A proposal for change based on student and faculty perceptions of peace pedagogy within a peace and conflict studies program

• In Event: Highlighted session: Philosophical and pedagogical perspectives on peace education

Proposal

Working from a critical intersectional perspective (Crenshaw 1997; Cho, Crenshaw, McCall, 2013), this research seeks to understand the perspectives of students and faculty in relation to the theory and practice of peace pedagogy within a Peace and Conflict Studies (PACS) program. Although it might be expected that a PACS program would reject the banking approach (Freire, 1996) to education and practice critical pedagogies (McLaren & Jaramillo, 2008) this is not always the case. In fact, often both students and faculty within PACS may not be aware of peace pedagogy or understand how its practice can contribute to the break down of intersectional injustices that so often lead to violence. This paper argues for the integration of peace pedagogy across all programs in a PACS department, regardless of its particular educational mission.

The research draws on critical race (Ladson-Billings, 2004) and feminist theory (Lugones, 2007) as a base for analysis of the peace education discourses presented by the students and faculty. Through a mixed methods approach of workshops, online anonymous surveys and informal interviews, this research seeks to evaluate the practice of peace pedagogy within four separate programs within a PACS department. Workshops took place in June 2018, followed by surveys from July to September 2018, and informal interviews are scheduled to begin in October. Faculty conceptions of peace education within their teaching are explored, in comparison with student perceptions of those same courses. Student perceptions of their intellectual and emotional growth are contrasted with the pedagogical practices within the programs and correlations are explored. Comparisons are also made between the practices of peace pedagogy found in different departments.

Early results show some programs work very clearly from a post-development perspective (Escobar, 2000, 2004, 2006; Esteva, 1992, 2010), engaging indigenous ways of being and knowing, while others seem to engage a more traditional educational approach (Freire, 1996, Illich, 1970). Although the findings are still in the preliminary stages, it seems clear that there is room for positive change. If the results continue to hold to these trends, a proposal will be made for this particular PACS department in relation to pedagogy, which may hold lessons for other PACS programs. This may be especially relevant for those PACS programs seeking to decolonize their educational practices (Gorski, 2007; Sinclair, 2004; Williams, 2018).

Author

• Heather Kertyzia, University for Peace