Measuring Networked Peacebuilding: Peace and conflict international education (PCIE) and engagement in peacebuilding/social change

• In Event: Highlighted Session: Contemporary Perspectives on Peace Education: Evidence from Diverse Contexts

Proposal

International education and training programs focused on peacebuilding and conflict are an increasingly central part of university curricula and a key way that higher education institutions internationalize curriculum, give students valuable field training, promote engaged learning, and strengthen students’ global citizenship and professional development (Paige et al, 2009; Jacoby & Brown, 2009; Pugh & Ross, 2019). Peace education research illustrates that opportunities for cross-cultural exchange created through educational programs can increase understanding across different backgrounds, improve interpersonal relationships, and motivate further action for change, all of which are important areas of preparation for the formation of peacebuilders (Deardorff, 2015; Schroeder & Rosen, 2016; Stearns et al, 2018).

Peace- and conflict-oriented international education (PCIE) programs are based on a goal of shaping and increasing the agency of future peacebuilders (Bajaj & Hantzopolous, 2016); further, they are premised in part on the belief that learning occurs through relationships formed as much as through material taught (Pugh, 2020). The content of such programs and the networks they help foster presumably both contribute to the success of the peacebuilders trained and to the quality and effectiveness of subsequent peacebuilding activity by these alumni. Yet, little empirical evidence exists to demonstrate the significance of relationships formed through participation in PCIE programs as a source of social capital nor their impact on the effectiveness of subsequent peacebuilding and social change activities in the longer term (Ross, 2017; Ross & Lazarus, 2015; Iyer, 2019).

Further, conventional wisdom as well as preliminary research on the topic suggests that one of the most important resources contributing to effective peacebuilding work is not money or political power, but relationships, or social capital (Cox, 2007). Having access to appropriate channels through which to obtain information and best practices, connect with others, and evaluate the trust and quality of potential partners in carrying out work on the ground, are critical components for any peacebuilding initiative to be successful. Most of these relational networks can only be built and cultivated over time, and are catalyzed most effectively through in-person events, either as initial formative spaces for networks - such as those formed in formal and nonformal educational spaces – or as periodic spaces of renewal and coordination (Garb & Allen Nan, 2006; Pugh, 2020).

In the peacebuilding field, scholars note the importance of webs of relationships for creating sustainable change in societies characterized by conflict (Lederach, 2005; Allen Nan, 2009). Further, the social movement literature suggests that networks help individuals develop a collective or political consciousness/identity through socialization, that they connect individuals with opportunities to participate or mobilize, and that they facilitate decision-making (Diani, 2009). These ideas, when brought into dialogue, suggest that relationships formed around mutual goals enable cooperative behavior, sharing of resources and information, and increased understanding and empathy (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). Institutional or programmatic structures, such as institutions of higher education and training organizations, can provide the catalyst for these types of networks to form (Pugh, 2020). Indeed, educational and training programs are often the starting points that bring together people from different groups or countries for opportunities to learn and develop intergroup friendships (Sidanius et al, 2008), and their alumni networks often represent powerful sources of social capital for those who belong to them. Moreover, research indicates that networks play an important role in motivating individuals to engage in actions that move from what RPP (2014) frames as individually- to structurally-oriented change (Ross, 2017). This suggests that when educational and training programs intentionally bridge different countries and focus explicitly on the themes of peace and conflict, the potential for creating networks of relationships that enable subsequent cooperative efforts to reduce violence and build peace is enhanced (Fowler, 2005; Loode, 2011).

To this end, our ongoing project, Measuring Networked Peacebuilding, provides new insights into the impact of PCIE programs by exploring the breadth and strength of relationships developed through program participation and the degree to which they facilitate continued engagement in peacebuilding actions. We build on existing research by linking literature on networks, international education, social movements, and cross-cultural encounters to explore PCIE program impact. We focus on assessing the existence and significance of networks created through program participation and their salience for subsequent peacebuilding activity. Through this assessment, our project contributes to furthering our understanding of the long-term impact of PCIE programs in particular as well as international education approaches more broadly.

In this presentation, we present preliminary findings from our ongoing project, specifically from our survey of ~250 peace-builders from around the globe as well as ~200 alumni from partner PCIE-implementing organizations. We also draw from life history interviews with peace-builders, social change activists, and PCIE program alumni. Our findings address the following key questions:

1) What are the factors that shape engagement in peace-building and social change, making it more likely that people will get involved in these activities or scale up their actions?
Our preliminary findings provide insight into key turning points in peacebuilders’ careers, and the important role that a combination of the following often play in motivating and enabling their entry into this work: education and mentors, faith, political consciousness through cognitive dissonance, family, and direct personal or community experience with violence/conflict.

2) What is the role of networks in enabling peace-building and social change, and how do these networks form and operate?
Again, preliminary findings from our data illustrate the critical role of networks and relationships as channels for information and resources that enable action across the peacebuilding spectrum, including the ways they enable successful outcomes, scale up the impact of peacebuilding initiatives, offset limitations in funding, and grapple with North-South inequities and divides. Survey data points to the salience of educational spaces in enabling the formation and supporting the maintenance of such networks. Our interview data, in contrast, suggests that while education as a whole plays a formative role in shaping peacebuilder motivations and engagement, the values internalized from key mentors are most significant.

Authors

• Karen Ross, UMASS Boston

• Jeffrey D Pugh, University of Massachusetts Boston