time" (2009: 93). Thus the process of assessing a culture of peace

should be a learning experience for all participants.

     Furthermore, the assessment of progress towards a culture of peace

should not be used to "'prove' that one entity...is better than another" (Adams,

2009: 94), but rather should be used to compare the entity to itself year after

year, to see if progress is being made or not. 

     Beyond the measuring of progress, another useful outcome of will be of

new ideas that emerge for initiatives to address the weaknesses (Adams, 2009:

94). In the case of the present research, numerous ideas came out in the stu-

dent survey, which will be elaborated in Chapter 9.

     Adams also advocates for basing the assessment on the UNESCO pro-

gramme areas. He asserts that "this is the only way to attain universally valid

results in a subject which otherwise would be politicised and controversial"

(2009: 95).

     As the process is educational, “citizens involved in measuring a culture of

peace will come to learn what the culture of peace is all about" (Adams, 2009:

98).  Many members of the UPEACE community have heard of the concept of a

culture of peace prior to enrollment (to be elaborated Chapter 9), and a culture

of peace is discusses briefly in the foundation course, which is mandatory for

all masters students, and for which Toh (2007) is required reading. While mem-

bers have some initial knowledge and familiarity with the concept, UPEACE pro-

vides great opportunity to learn more from one another about a culture of

peace.

     Adams (2009) also notes that while holistic culture of peace assessment

is a new area, each of the programme areas have been studied through indica-

tors. For example, another institution may develop indicators on sustainability

or human rights that could be modified for the UPEACE context, or could serve

as a guide. 

     It is also important, in looking at the different programme areas, to not

lose sight that the programme areas are interrelated parts of the broader cul-

ture of peace. Adams writes that "in distinguishing the various programme ar-

eas, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that they are all interrelated to a

general overall culture of peace (2009: 109). While exploring the culture of

peace, the programme areas are useful for analysis and the development of

projects and interventions; however it is important to retain an awareness that

they are interrelated parts of a holistic conception of a culture of peace.

6.2.2 Additional culture of peace indicators and assessment

tools

    At the local, institutional level, Cawagas and Toh (1987) developed a check-

list to assess the culture of peace at schools in the Philippines. While the con-

text for this research – UPEACE - is very different from the setting for their

questionnaire - primary and secondary schools in the Philippines - this checklist

helped to inform the structure of my questionnaire. Their questionnaire uses

the flower model as a conceptual framework, and addresses knowledge, val-

ues, and practices, within the curriculum, administrators, teachers, students

and community. Candice Carter (2005) has developed peace education stan-28

dards for students, teachers, teacher educators and administrators, grouped by

knowledge, skills, and disposition. While these standards are education-spe-

cific, can be used to explore the education practices of the university. 

     Joseph de Rivera (2004) developed a template for assessing a culture of

peace at a national level, and has used this template to assess the culture of

peace the United States. De Rivera proposes using “objective” national indica-

tors such as GDP and crime rates, in addition to questionnaires that measure

attitudes, norms, and “emotional climate” to examine a national culture of

peace (2005: 2). To address the objectivity of national indicators such as GDP,

infant mortality, and crime, which I question, is beyond the scope of this re-

search. While these particular statistics are not relevant to the local, institu-

tional level, the areas that he looks at can be used as a guide for areas that

can be explored at UPEACE. The current research thus focused on his second

recommendation, the survey of attitudes, norms, and emotional climate of the

community in regards to a culture of peace, which I explored through the stu-

dent questionnaire.

     Robyn Stewart (2007, 2008), UPEACE alumnus and Director of Canadian

Centres for Teaching Peace has developed a culture of peace assessment tool/

report card based on the principles of the UNESCO Culture of Peace Program

(see Appendix 2). This assessment tool served as a guide for the working group

on indicators (to be explored in Chapter 7). For her master’s thesis at UPEACE

(2007), Stewart conducted a thorough analysis of correlates of peace cultures.

6.3 UPEACE-related documents

    Also relevant to this study are UPEACE documents, such as the founding doc-

uments of the university (Presidential Commission for the University for Peace,

1981) and including UN documents that relate to the university and to a culture

of peace. The UPEACE Charter includes its mission statement, as declared in

Article 2 under "Aims and Purposes," which is clearly in line with contributing to

a global culture of peace through higher education (UN General Assembly,

1980).  Furthermore, in a provisional report by Reardon & Diallo (1980), the au-

thors asserted, "in that the human mentality is primarily conditioned by cul-

ture, it is suggested that University for Peace add to its integrity principles the

concept of culture." These documents help to verify that a culture of peace is

important to the University for Peace and provide support for the culture of the

university to be examined in greater detail. The aforementioned UN documents

relating to the Decade (see Chapters 2 & 3) further strengthen the importance

of a culture of peace to UPEACE, its mission, and the greater mandate of the

United Nations, but do not reflect the culture of peace at UPEACE. Another key

document is the Student Handbook, which includes policies such as the Stu-

dent Bill of Rights and the Non-Discrimination Policy (UPEACE, 2009).

6.4 UPEACE independent research projects

     In addition to Stewart (2007), other UPEACE students have incorporated

the theme of culture of peace at into their independent research projects, sev-

eral of whom have examined the UPEACE context. Rizzi Carlson (2009) carried

out focus-group research on creating a peacebuilding centre on campus, which

would serve as an institutional centre for the culture of peace. His research

(2009) indicates that a centre for a culture of peace is desired by the commu-

nity. By examining the culture of peace at UPEACE, we can better determine

what aspects of the culture of peace need greater support, perhaps through

such a center or other institutional entities.  

     Wichman (2009) conducted a survey on inner peacefulness with stu-

dents, faculty and alumni, and found that 68% of participants perceive individ-

ual peacefulness as important to the creation of cultures of peace. Vaughn

Chaverri (2007) explored health initiatives toward a culture of peace at UP-

EACE, and made health-specific recommendations to increase a culture of

peace at UPEACE. 

     This research indicates the importance and desire of the UPEACE commu-

nity to have a culture of peace on campus. As these research efforts reflect the

UPEACE community from 2006-2009, they indicate a continued interest within

the community on a culture of peace, not only by the researchers but by the

participants, all of whom are community members. While the community itself

changes membership to a certain degree each year, the interest in developing

a campus culture of peace remains continuous.

     Through this literature review, I found that little research has been done

in developing indicators for a culture of peace, and that the culture of peace at

UPEACE has not been measured or studied in detail. Through the present re-

search, I intend to contribute to the greater field by further developing indica-

tors for a culture of peace at a community or institutional level, and to contrib-30

ute to the UPEACE community by measuring the culture of peace so that we

can strengthen it.

7. Culture of Peace Conceptual Framework for this Study 

     With respect to the culture of peace framework for this study, I have

adapted and expanded the UNESCO model. I chose this model to adapt be-

cause it is the most universally recognized, and has been used as a model for

other culture of peace assessments (Stewart, 2008; Adams, 2009). Adams

(2009) also emphasised the relevance of the UNESCO model in attaining uni-

versal valid results. However, I will also include inner peace practices in my

study, as I and others (Toh & Cawagas, 2002; Brenes, 2004) feel that this is ex-

tremely important in the cultivation of a culture of peace, and is an omission of

the UNESCO model. Toh notes that “there is a growing consensus that the in-

ner dimensions and sources of peaceful values and practices should not be ig-

nored” (2007: 12). With respect to the sustainable development program area,

I will focus on the environmental practices and policies of the university, incor-

porating the ecological emphasis of the flower (Toh & Cawagas, 2002), and In-

tegral (Brenes, 2004) models.

     Another area of the UNESCO framework requiring adaptation is interna-

tional peace and security. For most communities and institutions, the area of

international peace and security might not apply directly. However, to UPEACE,

it does, as the mission of UPEACE aims to provide "humanity" with an institu-

tion of higher education and to "lessen obstacles and threats to world peace

and progress" (UN General Assembly, A/RES/35/55, 1980). Thus rather than

omit this category in its entirety, I chose to keep it and add an additional ele-

ment of "local peace and security," focusing on campus, but including El Rodeo

and Ciudad Colon, where most community members live. Thus while the UN-

ESCO framework is the primary source used to inform my study, ultimately the

framework is a unique combination of the UNESCO framework and others to

provide a holistic approach to analysis. 

  For this study, a culture of peace will be assessed in the following areas:

1. Education

2. Environmental sustainability

3. Human rights

4. Democratic participation

5. Equality between men and women

6. Understanding, tolerance and solidarity

7. Participatory communication and the free flow of information and knowledge

8. International peace and security

9. Local peace and security (i.e. campus, El Rodeo, Ciudad Colon)

10. Inner peace

Below I will examine each of these areas in more detail.

7.1 Education

According to the UNESCO framework, a culture of peace through educa-

tion entails “revising the educational curricula to promote qualitative values,

attitudes and behaviours of a culture of peace, including peaceful conflict-reso-

lution, dialogue, consensus-building and active non-violence” (UNESCO, 2010).

This educational approach should also encompass the other seven programme

areas. Although UNESCO does not refer to this as “peace education,” Adams

(2009), who has been a key figure in the development of the UN Culture of

Peace initiatives, uses “peace education” to describe the education section in

his chapter on Assessing Progress Towards a Culture of Peace at the Local

Level (106).

The field of peace education has been deeply influenced by the work of

Brazilian pedagogue and educator Paolo Freire. According to Freire (1970), key

elements of the educational process are reforming the student-teacher rela-

tionship to be horizontal and equal; using dialogue as a pedagogical tool; valu-

ing the knowledge and experience that students bring to the classroom; and

praxis, or continuous engagement with theory and practice. These elements

are elements are crucial to peace education, and as such, are crucial to educa-

tion for a culture of peace.

In referring to the UNESCO report to the UN Secretary General in 2000,

Adams writes:

It also proposes that the culture of peace should be modeled in the

policies and practices of the classroom, the school, and other learn-

ing environments, providing opportunities for all members of the

school community to participate in democratic decision making and

governance processes (2009: 107).

32

Thus, when learning about peace, it is important for the policies and classroom

practices of UPEACE to reflect the values of a culture of peace.

According to Cawagas (2007), educating for a culture of peace requires

four crucial pedagogical principles: holism, or viewing multiple dimensions of

conflict and violence with a holistic vision; values formation, or explicitly teach-

ing for preferred values such as compassion, justice, equality and nonviolence;

dialogue, which entails a more horizontal teacher-learner relationship as both

educate and learn from one another; and critical empowerment, through which

learners develop critical consciousness and seek to take transformative action.

Cawagas emphasizes values development for a culture of peace, and dialogue

as a pedagogical tool.

Notably, the UN Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace (A/RES/

53/243, 1999) directly refers to the University for Peace in the education sec-

tion, in which it calls to:

Expand initiatives to promote a culture of peace undertaken by in-

stitutions of higher education in various parts of the world, includ-

ing the United Nations University, the University for Peace, and the

project for twinning universities and the United Nations Educa-

tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization Chairs Programme (6).

This illustrates UPEACE’s direct call from the UN to expand its efforts towards a

culture of peace through education.

While education itself is a programme area, education for a culture of

peace will include educating for all other programme areas.

7.2 Environmental sustainability

According to UNESCO (2010), sustainable economic and social develop-

ment includes “reducing economic and social inequalities, by eradicating

poverty and by assuring sustainable food security, social justice, durable solu-

tions to debt problems, empowerment of women, special measures for groups

with special needs, environmental sustainability...” However, issues of social in-

equality, poverty, social justice, and special measures for groups with special

needs can be incorporated into the human rights section, and empowerment of

women in the equality, section. Therefore I chose to focus this section explicitly

on environmental sustainability, as I felt other aspects of social and economic

development were captured by other areas. Furthermore, the flower model

(Toh & Cawagas, 2002) and Integral Model of Peace Education (Brenes, 2004)

also focus more explicitly on environmental sustainability.

Environmental sustainability is extremely important to a culture of peace,

and is integrally linked to all other aspects of a culture of peace. Toh (2006) an-

alyzes how education for sustainability relates to education for a culture of

peace by examining the role of sustainability in each of the areas of the flower

model for conceptualizing a culture of peace (Toh & Cawagas, 2002). The cur-

rent pace of environmental degradation is related to the culture of war, as mili-

tarism and overconsumption lead to resource depletion and inequitable distri-

bution, and resulting in environmental destruction. The relationships between

environmental degradation and physical and structural violence are complex

and intertwined, and Wenden (2004) notes the links between social and ecolog-

ical peace. Thus environmental sustainability is a key component of promoting

a culture of peace.

7.3 Human Rights

According to UNESCO (2010), “human rights and a culture of peace are

complementary: whenever war and violence dominate, there is no possibility to

ensure human rights; at the same time, without human rights, in all their di-

mensions, there can be no culture of peace.” The link between human rights

and a culture of peace is so imbedded that they cannot be separated one from

the other. All three culture of peace frameworks discussed above include a hu-

man rights component.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN General Assembly, 1948)

is the most fundamental international human rights document, which outlines

basic rights of all human beings. The document states that the “recognition of

the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of

the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”

(UN General Assembly, 1948). Cawagas & Toh (2004) discuss five major types

of human rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural.

According to Brenes, fraternity is a key value necessary for human rights,

which entails “a recognition of the need to balance the universal protection of

each person, with each person’s consciousness of his/her universal responsibil-

ity towards others, towards other living beings, and towards the natural sys-

tems of the Earth” (2004: 81). Human rights necessitate responsibility, and it is 34

through a balance of exercising rights and responsibilities that human rights

are promoted.

Human rights, as universally valid principles to which all humans are enti-

tled, are inextricably part of a culture of peace.

7.4 Democratic participation

The UNESCO model and Integral Model both explicitly incorporate demo-

cratic participation as being a component of a culture of peace. UNESCO states

that democratic principles, practices, and participation in all sectors of society

are “indispensable foundations for the achievement and maintenance of peace

and security” (2010). According to Brenes (2004: 85), “culture of democracy

refers to the critical and responsible participation of all citizens in promoting

the common good and security of all humans and the community of nature.”

Brenes goes on to say that as we do not live in isolation, “we need to be able to

participate critically and autonomously in the making of decisions at all…lev-

els” (2004: 85). Democratic participation is important for a culture of peace so

that all participants can be empowered to contribute to this culture.

7.5 Equality between men and women

The UN General Assembly explained the importance of this programme

area to a culture of peace as follows:

“As recognized by the Fourth World Conference on Women

(Beijing 1995), there is an inextricable linkage of peace with equal-

ity between women and men. Only this linkage of equality, devel-

opment and peace can replace the historical inequality between

men and women that has always characterized the culture of

war and violence” (A/53/370, 1998).

As inequality between men and women is a major component of the culture of

war, equality between men and women is a crucial part of a culture of peace.

Synott (2004: 27) writes that “the situation of women around the world re-

mains one of the most important challenges to the development of an egalitar-

ian society where relationships are based upon concepts of universal human

rights.” Synott also notes that domestic violence is represents the most com-

mon form of violence in the world (2004). In order to promote a culture of

peace, promoting equality between men and women is absolutely necessary.

7.6. Understanding, tolerance and solidarity

“Advancing understanding, tolerance, and solidarity” is a program area

from the UNESCO framework, and these concepts are implicitly and explicitly

included in the Integral (Brenes, 2004) and flower (Toh & Cawagas, 2002) mod-

els. UNESCO states that “to abolish war and violent conflicts we need to tran-

scend and overcome enemy images with understanding, tolerance and solidar-

ity among all peoples and cultures. Learning from our differences, through dia-

logue and the exchange of information, is an enriching process” (UNESCO,

2010).

Numerous United Nations documents note the importance of understand-

ing. The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO, 2001) asserts

that “respect for the diversity of cultures, tolerance, dialogue and cooperation,

in a climate of mutual trust and understanding are best guarantees of interna-

tional peace and security.” Understanding is critical for preventing intercultural

conflict, and for promoting local and global cultures of peace.

According to the UNESCO’s Declaration on Principles of Tolerance (1995),

tolerance is defined as

“…respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our

world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. It is

fostered by knowledge, openness, communication, and freedom of

thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in difference. It is

not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement. Toler-

ance, the virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the replace-

ment of the culture of war by a culture of peace.”

This document goes on to include solidarity as an integral part of educa-

tion for tolerance. UNESCO itself was founded on the principle of solidarity, and

its constitution states that “peace must therefore be founded, if it is not to fail,

upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind” (UNESCO, 1945). Toh

(2007) writes that, “in situations of unequal power relations and

injustices, cultural groups that are already economically and politically advan-

taged have a social

36

responsibility to be in solidarity with marginalized groups and communities”

(10). Here the emphasis is not solidarity within a group, but rather with other

groups, and specifically groups that are disadvantaged. The principles of under-

standing, tolerance and solidarity are deeply intertwined and are necessary

components of a culture of peace.

7.7. Participatory communication and the free flow of informa-

tion and knowledge

Communication is crucial for peace, as miscommunication is so often a

source of conflict. When knowledge and information can flow freely, communi-

cation is clearer, and misunderstanding is less likely to happen. According to

UNESCO, “freedom of information and sharing of knowledge and information

are indispensible for a culture of peace” (UNESCO, 2010). Furthermore the free

flow of information is directly linked to democratic participation, as participants

require knowledge and information in order to make informed decisions, and

also facilitates understanding.

7.8. International peace and security

International peace and security is the macro-level of a culture of peace.

In order to create long-lasting, global peace, it is necessary to address interna-

tional peace and security issues. In a culture of peace, security would be

achieved through dialogue and international understanding, rather than

through armed force. As Renner (2005) notes, “weapons do not necessarily

provide security” (5). Renner outlines a new security policy for a more secure

world, which must be preventative in nature, cross-cutting, integrative and un-

derstanding of the root causes of conflicts (2005). It is important to note the

links between militarized security and structural injustices which occur when

national resources are diverted from meeting basic human needs to military

spending. As the global military complex is related to human rights violations,

gender inequalities, environmental degradation, disarmament is a critical com-

ponent of a culture of peace.

7.9. Local peace and security

This component to a culture of peace is similar to 7.8, but examines se-

curity issues in a local context. Adams (2009) notes that international peace

and security does not generally apply to local contexts, and can be applied as

two separate programme areas: security (public safety) and solidarity with

other communities on an international level. In the UPEACE context, both inter-

national and local peace are relevant to a culture of peace. For the purposes of

this research, local security will include campus security, local security (includ-

ing El Rodeo and Ciudad Colon), and conflict resolution on campus.

7.10. Inner peace

Inner peace is the micro-level component of the culture of peace. While

not addressed in the UNESCO framework, this is a component of both the

flower (Toh & Cawagas, 2002) and Integral (Brenes, 2004) models. Nhat Hanh

(2003) calls on individuals to cultivate nonviolence by practicing mindfulness in

our daily lives so that we can transform not only ourselves, but our nations and

the world, thus illustrating the link between inner peace and international

peace. Toh (2007) explains that cultivating inner peace is important to creating

a culture of peace, but cautions against cultivating inner peace in a self-cen-

tered way, without examining and continuing to work towards justice for all. In

the Integral Model (Brenes, 2003), there are three kinds of peace with one’s

self: peace with the body (bodily health); peace of heart (satisfaction of psy-

chological needs; and peace of mind (potential for self-realization based on a

consciousness of universal responsibility (84). As a culture is made up of indi-

viduals, more peaceful individuals who are living peaceful values and exhibiting

peaceful behavior can help create more peaceful societies. Inner peace is thus

an integral component of promoting a culture of peace.

This framework is a start for an initial exploration of the culture of peace

at UPEACE. As the concept of a culture of peace is dynamic, this framework

should be adapted over time to ensure its relevance and applicability to the UP-

EACE community.

8. Working group on culture of peace framework and indicators

     As mentioned previously, community members participated in the devel-

opment of the framework and indicators in order to inform the definition of a

culture of peace for this diverse community, and to make the process of culture

of peace assessment as participatory as possible. An invitation to the working

group was sent out to the community email list, and thus all community mem-38

bers were invited to attend and share input. Nine community members - one

faculty, one non-academic staff, and seven students - attended. The above

framework was presented to the working group, and the culture of peace as-

sessment tool developed by Stewart (2008) was given to participants to help

guide the discussion.

Table 1 summarizes the group’s discussion.

Table 1: Summary of Culture of Peace Indicator Working Group

What is a culture of peace?

· Complex – includes many different people, per-sonalities, cultures, values

· People comfortable to be themselves

· Values and behaviors

· Tolerance, understanding, agreement, equality, solidarity, participation

· Conflicts resolved peacefully

· Respectful communication

· A way of life without conflict

· A process

· Peace of mind

· Recognizing others' identities

· Respect the rights of others

Education · What educational standards exist?

· Is there intercultural training?

· What pedagogies are used?

· What programs exist at the university? Are they important? Holistic?

· Is there sharing between programs?

· Is gender mainstreamed in all programs?

· Is there informal education modeling in class-room and structure?

· Number of theories studies/learned

· Are the values taught consistent with behav-iours?

· What are the intentions of students post-gradu-ation?

· Skills indicators: Can students ____?

· Are teachers trained?

· Evaluation: students being evaluated; students evaluating their own programs; external evalu-ation

· Is the students’ knowledge valued?

40

Participatory Com-munication and the Free flow of infor-mation and knowl-

edge

· Are there consistent procedural messages?

· Look at communication at different levels - per-sonal, interpersonal, between departments

· What are attitudes and behaviors towards other programs (stereotypes)?

· What is the language of instruction compared to the language of students, faculty and staff?

· How is participation evaluated

· Is it easy to meet with faculty

· What publications exist?

· What mechanisms exist for feedback/evalua-tion?

· What are the communication channels (medi-ums)? (e.g., Town Hall, SFS, email, conferences; formal vs. informal)

· Are the communication channels effective (what is the quality of the communication chan-nels)?

· Does the intended audience receive the mes-sage?

· Does the intended audience receive the mes-sage in time?

· Are there communication standards? If so, do standards incorporate multiculturalism?

· Are there trainings for communications skills?

· Are there informal discussion groups? Are there institutionally supported discussion groups?

· Is there transparency?

· What role do rumors play?

· How to measure miscommunications (i.e., dou-ble-booking of rooms)?

Democratic partici-pation

· Universities (in general, as institutions) are not historically democratic

· What is the impact of course evaluations?

· Examine SFS, council - governing structures

· Are participants aware of goals, objectives? Is their duty described?

· Is there a consensus on guidelines for decision making?

· What is decision-making at the institutional level? classroom level?

· What are the processes for selection, election, appointment of representatives of different governing structures?

Understanding, tol-erance, solidarity

· What skills are required for understanding?

· How well do students work in groups?

· Linking understanding to communications – if you are able to communicate differences, you can pro-mote deeper understanding

· What is participation like at different events/activi-ties (i.e. this workshop)?

· What student initiatives exist for helping each other?

· Do community members have an awareness or un-derstanding of others?

· How to measure social skills

· How do you engage those less willing to talk in this discussion?

· social skills?· How does UPEACE support students in dealing with

culture shock?

42

Human Rights · What are community members’ experiences of inequality, discrimination?

· How can we measure the domination of cultural values (i.e. hugging)?

· What are the policies about human rights (look at student handbook, non-discrimination pol-icy)?

· Are human addressed in your classes?

· Is there a community consensus on human rights? on behaviours?

· Use Universal Declaration of Human Rights Arti-cles as basis for indicators

· What mechanisms exist that promote human rights (e.g., Human Rights Center, Office for Di-versity and Equality)

· What are the processes or mechanisms for so-lutions to human rights issues?

· Use “Measuring the Human Rights Temperature of Your School” as indicators (Shiman & Rudelius-Palmer, 1999)

Gender equality · Why gender equality, and not other kinds of equality (e.g. ability, linguistic, cultural)?

· Is gender equality ethnocentric? Generational?

· Is equality the ideal term? What about equity?

· Is gender-neutral language used?

· Is gender mainstreamed at UPEACE?

· Is there affirmative action in the enrollment process? Scholarships?

· Are there maternity/paternity benefits for staff/faculty members?

Environmental Sus-tainability

· What policies does the cafeteria have relating to environmental sustainability?

· What are the campus policies for energy, pa-per, recycling?

· What happens to the vegetables from the UP-EACE garden?

· What is the sustainability of student initiatives vs. institutional?

· Is the university’s funding sustainable?

· What is the sustainability of peace? Need for continuous improvement, progress

There was adequate time to discuss seven of the programme areas, as

the dialogue began with a broader discussion about the meaning of a culture of

peace, which resulted in the topics of international peace and security, local

peace and security, and inner peace not being discussed in the session. While

the topics were presented to the participants, participants chose the sequence

of discussion. The discussion generated concrete indicators (such as “What

pedagogies are used?”), and also generated further questions that need to be

elaborated, and may be beyond the scope of this paper (such as “What is the

sustainability of peace?”).

     One particular programme area that caused debate was the "equality be-

tween men and women" category. Participants noted that many inequalities

exist other than gender, such as inequality experienced by those with physical

disabilities, or different linguistic groups, and questioned whether this category

should be expanded to include other types of equality. There was also debate

as to whether "equality" or "equity" was the desirable term. Ultimately, the

group did not reach a consensus, and I decided to maintain the category to re-

main consistent with the UNESCO framework.

     One of the key findings of the working group was the difficulty in devel-

oping indicators. Many of the culture of peace concepts are hard to quantify,

and much discussion centred around the idea of a culture of peace and the

conceptual framework. While this discussion was enriching and an educational

experience for all involved, it could have gone on endlessly, and in fact the en-

tire research project could have been about developing the framework and

definition for a culture of peace at UPEACE. Ultimately, I decided to continue

with the UNESCO adapted framework, for its wider applicability and validity.

9. Questionnaire: Findings and analysis

     Following the working group, I developed a questionnaire entitled "Cul-

ture of Peace at UPEACE" and posted it on Surveymonkey.com. All questions

are included in the current chapter. Prior to releasing the questionnaire, I pilot

tested the survey with 6 students from different regions, who provided feed-

back as to the clarity, readability, and cultural sensitivity of the survey which

was incorporated into the final draft of the survey. The UNESCO culture of

peace definition, as well as the work of Toh and Cawagas (1987), Carter (2005)

and Stewart (2008) were used to guide the development of questions, and thus 44

the questions primarily addressed knowledge, skills, values, attitudes and be-

haviours with respect to the ten areas.

     The survey consisted of 110 questions relating to the culture of peace

framework described in Chapter 7. Most of the questions, with the exception of

three, were closed-ended quantitative, used a 5-point Likert scale of Strongly

disagree/Strongly agree or Never/Always, and several Yes/No/Undecided ques-

tions. Each section also included a comment box which stated "Please add any

additional comment about any aspect of this section." Thus participants were

welcome, though not required, to give qualitative information and explain their

answers to each section. 

     The survey link was sent via individual email to 209 students from the

2009-2010 academic year. I chose this method rather than send the email via

the community email list, as many students either disregard email to this list or

opt not to receive it. Later I used the community email list to send reminder

emails about the survey deadline. The survey was open for a period of 2 weeks,

from March 23 to April 9, 2010. This overlapped with the UPEACE spring break,

which I hoped would result in more surveys completed, as students would have

more time to complete it than during the intensive 3-week class periods. In ad-

dition to all students enrolled in classes at the time of administering the sur-

vey, I included the American University Natural Resources and Sustainable De-

velopment (AU/NRSD) students who had left in November, the new AU/NRSD

who arrived in January, as well as the Asian Leaders Program (ALP) students

who attended UPEACE from August 2009 through February 2010. In this way, I

was able to reach all students who were present during the 2009-2010 aca-

demic year, which is the focus of this project.

    I provided an additional incentive to complete the survey through a

raffle. Each student who completed the survey had the opportunity to follow a

link to enter their name into the raffle, the prize for which was dinner for two at

a popular local restaurant, Che's. Surprisingly, only 29 respondents entered the

raffle. The 29 names were placed in a hat and a neutral third party drew the

winning name. The prize was delivered at the end of May.

     Of 209 students, 134 completed the survey, which is 64% of the 2009-

2010 student population. This is a significant number, and indicates the inter-

est in and importance of this topic to the community. Of the 134 students who

started the survey, 99 (73.9%) completed the survey in its entirety. This is

most likely due to the length of the survey. While students were told in the ini-

tial email that the survey would take approximately 15-20 minutes to com-

plete, it is possible that it took longer for some, and this may have caused in-

complete surveys.

It is important to note the sheer quantity of data, both quantitative and

qualitative, that participants contributed to this survey. Due to the breadth of

the information, the analysis will include highlights, rather than analysing each

individual question. Similarly, with the qualitative information, highlights will be

discussed.

     In discussing the survey, I will refer to the number of participants who re-

sponded with a particular answer or combination of answers, followed by the

percentage. In general, when I say “participants agreed,” this will mean I have

added the numbers and percentages for the responses “agree” and “strongly

agree,” unless otherwise stated. Likewise, when I say “participants disagreed,”

this will mean I have added the numbers and percentages for the responses

“disagree” and “strongly disagree.” The terms “respondent,” “participant,” and

“student” are used interchangeably.

9.1 Personal information for statistical purposes

    The first section involved three questions about demographics: program,

gender, and region. These questions were asked for the purposes of cross-tab-

ulation so that I could make a more thorough analysis if needed. However, af-

ter an initial cross-tabulation analysis, I found that there were no noticeable

anomalies, and thus this analysis will focus on the overall university profile,

rather than by gender, programme, or region. This data was not used to iden-

tify participants individually in any way.

46

    Figure 3: Participants by Programme

These numbers correlate proportionally to the number of students in programs,

with the largest proportion of students in International Peace Studies and Natu-

ral Resources and Sustainable Development.

Figure 4: Participants by region

Figure 4: Participants by region

Again, these numbers correspond to the proportions of the overall student pop-

ulation, with the largest proportions of students from Asia and North America,

which partially relates to the joint degree programmes with American Univer-

sity and the Asian Leaders Programme.

48

Figure 5: Participants by Gender

According to the Department of Academic Administration (Ortiz, 2010), there

were 114 females enrolled at UPEACE during the 2009-2010 year, which is 57%

of the total population. This corresponds directly to the proportion of females

who responded to this questionnaire, also 57%. I was unable to obtain any ad-

ditional data from UPEACE on population statistics.

9.2 A Culture of Peace through Education

This section consisted of two main question blocks about teaching meth-

ods and students’ programmes, and two comment boxes for qualitative re-

sponses.

Table 2: Teaching Methods

To what extent are the following teaching methods used in your program? Please choose one

response per line.

Answer Options Never

Rarely

(few

days)

Some-

times

Usually

(most

days)

Always

(every-

day)

Don't

know/

unde-

cided

Re-

sponse

Count

Lecture 0 3 19 54 42 0 118

Discussion 0 0 15 54 49 0 118

Group activities 2 17 55 36 7 0 117

Reflective exercises 4 46 42 16 4 5 117

Student-led activities 10 35 38 23 7 0 113

Additional Comments 24

answered question 119

skipped question 15

As shown in Table 2, 87% of respondents claim that discussion is usually

or always used as a teaching method, and 81% claim that lecture is usually or

always used. The teaching method never or rarely used is “reflective exer-

cises” according to 42%.

In the qualitative section, 24 participants wrote comments. Sixteen re-

spondents described the teaching methodologies used in their classes, and 8

students stated a combination of lecture, discussion and group activities as be-

ing most common. In the qualitative data, one participant noted too much dis-

cussion and too little instructor-led activity, while one participant noted the op-

posite (too much lecture and too little discussion). One participant wrote “Find-

ing the balance between lecture, discussion, and student-led activities is a

work in progress.” This statement aptly captures the challenge in balancing

these pedagogies. Three participants also noted how the pedagogies varied

greatly from class to class, with one student noting that “it’s hard to answer

because it is very different from one class to another.”

Three students also wrote about field trips; one student noted that field

trips were part of the methodology in their program; two students noted that 50

field trips were not a part of the methodology of their program. Field trips or

field work were not included as a methodology, and this is an omission of this

questionnaire. Field work or study is an important element in peace education

pedagogy, in the process of praxis, which is moving between theory and reality

(Freire, 1970). In future surveys, field trips should be included in such a survey

as a pedagogical practice for peace education.

The UNESCO framework does not explicitly state what methodologies

should be used in a culture of peace. However, as discussed in Chapter 7, a

culture of peace through education would require the implementation of the

values and principles that are being taught, such as nonviolence, equality, and

democratic participation. Teaching in a culture of peace also means developing

equality between the professor and students through a process of dialogue

(Freire, 1970; Cawagas, 2007). A lecture, while at times a necessary part of ed-

ucation, is the type of methodology with the least amount of student input,

whereas discussion and group activities would allow for more space for dia-

logue. For education in a culture of peace, more dialogic activities, such as

group work, reflective exercises and student-led activities should be integrated.

Ultimately, the variability between classes and professors made it diffi-

cult to answer these questions, as some participants noted. There appears to

be significant variability from class to class and professor to professor, and stu-

dents have varying opinions as to whether there is too much lecturing and not

enough discussion or vice versa. Thus it is hard to make a conclusion about the

overall teaching methods used at the university.

Table 3: Programmes at UPEACE

How do you feel about the following statements in regards to your program at UPEACE?

Please choose one response for each statement

Answer OptionsStrongly

disagreeDisagree

Neither

agree

nor dis-

agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

Don't

know/

unde-

cided

Re-

sponse

Count

The relationship between

teacher and students is equal

in my program.

3 23 26 51 8 6 117

We develop knowledge about

peacebuilding in my program.4 24 22 58 9 1 118

We develop skills for peace-

building in my program.4 30 32 44 6 2 118

The amount of work (reading,

assignments, etc.) assigned in

my program is reasonable.

1 17 17 77 5 1 118

Different viewpoints (cultural,

political, etc.) are represented

in the assigned readings for

my program.

2 14 21 68 10 2 117

There is a diversity of view-

points (cultural, political, etc.)

among the professors who

teach in my program.

4 10 20 66 16 1 117

Different viewpoints are re-

spected in my program.1 8 14 63 30 1 117

Students' knowledge is re-

spected in my program by

other students.

1 7 11 66 31 1 117

Students' knowledge is re-

spected in my program by

professors.

2 4 14 62 31 2 115

The way I am evaluated (i.e.,

grades, assignments, partici-

pation) is fair.

9 18 24 54 9 4 118

Overall, I am satisfied with my

academic program at UPEACE.8 14 18 57 19 2 118

Additional Comments 41

answered question 119

skipped question 15

    As shown in Table 3, 57% of participants agreed that they developed knowl-

edge about peacebuilding in their programs, 79% agreed that different view-

points are respected, 83% agreed that students’ knowledge is respected by

other students, and 81% agreed that students’ knowledge is respected by pro-

fessors. Regarding the student-teacher relationship, 50% agreed that the rela-

tionship is equal. The statement with the most disagreement was “We develop

skills for peacebuilding in my programme,” to which 29% of participants dis-

agreed.

52

In the qualitative data, 41participants wrote comments. Six participants

commented that the literature and views presented are too Western-centric.

One participant commented that “the most of the literature introduced by the

professor is US and European-centric”. One participant commented that their

programme lacked a Latin American perspective in the literature, and one par-

ticipant commented that their programme lacked an Asian perspective in the

lectures and readings.

With respect to different viewpoints, three students wrote comments that

they were absent in their programmes, while one student wrote that they were

not respected. One student commented “I’ve never heard too many conflicting

viewpoints in my program (outside the confines of debates).” One student

wrote “I miss really challenging views from the other side, not only expressed

by teachers coming from the northern part of the world or that type of educa-

tion.” Regarding disrespect, one student wrote, “the classmates within our pro-

gramme respect each others’ differing viewpoints, but we have had a number

of disrespectful incidents involving other UPEACE students from other pro-

grammes invited into our class session.”

With respect to the student-teacher relationship, one participant wrote

that “I think in general the nature of student teacher dynamics makes it slightly

uneven.” In the qualitative data, 22% of participants disagreed that the rela-

tionship between students and teachers is equal. However, one of the key prin-

ciples of peace education, based on the pedagogy of Freire (1970) is the devel-

opment of a horizontal student-teacher relationship. Furthermore, Freire as-

serts that the way oppression seems inevitable is one of the ways that oppres-

sion is perpetuated, saying that “until they [the oppressed] concretely discover

their oppressor, and in turn their own consciousness, they nearly always ex-

press fatalistic attitudes towards their situation” (1970: 61). While an unequal,

hierarchical relationship may be more prevalent and hence seem natural, the

process of promoting a culture of peace involves transforming hierarchical, un-

equal, and oppressive relationships. That an unequal relationship seems “natu-

ral” is no justification for its existence.

With respect to grading and evaluation, 14 students wrote comments.

Seven participants commented that the evaluation is subjective. Three partici-

pants wrote that they wanted more feedback, rather than just a numerical

mark. One of these participants wrote that “it makes me sad to think about all

the work I put into my papers and do not receive constructive criticism so that I

may improve my writing style and arguments.” Two participants wrote that it is

too easy to get good grades. One specifically said “Grading is not serious here

– always will pass, doesn’t really mean anything.”

With respect to of participation, one participant wrote

“I actually discovered that Asian students tend not to participate

because in their culture this would mean to question the hierarchy

(and a student is not supposed to question a professor. I am not

sure if professors are aware of that and as a consequence the dis-

cussions are lead by North American students.”

While there is little literature on educational evaluation in a culture of

peace, presumably the evaluation process would involve some exchange of

ideas (verbal or written) between the teacher and learner. Incorporating more

feedback, in a more dialogic manner, would allow students to learn more and

be more empowered through the evaluation process (Freire, 1970; Cawagas,

2007). While the system of numerical grades and corresponds to the banking

system of education (Freire, 1970), a system of evaluation that is consistent

with culture of peace values still needs to be developed. UPEACE should de-

velop a more transparent, cohesive system of grading, so that students under-

stand how they are being marked. This is especially important with respect to

the participation marks, which often make up large percentages of the stu-

dent’s overall mark for a course.

The issue of participation evaluation is of concern, as the only guideline

for participation in the student handbook is “Students who fail to attend more

than 20% of the class will not be approved to complete the class” (University

for Peace, 2009: 29). There are no other policies on how participation is evalu-

ated, and it is unclear as to whether cultural sensitivities are taking in consider-

ation during participation evaluation.

Through providing ten masters programmes relating to peace, UPEACE is

advancing a culture of peace through education. However, in order to progress

towards a culture of peace, the principles of a culture of peace, such as equal-

ity, diversity, and cultural respect need to be further integrated into these pro-

grammes. It should be noted that the following nine sections all contain ques-

tions about knowledge and learning, and thus all of the remaining sections also

54

include an educational element, as education is the primary goal of the institu-

tion, and a fundamental aspect of a culture of peace.

    

9.2 Environmental sustainability

Table 4: Environmental Sustainability

What do you think about the following statements about environmental sustainability at UP-

EACE? Please choose one response for each statement.

Answer OptionsStrongly

disagreeDisagree

Neither

agree

nor dis-

agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

Don't

know/

unde-

cided

Re-

sponse

Count

In my program, we learn

about environmental sustain-

ability.

11 35 18 29 24 0 117

In my experience, UPEACE

community members behave

in ways that are environmen-

tally responsible.

8 41 36 25 3 2 115

At UPEACE, I have developed

skills for sustainable living.12 38 26 33 7 0 116

UPEACE is an environmentally-

friendly institution.13 28 42 30 2 1 116

Comments 36

answered question 117

skipped question 17

  As shown in Table 4, 45% of participants agreed that in their program,

they learn about environmental sustainability, while 39% disagreed with this

statement. Forty-two percent (42%) of participants disagreed with the state-

ments "In my experience, UPEACE community members behave in ways that

are environmentally responsible," and 43% disagreed with "at UPEACE, I have

developed skills for sustainable living." With respect to the statement "UPEACE

is an environmentally friendly institution," results were very mixed, with 35%

disagree, 36% neither agree nor disagree, and 28% agree, and 1% don't

know/undecided. 

Four out of ten masters programmes at UPEACE relate to the environ-

ment or sustainable development (Environment, Security and Peace; Natural

Resources and Peace; Natural Resources and Sustainable Development; and

Responsible Management and Sustainable Development), and in this survey,

37% of respondents belong to one of these four programs. The number of stu-

dents who said they learn about sustainability in their programmes is 8%

greater than the number of students in these programmes. While my analysis

does not include a programme-by-programme breakdown, this indicates that

the percentage of students who learn about environmental sustainability is

greater than the number of students in the aforementioned programmes.

     In the qualitative section, 36 participants wrote responses. Fifteen stu-

dents wrote about specific unsustainable environmental practices at UPEACE,

such as: paper cups (which, since this survey, have been replaced by mugs in

the cafeteria and removed from most water coolers); single-use items in the

cafeteria; the use of bottled, filtered water in the water coolers; too many pho-

tocopies; transport inefficiencies resulting in unnecessary waste; use of air con-

ditioning in the Council Room, and energy waste overall. Four participants dis-

cussed the contradiction between the academic theory that is being taught and

daily practice at the university. One student wrote, “What UPEACE is teaching

us and what UPEACE is doing has so much gap, and I always felt that the the-

ory and reality is quite different.” One participant wrote, “subjects are taught

but not lived up to here. In this way we are just again educated to tolerate

hypocrisy.” Four participants noted that UPEACE was more environmentally

friendly than other institutions. One participant wrote, “UPEACE can be a lot

more environmentally friendly, but as far as institutions go, it’s doing pretty

well.” One respondent noted the need to clarify the term “environmental sus-

tainability,” which could have many definitions.

This section reflects a need for improvement with respect to environmen-

tal sustainability at UPEACE. While the subject of environmental sustainability

is studied in many programmes, these theories are not integrated into the

practices of the university or community members. It was very helpful that par-

ticipants elucidated specific practices where the university could make

progress. By mainstreaming the principles of environmental sustainability, such 56

as those elaborated in the Earth Charter (1997), into the university’s policies

and practices, the culture of peace would be enhanced by aligning academic

theory with daily life.

    

9.4 Human rights

Table 5: Human Rights

What do you think about the following statements regarding human rights at UPEACE? Please

choose one response for each statement.

Answer OptionsStrongly

disagreeDisagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

AgreeStrongly

agree

Don't

know/

unde-

cided

Re-

sponse

Count

I am familiar with the Univer-

sal Declaration of Human

Rights.

0 6 10 66 31 0 113

Human rights are culturally

relative.12 16 22 47 13 3 113

In my program, we learn

about human rights.0 15 16 52 30 0 113

UPEACE community members

promote the human rights of

others.

2 5 33 52 13 8 113

UPEACE community members

promote their own human

rights.

0 6 26 61 13 7 113

UPEACE community members

respect the human rights of

others.

1 4 24 64 17 3 113

Human rights are valued at

UPEACE.1 3 16 68 22 2 112

In my program, we develop

skills to promote human

rights.

2 15 28 51 14 1 111

I have experienced discrimi-

nation at UPEACE.15 47 13 28 9 1 113

At UPEACE, I have been

treated unequally due to any

aspect of my identity (lan-

guage, culture, gender, sexu-

ality, ability, etc) by UPEACE

as an institution.

23 52 18 13 4 2 112

At UPEACE, I have been

treated unequally due to any

aspect of my identity (lan-

guage, culture, gender, sexu-

ality, ability, etc) by other

students.

17 46 18 27 3 2 112

At UPEACE, I have been

treated unequally due to any

aspect of my identity (lan-

guage, culture, gender, sexu-

ality, ability, etc) by staff.

20 15 13 1 2 112

At UPEACE, I have been

treated unequally due to any

aspect of my identity (lan-

guage, culture, gender, sexu-

ality, ability, etc) by profes-

sors.

24 60 10 13 3 1 111

I have witnessed discrimina-

tion at UPEACE.12 33 16 38 10 3 112

Freedom of speech is valued

at UPEACE.6 9 17 54 22 4 112

Comments 30

answered question 114

skipped question 20

As shown in Table 5, 86% of respondents agreed that they are familiar

with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and 73% of respondents

agreed that they learn about human rights in their programmes. With respect

to the cultural relativity of human rights, 53% agreed that human rights are

culturally relative. This section also included discrimination, and while 55% of

participants disagreed that they had experienced discrimination at UPEACE,

33% agreed that they had experienced discrimination at UPEACE. 58

When asked about unequal treatment due to any aspect of their identity

(gender, sexuality, ability, etc.) by other students, staff, the institution, or pro-

fessors, 27% of students reported being treated unequally from other students,

compared to 15% reporting unequal treatment by the institution, 13% by staff,

and 14% by professors. Furthermore, 43% of participants agreed that they had

witnessed discrimination at UPEACE.

In the qualitative section, 30 participants wrote comments. Eight partici-

pants from North America talked about feeling discriminated against because

of where they are from; four of these comments reflected students feeling that

their opinions were not valid because of where they are from, and four of the

comments pertained to the lack of financial aid given to students from North

America. With respect to the former claim, one respondent wrote “situations

have arisen where peers feel like the opinions of ‘white North Americans’ are

not valid because we are perceived to not have as much ‘life experience’ be-

cause of the North American lifestyle.” With respect to the latter claim about fi-

nancial aid, one respondent wrote, “I feel that due to the North American coun-

try I come from I was disregarded for financial aid even though I have incredi-

ble need for it, more so than others who were afforded it.” Another student

commented, “It is frustrating when I see students on scholarship going clothing

shopping at Multiplaza all the time, traveling all over the Americas on the

breaks, etc while other students are struggling financially because they were

not even considered for financial aid because of their country of origin.” These

participants felt that financial aid is distributed by region, rather than by finan-

cial need, and they see this as being unfair.

Three participants said they felt discriminated against because they were

non-native English language speakers. Five students wrote that they felt that

freedom of speech was valued theoretically but not practically, in the sense

that they feel that students can say things, but don’t feel that the administra-

tion is listening. One student wrote “I believe that freedom of speech is toler-

ated at UPEACE, but the next question is whether anyone in power is listening.”

Another participant, addressing this next question, wrote “I know many stu-

dents who have tried to be heard by the university and were not listened to.

We have a lot of suggestions and constructive criticism that is undervalued.”

With respect to accessibility, one participant wrote:

“As an institution UPEACE certainly has unequal access to people

with disabilities. However, I would only call it discrimination when

there is no intention to accommodate for special needs and UP-

EACE has shown their willingness (and to a lesser extent commit-

ment) to make changes in the accessibility of the institution. Yet, I

am not sure to what extent equal access is really recognized as a

human right by members of the UPEACE community.”

Another comment referred to religious freedom: “Friday is very crucial

and important day for a Moslem but it’s hard to pray in the mosque or at UP-

EACE for the reasons of accessibility or arrangement of learning schedule. Most

of the Moslem student sacrifice that day to attend the class.”

The operating definition of discrimination in this survey was “unequal

treatment due to any aspect of one’s identity (language, culture, gender, sexu-

ality, ability, etc).” According to the UNESCO Convention on Discrimination in

Education (1960), discrimination is “any distinction,

exclusion, limitation or preference which, being based on race, colour, sex, lan-

guage, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic

condition or birth, has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing equality of

treatment.”

With respect to financial aid, Section 2 of the Non-Discrimination Policy

(University for Peace, 2009) states that “The University will take affirmative ac-

tion to admit students who are under-privileged. This includes financial assis-

tance to prospective and current students from developing nations” (40). This

policy does not explicitly exclude students from developed countries. Greater

transparency about this process, such as elucidating specific criteria and their

respective weight for financial aid consideration, would create greater overall

understanding.

The issue of language discrimination is of great concern, as English is the

language used in the institution, but many students are non-native English

speakers. Additional language support could help, but discrimination requires

that all community members – native English speakers and non-native English

speakers alike – have an understanding of language rights. Education about

cultural rights and specifically linguistic rights, such as through the Universal

Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001), would be one way to raise awareness

of this issue.60

With respect to accessibility, UPEACE took many initiatives this year to

make the campus more accessible to individuals in wheelchairs. However, not

only is it important for the university to have equal access to people of all types

of ability, but it is also critical that all community members recognize equal ac-

cess as a human right. Again, this could be addressed through education and

awareness-raising, using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and

the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006).

With respect to religious freedom, it may be difficult for the university to

adjust its schedule to accommodate all religions, as different religions have

different holy days, and many religions are represented in the UPEACE commu-

nity. However, providing a safe space that is devoted to student reflection,

meditation and prayer, that is easily accessible on campus, would allow stu-

dents to practice their faiths more freely. The university could consider building

a multi-faith reflection room as part of its building plans.

It should be noted that in the Non-Discrimination Policy (University for

Peace, 2009), the channel through which community members are to use to

handle discrimination cases is the Office of Diversity and Equality. However, at

this time, this office exists only on paper. There was a movement this year to

try to establish this office, but as of now, the office has yet to be established,

and the channel that students have to address discrimination issues is through

the administration.

This section demonstrates that while the majority of students feel that

human rights are protected, promoted, and valued at UPEACE, there is still sub-

stantial room for improvement, particularly with respect to discrimination, lin-

guistic rights, equal access, and facilitating religious freedom.

    

9.5 Equality between men and women

Table 6: Equality between men and women

What do you think about the following statements about gender equality at UPEACE? Please

choose one response for each statement.

Answer OptionsStrongly

disagreeDisagree

Neither

agree

nor dis-

agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

Don't

know/

unde-

cided

Re-

sponse

Count

Gender equality is culturally

relative.14 18 21 45 10 3 111

In my program we learn about

gender equality.3 17 19 56 15 0 110

In my program we develop

skills to promote gender

equality in our work.

5 27 26 40 11 1 110

At UPEACE, men and women

are treated equally across the

community.

0 10 19 70 9 2 110

At UPEACE, gender equality is

valued.0 6 14 74 14 2 110

At UPEACE, I have experi-

enced discrimination based on

my gender.

29 48 22 7 2 2 110

Additional Comments 8

answered question 111

skipped question 23

As shown in Table 6, 50% of respondents claim that gender equality is

culturally relative, and 65% agree that in their program they learn about gen-

der equality. In addition, 72% of respondents agreed that men and women are

treated equally across the community, 80% agreed that gender equality is val-

ued, and 47% agreed that they develop skills to promote gender equality in

their work.

In the qualitative data, 8 respondents wrote comments. One participant

remarked that “it [gender equality] is valued theoretically but not practically.”

Another wrote that “I think more than in most other universities, men and

women are treated equally at UPEACE.” Another respondent commented that “I

have seen or felt gender-based discrimination during class discussions with

male students that do not believe in gender equality.”

One participant remarked that

“I feel like gender is often mentioned at a superficial level but

rarely discussed and understood more deeply…at UPEACE it is

clear to everyone that it is important to pay attention to gender in-

equality somehow, but it is unclear to most how that needs to be

done appropriately.”

62

One student from the gender program remarked that “I have been disap-

pointed by the gender awareness at UPEACE.” This student referred to inter-

views that the gender class conducted across campus about gender aware-

ness, and called the results “disheartening.” However, as this was during the

first course, it would be interesting to conduct a similar survey again, to see if

there had been an increase in gender awareness throughout the year.

This section indicates that most students agree that gender equality is

valued and promoted at UPEACE. However, it is not experienced equally by all

community members, as some of the data indicates. There appears to be a gap

between knowledge-building and skill-building, in the sense that a number of

students report developing knowledge about gender equality, but fewer report

developing skills to promote gender equality. This indicates that there is room

for improvement with respect to gender equality at UPEACE. A deeper explo-

ration of gender dynamics, as well as more skills-based initiatives for integrat-

ing gender equality, are possible steps for improvement

    

9.5 Democratic participation

This section is comprised of two subsections: one about democratic par-

ticipation at UPEACE, and the second specifically dealing with participation in

the classroom.

Table 7: Democratic Participation at UPEACE

How do you feel about the following statements regarding democratic participation at UP-

EACE? Please choose one response for each statement.

Answer OptionsStrongly

DisagreeDisagree

Neither

agree

nor dis-

agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

Don't

know/

unde-

cided

Re-

sponse

Count

At UPEACE, we develop knowl-

edge about democratic princi-

ples and decision making.

5 8 20 65 9 3 110

At UPEACE, I can participate in

democratic decision making

about decisions that affect

me.

9 22 26 46 4 3 110

At UPEACE, democratic partici-

pation is valued in the class-

room.

3 10 16 72 8 0 109

At UPEACE, democratic partici-

pation is valued outside the

classroom.

6 16 28 56 3 2 111

SFS (Students/Faculty/Staff) is

a democratic decision making

body.

13 19 27 27 3 21 110

Additional Comments 27

answered question 111

skipped question 23

As shown in Table 7, 73% of participants agree that democratic participa-

tion is valued at UPEACE, and agree 67.3% that they learn about democratic

decision making. With respect to decisions that affect them, 45% of students

agree that they can participate in democratic decision making. When asked

about the Students/Faculty/Staff (SFS) organisation, there was no clear out-

come as to whether students think that SFS is a democratic decision making

body, as 29% disagreed, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed, 45% agreed, and

19% answered “don’t know/undecided.”

In the qualitative additional comment box, 27 students wrote comments.

Thirteen participants made claims about students not being able to participate

in decision making because of the hierarchical structure of the university. One

student wrote, “UPEACE is a vertical institution. You can push to have new de-

cisions, you are free to take any initiative, but when it comes to changes, it is

hard…everything finally depends on the will of the vice-rector and the rector.

There is no real accountability.” Twenty participants made comments related

to SFS. One participant wrote,

“During my year at UPEACE I witnessed decisions made by high

leaders (such as the rector and vice-rector) at the institution that

surpassed the SFS’ decisions. In one occasion SFS said “no” to a

procedure and still the higher level decision makers preferred to

say “yes” and the end result did not reflect SFS’s decision at all.”

Three participants explicitly noted the gap between theory and values,

on one hand, and application in daily life, on the other, in democratic decision

64

making. One participant wrote, “Democratic principles are valued highly across

the board, but are not practiced as much.”

The comments above reflect that the students see a structural issue with

democratic decision making at UPEACE. In a comparative study of models of

transformative peace education, Turay & English (2008) studied UPEACE:

“As the name suggests, the University for Peace in Costa Rica, is

basically oriented to peace. Yet its very structure and organization

as a bona fide university militates against participatory planning

and widespread attention to indigenous issues. Although it does

have a diversity of offerings in peace studies…its traditionally

based program is limited by its hierarchical organization” (292).

The structure of UPEACE (University for Peace, 2007: 5) is common in

universities and in UN bodies, and any organization or institution requires some

structure in order to ensure the flow of responsibilities. However, this structure

may inhibit democratic decision making and participation by all community

members.

SFS is a new body, and its role needs to be clarified in greater detail. A

committee was working on a charter for SFS, and this charter is one step in

clarifying its mission. It should be noted as well that this year student represen-

tatives were present on most university committees this year, in an effort to in-

crease student involvement.

This section again reflects a gap between knowledge and values and

practical application in daily life. According to students’ experience, education

for democratic participation is strong, and most community members value

democratic participation. How this manifests in reality in university governance

and decisions, though, seems to be contrary to the knowledge and values, ac-

cording to students’ experiences, particularly with SFS.

Table 8: Democratic participation in the classroom

How do you feel about the following statements regarding participation in the classroom?

Please choose one response per line.

Answer OptionsStrongly

disagreeDisagree

Neither

agree

nor dis-

agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

Don't

know/

unde-

cided

Re-

sponse

Count

I am able to fully or actively

participate in my program.1 6 14 52 34 1 108

My professors encourage par-

ticipation in my program.0 3 11 61 34 0 109

Different forms or styles of

participation are valued in my

program.

4 9 24 49 16 6 108

I understand how my partici-

pation is being evaluated by

my professors.

7 17 22 43 10 9 108

The way my participations is

evaluated is fair.6 15 32 37 8 10 108

Additional Comments 24

answered question 109

skipped question 25

As shown in Table 8, 80% of participants agreed that they are able to

participate fully or actively in their programs. With respect to the evaluation of

participation, 22% of students disagreed and 20% neither agreed nor disagreed

that they understand how their participation is evaluated, and 30% neither

agreed nor disagreed with the statement “the way my participation is evalu-

ated is fair.”

In the qualitative data, 24 participants wrote comments. Four partici-

pants wrote comments that they don’t understand how participation is evalu-

ated. Three students wrote that they think participation is graded in an unfair

way, and two students wrote that they think participation evaluation is fair or

“fair enough.”

One student commented upon the participation of Asian students, which

was also discussed in the Education section (9.2). This participant wrote “In

Asian culture…it is unusual for Asian student to stand up and argue the idea of

professor… Some of my Japanese friends get very low score on their participa-

tion because he/she never speak in class.”

Participation is often a large percentage of evaluation for UPEACE cour-

ses, often between 15-25%. Participation is an important element of a culture

of peace (Brenes, 2004; Adams, 2009), and should be an element of the educa-

tional process to promote a continuous exchange among students and between

66

student and teacher (Freire, 1970). It is also important for students to under-

stand how their participation is being graded, and for this to be a process that

is culturally sensitive and accounts for different forms of participation, such as

active listening.

With respect to classroom participation, there needs to be a clearer pol-

icy as to how participation is evaluated. This policy needs to take into account

different forms of participation that are culturally sensitive.

9.7 Understanding, Tolerance and Solidarity

This section was divided into three subsections and questions were asked

about each theme. These questions were followed by 4 yes/no questions about

peer pressure, institutional pressure, and harassment.

Table 9: Understanding

How do you feel about the following statements about understanding at UPEACE? Please

choose one response for each statement.

Answer OptionsStrongly

disagreeDisagree

Neither

agree

nor dis-

agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

Don't

know/

unde-

cided

Re-

sponse

Count

I understand other members

of the UPEACE community.0 3 30 66 5 3 107

Other members of the UPEACE

community understand me.3 5 32 54 2 11 107

Understanding is valued in the

UPEACE community.1 5 23 66 12 0 107

In my program we learn about

understanding.4 17 28 49 5 4 107

UPEACE community members

behave in ways that promote

understanding.

4 8 35 50 5 5 107

There is understanding be-

tween students, staff and fac-

ulty.

8 18 28 44 2 8 108

Additional Comments 20

answered question 108

skipped question 26

As shown in Table 9, 66% of respondents feel they understand other

members of the UPEACE community, and 52% feel that other members of the

UPEACE community understand them. Furthermore, 73% feel that understand-

ing is valued in the UPEACE community, 51%

report that they learn about understanding in their program, and 51% agree

that community members behave in ways that promote understanding. With

respect to understanding between students, staff, and faculty, 47% of partici-

pants agree that there is understanding.

In the qualitative section, 20 students wrote comments. Seven partici-

pants wrote that community members make an effort to understand others,

but ultimately understanding is hard to achieve. One participant wrote, “I think

all strive for understanding and it is valued, and yet I’d be hesitant to say I ‘un-

derstand’ other members of the UPEACE community….For all I learned, I am

sure there is a lot I didn’t learn as well.” Three participants noted the role of

communication in understanding. One such participant noted this link, and con-

nected it to language, saying

“Communication plays a key role in this understanding but there

are times due to vocabulary constraints, one has the inability to ex-

press oneself and this may be misinterpreted as submission or

withholding of information when it is just inability to further articu-

late feelings, ideas and emotions.”

Three participants noted a lack of institutional support that promotes under-

standing. One participant remarked, “I don’t necessarily think there is much

space, in the classroom or institutionalized, to understand different view-

points.”

This section illustrates the difficulty in achieving understanding, even in

an environment where people are trying. One participant noted that “there is a

general attempt to understand and respect each other even if we do not agree,

but this is not really discussed or taught in class.” This correlates to the quanti-

tative question about learning about understanding, to which 20% of respon-

dents disagreed. Understanding could be further promoted by developing

knowledge and skills for it, and through greater institutional support.

Table 10: Tolerance

68

How do you feel about the following statements about tolerance? Please choose one response

for each statement.

Answer Options Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree

nor dis-agree

Agree Strongly agree

Don't know/unde-cided

Re-sponse Count

There is a high level of toler-ance among the members of the UPEACE community.

2 11 19 57 10 5 104

Tolerance is valued by the members of the UPEACE com-munity.

0 7 15 66 11 4 103

The UPEACE community mem-bers behave in ways that pro-mote tolerance.

1 10 22 60 7 3 103

We learn about tolerance in my program.

6 21 32 36 6 2 103

Different viewpoints are toler-ated in the UPEACE commu-nity.

2 8 18 63 9 3 103

Additional Comments 15answered question 104

skipped question 30

As shown in Table 10, 64% of participants agreed that there is a high

level of tolerance among the members of the UPEACE community, and 74%

agreed that tolerance is valued by the community. In addition, 65% agreed

that UPEACE community members behave in ways that promote tolerance, and

70% agreed that different viewpoints are tolerated by the UPEACE community,

while 41% agreed that they learn about tolerance in their programs.

In the qualitative data, 15 participants wrote comments. Four partici-

pants wrote that the term “tolerance” itself is problematic and has a negative

connotation. One student wrote, “This question should be about respect and

not tolerance at UPEACE. Tolerating people’s behavior is not the same as re-

specting them. To me the term tolerance has a negative implication.” Partici-

pants proposed “respect,” “acceptance,” and “compassion” as alternative con-

cepts to tolerance. Three participants questioned whether community mem-

bers tolerate of more conservative view points, saying that they felt more con-

servative viewpoints are not tolerated. One participant wrote, “I think the more

conservative amongst us at UPEACE would tend to feel like their views are not

treated with the same legitimacy as more liberal perspectives. UPEACE is quite

hegemonic in this respect.”

According to the UNESCO (1995) definition, “tolerance” includes “re-

spect” and “acceptance”, which other students proposed as alternatives to us-

ing tolerance. The Merrian-Webster (2010) dictionary offers a different defini-

tion, which says that tolerance is “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or prac-

tices differing from or conflicting with one's own; the act of allowing some-

thing.” Many people probably relate more to the second definition, as this is

how the term is used more in common speech, and this definition does not in-

clude the ideas of respect, acceptance or appreciation. In order to include

these terms in future questionnaires and in the culture of peace framework, we

should do so explicitly, and not by expecting that people will understand them

to be a part of “tolerance.”

Table 11: Solidarity

How do you feel about the following statements about solidarity at UPEACE? Please choose one response for each statement.

Answer Options Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree

nor dis-agree

Agree Strongly agree

Don't know/unde-cided

Re-sponse Count

There is a high level of solidar-ity among the students of the UPEACE community.

5 15 24 49 9 3 105

There is a high level of solidar-ity among all the members (students, staff, faculty and administration) of the UPEACE community.

5 18 33 36 6 7 105

We learn about solidarity in my program.

8 32 27 29 5 4 105

Solidarity is valued by mem-bers of the UPEACE commu-nity.

4 8 26 52 8 7 105

UPEACE community members behave in ways that promote solidarity.

6 17 25 45 8 5 106

Other (please specify) 13answered question 106

skipped question 28

As shown in Table 11, 55% of students agree that there is a high level of

solidarity among the students of the UPEACE community, and 40% agree that

there is a high level of solidarity among all community members. In addition,

57% agreed that solidarity is valued by members of the UPEACE community,

and 50% agreed that UPEACE members behave in ways that promote solidar-

ity. With respect to learning about solidarity, 38% of participants disagreed that

they learn about solidarity in their program.

70

In the qualitative section, 13 respondents wrote comments. Two students

said there was a high level of solidarity with personal problems or concerns.

One student wrote, “Somebody gets in trouble (family member dies), we pull

together – a couple of good examples throughout the year.” One participant

was unclear as to what solidarity meant, indicating a need to clarify the con-

cept.

While the questions in this survey dealt with solidarity within the commu-

nity, I did not ask explicitly about solidarity with other communities. This should

be included in future surveys. However, it should be noted that the UPEACE

community initiated a number of campaigns throughout the year to raise

money for communities abroad that were affected by disasters, such as Haiti

and the Philippines, and these initiatives indicate solidarity.

The last 4 questions of this section were Yes/No questions that referred

to pressure to take part in academic, extra-curricular and social events, and

about harassment.

Table 12: Peer pressure for school-related events

I have experience peer pressure to take part in school-related (academic or ex-tracurricular) events.

Answer OptionsResponse Per-

centResponse

Count

Yes 55.6% 60

No 34.3% 37

Don't know/Undecided 10.2% 11

Comments 22

answered question 108

skipped question 26

As shown in Table 12, 56% agreed that they had experienced peer pres-

sure. In the qualitative section, 22 participants wrote comments. With respect

to specific events for which they felt pressured to be involved, seven students

cited the UPEACE Model United Nations Conference (UPMUNC), two students

cited open house, two students cited cultural nights (i.e., Thanksgiving, re-

gional night celebrations), and one student cited the Vagina Monologues. Four

students mentioned feeling discomfort, a lack of understanding, or disrespect

for not participating. One student wrote “sometimes the community doesn’t

understand that an individual can’t participate or doesn’t have the means to do

so and then they frown upon you.” Four students said they felt this pressure

was positive. One student wrote that they had experienced peer pressure “not

really in a bad way – but people are VERY encouraging to get involved.”

Table 13: Institutional pressure for school-related events

I have experienced institutional pressure (from professors or administration) to take part in school-related (academic or extra-curricular) events.

Answer OptionsResponse Per-

centResponse

Count

Yes 44.9% 48

No 46.7% 50

Not sure/Undecided 8.4% 9

Comments 20

answered question 107

skipped question 27

As shown in Table 13, 45% respondents agreed that they had experi-

enced it to take part in school-related events. In the qualitative data to Ques-

tion 5, 20 participants wrote comments. With respect to specific events, seven

students cited UPMUNC, four cited the Open House event, one cited election

observation, and one cited special sessions that have been arranged by their

department head.

Table 14: Peer pressure for social events

I have experienced peer pressure to take part in social events (either at UPEACE or

within the UPEACE community).

Answer OptionsResponse Per-

cent

Response

Count

Yes 42.6% 46

No 49.1% 53

Don't know/undecided 8.3% 9

Comments 8

answered question 108

skipped question 26

72

As shown in Table 14, 49% of participants disagreed that they had expe-

rienced peer pressure to take part in social events. In the qualitative section, 8

participants wrote comments. Two students wrote that they felt this was not a

bad type of pressure, while two other students wrote that this pressure was

negative.

Table 15: Harassment

I have felt harassed in any way by members of the UPEACE community.

Answer OptionsResponse Per-

cent

Response

Count

Yes 13.0% 14

No 80.6% 87

Undecided 6.5% 7

answered question 108

skipped question 26

As shown in Table 15, 81% of participants disagreed with the statement

“I have felt harassed in any way by members of the UPEACE community.”

There was no comment box for the question about harassment, which was an

error in survey design.

Peer and institutional pressure manifests as an extreme, and potentially

imposing form of solidarity, which is why I asked these questions. From the

quantitative data, it seemed that most students had experienced peer or insti-

tutional pressure; however, in the qualitative information, it was a mixed result

as to whether this pressure was a positive element (inclusive and encouraging)

or negative (imposing).

Overall, there is a degree of understanding, tolerance, and solidarity

amongst the UPEACE community. It appears that these topics are not necessar-

ily included in students’ programmes, as the responses about learning about

these areas were low in agreement. One step to foster greater understanding,

tolerance (or acceptance and respect) and solidarity would be to explicitly

learn about these themes throughout all programmes. This would give students

a better background from which to develop daily life practices that correlate to

these values. However, in order to facilitate this behavior, skill-building work-

shops on understanding, tolerance and solidarity could also improve this area

towards a culture of peace.

9.8 Participatory Communication and the Free Flow of Informa-

tion

Table 16: Communication at UPEACE

How do you feel about the following statements about communication at UPEACE? Please

choose one response for each statement.

Answer OptionsStrongly

disagreeDisagree

Neither

agree

nor dis-

agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

Don't

know/

unde-

cided

Re-

sponse

Count

Information is easily accessi-

ble at UPEACE.14 30 25 31 4 1 105

At UPEACE, there is trans-

parency (openness and ac-

countability) of information.

21 27 30 19 3 5 105

There are adequate methods

of communication at UPEACE.11 31 20 38 3 2 105

There is a free flow of informa-

tion between students at UP-

EACE.

8 8 24 58 4 3 105

There is a free flow of informa-

tion between the administra-

tion and students at UPEACE.

18 30 23 29 3 2 105

There are standards of com-

munication within the UPEACE

community.

9 20 33 31 2 9 104

Additional Comments 16

answered question 105

skipped question 29

74

As shown in Table 16, 42% of participants disagreed that information was

easily accessible, 46% disagreed that there is transparency of information, and

46% disagreed that there is a free flow of information between the administra-

tion and students at UPEACE. Furthermore, 80% of respondents agreed that

there is a free flow of information between students at UPEACE. With respect to

adequate methods of communication, 40% of participants disagreed and 39%

agreed. With respect to standards of communication, 32% agreed that there

are standards, and 28% disagreed.

In the qualitative section, 16 participants wrote comments. Three stu-

dents wrote that there is a lack of transparency in the institution. Three partici-

pants noted that perhaps communication was “too free” in the sense that there

were not standards of use for the community email lists, which generates many

emails per day. Two of these participants noted that a filter or a daily digest of

emails might solve this issue. Two participants noted the heavy reliance on the

Internet as the primary form of communication, and that this can be problem-

atic, particularly for students with less frequent access (for example, students

who do not own a computer or do not have Internet access in their homes; it

should be noted that all students have computer and Internet access on cam-

pus, as there are a sufficient number of computers in the public computer lab).

Two participants also commented that the timing of information was often in-

adequate. One participant wrote, “Getting crucial information to the students

days or weeks late puts incredible pressure on us to perform to expectations

that would have been reasonable with proper notification, but become unrea-

sonable at the last minute (Board of Directors meeting, Open House).”

This section shows that the area of communication at UPEACE requires

improvement in order to progress towards a culture of peace, particularly with

respect to the accessibility of information in general, and communication be-

tween the administration and students. Participatory communication and free

flow of information is important for most other aspects of a culture of peace,

particularly understanding and democratic participation. Improving communi-

cations would also strengthen other areas of a culture of peace, and thus

strengthen the culture of peace overall.

Table 17: Interpersonal communication at UPEACE

How do you feel about the following statements about interpersonal communication at UP-

EACE? Please choose one response for each statement.

Answer OptionsStrongly

disagreeDisagree

Neither

agree

nor dis-

agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

Don't

know/

unde-

cided

Re-

sponse

Count

Members of the UPEACE com-

munity communicate peace-

fully.

3 10 30 58 4 0 105

Members of the UPEACE com-

munity value peaceful com-

munication.

1 7 15 72 8 2 105

In my program we develop

skills in nonviolent or peaceful

communication.

9 25 15 49 7 0 105

In my program, professors

communicate peacefully or

nonviolently.

3 2 21 64 10 4 104

In my program, students com-

municate peacefully or nonvi-

olently.

3 9 27 59 8 0 106

Additional Comments 16

answered question 106

skipped question 28

As shown in Table 17, 59% of participants agreed that UPEACE commu-

nity members communicate peacefully and 76% agreed that community mem-

bers value peaceful communication. With respect to skill development, 53% re-

ported that they develop nonviolent communication skills in their programs.

71% agreed that professors communicate peacefully or nonviolently, and 63%

agreed that students communicate peacefully or non-violently in their pro-

grammes.

In the qualitative section, 16 students wrote comments about interper-

sonal communication. Six participants wrote that most community members

communicate peacefully, but some communicate unpeacefully. One participant

wrote “There are some students and professors with non-peaceful communica-

76

tion.” Three participants said that there should be a nonviolent communication

course as a part of orientation or foundation course. One participant wrote,

“WE NEED NVC TRAINING. Thanks.”

This section illustrates that community members value nonviolent com-

munication and in their experience, community members communicate in

peaceful ways. Additional training in nonviolent communication for all commu-

nity members would strengthen this aspect of a culture of peace.

9.8 International Peace and Security

Table 18: International Peace and Security

How do you feel about the following statements about international peace and security?

Please choose one response for each statement.

Answer OptionsStrongly

disagreeDisagree

Neither

agree

nor dis-

agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

Don't

know/

unde-

cided

Re-

sponse

Count

At UPEACE we develop knowl-

edge about international

peace and security.

0 3 11 77 14 0 105

UPEACE community members

value international peace and

security.

0 3 12 74 15 1 105

At UPEACE we develop skills to

promote international peace

and security.

2 7 19 68 7 2 105

After I graduate from UPEACE,

I plan to work towards improv-

ing international peace and

security.

1 5 14 46 27 13 106

UPEACE, as an institution, con-

tributes to international peace

and security.

1 7 17 51 20 9 105

Additional Comments 7

answered question 106

skipped question 28

As shown in Table 18, 87% of participants agreed that they develop

knowledge to promote international peace and security, 85% agreed that UP-

EACE community members value international peace and security, and 72%

agree that they develop skills to promote international peace and security.

With respect to future plans, 69% of participants agree that they plan to work

towards improving international peace and security, and 68% agreed that UP-

EACE as an institution contributes to international peace and security.

In the qualitative data, 7 respondents wrote comments, which was the

lowest number of written comments for any section. One student wrote that

UPEACE “contributes merely by existing as a space for people from many re-

gions in the world to coexist, interact, and support one another.” According to

participants’ responses, the area of international peace and security is one of

the strongest areas – or at least most agreed upon – in the culture of peace at

UPEACE framework.

9.10 Local Peace and Security

This section had two subsections, the first on local safety, and the second

on conflict resolution, as this was not explicitly dealt with in any other section,

but is an important part of promoting a culture of peace. The first section also

included a Yes/No question about violations of personal security on campus.

Table 19: Safety

How do you feel about the following statements about safety? Please choose one response for

each statement.

Answer Options Never RarelySome-

timesUsually Always

Don't

know/

unde-

cided

Re-

sponse

Count

I feel safe on the UPEACE

campus.0 1 5 30 67 0 103

I feel safe getting from my

home to the UPEACE campus.1 1 8 49 45 0 104

I feel safe off-campus. 0 5 20 52 25 0 102

Additional Comments 14

answered question 104

skipped question 30

78

As shown in Table 19, 94% of participants said they usually or always feel

safe on campus, and 90% usually or always feel safe getting from their home

to the UPEACE campus, while 75% usually or always feel safe off-campus.

In the qualitative data, 14 participants wrote comments. Four students

commented that they felt the road between Ciudad Colon and UPEACE is un-

safe. One participant wrote, “Traffic on the road to campus always makes me

feel very unsafe.” Another wrote that “the bridges are a little scary on the way

to UPEACE!” Two students specified campus safety issues; one participant said

they did not feel safe with regards to their belongings, and one student wrote “I

do not like the security guards carrying loaded guns.” Two students remarked

that they did not always feel safe on the streets of Ciudad Colon.

It should be noted that “off-campus” could mean many things – for most

students, this means El Rodeo or Ciudad Colon, the communities where most

students live. However, this could be interpreted as anywhere in Costa Rica,

and the university as an institution would have very little control or ability to

affect students’ experiences off-campus.

One participant wrote “Safe for me is when I can practice my religion

without hesitation and it only can be done in a boarding house or Mosque.”

This section indicated that students feel safe on-campus, but that some

efforts to making the road safer would improve overall safety. It should be

noted that during the 2009-2010 school year, a particularly rough patch of the

road was paved by the local government, thanks in part to lobbying by the uni-

versity.

Table 20: Personal security violations

Have you ever experienced a violation of your personal security (i.e., violence,

theft, etc.) on the UPEACE campus?

Answer OptionsResponse Per-

cent

Response

Count

Yes 7.7% 8

No 90.4% 94

Not sure/undecided 1.9% 2

Comments 12

answered question 104

skipped question 30

As shown in Table 20, 90% of participants said they had not experienced

a violation of their personal security on the UPEACE campus, while 8% of par-

ticipants experienced a violation and 2% respondents were not sure or unde-

cided.

In the qualitative information, ten respondents wrote comments. The vio-

lations they cited included: sunglasses went missing; being flashed on two sep-

arate occasions between UPEACE and home; being asked on a date by one of

the security guards; money stolen from bag; having been touched by other

community members; theft.

While violations of personal security rarely occur on campus, they still do

occur. With the recent change in security companies, there has been a clear

effort to improve security on campus.

Table 21: Conflict Resolution

How do you feel about the following statements about conflict resolution at UPEACE? Please

choose one response for each statement.

Answer OptionsStrongly

disagreeDisagree

Neither

agree

nor dis-

agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

Don't

know/

unde-

cided

Re-

sponse

Count

In my program we develop

knowledge about conflict reso-

lution.

2 14 18 58 11 0 103

At UPEACE, we develop nonvi-

olent conflict resolution skills.

8 15 18 52 8 3 104

Nonviolent conflict resolution

is valued at UPEACE.2 3 9 74 10 4 102

80

There are sufficient channels

at UPEACE for conflict resolu-

tion to handle conflicts within

the UPEACE community (i.e.,

between students, between

students and faculty, etc).

7 20 26 39 2 9 103

UPEACE as an institution pro-

motes local peace and secu-

rity.

6 13 26 42 7 9 103

Additional Comments 10

answered question 104

skipped question 30

As shown in Table 21, 67% of participants agreed that they learned about

conflict resolution, 58% agreed that they developed nonviolent conflict resolu-

tion skills, 82% agreed that nonviolent conflict resolution is valued, and 48%

agreed that UPEACE as an institution promotes local peace and security. Forty

percent (40%) of participants agreed that there are sufficient channels at UP-

EACE to handle comments within the community.

In the qualitative section, 10 participants wrote comments about conflict

resolution and local peace and security. Three participants commented that

UPEACE should be more involved with the communities of El Rodeo and Ciudad

Colon in order to promote local peace and security. One participant wrote that

“I would say that Upeace as an institution not only does not promote local

peace and security, but the opposite, since with the indifference it projects to

the local community it provokes negative feelings.” However, one student com-

mended UPEACE’s involvement with the communities, saying, “I fully appreci-

ate the strides that UPeace makes to develop good relationships with members

of El Rodeo and Ciudad Colon. Not all institutions would work so hard at this,

and it is commendable.”

These comments reflect different opinions and perceptions about UP-

EACE’s involvement with local communities in respect to local peace and secu-

rity. Less than half of the students in the quantitative data agreed that UPEACE

as an institution promotes local peace and security. As suggested by some par-

ticipants, one way UPEACE could improve local peace and security is through

developing a closer relationship to local communities.

9.11 Inner Peace

Table 22: Inner Peace

How do you feel about the following statements about inner peace (personal peace)? Please

choose one response for each statement.

Answer OptionsStrongly

disagreeDisagree

Neither

agree

nor dis-

agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

Don't

know/

unde-

cided

Re-

sponse

Count

In my program we develop

knowledge about inner peace.16 37 20 25 2 3 103

Inner peace is valued by mem-

bers of the UPEACE commu-

nity.

4 19 30 41 5 4 103

In my program we develop

skills for cultivating inner

peace.

14 48 20 16 2 2 102

Inner peace is part of cultivat-

ing a culture of peace.4 9 12 42 33 3 103

I have adequate time for per-

sonal peace practices in my

life at UPEACE (i.e., prayer,

meditation, movement etc.).

7 19 21 39 12 5 103

Additional Comments 15

answered question 104

skipped question 30

As shown in Table 22, 51% of participants disagreed that they developed

knowledge about or skills for inner peace in their program, 60% disagreed that

they develop skills for cultivating inner peace in their programmes, and 44%

agreed that inner peace is valued by UPEACE community members. With re-

spect to inner peace as part of cultivating a culture of peace, 73% of partici-

pants agreed that it is. Fifty percent (50%) of participants agreed that they

have adequate time for personal peace practices.

In the qualitative section, 15 participants wrote additional comments.

One student noted that practicing personal peace requires “not only adequate

time, but also places.” Three students wrote that they thought other students

82

had negative perceptions of inner peace. One participant wrote “Inner peace

has been looked down upon by many other students I have talked to.” Notably,

no students reported that they themselves had negative perceptions of inner

peace. One participant noted that inner peace is a large part of extracurricular

activities.

The data about inner peace as a part of a culture of peace corresponds to

research conducted at UPEACE by Wichmann (2009). Wichmann asked partici-

pants “How important is individual peacefulness to peacemaking?” to which

68% of respondents – who were UPEACE students, staff, and faculty - said

“very important” (on a Likert scale of not important to very important). While

the questions are slightly different in their wording, they illustrate that two

years in a row, over two-thirds of the UPEACE community feel that inner peace

(or individual peacefulness) is important to peacemaking and a culture of

peace.

Overall, this information illustrates that students feel that inner peace is

an important component of a culture of peace, but do not develop knowledge

or skills for it in their programmes at UPEACE. One way that UPEACE could

strengthen this aspect of a culture of peace is by providing more information

and skill-building workshops for inner peace.

9.12 Culture of Peace

This section consisted of three yes/no questions and three qualitative questions

about a culture of peace.

Table 23: Awareness of a culture of peace prior to UPEACE

Had you heard of the concept of a "culture of peace" prior to coming to UPEACE?

Answer OptionsResponse Per-

cent

Response

Count

Yes 46.2% 48

No 37.5% 39

Not sure/undecided 16.3% 17

If yes, please explain (where, when, how, etc.) 26

answered question 104

skipped question 30

As shown in Table 23, 47% of participants agreed that they had heard of

the concept of a “culture of peace” prior to coming to UPEACE, while 38% dis-

agreed.

In the qualitative section, 26 participants wrote additional comments.

Students wrote that they had learned about a culture of peace in various

places, including: former studies (9 participants), jobs (5 participants), ex-

tracurricular activities (2 participants), religion (3 participants), and books they

had read (5 participants).

This question was to gauge participants’ familiarity with a culture of

peace prior to coming to UPEACE. Less than half of the community was familiar

with the concept prior to their studies. This indicates that many students bring

knowledge about a culture of peace with them to the community; however,

many students do not, which is a strong reason to integrate the concept into

programs in a more intentional way.

Table 24: Knowledge, skills and values for cultivating peace

acquired at UPEACE

Has your overall knowledge, skills, and values in regards to cultivating peace in-

creased since beginning your studies at UPEACE?

Answer OptionsResponse Per-

cent

Response

Count

Yes 61.5% 64

No 17.3% 18

Not sure/undecided 21.2% 22

If so, how so? 28

answered question 104

skipped question 30

As shown in Table 24, 62% of participants indicated that their overall

knowledge, skills, and values in regards to cultivating peace increased since

beginning their studies at UPEACE.

In the qualitative section, 28 participants wrote additional comments.

Most comments reflected specific knowledge and skill increases. Three respon-84

dents indicated that their knowledge had increased through interactions with

UPEACE community members. One participant wrote, “Efforts to interact with

students and faculty from other regions of the world and to get to know Ciudad

Colon community and families have increased my ability to cultivate and value

peace.”

This question indicates that most students’ knowledge, skills and values

with respect to cultivating peace have increased. However, it is slightly alarm-

ing that so many participants disagreed with the question or were not sure/un-

decided, as UPEACE is an educational institution which aims to increase the

knowledge of its students.

Table 25: Culture of Peace at UPEACE

Is there a culture of peace at UPEACE?

Answer OptionsResponse Per-

centResponse

Count

Yes 47.1% 48

No 12.7% 13

Not sure/undecided 40.2% 41

Please explain 43

answered question 102

skipped question 32

As shown in Table 25, 47% of respondents agreed that there is a culture

of peace at UPEACE, 13% disagreed, and 40% were not sure or undecided.

In the qualitative section, 43 respondents wrote additional comments,

which is the most of any comment box in the survey. With respect to strengths

of a culture of peace, participants wrote: nonviolence is highly valued (1 partic-

ipant); diversity is a main characteristic (1 participant); peacebuilding is pro-

moted and strongly supported (1 participant); issues that bring tension or con-

flict are resolved in a democratic manner (1 participant) or by personal commu-

nication (1 participant) . One participant wrote,

“I feel that all the students especially, but also staff and faculty, are

so kind and open and tolerant. They are happy to share their views

and cultures and everyone is happy to witness them. This makes

everyone relaxed and feel respected and valued. This leads to

peace.”

With respect to weaknesses, four participants claimed that UPEACE, as

an institution and community, is not modeling the principles and values it is

teaching. One student remarked, “I am not sure that people are committed to

walk the talk and become a model.” Three participants wrote that most stu-

dents tend to stay in their own cultural groups, and saw this as inhibiting the

culture of peace. One participant wrote, “Many people seem to spend most of

their free time with people from similar cultural backgrounds, which tells me

that there is still work to be done in strengthening this culture of peace.” Three

participants wrote that the university lacked an intentional, holistic, integrated

approach to a culture of peace. One participant remarked, “There are compo-

nents that could be used for a culture of peace but the whole institution is not

actively or intentionally doing it.”

The quantitative data and qualitative data confirm that there are

strengths to the culture of peace, such as the promotion of peacebuilding over-

all, and members making an effort to promote peace. However, it also con-

firmed that there are weaknesses, such as a potential gap between what is be-

ing taught and whether this is modeled in daily life, and that the institution

lacks an intentional approach to building a community culture of peace.

In this section I also asked three open-ended questions:

1. What peacebuilding skills, knowledge and/or values

did you have prior to coming to UPEACE?

In response to this question, 71 participants gave written responses. Par-

ticipants listed a variety of skills, knowledge and values, including: nonvio-

lent communication (6 respondents), knowledge of social justice (2 respon-

dents), facilitation skills (3 respondents), mediation (3 respondents), negotia-

tion (2 respondents), listening skills (4 respondents), inner peace (6 respon-

dents), negotiation (2 respondents), conflict transformation (2 respondents),

and self-reflecting (2 respondents). This section shows the wealth of experi-

ence that UPEACE community members come to UPEACE with.

2. Is there anything about your experience of a culture of

peace at UPEACE that this survey does not capture? If so, please

explain.

In response to this question, 23 participants gave written responses. No

participants wrote that the survey did not capture for their experience of a

culture of peace. Fourteen respondents wrote “no” or “nothing”. Four partici-86

pants commented that they thought it was a comprehensive survey that cap-

tured their experience adequately.

3. Finally, do you have any suggestions for how we can

strengthen the culture of peace at UPEACE?

In response to this question, 22 participants wrote responses. Students

also gave extensive recommendations throughout the survey, and in this sec-

tion I will include a summary of the responses to this question as well as addi-

tional recommendations that were incorporated into other sections.

Table 26: Summary of Participants’ Recommendations

Education •Facilitate “best practice pedagogy” among permanent and visiting faculty•Develop standards for the way students are evaluated

•Establish a system for class participation evaluation•Provide students with some feedback during the course•Incorporate minority viewpoints in readings and in views presented•Put course evaluations online to allow for greater trans-parency •Infuse all programs with peace education methods and pedagogies

Environmental sustainability

•Create a more explicit environmental sustainability policy•Use recycled paper for course readers•Raise awareness of the university’s recycling program•Improve the university’s recycling program•Provide more natural and healthy options in the cafeteria

Democratic Partic-ipation

• Clarify SFS’s role through a mission statement• Provide democratic participation skill-building

workshops and exercisesUnderstanding,

Tolerance, Solidar-ity

• Make the programs a year and a half long to al-low time for deeper understanding

• Establish (institutionalize) a dialogue forum for students to come together and discuss cultural differences and issues

• Provide formal/institutionalized intercultural training, education, and exchange; cultural sen-sitivity training for all community members

• Provide harassment training to all community members

Communications • Provide nonviolent communication training for all community members

• Make a daily email digest so as to cut down on community emails received

• Improve transparency, particularly with respect to tuition (how it is spent) and financial aid (what the requirements are)

• Have a mechanism to ensure that students who are on financial aid are working hard

Local peace and security

• More defined mechanisms for conflict resolution on campus

Inner peace • Offer a daily meditative exercise

Culture of peace (in general)

• The administration should ask the students and alumni how together we can all strengthen the culture of peace at UPEACE

• More brown bags on the culture of peace• Have a Town Hall meeting on this topic

• Share the results of this survey with the com-munity

• Teaching people to practice what they preach

One participant asked, “What would a place with a culture of peace look

like?” The respondent gave the following suggestions: greater respect for oth-

ers’ space and time; formalized training on non-violent communication; formal-

ized/institutionalized cultural exchange, training, and education; an institutional

recognition that inner peace is important for a culture of peace, and setting

time aside to cultivate inner peace.

10. Feedback session and discussion

In this section, I will discuss the main points that arose during the presen-

tation and feedback session on May 14 from 12:15-1:00, which was attended

by approximately 20 students, staff, faculty, and members of the administra-

tion.

10.1 Discrimination

In the discussion forum, some participants felt that 32.8% was a high per-

centage of the population to have experienced discrimination. One participant

commented that discrimination has to do with individual sensitivities; for exam-

ple, someone who witnesses discrimination might think it is more important

88

than the person experiencing it. However, this can also relate to oppression in

and of itself, and how the oppressed become accustomed to being discrimi-

nated against and treated unequally (Freire, 1970). Thus one who is the victim

of discrimination may not perceive it as such.

Another participant commented that discrimination in and of itself is not

necessarily negative, as discrimination involves recognizing differences, which

UPEACE to some extent encourages by intentionally creating a multicultural en-

vironment; the difficulty is how to determine when discrimination is a negative

thing rather than a grouping by difference and diversity, which should be cele-

brated. This is a different definition of discrimination than the one used by UN-

ESCO, however, and different than the conceptualization used in this survey.

The issue of discrimination at UPEACE requires deep consideration as to

how to address it. UPEACE has a Nondiscrimination and Non-Harassment Policy

which outlines procedures for complaints of discrimination, but as noted above,

the Office for Diversity and Equality, which is to handle such complaints, does

not exist. Establishing this office would be one way in which the university

could make steps in dealing with discrimination issues.

10.2 Culture of Peace Comparison

Another participant asked if similar data was available for other institu-

tions so as to compare UPEACE to other universities. According to Adams

(2009), and as discussed above, culture of peace assessment should primarily

be used to compare an institution or community to itself, not with another insti-

tution or entity, over time to evaluate progress towards a culture of peace.

However, another participant noted that we can learn from other institutions or

communities by looking at their protocols in specific areas. Although compre-

hensive culture of peace assessment is a new field, many of the related fields

have been assessed independently and researched heavily. For example, Shu-

man & Rudelius-Palmer (1999) developed human rights indicators in their self-

assessment test Taking the Human Rights Temperature of Your School. Fur-

thermore, in cultivating local and global cultures of peace, institutions and

communities should share best practices so as to help one another advance to-

wards a culture of peace. Thus, while the culture of peace assessment should

be used to compare and institution or community to itself overtime, compar-

isons - with the purpose of learning, rather than competition - can be done with

other communities and institutions.

One participant referred to this as “benchmarking,” and suggested that it

should be someone’s full-time job at the university to engage in a project of

comparison.

10.3 Communication

In the communications discussion, one participant reflected that there

needs to be another medium of communication other than email, and sug-

gested the use of the large bulletin board outside the cafeteria as another

medium of communication.

This issue was addressed in the questionnaire as well, and it would be ad-

visable for the university to find other forms of communication that are not re-

liant on the Internet.

10.4 Inner peace

The topic of inner peace generated a lot of discussion. Several partici-

pants noted that there are strong extracurricular student-run programs for in-

ner peace, such as yoga and meditation. A question arose as to how inner

peace can or should be integrated more fully into all programs. Another partici-

pant noted that the physical location of the university was conducive to peace-

ful, personal reflection and developing personal peace. Another participant

suggested that what students have added outside the program should be con-

sidered to be added to the curriculum.

This feedback and discussion session brought up the new issue of culture

of peace comparison, and highlighted aspects of the survey such as discrimina-

tion, communication, and inner peace. That these topics generated the most

discussion indicates that they are areas that community members have partic-

ular interest or concern.

11. Conclusions

In the process of promoting a culture of peace, UPEACE is certainly en-

gaging in this process by providing graduate-level programmes in peace-re-

lated fields. To progress more fully, UPEACE, as an institution and community,

should take a more holistic, intentional, comprehensive approach to promoting 90

a community culture of peace. In this way, the UPEACE community could be a

model for the values and practices of peacebuilding.

Students’ experiences of a culture of peace at UPEACE were very mixed,

as is visible from the survey results, and in particular to the question “Is there a

culture of peace at UPEACE?” In the qualitative data, some students wrote of

experiencing a culture of peace; others wrote of experiences that were not

peaceful.

It is clear that to a degree, there is a culture of peace at UPEACE. The fol-

lowing chart highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each area, in accor-

dance with all data collected.

Table 27: Summary of UPEACE Culture of Peace Strengths and Weak-

nesses

Culture of Peace Pro-gramme Area

Strengths Weaknesses

Education • All programmes of study re-lated to peace

• Most students develop knowledge about most culture of peace areas in most pro-grammes

• Uncertainty of how students are evaluated

• Reliance on lec-ture as teach-ing method (by some pro-fessors)

• Lack of skill de-velopment for peacebuilding

Environmental Sustain-ability

• Many students develop knowledge about sustain-ability

• Students do not develop skills for sustain-ability

• Institutional poli-cies and prac-tices do not always to align with principles of sustainability

Culture of Peace Pro-gramme Area

Strengths Weaknesses

Human Rights • Most students develop knowledge about human rights

• Community members value human rights

• Many stu-dents report experiencing discrimina-tion, inequali-ties

Gender Equality • Most students develop knowledge about gender equality

• Men and women are mostly treated equally across the commu-nity

• Some stu-dents do not develop skills to promoting gender equal-ity in their work

• Uncertainty about overall campus gen-der aware-ness

Democratic Participation • Students de-velop knowl-edge about democratic principles and decision mak-ing

• Unclear as to role of SFS

• Many stu-dents do not feel able to participate in decisions that affect them

Understanding, Toler-ance, & Solidarity

• All three are valued in the community

• Many stu-dents do not develop knowledge for these three in their pro-grammes

• Many stu-dents do not develop skills for these in their pro-grammes

92

Participatory Communica-tion and the Free Flow of Information and Knowl-

edge

• There is a free flow of infor-mation be-tween stu-dents

• Most commu-nity members try to commu-nicate peace-fully

• Free flow of information between ad-ministration and students is low

• Most do not develop skills for nonviolent communica-tion in their programmes

International Peace and Security

• Most students develop knowledge, skills, and val-ues for inter-national peace and se-curity

• Most students feel that UP-EACE contrib-utes to inter-national peace and se-curity

Culture of Peace Pro-gramme Area

Strengths Weaknesses

Local Peace and Security • Most students always feel safe on cam-pus

• Most students develop knowledge about conflict resolution

• Some con-cerns about the road be-tween UP-EACE and Ciu-dad Colon

• Concern about rela-tions with El Rodeo and Ciudad Colon communities

• Insufficient conflict reso-lution chan-nels within UPEACE com-munity

Inner Peace • Strong ex-tracurricular programmes for inner peace

• Setting of UP-EACE pro-motes inner peace

• Most students do not de-velop knowl-edge about or skills for inner peace

A major strength for the culture of peace is that community members de-

velop knowledge in most areas. All ten master’s programmes are related to

peace, and most students develop knowledge for peacebuilding in their pro-

grammes. Most students develop knowledge about the other programme ar-

eas of a culture of peace in their programmes, including human rights, sustain-

ability, gender equality, democratic principles, international peace and secu-

rity, and conflict resolution. Most students report that community members

value most culture of peace programme areas, including human rights, under-

standing, solidarity, tolerance, gender equality, and peaceful communication.

With respect to gender equality, most students agreed that men and women

are treated equally across the community. With respect to peaceful communi-

cation, most students agreed that community members try to communicate

peacefully and that there is a free flow of information between students. Most

students agree that UPEACE contributes to international peace and security.

Regarding local peace and security, most students always feel safe on campus.

With respect to inner peace, there are strong extracurricular programmes for

inner peace, and the tranquil natural setting of the campus is conducive to de-

veloping a state of inner peace. These strengths highlight the degree to which

UPEACE has already developed a culture of peace.

A challenge in all areas is the gap between knowledge development, and

skill development and application in daily life. In most areas, community mem-

bers develop knowledge and values for a culture of peace; however, the way

this manifests in daily life and in practice is often contradictory to the knowl-

edge and values. While this is probably often an issue in academia, which

tends to focus more on theory, it is absolutely critical that the practical, skills-

based component of the various peace-related master’s programmes be at

94

least as equally developed as the theoretical component. I believe that the gap

between peace theory and peace experience on campus partially relates to

skill development, and also to personal reflection as to how we are personally

integrating the knowledge and values that we are learning as individuals and

as a community. Furthermore, while each of the master’s programmes has a

different focus, there are skills relating to a culture of peace that are relevant

and necessary for peaceworkers in all fields that all community members de-

velop, such as active listening and conflict resolution skills.

With respect to the hindrances to a culture of peace at UPEACE, a num-

ber of comments reflected the need to institutionalise various practices for a

culture of peace. This means to implement policies that support a culture of

peace, and for the institution to carry out these policies in practice. With a

more formal institutionalisation of these practices, more community members

should engage in behaviour that is consistent with the policies.

It is also important for community members - students, staff, faculty, and

administration - to receive support to initiate programs for a culture of peace.

According to the theory of Freire (1970), the ultimate goal of education is for

action towards transformation. It is critical that through the learning process -

which is happening at all times by all community members, inside and outside

the classroom - that members also have the opportunity to take action. With

respect to democratic decision making at UPEACE as discussed above, partici-

pants in this survey stated that they did not feel as though their voices were

heard by the administration. As a result, and as reported in the qualitative

data, some community members felt disempowered, frustrated, and doubtful

of the democratic process. In order to promote a culture of peace at UPEACE,

community members need to be empowered to be able to make decisions and

take action to promote a culture of peace, and one way that this could happen

is through increased participation in democratic decision-making.

As noted above, students come to UPEACE with a wealth of experience

and knowledge. UPEACE as an institution and community should not miss the

opportunity to take full advantage of each student’s talents, interest, and de-

sire to give back to the community.

A number of issues that arose were directly related to lack of communi-

cation between the administration with students and transparency. For exam-

ple, a number of students want to know what happens to the recycling, how tu-

ition money is spent, how financial aid is determined, and what the SFS role is.

These could all be clarified through improved communication and trans-

parency.

With respect to how to assess the culture of peace, this research project

was one step in this assessment. Through this research, it became clear that in

order to further understand the culture of peace, additional research should be

taken, which will be explored in Chapter 12.

The UPEACE community is progressing on the path of a culture of peace.

This research highlights the areas where this culture is already strong, and the

areas that can improve to move farther along this path. The UPEACE Commu-

nity Culture of Peace Action Plan in Chapter 12 outlines some steps that the

community can take in order to continue improving. I hope that this research

will be used to take action towards strengthening the UPEACE community cul-

ture of peace in a holistic, integrated way.

12. UPEACE Community Culture of Peace Action Plan

From the exploration of the culture of peace at UPEACE, this research of-

fers the following recommendations in the form of a UPEACE Community Cul-

ture of Peace Action Plan to be considered by the UPEACE administration, staff,

faculty and community. Ideally, this is the first such action plan, but this exer-

cise and action plan development should be performed on an annual basis to

ensure continuity and assess progress. This plan of action includes some of the

recommendations made by participants, as well as recommendations that I,

the researcher, feel would be valuable contributions to the community’s culture

of peace, in light of the research findings. The action plan is divided into three

categories: policy, research, and education and trainings.

The primary recommendation is for continued culture of peace assess-

ment, and for the university to develop an integrated, holistic approach to de-

veloping a community culture of peace. The following recommendations are ini-

tial steps on the path of culture of peace assessment.

While the community was involved in developing this action plan through

the ideas they contributed to the survey, working group and feedback session,

in future years, ideally there would be a community working group (or series of

groups) to develop the action plan.

96

12.1 Policy

While some policies were reviewed for the current research, a detailed,

thorough policy analysis was beyond its scope. In order to make more thorough

policy recommendations, further research on the universities policies in re-

gards to a culture of peace is needed. However, some recommendations can

be offered from the research findings.

• Participation evaluation standards: Clear standards for partici-

pation would strengthen the culture of peace by clarifying the edu-

cational evaluation process. Such factors could be based on atten-

dance, and include respect for different forms of participation, such

as active listening.

• Environmental policy: Mainstreaming environmental sustainabil-

ity in policy and practice would strengthen the university’s overall

culture of peace by creating greater harmony with the environ-

ment. These policies could be articulated in the Student Handbook,

and a session given at orientation explaining the policy so that all

community members would be aware. Greater awareness is

needed of the campus recycling policy. As different items are recy-

clable in different countries, recycling education would lead to

greater clarity, and could be given at orientation, and through on-

going campaigns (such as through posters, well-marked bins) to im-

prove recycling efforts. These policies should include efforts for de-

creased consumption, recycling, energy conservation, and green

building.

• Role of SFS: Clarifying the role of SFS would lead to greater under-

standing in regards to this form of community democracy. This

year, a committee was working on a mission statement, and this

effort should be completed. This effort will help to contribute to

clarifying the democratic decision making process, and hopefully

increase democratic participation on campus.

• Intra-community communications committee: In order to im-

prove the free flow of information, a committee could be formed to

determine how to best improve communications between the ad-

ministration and students, to ensure that students receive impor-

tant information in a timely manner. This committee could also

work on issues of transparency, such as with financial aid and other

issues that require clarification.

• Establishment of the Office of Diversity and Equality: Estab-

lishing the Office of Diversity and Equality would lead to improved

protection and responsibility of human rights, and increased under-

standing and tolerance. According to the Student Handbook (Uni-

versity for Peace, 2009), the Office of Diversity and Equality is re-

sponsible for handling issues of discrimination and other issues sur-

rounding equality, diversity, and multiculturalism. As of now, this

office only exists on paper. I recommend the establishment of this

office, in particular due to the findings in this research on discrimi-

nation. Upon its establishment, this office could work on issues

such as disability mainstreaming and linguistic rights.

• Ombudsperson: Establishing an office of an Ombudsperson would

contribute to a culture of peace by improving campus conflict reso-

lution. Many universities have an ombudsperson who handles the

myriad of conflicts that may occur in the university setting. Alcover

(2009) notes that “since institutions of higher education are as

prone to conflicts as all other human organizations, it is imperative

that university practice what it purports to teach in the area of con-

flict resolution” (275). This is particularly relevant for an institution

specializing in international peace. Alcover presents a contingent

model of mediation interventions within the scope of the University

Ombudsperson based on three dimensions:

“the level of balance or symmetry of power characterizing

the relationships between the parties involved; the foresee-

able temporal perspective of the relationship (short-term vs.

medium- and long-term); and the level of formalization of the

mediation process (establishing a continuum between formal

and informal mediations)” (2009: 276).

Such a model could be used by UPEACE to implement an office of

an Ombudsperson, which would serve as a conflict resolution

mechanism for the community.

· Community Liaison Office: A community liaison office could con-

tribute to the culture of peace by increasing local peace and secu-98

rity through stronger ties with local communities. This is a response

that combines some students’ observations that the university

could have greater involvement with local communities, and some

students’ request for more field work. Appendix B outlines a pro-

posal for a Community Liaison Office, that would coordinate

projects in the local communities with UPEACE students and com-

munity members.

12.2 Further research

The current research elucidated several areas where further research is

needed.

· Culture of peace policy analysis: A deeper analysis of the uni-

versity’s formal policies with respect to culture of peace areas

would complement this research.

· Culture of peace survey: Completing this survey in subsequent

years would create a better understanding of the culture of peace,

and allow the community to track its progress. In addition, all com-

munity members should be included, and the survey adapted ac-

cording to relevance and needs of different populations (for exam-

ple, for faculty, staff, etc.).

· Culture of peace benchmarking: As discussed in Chapter 9, it

would be beneficial to examine initiatives and protocols at other

universities that are working towards a culture of peace.

· Systematic programme content analysis: Similar to the policy

analysis, a systematic programme content analysis would examine

the integration of all areas of a culture of peace, using the frame-

work in this study.

Culture of peace analysis of other communities: A similar analysis to the

one conducted through this project could be carried out at other institutions or

in other communities.

12.3 Education and trainings

Additional trainings were suggested by student feedback, including cross-

cultural, nonviolent communication, environmental, and democratic skill-build-

ing workshops.

• Cultural training and discussion groups: A number of partici-

pants in the survey emphasized the need for promoting under-

standing. I propose having some cross-cultural training as a part of

orientation and foundation course. Then, I propose the formation of

small groups – perhaps 5 students per group – from different re-

gions, that would meet on a weekly basis to have cross-cultural dia-

logue. Another peace education student, Dawn Warmbrand, is cur-

rently carrying out her research on interculturalism at UPEACE, and

will be making recommendations for increased understanding.

Please see her independent research project for further details.

• Nonviolent communication training and groups: A number of

students who participated in the survey requested nonviolent com-

munication training, and previous classes also expressed interest in

such training in research by Wichmann (2009) and Rizzi Carlson

(2009). In a similar pattern to the intercultural training, I suggest

some nonviolent communication training during orientation and

foundation course, followed by study groups that would meet peri-

odically, perhaps once a week, to continue practicing nonviolent

communication. Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication

(2003) is one method, but other methods should also be presented.

A companion workbook exists for Rosenberg’s book that could be

used to guide the study groups.

• Culture of peace workshop series: In order to advance the cul-

ture of peace at UPEACE, and turn academic theory into daily prac-

tice, I propose a 12-week Culture of Peace workshop series. Each

week, one workshop would be offered on the week’s featured pro-

gramme area. The workshop series would be carried out once a se-

mester, with different emphases in the second semester. The work-

shops would be skills-oriented and reflective. These workshops are

specifically to address the gaps that remain in skill development

and application in daily life. The sequence of the workshops is from

inner to outer peace, from the individual to the international. Each

workshop would be 1.5 hours long.

100

These workshops would be intended for all community members. Each

workshop would be offered once in the morning and once in the afternoon to

accommodate everyone’s schedules.

The following is a sample format and list of topics. Ideally, different sessions

would be run by one community member who would ensure continuity and co-

herence throughout the program. When appropriate, guest speakers from

within or outside the community would be invited to share their expertise or

relevant experience. As with other culture of peace practices, best practices

from other communities could be integrated. Many educational workshops on

these topics have been developed by other institutions. The sample list in-

cludes workshop ideas from the Bonner Foundation (2010), an organization

that works with college communities in promoting education for social change.

As with the benchmarking, a similar research could be carried out to compile

different curricula on these topics.

Week 1: Culture of Peace – Overview

Key questions: What is a culture of peace? How do I already apply these

principles to my life? How can we promote a culture of peace at UPEACE?

Objectives: After this workshop, participants will be able to:

• Define a culture of peace

• Envision a culture of peace at UPEACE

This session would provide an overview of the culture of peace framework, and

ask participants to start thinking about how to apply the concepts in their daily

lives, using the Manifesto 2000 guidelines. Ideally, this session would take

place during orientation or foundation week.

Exercises: Participants brainstorm about culture of peace. The culture of peace

framework is presented. Participants break into small groups and create a vi-

sion of a culture of peace at UPEACE – What would a culture of peace at UP-

EACE look like? What practices and behaviours do we as community members

need to exhibit and integrate in order to manifest a culture of peace on cam-

pus?

Resources: Culture of Peace Framework, Manifesto 2000

Week 2: Inner peace

Key questions: What is inner peace to me? What are different practices

for inner peace?

Objectives: After this workshop, students will

• Understand different techniques for cultivating inner peace

• Understand the importance of inner peace in a culture of peace

This session will examine different practices that participants can use to culti-

vate inner peace. Different non-religious techniques for cultivating inner peace

will be explored. Students will be asked to share any techniques that they use

that help them to develop inner peace. Sample activities include brainstorming

on inner peace, a mindful eating exercise and compassion meditation.

Week 3: Environmental Sustainability

Key questions: How does my lifestyle impact the environment? What can

I do to live sustainably at UPEACE?

Objectives: After this workshop, participants will be able to

• Assess their personal environmental impact

• Understand ways that they can personally reduce their im-

pact

• Learn ways to create a more sustainable community, collec-

tively

This session will ask participants to reflect on their lifestyles in terms of envi-

ronmental sustainability. Participants will use a tool (such as an ecological foot-

print questionnaire) to evaluate their personal environmental impact in order to

reflect on ways they can improve their relationship with the environment. Par-

ticipants will also examine the UPEACE community to think of collective initia-

tives that could be taken to increase the sustainability of the community.

Week 4: Participatory Communication and the Free Flow of Informa-

tion – a nonviolent communication primer*

*Note: if the nonviolent communication training has already occurred as a part

of training or orientation, then this session can be a review, or take a different

focus, such as focusing on active listening, etc.

Key questions: What does it mean to communicate nonviolently? How

can I be peaceful in my speech?102

Objectives: After this workshop, participants will be able to

• Use nonviolent communication techniques to connect

observations, feelings, needs and requests

• Use active listening

• Explore other ways of communicating peacefully

This session will introduce key concepts in nonviolent communication, such as:

• Differentiating between observations and evaluation

• Differentiating feeling from thinking

• Connecting universal needs/values to feelings

• Making clear requests for what you want

• Active listening

Week 5: Education: Creating a peaceful classroom environment

Key questions: What does education for peace/peace education mean?

What does it mean to have a peaceful learning environment? How can we cre-

ate peaceful learning environments here at UPEACE, without avoiding conflict?

Objectives: After this session, participants will

• Define what attributes are part of a peaceful classroom

• Be able to integrate these attributes as students or teachers.

In this session, participants will explore the ideas of creating a balanced learn-

ing environment, where students feel safe and are free to express themselves,

while diving deeply into issues that could potentially cause conflict. Ideas dis-

cussed will include classroom guidelines, dialogue dynamics, and handling

classroom conflicts.

Week 6: Advancing Understanding, Tolerance and Solidarity

Key questions: What tools do I need to understand others? What assump-

tions do I bring from my worldview/culture? How can I heighten my awareness

to be respectful of others?

Objectives: After this session, participants will

• Have skills for cross-cultural understanding

• Be able to reflect on their own identities and ethnocentricities

This session will focus on cultural understanding in order to help students to

take full advantage of the multicultural environment at UPEACE. Students will

also explore ideas of ethnocentrism.

Resources: “Communicating Across Cultures” http://www.culture-at-

work.com/ex1xcincidents.html

http://bonnernetwork.pbworks.com/f/BonCurIdentityCircles.pdf

http://bonnernetwork.pbworks.com/f/EthnocentrismTraining.pdf

Week 7: Gender equality

Key questions: What is my understanding of gender? How do gender

roles play out in my life? How can I integrate gender principles into my

work?

Objectives: After this session, participants will be able to

• Define gender

• Understand how gender roles are present in their lives

• Begin the process of integrating gender sensitivity into their

work

This session will focus on gender equality and personal identification with gen-

der. Through personal reflection, participants will gain a deeper understanding

in the role that gender plays in their lives, and begin to think of ways that they

can mainstream gender equality in their work.

Resource:

http://www.bonner.org/resources/modules/modules_pdf/BonCurGender2Deepen

ing.pdf

Week 8: Local peace and security – Conflict Resolution

Key questions: How can I solve daily conflicts in a nonviolent way?

Objectives: After this workshop, participants will

• Understand basic mediation techniques

• Be equipped to handle interpersonal conflicts

Ideally this session would be co-taught by community members who have me-

diation experience, as generally there are several members of the community

who have mediation backgrounds.

Resource: http://bonnernetwork.pbworks.com/f/BonCurConflictResolution.pdf

104

Week 9: Human Rights: Exploring Discrimination

Key questions: What is discrimination? How do I discriminate?

Objective: After this workshop, participants will

• Understand different kinds of discrimination

• Understand how to take action if they have experienced dis-

crimination at UPEACE

This session will explore issues of discrimination in daily life. Participants will

explore ways in which they may have personally experienced discrimination or

have discriminated against others. Participants will become familiar with ways

to deal with discrimination at UPEACE.

Resource: http://bonnernetwork.pbworks.com/f/BonCurRacism.pdf

Week 10: Democratic Participation

Key questions: How does democratic decision-making happen in daily

life? What are different ways to participate democratically? How can we pro-

mote democratic participation at UPEACE?

Objective: After this workshop, participants will

• Understand different ways to participate democratically

• Have an action plan for how they can participate democratically at

UPEACE

This session will focus on how to apply principles of democratic participation to

daily life, at home and at UPEACE.

Resource: http://bonnernetwork.pbworks.com/f/BonCurCitizenshipRts.pdf - this

would need to be adapted for the UPEACE context, but provides ideas for ex-

ploring the idea of democratic citizenship.

Week 11: International Peace and security

Key questions: How can we contribute to the global culture of peace?

What would international security look like in a culture of peace?

Objectives: After this workshop, participants will

• Be able to apply culture of peace concepts in their home regions

• Understand different ideas of international security and how to

achieve it

In this session participants will look globally, with a discussion on how they can

contribute to cultures of peace in their home regions, and how this can be inte-

grated towards a global culture of peace. Ideas of alternative international se-

curity will be examined.

Week 12: Integrating practices: Reflecting on the semester, Action

plan for next semester

Key questions: What are related topics that we’d like to explore next se-

mester? What does the culture of peace look like so far in the semester? How

should we move forward?

Objectives: After this session, participants will

• evaluate the UPEACE culture of peace up to this point in their expe-

rience

• leave with concrete actions to take to strengthen the culture of

peace

This session will integrate the knowledge and work of the past 11 sessions. Par-

ticipants will reflect on their experience at UPEACE so far, assess the culture of

peace, and develop a vision for the next semester. Participants will brainstorm

ways in which the community can strengthen the culture of peace. This session

should also include an evaluation of this 12-week workshop series.

Resource: http://bonnernetwork.pbworks.com/f/BonCurSharedVision.pdf

106

14. References

Adams, D., et. al. (1986). The Seville Statement on Violence. Retrieved on June

12, 201

from:http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.phpURL_ID=3247&URL_DO=DO_

TOPIC

&URL_SECTION=201.html

Adams, D. (1995). UNESCO and a Culture of Peace: Promoting a Global Move-

ment. Original

edition out of print. Available at:

http://www.culture-of-peace.info/monograph/page1.html

Adams, D. (2009). World Peace through the Town Hall: A Strategy for the global

movement for a

culture of peace. Self-published. Available at: http://www.culture-of-

peace.info/books/worldpeace.html

Alcover, C. (2009). Ombudsing in Higher Education: A Contingent Model for Me-

diation in

University Dispute Resolution Processes. Spanish Journal of Psychology

12(1), 275-287.

Retrieved on June 23, 2010 from:

http://147.96.1.15/BUCM/revistas/psi/11387416/articulos/SJOP0909120275A.PD

F

Avruch, K. (1998). Culture and conflict resolution. Washington DC: United

States Institute of

Peace, pp. 5-21.

Brenes-Castro, A. (2004). An Integral Model of Peace Education. In Educating

for a Culture

of Social and Ecological Peace, Wenden, A. L., (ed.) Albany: State Univer-

sity of New

York Press. pp. 77-98.

Carter, C. (2005). Standards for Peace Education. Handout.

Cawagas, V. (2007). Pedagogical principles in educating for a culture of peace.

In Toh, S.H., & V.

Cawagas (Eds.) Cultivating Wisdom, Harvesting Peace. Brisbane, Queens-

land: Multi-Faith

Centre, Griffith University.

Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design. London: Sage. pp. 3-21.

Culture of Peace Foundation. (2005). World Report on the Culture of Peace:

Civil Society report at

midpoint of the Culture of Peace Decade. Barcelona. Available at:

http://www.decade-culture-of-peace.org/2005report.html

de Rivera, J. H. (2004) A template for assessing cultures of peace. Peace and

Conflict, 10(2). pp.

125-146. 

de Rivera, J. H. (2005). Opinion: Assessing the Culture of Peace. UN Chronicle

Online Edition,

issue 2. Retrieved on December 4, 2009 from:

http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2005/issue2/0205p53.html

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.

Groff, L. & Smoker, P. (1996) Creating global/local cultures of peace. In UN-

ESCO (Ed.) From a

culture of violence to a culture of peace. Paris: UNESCO. pp. 103-127.

108

International Congress on Peace in the Minds of Men. (1989) The Yamous-

soukro Declaration on

Peace in the Minds of Men.  Yamoussoukro, Côte D'Ivoire.

Merriam-Webster. (2010).Online Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Nhat Hanh, T. (2003). Creating true peace. London: Rider. Pp. 182-208.

Ortiz, C. (2010). University for Peace Department of Academic Administration.

Personal

Communication via email. June 29.

Presidential Commission for the University for Peace (1981). University for

Peace:

Basic Documents. San José, Costa Rica. 

Reardon, B. & Diallo, D. (1980). Creation of a Pedagogic Institute for Peace. In-

ternational Seminar

on Education and Communications for Peace: Provisional Report. In Uni-

versity for Peace:

Basic Documents. pp. 195-197.

Renner, M. (2005). Security redefined. In M. Renner, H. French, & E. As-

sadourian (Project

Directors). State of the World. Pp. 3-19. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Rizzi Carlson, O. (2009). The Peacebuilding Center @ UPEACE. Master’s thesis.

University for

Peace.

Rosenberg, M. (2003). Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. Encini-

tas: Puddledancer

Press.

Shiman, D. & Rudelius-Palmer, K. (1999). Taking the Human Rights Tempera-

ture of Your School.

In Economic and Social Justice: A Human Rights Perspective. Minneapolis:

Human Rights Resource Center, University of Minnesota. Retrieved on

June 24, 2010 from:

http://www.hrusa.org/hrmaterials/temperature/temperature.shtm

Stewart, R. (2007). Correlates of Peace Culture: Towards Culture of Peace Indi-

cators.

Master’s thesis. University for Peace. 

Stewart, R. (2008). Culture of Peace Assessment Tools/Report Card. Retrieved

on December

9, 2009 from

http://www.cultureofpeace.ca/culture_of_peace_assessment_tool.htm

Synott, J. (2004). Global and international studies. Transdisciplinary perspec-

tives. Southbank,

VIC: Social Science Press (since acquired by Thomson Learning Australia),

Chapter 12:

Ethics, Rights and Subordinated People. pp. 300-334.

The Bonner Foundation. (2010). Accessed on June 30, 2010 at:

http://www.bonner.org.

The Earth Charter. (1997). Retrieved on December 9, 2009 from: 

http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/uk/uk_sum_cp.htm.

Toh, S.H. & Cawagas, V.F. (1987). Peace education: A framework for the Philip-

pines. Quezon

City: Phoenix Publishing House, pp. 57-76.

Toh, S.H. & Cawagas, V.F. (2002). A Holistic Understanding of a Culture of

Peace. Presented at

the APCEIU Expert Consultation on EIU, Fiji.110

Toh, S.H. (2006). Education for sustainable development and the weaving of a

culture of peace:

Complementaries and synergies. Paper presented at the UNESCO Expert

Meeting on

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): Reorienting Education to

Address

Sustainability, 1-3 May 2006, Kanchanaburi, Thailand.

Toh, S. H. (2007). Pathways to the building of a culture of peace. Presented at

the Peace Education

Workshop in Uganda, 10-13 July 2007, organized by the Ugandan Na-

tional Commission for

UNESCO and the Korean National Commission for UNESCO. pp. 1-14.

UN General Assembly. (26 June 1945). Charter of the United Nations. Retrieved

on June 12, 2010

from: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml

UN General Assembly (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved

on June 23, 2010

from: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

UN General Assembly (17 December 1980). A/RES/35/55: Resolution on the Es-

tablishment of the

University for Peace. 

UN General Assembly (15 January 1998). A/RES/53/13: A Culture of Peace. Re-

trieved on

December 16, 2009 from http://daccess-dds-

ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N98/760/15/PDF/N9876015.pdf?OpenElement.

UN General Assembly (15 January 1998). A/RES/53/15: Proclamation of the year

2000 as the

International Year for a Culture of Peace. Retrieved on June 12, 2010

from:

http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-52-15.pdf

UN General Assembly (2 September 1998). A/RES/53/370: Consolidated report

containing a draft

declaration and programme of action on a culture of peace. Retrieved on

June 12, 2010

from:

http://www.culture-of-peace.info/annexes/resA-53-370/coverpage.html

UN General Assembly (19 November 1998). A/RES/53/25: International Decade

for a Culture of

Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, 2001-2010. Re-

trieved on December

16, 2009 from http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/uk/uk_sum_refdoc.htm

UN General Assembly (6 October 1999).  A/RES/53/243: Declaration and Pro-

gramme of Action on

a Culture of Peace. Retrieved on December 9, 2009 from 

http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/uk/uk_sum_cp.htm.

UN General Assembly (25 February 2005). A/RES/59/143: International Decade

for a Culture of

Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, 2001-2010. Re-

trieved on December

10, 2009

from http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/kits/Resolutions%20UN/A_RES_59143e.pdf.

UN General Assembly (19 August 2005). A/60/279: Midterm global review of

the International

Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the

World, 2001-2010.

Retrieved on June 12. 2010 from:

http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/Report/A%2060%20279%20ENG.pdf112

UN General Assembly (13 December 2006). Convention on the Rights of Per-

sons with Disabilities.

Retrieved on June 23, 2010 from:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/disabilities-

convention.htm

UNESCO. (1945). Constitution of the United Nations Education, Scientific, and

Cultural

Organization. Retrieved on June 23, 2010 from:

http://www.icomos.org/unesco/unesco_constitution.html

UNESCO. (1995). Declaration of Principles on Tolerance. Retrieved on June 16,

2010 from:

http://www.unesco.org/webworld/peace_library/UNESCO/HRIGHTS/124-

129.HTM

UNESCO. (1999). Manifesto 2000. Retrieved on June 12, 2010 from:

http://www3.unesco.org/manifesto2000/uk/uk_manifeste.htm

UNESCO. (2002). Mainstreaming the culture of peace. Retrieved on June 7,

2010

from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001263/126398e.pdf

UNESCO. (2001). Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2010). Culture of peace: what is it? Retrieved on June 16, 2010 from:

http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/uk/uk_sum_cp.htm

University for Peace. (2005). Contribution of the University for Peace to the

Mid-Term Report of

the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the Implementation of

United Nations General Assembly resolutions on the International Decade

for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World,

2001-2010. Retrieved on June 6, 2010 from:

http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/Report/UPEACE.pdf

University for Peace. (2008). Annual Report: 2007-2008. Retrieved on June 12,

2010 from:

http://www.upeace.org/PDF/UPEACE%20anuual%20report%2007-08.pdf

University for Peace. (2009). Student Handbook. Department of Academic Ad-

ministration.

Vaughn Chaverri, C. (2007). Peace through Health Initiatives toward a Culture

of Peace: A New

Perspective to Incorporate at the University for Peace? Master’s thesis.

University for

Peace. 

Wenden, A. Introduction. In A. Wenden (Ed.) Educating for a Culture of Social

and Ecological

Peace. Albany: SUNY Press.

Wessels, M. (1994). The Role of Peace Education in a Culture of Peace: A Social-

Psychological

Analysis. Peace Education Miniprints No. 65. Malmo, Sweden: School of

Education.

114

Appendix A: Summary of UPEACE contributions to UN Decade Reports

2001-2005*

Programme Area

2001 (A/56/349)

2002 (A/57/186/Add.1)

2003 (A/58/182)

2004 (A/59/223)

Culture of Peace Through Edu-cation

· Consulta-tions

· Advisory meetings

· Memoran-dums of under-standing (MOUs) with UN-ESCO & UNU

· Priority to de-velop peace studies courses to build capacity in devel-oping world

· Short courses in Cen-tral Asia, Latin America, Africa

· UPEACE founda-tion course

· Peace educa-tion mas-ters and interna-tional consulta-tion on the pro-gramme

· Training pro-grammes and in-terna-tional peace studies

· Students gradu-ated from NRSD, HRS, and ILSD

· Capacity-building in peace educa-tion and conflict preven-tion

· Courses in Buda-pest and Bangkok

· Multicul-tural courses on key peace-re-lated is-sues (and dis-semina-tion to partner universi-ties)

· Founda-tion course in interna-tional peace studies

· Repeti-tion of newly es-tablished masters pro-grammes(GPB, IPS, PE, ESP)

· Missions in 10 countries for edu-cation for peace in Africa

· 3 curricu-lum de-velop-ment work-shops con-ducted in Africa

· Short courses for mid-career profes-sionals

· Formal partner-ship with UNESCO & UNDP on Foun-dations for Africa's future leader-ship

116

2001 2002 2003 2004

Sustainable Economic and Social Devel-opment

· The Earth Council partner-ship

· Short courses in natural resources and con-flict pre-vention and socio-economic develop-ment and peace

· American University (AU) dual master’s pro-gramme being planned

· Short courses in natural re-sources and con-flict pre-vention

· 2nd year of AU dual master’s pro-gramme in Natu-ral Re-sources and Sus-tainable Develop-ment (NRSD)

· partner-ship with LEAD In-terna-tional

· Short courses

· Continua-tion of AU NRSD pro-gramme

· LEAD In-terna-tional partner-ship

· New master’s pro-gramme in Envi-ronment, Security and Peace

· Continua-tion of NRSD pro-gramme

· Launch-ing Envi-ronmen-tal Peace and Se-curity (ESP) pro-gramme

· Research on "Con-flict and collabo-ration in natural re-sources manage-ment in Latin America and the Carib-bean"

· Curricu-lum de-velop-ment on the rela-tionship between youth, employ-ment/economic opportu-nities, and the preven-tion of vi-olence

· Contin-ued sup-port to Earth

118

2001 2002 2003 2004

Respect for all human rights

· Expert seminar on Hu-man Rights and Peace in Geneva

· New Mas-ters pro-grammes in Human Rights Studies (HRS) and In-terna-tional Law and Settle-ment of Disputes (ILSD)

· 2nd year of HRS and ILSD pro-grammes

· ILSD & Interna-tional Law and Human Rights (formerly HRS)

· Prepara-tion of human rights ed-ucation material to dis-seminate in devel-oping countries

Equality be-tween men and women

· Masters in gender being pre-pared

· Short course on gender and con-flict being launched

· Interna-tional training on gen-der and peace-building for UN staff

· Interna-tional meeting for devel-opment of gender master’s pro-gramme

· 2nd in-terna-tional training on gen-der and peace-building

· Gender master’s pro-gramme to be launched in 2003

· Consulta-tion be-tween UPEACE & UN-ESCO to address gender issues in Latin America

· New course in gender and peace-building

· Spei-cialised courses on gen-der and peace-building

· African women peace-makers pro-gramme for train-ing and support

· One-week ad-vanced intensive course on gen-der focus in peace pro-cesses

2001 2002 2003 2004

120

Democratic participation

· MOU with Interna-tional In-stitute for Democ-racy and Electoral Assis-tance (IDEA)

· Contin-ued col-labora-tion with Interna-tional IDEA on bilateral and mul-tilateral projects

· Contin-ued col-labora-tion with Interna-tional IDEA

· All 7 masters pro-grammes deal with demo-cratic participa-tion

· Short courses on demo-cratic participa-tion

· Consulta-tions in Ar-gentina, Brazil, and Uruguay

Understand-ing, tolerance and solidarity

· Project to launch peace ed-ucation and re-search in central Asia

· Interna-tional Seminar on Dis-ability

· Develop-ment on courses for civil-military relations

· Follow-up work with Seminar on Dis-ability

· Further projects with In-clusion Interna-tional

· Civil-mili-tary course being de-veloped in Asia and Latin America

· Summer course on hu-man rights and reli-gion

· Special-ized course in "prac-tises in conflict manage-ment and peace-building" for wide dissemi-nation

· Brazil - assisting govern-ment with Peace in the cities and peace in the coun-tryside" pro-gramme

2001 2002 2003 2004

122

Participatory communica-tionand the free flow of infor-mation

· Estab-lished media and peace in-stitute (3-yr. devel-opment plan)

· Interna-tional confer-ence on the Lessons of the Tajik Peace Process for Afghanistan

· Institute for Me-dia, Peace and Se-curity to be lo-cated in Geneva

· Research on media and peace being ini-tiated in Latin America and Africa

· Module being de-veloped for UP-EACE masters pro-grammes

· Centre for Edu-cation and Infor-mation Technol-ogy at UPEACE - to de-velop in-frastruc-ture to make UP-EACE materials available globally and maintain UPEACE web site

· Institute for Me-dia, Peace and Se-curity launched 4 new courses

· Revamp-ing Africa pro-gramme's web site

International Peace and se-curity

· Agree-ment with Royal Thai army to de-velop ed-ucation and train-ing pro-grams

· Initiative w/Colom-bian gov-ernment to est. conflict resolution institute

· Partner-ship with the Inter-national Institute for Ap-plied Sys-tems Analysis

· Agree-ment for the es-tablish-ment of a sub-sidiary office of the Inter-national Court of Arbitra-tion at the main campus

· Promis-ing con-tacts with UNi-LAC

· Seminars on drug abuse and firearms

· Official launch of World Center for Re-search and Training in CR (WCRTCR) in Bo-gota

· 2 inter-national seminars on inter-national security

· In con-tact with ICA about es-tablish-ing court on main campus

· Working with vari-ous agencies in the Americas on cour-ses on control of illicit small arms trade

· WCRTCR

· 2 books on secu-rity pub-lished in Spanish

· High-level trainings aimed at senior officials, teachers and scholars in Central America

· Peace educa-tion and human rights curricu-lum for military services in Sierra Leone

· Creation of Latin America Centre for dis-pute set-tlement

· Course on illicit traffick-ing of small arms

124

*While UPEACE contributed to the 2005 mid-term report (A/60/279), the re-port was an overall summary of 2001-2004 efforts, emphasizing the develop-ment of new master's academic programmes, 5-year revitalisation plan adopted by the UPEACE council, and the dissemination of worldwide teaching materials. 

Appendix B: Proposal for UPEACE Community Liaison

Proposal for University for Peace Community Liaison Office

(Submitted as part of Peace Education: Strategies for Life, Final Paper,

Stephanie Knox)

Introduction

In the course Peace Education: Strategies for Life, we had the opportunity

to conduct field research in El Rodeo and Ciudad Colon, the two communities

most directly connected with the University for Peace. Even though we live and

spend a lot of time in these communities, for many of us it was the first time

we visited a school or other community institutions. In speaking with commu-

nity members, we realized the strong desire for greater involvement from the

University, and at times an even negative perception of the University for its

lack of involvement in the communities thus far. At the same time, UPEACE stu-

dents would like to develop greater connection with the communities, and

would also gain practical experience in their related fields. The local communi-

ties are potential "live learning labs" for the students to turn theory into prac-

tice, which are currently being underutilized. Furthermore, it provides the op-

portunity for service learning, allowing students to make meaningful contribu-

tions to their host communities. Although in our field work we worked specifi-

cally with the education sector, opportunities exist for students in all programs

who would like to gain experience and give back to the community.

A constraint on maintaining consistent community relations is that there

is no permanent structure at UPEACE dedicated to these efforts. While different

efforts have been made from year to year, by different individuals and different

programs, there is a lack of continuity in these efforts that is detrimental to

sustainability, partially due to the fact that students are only at the university

for one year. In order to build lasting ties, and to build programs that meet

community needs, there needs to be a permanent structure established at the

University to promote community partnerships and outreach. Thus I am propos-

ing the establishment of a Community Outreach Program at the University for

Peace, headed by the Community Liaison Officer.

126

The Community Outreach Program would help students to begin projects

within the community soon after their arrival, matching them based on their in-

terests and skills, and to develop projects and relationships throughout the

year. The Community Liaison Officer would be responsible for maintaining ties

within the community, for seeking out new partnerships, and for assisting stu-

dents with project development and implementation. The Outreach Coordinator

would also be responsible for maintaining institutional memory of the outreach

projects from year to year.

Background: Past to Future

While the University for Peace has been in existence for 30 years, it is really

only within the past several years that it has hosted a significant student popu-

lation. The increase in student population has had a significant impact on the

local communities of El Rodeo and Ciudad Colon. The University is located in El

Rodeo, a small farming community of 37 families. Some students live in el

Rodeo, while most live in Ciudad Colon, a larger city of 21,000 inhabitants lo-

cated 7 kilometers from the university.  As the university population has in-

creased, there has been an increase in the number of local businesses, local

taxis, and many local residents can earn money by providing student housing.

However, at this time, this relationship is largely economic, and has the poten-

tial much stronger and deeper, and transformative for all parties involved. The

University has plans for further expansion, increasing the number of programs

offered and the number of students. With this plan for expansion, it has the

possibility of having greater impact, and it is important to develop good rela-

tions with the communities now, so that all can be mutually involved in this

growth process. Furthermore, if this growth is going to affect the local commu-

nities, which it inevitably will, it would be advisable for these stakeholders to be

consulted in the planning process.

From the global to the local

The University for Peace's mission is "to provide humanity with an international

institution of higher education for peace and with the aim of promoting among

all human beings the spirit of understanding, tolerance and peaceful coexis-

tence, to stimulate cooperation among peoples and to help lessen obstacles

and threats to world peace and progress, in keeping with the noble aspirations

proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations " UN General Assembly, 1980).

While the mission is global, the university should begin its aims at the local

level, by sharing knowledge, skills and resources with the local communities,

and promoting "understanding, tolerance, and peaceful coexistence, (and) co-

operation" within the immediate communities.

Structures and Partnerships

This project will be a joint effort between the University and the communities of

El Rodeo and Ciudad Colon, thus involving multiple structures. To begin, I pro-

pose the following partnerships:

1. UPEACE and El Rodeo elementary school

2. UPEACE and Casa de la Cultura in Ciudad Colón

3. UPEACE and the Ciudad Colon elementary school

In the future, the University could expand its efforts, but for the first year,

I would suggest these partnerships, beginning with the first two, and if time

and resources allow, including the third.

As UPEACE is a formal educational institution, I propose the creation of a

new structure (of the Community Liaison Office) within the present larger uni-

versity structure. The Community Outreach Program would operate within UP-

EACE and in conjunction with the structures of the formal Costa Rican educa-

tional system and the nonformal Casa de la Cultura community education cen-

ter. 

Considerations in planning will have to take into account the structures of

UPEACE and the Costa Rican formal educational system, of which the el Rodeo

school is a part. For example, within UPEACE, programs could be offered as an

extracurricular activity, for credit, or as internships. Programs would thus have

to meet the requirements for credits or internships, whereas the extracurricular

activities would have greater flexibility. UPEACE will also have to consider any

formalities that should be taken in order to formally establish the partnership

with the school. It will be the job of the Outreach Coordinator to understand

these structures, and help inform students accordingly. 

128

The Casa de la Cultura, as a nonformal educational structure, most likely

has greater flexibility than the formal school system. Again, the Outreach Coor-

dinator should meet with the appropriate individuals (such as the president of

ADHERAC, Minor Perez) in order to better understand the structure.

Form

This endeavor should be between the UPEACE community and the El Rodeo

and Ciudad Colon community members. The UPEACE students should work in

collaboration with community members to develop project that meet commu-

nity needs as well as the needs and skills of the UPEACE students. The relation-

ship should be equal and horizontal, and based on mutual learning and dia-

logue. The entire process should be participatory and democratic. To foster cul-

tural respect and strengthen communication, UPEACE students should make a

best effort to learn and communicate in Spanish (unless they are teaching a

language class, which could be a part of cultural exchange efforts with the

Casa de la Cultura).

The main role of the Community Outreach Coordinator would be the liai-

son between students and the communities, rather than to design projects

his/herself. Maintaining healthy community relations will be an integral part of

this position. All projects should involve peace education pedagogies, such as

dialogue, creativity, reflection, and critical inquiry.

Sample Content: Art for Peace Project

The content of projects will again vary depending on community and UPEACE

student needs, the possibilities for which are unlimited. As both of our field

trips involved interviews with community members, some community needs

have already been established.

The El Rodeo school is highly interested in developing peace education pro-

grams for the school. Two projects that could begin immediately are:

1. Peace Education teacher training for El Rodeo teachers

2. Art for Peace class for students

For this report I would like to focus on the Art for Peace Project, which

could be done in conjunction with the El Rodeo school, Casa de la Cultura, and

possibly the Ciudad Colón elementary school.

At this time, there is no art class offered at the El Rodeo school, and art

has a significant role in peacebuilding. In our interview we asked the children to

draw pictures in response to the question, "What is peace?" It was evident that

they really enjoyed drawing, and that this could be offered on a more regular

basis. Furthermore, and Art for Peace class could be carried out by UPEACE stu-

dents with limited Spanish language abilities (in comparison with a teacher

training, which would require Spanish fluency). The school is also lacking any

decorations, and thus art projects could be used to beautify the school, and

give the children a source of pride in their work on display.

The Art for Peace program would be a one hour weekly class conducted

by UPEACE students according to the schedule of the school. To get supplies,

UPEACE students could solicit donations through a bake sale and/or concert,

both of which have proven to be successful mechanisms for fundraising in the

past at UPEACE. This project could potentially be carried out at the Ciudad

Colon school as well, perhaps with an art show at the Casa de la Cultura, thus

incorporating 3 institutions and strengthening partnerships.

Here is a sample lesson for the Art for Peace class:

Lesson 1: Peace Dove

Objective: To talk about symbols and meanings of peace

Materials: If possible, teachers should cut out dove bodies beforehand (other-

wise, would require scissors for all the children). 

    Thick paper for doves' bodies, thin paper for wings, scissors for cutting, col-

ored pencils or markers, string

Warm-up: Ask children "What symbols remind you of peace?” Invite students

who answer to come to the whiteboard and draw their image.

    Perhaps by this point someone will have already mentioned a dove. Ask stu-

dents, "Why is the dove a symbol of peace?" (Answer: from the Noah's Ark

story in the Bible).

Activity: Making Peace Doves

130

    Please see

http://www.sites4teachers.com/links/redirect.php?url=http://www.enchantedlea

rning.com/crafts/newyear/dove/ for diagrams and instructions for how to make

the doves.

    First have the children color the doves' bodies and wings. Then have children

assemble the doves. Finally, as a class hang the doves together (inside the

classroom, or on a tree. One option would be to bring a big branch to class, put

it in a box, and have the students hang them on the branch. That way it can

serve as a classroom decoration and will not contribute to outside litter).

Wrap-up: Ask children for reflections on the activity. Suggested questions:

· How do you feel when you make art?

· What did you learn during this class?

· What other kinds of art would you like to try?

A lack of community involvement from UPEACE is not only a lost opportunity; it

has the potential to negatively impact the university's reputation and percep-

tion within the local communities. It is an ideal time for UPEACE to develop a

community outreach and service program, which will benefit UPEACE students

and local community members alike, and contribute to cultivating a culture of

peace at the local level.