peace education journal article

Journal of Peace Education

Journal of Peace Education publishes articles which promote discussions on theories, research and practices in peace education in varied educational and cultural settings. Journal of Peace Education is transdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and intercultural. It aims to link theory and research to educational practice and is committed to furthering original research on peace education, theory, curriculum and pedagogy. Journal of Peace Education understands peace education as education for the achievement of non-violent, ecologically sustainable, just and participatory societies. The Journal addresses a wide range of interests among scholars, researchers, activists, educators, policy-makers and practitioners in peace education. The editors welcome well-written articles that advance knowledge and assist the development of practice in peace education, as well as review essays and proposals for thematically based issues.

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About International Studies Perspectives
• About the International Studies Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, teaching peace with critical pedagogy, critical theory practiced in the classroom, acknowledgement, re-imagining peace education: using critical pedagogy as a transformative tool.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Christie Nicoson, Barbara Magalhães Teixeira, Alva Mårtensson, Re-Imagining Peace Education: Using Critical Pedagogy as a Transformative Tool, International Studies Perspectives , 2023;, ekad023, https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekad023

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Existing studies demonstrate that although peace and conflict studies (PCS) emerged from a deep connection between political activism and research, the field has increasingly moved toward promoting liberal ideals of peace that sustain the status quo. Amidst this trend, many scholars have pushed research and education programs to explore beyond a hegemonic liberal peace, for example by diversifying reading lists and drawing on decolonial frameworks. This paper adds to such efforts: through the case study of a higher education PCS classroom, we use narratives from two course conveners and a student to explore challenges and opportunities of realizing a critical pedagogy approach to peace education. This approach recenters the classroom not necessarily in terms of what students ought to think, but how; critical theory provides a basis for fostering curiosity, using query as a tool of learning, and focusing class structure on students’ needs. Our findings suggest that using critical pedagogy in PCS addresses calls for a greater understanding of peace beyond the absence of violence, fosters active envisioning of peace, and works toward decolonizing and demystifying peace work. Ultimately, we call for PCS classrooms to foster critical thinking and radical imagination for a pedagogy of peace praxis.

Resumen : Los estudios existentes demuestran que, aunque los estudios en materia de paz y de conflictos (PCS, por sus siglas en inglés) surgieron de la profunda conexión existente entre el activismo político y la investigación, este campo se ha ido dirigiendo, cada vez en mayor medida, hacia la promoción de ideales liberales de paz que contribuyen a sostener el statu quo. En medio de esta tendencia, muchos académicos han impulsado programas de investigación y educación con el fin de poder estudiar más allá de una paz liberal hegemónica mediante, por ejemplo, la diversificación de las listas de lectura o recurriendo a marcos decoloniales. Este artículo se suma a estos esfuerzos: a través del estudio de caso de un aula de PCS de educación superior, utilizamos las narrativas de dos coordinadores del curso y de un estudiante con el fin de estudiar los desafíos y oportunidades derivados de llevar a cabo un enfoque pedagógico crítico en materia de educación para la paz. Este enfoque centra la atención en el aula, pero no necesariamente en términos de lo que los estudiantes deben pensar, sino de cómo deben pensarlo. La teoría crítica proporciona una base para fomentar la curiosidad, para utilizar las consultas como herramienta de aprendizaje y para enfocar la estructura de la clase en las necesidades de los estudiantes. Nuestras conclusiones sugieren que el uso de la pedagogía crítica en los PCS aborda aquellas demandas relativas a una mayor comprensión de la paz más allá de la ausencia de violencia, fomenta la visión activa de la paz y trabaja hacia la descolonización y desmitificación del trabajo por la paz. En última instancia, hacemos un llamamiento a que las aulas de los PCS fomenten el pensamiento crítico y la imaginación radical con el objetivo de alcanzar una pedagogía de la praxis de la paz.

Résumé : Les études existantes montrent que bien que les études relatives à la paix et aux conflits (EPC) soient nées d'une connexion profonde entre l'activisme politique et la recherche, la discipline tend de plus en plus à promouvoir les idéaux libéraux de paix qui entretiennent le statu quo. Face à cette tendance, de nombreux chercheurs ont poussé les programmes de recherche et d’éducation à s'aventurer au-delà de la paix libérale hégémonique, par exemple en diversifiant les listes de lecture et en s'appuyant sur les cadres de décolonisation. Cet article vient renforcer ces efforts : par le biais de l’étude de cas d'une salle de classe d'EPC de l'enseignement supérieur, nous utilisons les récits de deux organisateurs de cours et d'un étudiant pour examiner les défis et opportunités liés à la concrétisation d'une approche pédagogique critique de l’éducation à la paix. Cette approche recentre la salle de classe pas nécessairement en termes de ce que les étudiants devraient penser, mais de comment ils le devraient : la théorie critique offre une base pour encourager à la curiosité, en utilisant la question comme outil d'apprentissage et en concentrant la structure de cours sur les besoins des étudiants. Nos conclusions indiquent que l'utilisation de la pédagogie critique en EPC répond aux demandes d'enrichissement de la compréhension de la paix au-delà de l'absence de violence, encourage une conception active de la paix et œuvre en faveur de la décolonisation et de la démystification de l'action pacifique. En définitive, nous appelons les salles de classe d'EPC à encourager la pensée critique et l'imagination radicale en vue d'une pédagogie de la pratique de la paix.

Over time, the once exciting idea of finding the key to world peace started to feel childish. However, when I eventually realized I actually do not know how to imagine positive peace or the way there, it left me puzzled. Why is it so hard for me, a peace student, to articulate a vision? (A)

The above reflection from Alva's last exam as a peace and conflict studies (PCS) student inspired us to question the challenges of learning and practicing peace in formal higher education. Students’ motivation to build peace is often met with some level of amusement; despite researchers’ most ardent convictions of contributing to positive change in society, the loss of such rosy dreams is often dismissed as necessary “maturity”—that as students grow and learn, they adjust expectations of changing the world. We argue, however, that the loss of tenderness, hope, and imagination experienced in PCS classrooms is symptomatic of the way academic programs and the research field have evolved and deserves considered (re-)insertion in pedagogy.

While PCS emerged with deep connections between political activism and research, the field has moved away from the radical transformation of society, instead promoting liberal ideals that sustain the status quo. In a context of increasingly neoliberalized higher education, PCS has become depoliticized and directed toward treating symptoms of conflict, rather than dismantling foundations of oppression and inequality ( Byrne et al. 2018 ; Lottholz 2018 ). A gap between practitioners and theorists yields closed knowledge production in academia vis-à-vis solutions brought to “distressed communities” ( Ragandang 2021 ). In this context, we ask, why do we study peace? And for what?

This paper presents a self-reflective case study of a PCS course to explore the challenges and opportunities of realizing such an approach in a higher education classroom. We conclude that critical pedagogy can help re-center classrooms on students rather than content, demystify peace work as something that happens solely in the Global South, and challenge the depoliticization of the classroom. This pedagogy further poses benefits to PCS research through addressing calls for a greater understanding of peace beyond the absence of violence, active envisioning of peace, and decolonizing peace as a Eurocentric practice. Ultimately, we contribute to a growing movement that calls for PCS and International Relations (IR) classrooms to be a place for the exploration of liberation and social change, and for the development of critical thinking and radical imagination toward a peace praxis that calls into question the status quo of pedagogical structures. Our approach centers the classroom not necessarily in terms of what students ought to think, but how ( Tickner 2020 ).

Peace in the 21 st Century: Critical Perspectives on Violence, Justice, and Peace is a 4-week, 7.5 credit elective in the PCS Bachelor's program at Lund University in Sweden. The authors of this paper participated in the course: Barbara and Christie, doctoral candidates, who study and teach in peace and political science classrooms, designed and led the course; and Alva, the recent graduate, participated as a student. The course comprises three lectures focused on core theories and five seminars on specific themes, with assessment via participation and a written exam. This paper studies the first iteration of the course in 2022. The classroom comprised eight students—all women, Swedish, and PCS program students. Enrollment opened late due to delays partially connected to the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning no international students applied. The 3-year PCS program draws instructors from the fields of social science, humanities, and law. Courses cover dynamics of war, politics, and peacebuilding, with topics such as democratization, conflict management and transformation, human rights, and environmental issues.

Our case study analysis consists of novel empirical data collected during and after completion of the course. We analyze course design materials such as the syllabus, planning documents, and classroom materials created and provided by teachers. We also analyze a variety of reflective materials. Alva's final exam, a personal narrative, provides a primary source. After the course, each author journaled individual reflections, recalling impressions and classroom experiences. These narratives compose collective reflections while honoring individual perspectives. We also draw data from anonymous student evaluations given at the conclusion of the course. 1 Additionally, we include input about course structure, workload, and content gathered through discussions held during seminars one-third of the way through, at the mid-point, and the end of the course. In the final course meeting, Barbara and Christie invited course participants to join a collective project of pedagogic reflection, which resulted in this paper. All students gave consent to have their course participation included; only Alva volunteered to join the project and therefore provides more specific student-perspective data.

The paper reflects and remains constrained by how our individual power, privileges, and ideas connect to economic, social, and cultural background, beliefs, and biases ( Ackerly and True 2010 ). All three co-authors on this paper are women, trained in Swedish PCS classrooms (Barbara and Christie for MSSc degrees and Alva a BA), who work with PCS predominantly in English. Alva from Sweden, Christie from United States, and Barbara from Brazil come from privileged backgrounds with access to higher education and stable fulfillment of basic needs. Writing this paper, Alva particularly acknowledges the privilege of her own reflections and progress in Peace in the 21 st Century are made possible by her financial stability. We push ourselves to expand and use critical lenses in our ongoing study and work, but constantly face limitations in our ways of expressing, knowing, and relating as well as realities of working within an institution based upon and prioritizing Western ways of knowing, foci, and outcomes within the broader academic system. Furthermore, while participating in classroom discussions about the problems of West-centric peace practices, we remain part of that system and must consider our own positionalities continuously so as not to claim other people's voices or slip into ideas of being “above” or disconnected from the issues at hand.

This paper reviews pedagogical challenges in PCS higher education and describes key aspects of critical pedagogy in relation to the scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL). We then present empirical material detailing the course structure and including narratives of physical and emotional experiences from each of the three authors. These underpin the theoretical argumentation and continually connect our positionalities, classroom experiences, and the broader field. We conclude with impressions and implications of critical pedagogy in peace education as a means of working toward an alternative peace praxis.

“Peace” Emerging within and Beyond Academia

Many identify the inception of peace studies amidst post-WWII peace activism and the emergence of modern social science ( Gleditsch et al. 2014 ; Krause 2019 ). Aims of radical social transformation marked the field, combining a theoretical understanding with normative commitments of building peace (e.g., Addams et al. [1906] ; Galtung 1969 ; Hettne 2001 ). The scholarship included armed violence but also explored how these material manifestations connect to structural violence such as poverty and inequality, as well as culturally violent norms and values like colonialism, Eurocentrism, patriarchalism, racism, etc. Research identified and sought to negate deeply rooted structures of violence and segregating values and norms.

As peace studies grew, it increasingly separated research and teaching from politics and activism, leaving early praxis relatively marginalized ( Krause 2019 ). In the 1970s and 1980s, many researchers feared connections with practices of peace and anti-war movements would “give peace research a bad name” and “discredit the scientific mode” ( Singer 1976 , 124). In efforts to further establish and maintain “academic respectability,” the field favored peace research as “science,” following trends in social sciences toward positivist explanations of social phenomena ( Krause 2019 , 293). In parallel, many universities and research centers adopting peace studies saw “conflict” as a more established academic concept and thus favored the double qualification of “peace and conflict studies” ( Gleditsch et al. 2014 , 147). Positivist approaches and a focus on conflict, rather than peace per se, dominates contemporary PCS ( Gleditsch et al. 2014 ; Bright and Gledhill 2018 ).

Beyond academia, concepts of peace and peacebuilding gained traction with the UN and other multinational agencies and international financial organizations and underwent further (re)interpretation through Western ideals of modernization and progress. Peace efforts became increasingly aligned with dominant systems, complying with and sustaining violent projects of resource extraction and economic growth ( Hettne 2001 ; Jaime-Salas et al. 2020 ). Discourses on peace and development became entwined: rather than focusing on liberation from oppression and violence, peace efforts upheld and reproduced dominating and exploitative structures ( Magalhães Teixeira forthcoming ).

While many scholars and practitioners recognize problems with liberal ideas of peace and challenge this hegemon, there remains a largely instrumentalist approach to peace. Lottholz (2018 , 697) observes that the “peace writing industry” enables a universalist ontology catered toward an industry of peacebuilding and dominant values of free market capitalism, ironically distracting from everyday struggles in conflict-affected contexts. These models neither account for nor address colonial violences of the past nor those persisting today ( Byrne et al. 2018 ). Lottholz (2018 , 697) argues that this ultimately “may render it [peace studies] complicit in the instantiation of negative and imperial forms of peace.” Critical voices within PCS and IR more widely urge engagement beyond conflict or the study of overt wars and physical violence, to center mundane “everyday” experiences of peace in order to more comprehensively understand and address conditions of violence and peace (e.g., Cruz and Fontan 2014 ; Väyrynen 2019 ; Wibben et al. 2019 ; Jaime-Salas et al. 2020 ; Parrado Pardo 2020 ). A gap emerges in terms of (re)producing dominant worldviews and limiting ways of understanding and practicing peace.

Classrooms for Peace, to What End?

To what end then does education in PCS aim, and are such goals achievable through prevailing teaching methods? Critical IR scholars point out that the means of teaching shape international affairs, not least through the training of professionals, leaders, and teachers ( Frueh et al. 2021 ; Hornsby and  Grant 2021 ). Broadly speaking, IR syllabi, classroom design, and pedagogic choices lack diversity and follow a mainstream Global North canon ( Andrews 2022 ). A study on PCS in Western and especially North American higher education shows centering privatization, deregulation of institutes, free-market economics, and the promotion of the entrepreneurial self as strategies for peace ( Kester 2017 ). Such teaching privileges rational discourse and Western epistemologies as the foundation of knowledge ( Fúnez-Flores 2022 ) and takes place amidst the neoliberalization of higher education, where classrooms are increasingly progress-driven through market values. This constrains education programs and leads to feelings of isolation and competition, ultimately hindering student growth as critical thinkers ( Giroux 2019 , 240) by “restricting the intimacy necessary for deep engagement with critical perspectives, such as anti-oppressive practice” ( Preston and Aslett 2014 , 504).

Furthermore, it has been shown that peace education largely emphasizes psychosocial and technocratic processes while missing broader social issues such that learning may in fact perpetuate inequalities and harm ( Hajir and Kester 2020 ). In many classrooms, closed and nonreflexive teaching streamlines student demonstration of acquiring textbook knowledge ( Kertyzia 2022 , 177–9). This acts to “discipline” learners: excluding pioneers and forcing students into coherence, leading to boredom and distortion of the messy reality of peace and conflict issues ( Sjoberg 2017 , 163–5). Such “passive curricula” focuses on “the what” over “the how” and fails to prepare students for life beyond the classroom ( Smith and Yahlnaaw 2021 , 39).

This state of pedagogy in higher education for peace studies holds implications for not only what students learn, but the ways in which they do so. As Roohi ( Wibben et al. 2019 , 90) explains, “to study peace (and its multiple meanings—or the lack thereof—or to provide a critique of existing traditions of “studying peace”), we must avoid replication of set precedents as they are confined by hegemonizing impulses within peace studies.” Strategies to bring alternatives in balance with current mainstream teaching approaches often center around attention to power relations between ways of knowing, perspectives included, and dynamics in the classroom. Such efforts moreover recognize that teaching is never neutral, but value-laden, and ask scholars to rethink classrooms and curricula as political ( Smith and Hornsby 2021 ).

Existing efforts with critical pedagogy challenge neoliberalizing processes that otherwise increasingly isolate and draw divides between students and teachers, academics and activists ( Mott et al. 2015 ). IR has seen growing attention to power imbalances and perpetuation of violence in pedagogy. Wemheuer-Vogelaar and colleagues (2020 , 18) urge that “IR courses should sensitize students to geo-epistemological biases and epistemic violence while allowing for a collective reflection on the discipline.” Educators of critical PCS focus on inquiry, shaping classrooms for questions and generation of new processes, rather than a space for defining answers ( Bajaj 2015 , 160). Such approaches to help students understand multiple viewpoints and develop critical thinking skills work best through centering student needs ( Kertyzia 2022 , 179). With this focus, the teachers’ role also transforms: instructors adopt an active role sharing experiences and reflecting on their own positionality as a means to build knowledge and skills and to explore different behaviors and worldviews that promote peace ( Bajaj 2015 , 155; Kertyzia 2022 ).

In this line, existing studies explore creative, reflexive ways to break from closed systems (e.g., Bittencourt 2021 ; Tavares de Oliveira 2021 ). As Confortini (2017 , 85) argues, “in order to be relevant, transformative, and rebellious, IR theory must be prefigurative: it must remain connected with an ‘emancipatory outcome’”; prefigurative IR theory helps classroom participants enact visions and think outside traditional teaching. For example, Ling (2017 , 141) builds on Buddhist practices of making space for irreverence, questioning, creativity, and playfulness; she suggests “kōanizing IR” to emancipate the field politically, intellectually, and spiritually, and to move away from foci of parsimony, rigor, and autonomy. Undisciplining IR, Sjoberg (2017 , 166–7) suggests fantasy as a tool of “thinking without a net,” moving beyond singularity and exclusion, asking students to question teaching itself. Other recent interventions push for “doing IR as if people mattered” and explore joy in teaching and studying IR (e.g., Krystalli 2021 ; Särmä 2021 ). Wibben ( Wibben et al. 2019 , 103) highlights that a curriculum leading with utopias and peace, rather than violence and conflict, provides a means for moving beyond pessimism, reflecting that “if we don't make an active effort to imagine what an alternative, peaceful society would look like, we are less likely to realize that another world is not only possible but can be enacted.”

Building on these foundations of critique and examples of existing critical pedagogic approaches, we join in creating an active and creative PCS environment to stimulate transformative peace action. We see peace education itself as a praxis; teaching PCS is not neutral, nor can or should it be seen as removed from experiences and practices of peace. Building on feminist and decolonial perspectives, we explore how a critical pedagogy rooted in praxis can foster curiosity and critical questioning. By shaking the status quo, we argue that students become more engaged and empowered as active “peacebuilders” within and beyond the classroom.

Scholars increasingly highlight that an uncritical peace education may (however unintentionally) reproduce hegemonizing ideas and prescriptive strategies that normalize different forms of violence built into societal structures ( Jaime-Salas et al. 2020 ). Critical PCS recenters transformational potential through supporting students to be strong scholars who practice “doing” peace. In this section, we construct a theoretical framework that aligns normative commitments of peace studies with propositions of critical pedagogy.

We follow the scholarship of bell hooks (1994 ) and Paulo Freire (2017 , [1970] ), using critical pedagogy that challenges students and teachers to dismantle oppressive and violent systems in practice and processes of reflection. We apply this in PCS through three independent but intertwined ideas rooted in SOTL. First, we draw on the idea of engaged pedagogy , which centers learning processes around students’ active participation and learning and moves away from a “banking” system of education with teachers as fountains of knowledge and students as empty buckets ( Freire 2017 [1970] ). Second, we use discomfort to unpack classroom processes in unraveling central concepts and theories. Finally, we embed classroom discussions in the idea of praxis as a tool to transform teaching about peace and activate education in processes of transformation. We discuss each of these in relation to SOTL tools and strategies to facilitate deep learning (e.g., Trigwell 2006 ; Elmgren and Henriksson 2018 ).  Figure 1 visualizes this: these core course design components appear in the center, with the second-tier circle identifying components of these, to be discussed in the following subsections. The outer-most circle presents themes from analyzing the design and experiences of the course: a caring classroom model, practicing reflexivity , and envisioning peace . We explore these themes in Section 3.

Critical pedagogy design and outcomes in a PCS classroom.

Engaged Pedagogy

A critical pedagogy approach necessitates (re)structuring learning around engagement between teachers and students. bell hooks (1994 ) deconstructs the idea that solely teachers hold responsibility for classroom dynamics. “Engaged pedagogy” entails education as a practice of freedom that invites both students and teachers to share, be empowered, and grow ( hooks 1994 ). This process cannot be actualized if teachers are encouraging students to take risks, but are not willing to do the same. When teachers engage in bringing narratives of their own lived experiences or personal interrogations into the classroom, it demystifies the view of the teacher as all-knowing and all-encompassing, in opposition with students. Instead, the classroom becomes a communal space for knowledge production. Students join teachers in maintaining a creative learning environment, reflecting and theorizing in connection with their own lived experiences to build confidence in sharing their constant and unfinished process of reasoning.

A constructivist theory of knowledge sees learning shaped as part of a greater whole such that “knowledge and understanding are based on experience and are not regarded as something that can just be transferred from teachers to students” ( Elmgren and Henriksson 2018 , 42). This “deep approach” involves an intention to understand rather than simply complete a requirement, and yields higher quality learning outcomes ( Trigwell 2006 ). Moreover, Freire (2017 [1970] ) urges moving away from a “banking” concept of education, where the teacher and the student are understood as opposites. To Freire (2017 [1970] ), this projects “absolute ignorance” onto the students and reproduces classroom subordination and hierarchy. This dichotomizes people/world and suppresses opportunities or abilities to change oppressive structures. In contrast, a “problem-posing” model of education sees knowledge as co-created and challenged at all stages (Freire 2017 [1970]). By breaking the teacher/student dichotomy of knowledge provider/receiver, the learning process emerges dialectically rather than unilaterally.

Bringing these perspectives to peace studies allows learners to question static understandings of peace and violence, and the separation between academia and the “real world.” Ways of teaching PCS that reproduce the “banking” method of education directly or indirectly reinforce fatalistic views of the world. An engaged pedagogy approach, meanwhile, allows students and teachers to engage in deep theoretical and conceptual discussions, and to reimagine how these processes came about from a political and historical perspective. This depends on fostering curiosity, the use of query as a tool of learning, and teaching that focuses on student needs. Reardon writes, “the sequence and mode of instruction most effectively emerge from the learners’ question, ‘What does this subject have to do with me, my life and the society in which I live?’” ( Reardon and Snauwaert 2011 , 6). Thus, teaching is not necessarily a matter of what students ought to think, but how .

As discussed above, a critical approach to PCS aims to disrupt power relations and foster a deeper understanding of violence and social transformations. Achieving this necessitates engaging with underlying coloniality in how concepts are learned or taught, complicity with a violent hegemony, and personal roles in transformation ( Hajir and Kester 2020 ). A pedagogy of discomfort gives students an opportunity to question their own worldviews and assumptions, creating possibilities for growth, compared to retreats to comfortable, safe spaces ( Davis and Steyn 2012 ; Felman 2013 ). Here, we draw on the tool of activating prior knowledge . SOTL demonstrates that students’ prior knowledge affects how they learn, in terms of sufficient prior knowledge needed to move forward, inaccurate knowledge, or through strengthening appropriate associations. Furthermore, students “learn more readily when they can connect what they are learning to what they already know” ( Ambrose et al. 2010 , 18). This enables engaging with discomfort, since prior knowledge attained both within and beyond classrooms shape how students process and relate to new material. This opposes the banking form of education that separates students’ own experiences and prior knowledge from learning processes. Activating prior knowledge thereby provides an important source of leverage or a vantage point from which to contextualize knowledge and explore the limits and potentials of different research paradigms.

In addition, the tools of practice and feedback complement processes of discomfort. Critical course content may challenge deeply personal perspectives, assumptions, or blind spots. In asking students to engage with this discomfort, an encouraging environment couples practice with targeted, low-stakes feedback. As we introduce new material (concepts, theories, cases) and skills (summarizing, analyzing, critiquing), opportunities for students to apply what they learn and receive feedback help them retain knowledge and build skills ( Ambrose et al. 2010 ; Elmgren and Henriksson 2018 ). Teachers and peers give feedback throughout the course, including through discussion of assessment criteria and how to use feedback. The practice-feedback cycle provides lower-stakes contexts for students to explore the discomfort of questioning assumptions, challenging a status quo, or venturing beyond their zones of comfort.

Through a critical pedagogy for peace education, we aim not only to employ the concepts and tools for education but also to center the relationship between theory and praxis. Freire (2017 [1970] , 126) defines praxis as the combination of theory with both reflection and action directed at the transformation of structures. Praxis holds it impossible to only discuss processes of transformation from a purely intellectual perspective—it must be grounded in action. In the same way, action cannot be limited to pure activism, but requires grounding in theoretical reflection.

Praxis also helps promote intrinsic motivation , a key factor that “generates, directs, and sustains what [students] do to learn” and this can be stimulated in a variety of ways ( Ambrose et al. 2010 , 69). One approach for achieving this is in connecting classroom work to broader societal contexts or students’ future studies, and sharing of teachers’ own enthusiasm for relevant areas of study. Learning anchored in larger problems benefits student motivation and teacher skills in IR classrooms ( Brown and King 2000 ) and fosters deep learning in understanding ideas, seeking meaning, and encouraging dialogue ( Trigwell 2006 ; Elmgren and Henriksson 2018 ).

Finally, the classroom experience helps explore and utilize praxis as an educational tool. Widely accepted constructivist approaches to teaching and learning agree that individuals construct knowledge in relation to their own context, extending classroom environments and cultural communities ( Brown and King 2000 ). As praxis involves theory with action and reflection and further interlinks with the aspect of discomfort, we use class environment to encourage engagement with praxis. Fostering a welcoming and inclusive space entails care (or acts of love, as bell hooks instructs) and using varied methods to shape environments that are stimulating, challenging, and welcoming for all students. For example, classrooms may draw on a variety of media and teaching methods, practice flexibility, vary representation, or offer options for expression. Different activities facilitate particular outcomes and teaching methods, varying in suitability for each student’s needs ( Haggis 2006 ; CAST 2018 ). For example, using teaching materials like songs, poems, or visual art could stimulate learning outcomes differently and also engage students and teachers in practices of active reflection. Using different learning styles provides an opportunity for praxis in the classroom.

To illustrate and analyze critical pedagogy in the classroom, we examine Peace in the 21 st Century , presented in the introduction. The case study draws on two streams of empirics: course design materials and experiences of course participants—both teachers and students. Our analysis describes and reflects on interweaving theoretical bases and practical strategies of engaged pedagogy, discomfort, and praxis from critical pedagogy and SOTL.  Table 1 summarizes implementation: teaching and learning activities (TLAs) listed in column 1 receive a mark across the row for which strategies each implements. We also include activities not associated with these specific strategies, but that direct uni- or multi-structural phases of learning, marked as “other.”

TLA strategies in relation to theoretical framework

Experiences and outcomes of the course illustrate care as a central theme. The idea of “caring”—in terms of work to build and sustain oneself and relations with others—makes possible the critical thinking we call for as part of a re-imagined peace education. Discomfort played a key role in bringing PCS into our everyday lives, studying peace where we stand, and challenging or exploring each of our roles in learning about and practicing peace. To engage with discomfort necessitates space to make mistakes, try out ideas, or share uncertainties. Teachers not only expected students to share their uncertainties but also expressed their own challenges and hesitations, practicing empathy for learning as a nonlinear, constantly co-constructed process.

The course design included explicit “class care” foundations: designating space for open minds and respect; promoting well-being with regard to the amount of work, emotional labor, and processing of ideas as well as the added stress of studying during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic; and maintaining honest communication as grounds for exploring critical thinking. Teachers designed this element with consideration for criticism within the larger PCS Bachelor program. In 2022, a student newspaper reported particularly high pressure within the program that created an “unsustainable” study environment, noting that some students feel ashamed for not keeping up with the workload and others left the program due to stress ( Jönsson and Löthman 2022 ). The article conveys almost an echo-chamber feel, indicating student perceptions that feedback to instructors remains unaddressed in a meaningful way. As a student during this time, Alva perceived the competitiveness within the program as connected to the neoliberalization of higher education, sharing:

I feel like many students participate in the program to be prepared for and strive towards high-ranking positions within international organizations such as the UN, which is embedded in the liberal western order. This in turn colors the motivation to and focus of the studies. (A)

At the very least, this highlights that student needs remain an important and perhaps under-appreciated issue in PCS classrooms.

Utilizing engaged pedagogy in the design meant teachers engage with students in activities to build communal space and a safe environment for discomfort. For instance, Barbara describes a sense of empowerment through shared vulnerability among teachers and students:

[As a teacher,] I felt particularly connected with the students one time when we were discussing a very open question and one of the students said that they liked how I sometimes started my reflections or contribution in discussions with ‘I am not certain about this…’ or ‘I am not sure how I feel about this…’ because it allowed them to also have uncertainties and to express their own process of reasoning and learning inside the classroom. (B)

As this narrative demonstrates, teacher growth and empowerment enable an environment of care and help deconstruct dichotomies between teachers and students. Space to hesitate or volunteer “What I don't understand is. . .” kept discussions open and allowed for engagement with critical theory in messy and complicated processes of learning and unlearning.

Both teachers and students share classroom responsibilities of practicing care, producing knowledge, and bringing excitement to the learning environment. Alva reflects on her student perspective:

The classroom environment felt safe, kind, and open for learning and growth. But this did not result in flat discussions where everyone just agreed with each other, to avoid difficult emotions. On the contrary, it facilitated more open discussion, constructive feedback, and less fear of experiencing difficult emotions. (A)

Within this environment and in response to initial questions and tone set by the teachers, students contributed to the classroom environment in meaningful ways. Aside from active participation and dedication to studies, they provided feedback on teacher intentions, their well-being and workload, and maintained an open and safe environment for discussion. Students took part in creating course criteria related to classroom activities and shared their priorities for learning outcomes.

As the course dynamics started promoting deeper and longer discussions, we practiced specific skills. As the course proceeded, participants completed more complex tasks; for each TLA, teachers explained expectations and relevance for learning; all course participants continually refined goals for TLAs. Barbara reflects that this shifted the class atmosphere and environment:

I think a very important part of motivating students was that we as teachers always explained to the students why we were doing a specific activity, what we were expecting to get from it. Students can feel frustrated during class exercises when they don't understand how different activities can help in their education, but once we started explaining to the students the motivation behind every exercise, they felt more included in this process of learning. (B)

Practice activities coupled with targeted, low-stakes feedback. For instance; in the first seminar, students presented and received student feedback; in the next, students provided feedback, with teachers supplementing at the end. This activity provided feedback on students’ performance, and also strengthened their skills in giving and receiving feedback:

I remember a student sharing that they don't know what to do with feedback from teachers. I think part of this is the timing—most feedback comes as comments on the final exam rather than throughout a learning process. But also, when we did this exercise, I noticed that having to give feedback changed how students received feedback. It was less confrontational or defensive. They approached comments with humility and even gratitude. (C)

In another example, class participants practiced giving and receiving care during a check-in after the first third of the course. Teachers opened an informal conversation with students, sharing the plan for the rest of the course and inviting students to suggest changes. Students expressed great interest in the material, but shared a sense of overload and difficulty meeting course demands. Christie reflects on a moment during this conversation, of sitting in a feeling of vulnerability and practicing trust to respond to student needs:

As a teacher, I often feel I need to have all the answers and lay out a concrete plan for students. Now, they were more or less telling us our plan didn't work as they wanted, and not only that, they rejected our suggested change of plans and proposed their own! […] We had to trust that it was not simply a matter of being studious enough – committing the necessary hours to complete tasks—but in fact that the students wanted more time to engage with the material. (C)

As a result, teachers and students worked together to restructure the course. This involved cutting some seminar plans, reorganizing assignments, and designing new activities to allow more space for students to find and follow their own interests. After completion of the course, one participant reported in their anonymous evaluation that they felt “engaged, on track, and supported throughout,” another assessed the course as “stimulating, motivating, exciting,” and a third cited the “collaborative nature” as the most enjoyable aspects of the course. Evaluations also noted time for discussion and encouragement of critical assessment as important in their overall learning, and one remarked that the experience stood in contrast to other courses taken. Ultimately, the class design—created by teachers as well as students—resulted in richer discussions and greater well-being for participants.

Practicing Reflexivity

Initially, reflexivity was not a particular focus of the course, but through analyzing processes of engaged pedagogy, discomfort, and praxis from the course design, both students and teachers found reflexivity playing an important role. One implementation of this was through requiring students to read beyond traditional PCS literature, explore cases of violence “closer to home,” question their goals or role within peace education, and explore the limitations of this field. Barbara reflects,

Throughout my own studies I have always felt like there was a huge distance between students of PCS and the realities of peace work. My intention with designing this course was to break with the dichotomy that peacebuilding is only practiced in the Global South by international organizations from the Global North; that this is the only career path available for students to work with building peace. By broadening the idea of peace, violence, and justice, we wanted to shake student's preconceived ideas and to rethink these issues in their own countries/communities. (B)

In the course evaluations, students shared that they not only found the literature to be interesting and different to usual PCS encounters, but also “very captivating and genuinely enjoyable to read.”

To achieve this, activating prior knowledge played a key role. Activities throughout the course gauged what students already knew and connected coursework with prior knowledge as a means to clarify or adjust any weak or distorted understandings, as well as to strengthen retention and understanding of new material. We constantly referred back to concepts and theories that are central and PCS “canon,” and engaged in deep, critical discussion about how these concepts and theories operate, and the consequences or implications of using these. This design element led to discussions about how some ideas are conceptualized only with Global South countries and communities in mind, and implications of lacking explanatory power to understand phenomena of violence, injustice, and peace in the Global North. Participants deconstructed these concepts and theories to unpack “hidden” hegemonizing impulses.

Results of this materialized during the mid-way seminar when students worked in small groups to present case studies on racial injustices or indigenous movements. All students chose to focus on examples from their home country, Sweden. Students posed questions to each other and shared reflections that problematized both teacher and student positions within society and academia, historically and within national and community contexts. This led to challenging discussions about ethics in PCS from a perspective of positionality, rather than for example as a check-box completed for field study. We later connected this with Freire's “revolutionary futurity,” the idea that in order to create transformation in our societies, it is not enough to reflect on it intellectually, but it is also necessary to act upon the world. For Freire (2017 [1970] , 50), true solidarity requires acts of love “to affirm that men and women are persons and as persons should be free, and yet to do nothing tangible to make this affirmation a reality, is a farce.” Engaging with positionality in theory, in this case through embodied intellectualizing, explored different personal and communal dimensions of solidarity.

Another class activity involves creating visual representations of peace, engaging participants more intimately in theorizing by raising questions about their own values, positions, privileges, etc. We used different materials to explore ideas and practice free expression in response to a series of prompts, including: “what does peace look like for you; who builds peace; and what would it look like to embody a critical praxis” (with art outcomes in  Image 1 ). Some students created art together with a partner; others worked independently. This connects to problem posing as a tool in engaged pedagogy and taps into care and empathy, which draw us closer together through our own positionality. Students and teachers explored discomfort and demonstrated a willingness to learn from others, which pushed the boundaries of how we know peace as well as how we think and communicate ideas in relation to others. For example, in earlier class discussions, building peace referred to development work abroad; in these creations, peace is represented as resting, food, nature, no work, or freedom of form. Peace comes closer to home here, building on the qualitative difference of peace(s) rather than the absence of violence, as well as the constructive power of discomfort that engaged with questions of privilege or opportunity. Outcomes of this were multiple, as a student shares:

Using mixed media to envision peace.

At first, the exercise felt a bit silly. But when we got started, and in the reflection afterward, we learned a lot about the power and implications of what we had just done. It was not necessarily the physical result of the art session that was the most valuable outcome, although looking at the physical piece can be a good reminder of your visions. But for me, it was the agency in the act of thinking about my utopia, and the intuitiveness of choosing materials, colors and shapes. A trust in my own ideas. (A)

As encapsulated by hooks (1994 , 21), not only students but also teachers must grow and be empowered: “That empowerment cannot happen if we refuse to be vulnerable while encouraging students to take risks. [. . .] When professors bring narratives of their experiences into classroom discussions it eliminates the possibility that we can function as all-knowing, silent interrogators.” For example, many exercises in class entailed working in small groups, where teachers joined as participants. From a student perspective, Alva reflects that in many classrooms, teachers operate from a position of expertise, watching or assisting students while they carry out exercises. Including teachers as learners in class exercises, instead,

was both a reminder that our teachers are also students, that no one is ever fully learned, and it flattened the classroom hierarchy in a way that felt liberating and respectful of everyone's learning journeys. (A)

Striving to dissolve hierarchies between teacher and learner allowed a dialectic of critical thinking. This is important because when we activate prior knowledge, this means we are not only recalling facts or existing knowledge but also engaging with it.

Finally, practicing reflexivity reveals another important takeaway from this case study regarding classroom hierarchies. Following the problem-posing model from Freire, the course design aims to move away from a “banking model” of education and dissolve hierarchies between students and teachers. Out of the class discussion to restructure part of the course, discussed previously, participants dedicated a seminar to co-designing the final exam. Teachers gave parameters on program requirements and provided alternative ideas and inspiration for different formats; the rest of the seminar left space for participant brainstorming and discussion. Despite engaging discussion, all participants struggled to explore possibilities within the exam assignment. From a teacher's perspective, this activity was more challenging than expected:

Exams and final papers are such an engrained part of the classroom experience, that when we asked students what they wanted to get from the exam, what they would like to see not only in terms of questions but also format, it was quite difficult to piece something together. In the end, most students chose to write a traditional paper in response to one of the prompts. (C)

In the end, students agreed to a format of responding to one of multiple exam prompts. During the seminar, they worked in groups to write prompts, which teachers later consolidated and posted in the online course portal. Beyond thinking “outside the box,” this example illustrates that challenging engrained classroom hierarchies requires deeper unsettling and unlearning for both teachers and students; doing so within an existing system certainly presents significant limitations. It was not only the students who struggled with how to approach the open exam task; teachers also questioned how to grade such an assignment fairly.

Overall, we assess that the problem-posing model was more successful with regard to the learning process. That is, while teachers held responsibility for convening the course and conducting relevant administrative tasks, students and teachers co-produced knowledge and exercised autonomy for example in choosing cases to research, speaking up about their priorities and interests, and contributing to critical discussion. However, unsettling other hierarchies that shape classroom experiences requires further stretching—perhaps through a program-wide effort—and brings us back to questioning what purpose breaking hierarchies serves and for whom.

Envisioning Peace

Finally, the design and implementation of this course related to the aspect of “envisioning” peace. We take steps toward this through using art in teaching materials. For example, we drew on publicly available images created by artists for use in social justice protest, teaching, and movements (e.g., art by Molly Costello 2 ). These images were used in their own right, rather than as representative or illustrative of something expressed in text. For example, art was projected on classroom screens as a means to open discussion and shape an atmosphere:

The lecture slides were filled with beautiful art. It was liberating to see that it is ok to express utopian or idealistic ideas about peace, that it is not something that does not belong in ‘serious classrooms’ (A).

The art enabled teachers and students to draw on visualizations as a means of fostering inspiration and creative thinking, to evoke powerful images of what could be , rather than relying only on, for instance, figures depicting rates of injustice or images of violence. The power of representation here also expands possibilities for what counts as knowledge and how we might express ideas.

As discussed under practicing reflexivity above, art as a medium for critical thinking was also used in TLAs to facilitate imagining and envisioning peace.  Image 1 shows the outcomes of the art activity. Students and teachers worked from a prompt to create an artistic representation of their own understanding of peace and peace praxis, using materials of printed images, colored pens, colored paper, scissors, and glue and tape to create images on a piece of blank paper. The opportunity to work with physical material, producing something with our hands—using different parts of the body and media other than screens and keyboards moved our imaginations away from texts, academic references, etc. This pushed beyond “boxed-in” ideas of peace or definitions from textbooks, beyond the replication of established ideas. Students and teachers strived to create visual, independent thoughts and ideas. The artistic activity linked to theoretical creativity—opening up new ideas, exploring limitations of thought that we may not be conscious of, and working to actually picture how a “peaceful utopia” might look.

Using art in these different ways, we engage with theoretical ideas of peace and also the emotional component of learning and articulating peace. For example, peace was not only represented as an experience or material object (e.g., people in connection, bodies resting, etc.) but also expressed through the intentional use of different colors and forms. Art here provided a critical tool for the production of knowledge, sharing messages in a nonlinear way, and as an alternative means of expressing thoughts and emotions.

This tied to motivation as well, incorporated for example by using dialectic feedback, multimedia, flexibility in assignment formats, and independent choice in study topics. This provided a way to translate critical pedagogy into the dynamics of the classroom and in operationalizing tenants of the SOTL. This translated in the student experience, as demonstrated by course evaluation remarks praising the “collaborative nature of the course and how Barbara and Christie really facilitated open discussion” and marking high satisfaction with “the seminars and the encouragement from the teachers. I felt very included and encouraged to learn and participate.” Notably, however, despite teachers’ efforts to facilitate open discussions, there remained some desire from students for more structure. The openness of course activities also led to some repetition and although one participant praised how active students were allowed to be in the course, they also mention “the seminars and lectures were quite similar” and another writes, “I would have appreciated a bit more structure to guide the discussion, slightly more specific questions for example.”

The exam-design seminar focused on the collective decision of what skills and knowledge on which students wished to be graded and wanted to strengthen, as well as the teachers' objectives and expectations. This departed from more traditional formats and allowed for more creativity and deeper discussion of the course debates. For instance, Alva wrote a personal narrative format exam, and shares about her first experience including the first-person “I” in her paper:

I had never done this before, and found it liberating and empowering. I think that previously, […] I would have rather opted for already established links and conclusions because I was removed from the equation. Now I, very practically, felt like I had a voice. (A)

As discussed above, the open exam aligned well in theory, but in practice, it highlighted the need for integrating this practice more holistically. Christie reflects on, pointing to the potential for further strengthening teaching activities through deeper engagement with critical pedagogy:

I wonder about students who will not go into research or writing career. How do these exams serve them in their education and future endeavors, beyond passing a course at university? What can students expect to gain from such a task? What can teachers gain as students ourselves - is there a point to these exams beyond fulfilling a grade requirement? (C)

This narrative redirects to hooks's assertion that an engaged pedagogy classroom should meet student needs and foster communal space ( 1994 ). The open exam asked students to design questions as well as format. In the end, students reflected on the activity with mixed responses. In their course evaluation, one student praised that the exam “both tested my knowledge but also my ability to think independently” and another shared that “it was very nice to have a collaborative approach throughout the course, but especially with the exam.” A third student wished for it to be “more grounded in the actual course literature.” These responses highlight the challenges of critical pedagogy within a program and university context where training and expectations demand more narrow performances.

Finally, course activities that prompted participants to reconsider peace education, as we have attempted to do in this paper as well, move us a step further in asking “classrooms for peace, to what end?” and toward fostering radical imagination for a pedagogy of peace praxis. One student evaluated the course as providing a “chance to learn about things I did not know before;” another gained “new perspectives on peace.” These comments point to the benefits of critical course content as well as varied types of content. At the very least, we as teachers and students see increased critical thinking at a deep level among course participants. As a student, Alva adds:

Before this course, I had not been explicitly asked to envision peace in the PCS program. My understanding of peace revolved around what happens if “we” manage to “stop” war and violence. […] After the course, peace became center stage, personal, something I had agency in envisioning, something hopeful. It made me ask myself what I want to contribute with. (A)

To this point, Alva reflects on discussions with classmates, sharing that this course changed not only how they thought about and related to peace as a research topic and everyday phenomenon, but also prompted them to consider the next steps after graduating from the Bachelor program.

This case study illustrates the processes and outcomes of implementing critical pedagogy in a PCS classroom. Reviews and studies in PCS and IR demonstrate that dominant worldviews and teaching methods have shaped PCS as a field that (re)produces study programs, research, and practices along Western, liberal ways of knowing and envisioning peace. We contribute to this important discussion by demonstrating concrete techniques for moving beyond limited views of peace, responding to student needs, and developing critical thinking skills. Designed with components of engaged pedagogy, discomfort, and praxis, the course achieved a caring classroom, practiced reflexivity, and helped envision peace. These outcomes of the critical pedagogy shaped creative environments to stimulate transformative peace action within and beyond classrooms. This study, though presenting a single case and limited perspective, contributes to an emerging current of critical pedagogy in IR and PCS by providing concrete examples, discussing not only critical content (such as theory) but also diversity of media in teaching (for example varied types of activities and incorporation of art). The writing of this paper itself poses a pedagogical contribution. All three co-authors shaped a study dynamic that parallels the course in emphasizing care and well-being, demystifying and troubling hierarchies of knowledge production, and sharing loads of labor. Alva's participation in this project expands upon and contributes to critical debates about who holds and produces knowledge in the classroom as well as researcher/informant silos. Her engagement helps demonstrate an example of teacher-student collaboration toward the radical reimaging of peace education and research.

Reflections and rigorous study on the state of PCS teaching and learning hold implications for contributions to unique university environments, the future of academic peace research, and the implementation of peace programming or interventions. As Reardon and Snauwaert (2011 , 2–3) stress, “Starting from the long-held premise that peace education is education for responsible global citizenship, our task in general terms is educating toward political efficacy [. . .] intended to move the world toward the achievement of a more just and less violent global order.” Students of PCS therefore must continually engage with critical questioning on the role of classrooms: not only course content but the means by which knowledge is created and shared, as well as the connections made (or not) between theory, reflection, and practice.

These encouraging results are instructive also through their limitations. Largely self-reflective, author biases and positionalities bound this study. Not least, all three co-authors express happiness with the course and shared an interest in further reflection to write this paper. Varied input from participants would add much to understanding this instance of implementing critical pedagogy. Even with course evaluations, this study would have benefitted from specific reflections on TLA impacts throughout and after the course, for instance, to gauge fulfillment of participant needs and motivation. Moreover, additional research might focus on the interplay of critical pedagogy with more liberal PCS teaching, and implications for student and teacher experiences and learning as well as for the broader field of PCS.

We encourage further studies exploring critical pedagogy in different classroom contexts, detailing more long-term outcomes for both teachers and students, and connecting critical pedagogies directly with peace “in the field.” What limitations or challenges might this approach pose for educational institutions, individual teachers and students, or programmatic curricula? A deeper study could unpack implications and case-specificities of ethical considerations; for instance, (how) does sharing personal experiences or vulnerabilities trigger harm or good for participants? Are there more or less “safe” ways to implement engaged and critical pedagogies? More broadly, how does the method and content of critical pedagogy influence PCS as a field? Targeted case studies could provide much-needed insight on the impacts of critical pedagogy within the boundaries of “traditional” university settings. With this paper, we engage with and prompt further questions in the continuously developing field of PCS, taking our own classroom experiences as a stepping stone in this larger effort. Implications encourage greater engagement with student needs, both in terms of their experience in the classroom and paths after graduating; activation of reflexivity in teaching and studying peace; and incorporation of creativity in PCS.

We firstly thank the participants of the Peace in the 21 st Century course for creating knowledge, questioning limits, and critically examining what it means to build peace within and beyond the university. Your dedicated engagement and creativity make this pedagogic work possible. We also extend thanks to Lund University's Department of Political Science, especially Roxanna Sjöstedt, for supporting the development of this course, and to the anonymous reviewers and editors at ISP, as well as Carrie Reiling and other colleagues at the 2022 Peace Research in Sweden Conference for your support and generous comments that greatly strengthened this paper.

Data collection and handling took place in Sweden and thus fall under the purview of the Ethics Review Authority for research in Sweden. All identifiable content (quotes, names, positionality statements, personal reflections) are limited to those of the three co-authors. Other quotes and empirical material related to people stem only from anonymized sources such as course evaluations which do not contain identifiers. Because the data does not contain sensitive personal data, involve a physical or psychological intervention on a research subject, or uses biological material, the research does not require a decision from the Ethics Review Authority in Sweden.

Available at https://www.mollycostello.com/

Ackerly Brooke , True Jacqui . 2010 . Doing Feminist Research in Political and Social Science . London : Macmillan Education UK .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Addams Jane , Carroll Berenice A. , Fink Clinton F. . 2007 [1906] . Newer Ideals of Peace . Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press .

Ambrose Susan A. , Bridges Michael W. , DiPietro Michele , Lovett Marsha C. , Norman Marie K. . 2010 . How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching . San Francisco : Jossey-Bass .

Andrews Nathan. 2022 . “ The Persistent Poverty of Diversity in International Relations and the Emergence of a Critical Canon .” International Studies Perspectives . 23 : 425 – 49 .

Bajaj Monisha. 2015 . “ ‘Pedagogies of Resistance’ and Critical Peace Education Praxis .” Journal of Peace Education . 12 ( 2 ): 154 – 66 .

Bittencourt Rafael. 2021 . “ The Study Group Where I Find Myself .” Journal of Narrative Politics . 8 ( 1 ): 15 – 17 .

Bright Jonathan , Gledhill John . 2018 . “ A Divided Discipline? Mapping Peace and Conflict Studies .” International Studies Perspectives . 19 ( 2 ): 128 – 47 .

Brown Scott W. , King Frederick B. . 2000 . “ Constructivist Pedagogy and How We Learn: Educational Psychology Meets International Studies .” International Studies Perspectives . 1 : 245 – 54 .

Byrne Sean , Clarke Mary Anne , Rahman Aziz . 2018 . “ Colonialism and Peace and Conflict Studies .” Peace and Conflict Studies . 25 ( 1 ): 1-23.

CAST . 2018 . “ Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2 .” Wakefield, MA. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/binaries/content/assets/udlguidelines/udlg-v2-2/udlg_graphicorganizer_v2-2_numbers-yes.pdf .

Confortini Catia. 2017 . “ Past as Prefigurative Prelude: Feminist Peace Activists and IR .” In What's the Point of International Relations? , edited by Dyvik Synne L. , Selby Jan , Wilkeinson Rorden , 83 – 97 .. London : Routledge .

Cruz Juan Daniel , Fontan Victoria . 2014 . “ Una mirada Subalterna y Desde Abajo de la cultura de paz .” Ra Ximhai . 10 ( 2 ): 135 – 52 .

Davis Danya , Steyn Melissa . 2012 . “ Teaching for Social Justice: Reframing some Pedagogical Assumptions .” Perspectives in Education . 30 ( 4 ): 29 – 38 .

Elmgren Maja , Henriksson Ann-Sofie . 2018 . Academic Teaching . 2nd ed. Lund : Studentlitteratur .

Felman Shoshana. 2013 . “ Education and Crisis, or the Vicissitudes of Teaching .” In Testimony , edited by Felman Shoshana , Laub Dori , 1 – 56 .. London : Routledge .

Freire Paulo. 2017 [1970] . Pedagogy of the Oppressed . New York and London: Penguin Random House .

Frueh Jamie , Diehl Paul F. , Li Xiaoting , Gokcek Gigi , Kalpakian Jack , Vlcek William , Bower Adam et al.  2021 . “ Forum on Pedagogy: The Introductory Course in International Relations: Regional Variations .” International Studies Perspectives . 22 ( 2 ): 125 – 59 .

Fúnez-Flores Jairo I . 2022 . “ Decolonial and Ontological Challenges in Social and Anthropological Theory .” Theory, Culture & Society . 39 ( 6 ): 21 – 41 .

Galtung Johan. 1969 . “ Violence, Peace, and Peace Research .” Journal of Peace Research . 6 ( 3 ): 167 – 91 .

Giroux Henry A. 2019 . Henry A. Giroux: Education Should Not be Neutral , edited by França João . Truth Out, CCCB LAB . https://truthout.org/video/henry-a-giroux-education-should-not-be-neutral/ .

Gleditsch Nils Petter , Nordkvelle Jonas , Strand Håvard . 2014 . “ Peace Research—Just the Study of War? ” Journal of Peace Research . 51 ( 2 ): 145 – 58 .

Haggis Tamsin. 2006 . “ Pedagogies for Diversity: Retaining Critical Challenge amidst Fears of ‘Dumbing down .’” Studies in Higher Education . 31 ( 5 ): 521 – 35 .

Hajir Basma , Kester Kevin . 2020 . “ Toward a Decolonial Praxis in Critical Peace Education: Postcolonial Insights and Pedagogic Possibilities .” Studies in Philosophy and Education . 39 : 515 – 32 .

Hettne Björn. 2001 . “ Discourses on Peace and Development .” Progress in Development Studies . 1 ( 1 ): 21 – 36 .

Hooks Bell . 1994 . Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom . London : Routledge .

Hornsby David J. , Grant J. Andrew . 2021 . “ Teaching as a Form of Disrupting International Relations .” In Teaching International Relations in a Time of Disruption , edited by Smith Heather A. , Hornsby David J. , 9 – 23 .. Cham : Palgrave MacMillan .

Jaime-Salas Julio Roberto , Correal Diana Gómez , de Armiño Karlos Pérez , Herrera Fabio Saúl Castro , Marín Jefferson Jaramillo . 2020 . Paz Decolonial, Paces Insubordinadas: Conceptos, Temporalidades y Epistemologías.Collección Paz y Reconciliación . Santiago de Cali : Pontificia Universidad Javeriana-Cali .

Jönsson Linn , Löthman Lydia . 2022 . “ År av Konflikt på freds .” Lundagård , 11 March 2022. Accessed November 18, 2022. https://www.lundagard.se/2022/03/11/ar-av-konflikt-pa-freds/ .

Kertyzia Heather. 2022 . “ Peace Education .” In The Palgrave Handbook of Positive Peace , edited by Standish Katerina , Devere Heather , Suazo Adan , Rafferty Rachel , 167 – 94 .. Singapore : Springer .

Kester Kevin. 2017 . “ The United Nations, Peace, and Higher Education: Pedagogic Interentions in Neoliberal Times .” Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies . 39 ( 3 ): 235 – 64 .

Krause Keith. 2019 . “ Emancipation and Critique in Peace and Conflict Research .” Journal of Global Security Studies . 4 ( 2 ): 292 – 8 .

Krystalli Roxanne. 2021 . “ Of Loss and Light: Teaching in the Time of Grief .” Journal of Narrative Politics . 8 ( 1 ): 41 – 44 .

Ling L. H. M. 2017 . “ Don't Flatter Yourself: World Politics As We Know It is Changing and So Must Disciplinary IR .” In What's the Point of International Relations? , edited by Dyvik Synne L. , Selby Jan , Wilkeinson Rorden , 135 – 46 .. London : Routledge .

Lottholz Philipp. 2018 . “ Critiquing Anthropological Imagination in Peace and Conflict Studies: From Empiricist Positivism to a Dialogical Approach in Ethnographic Peace Research .” International Peacekeeping . 25 ( 5 ): 695 – 720 .

Magalhães Teixeira Barbara. 2023 . “ Room to Grow and the Right to Say No: Theorizing the Liberatory Power of Peace in the Global South .” 9th International Degrowth Conference, Zagreb, 30 August 2023.

Pedagogy Critical , Mott Carrie , Zupan Sandra , Debbane Anne-Marie , R.L. 2015 . “ Making Space for Critical Pedagogy in the Neoliberal University: Struggles and Possibilities .” ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies . 14 ( 4 ): 1260 – 82 .

Parrado Pardo , Paola Erika . 2020 . “ Pistas Conceptuales en Torno a la Paz desde una Perspectiva decolonial .” In Paz Decolonial, Paces Insubordinadas: Conceptos, Temporalidades y Epistemologias , edited by Jaime-Salas Julio Roberto , Correal Diana Gómez , Pérez de Armiño Karlos , Calero Sandra Liliana Lodoño , Herrera Fabio Saúl Castro , Jaramillo Marín Jefferson . Santiago de Cali: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana-Cali .

Preston Susan , Aslett Jordan . 2014 . “ Resisting Neoliberalism from within the Academy: Subversion through an Activist Pedagogy .” Social Work Education . 33 ( 4 ): 502 – 18 .

Ragandang Primitivo Cabanes . 2021 . “ What Are They Writing for? Peace Research as an Impermeable Metropole .” Peacebuilding . 10 ( 3 ): 265 – 77 .

Reardon Betty , Snauwaert Dale . 2011 . “ Reflective Pedagogy, Cosmopolitanism, and Critical Peace Education for Political Efficacy: A Discussion of Betty A. Reardon's Assessment of the Field .” In Factis Pax . 5 ( 1 ): 1 – 14 .

Särmä Saara. 2021 . “ How Do We Make IR More Joyful? ” Journal of Narrative Politics . 8 ( 1 ): 35 – 40 .

Singer J. David . 1976 . “ An Assessment of Peace Research .” International Security . 1 ( 1 ): 118 – 37 .

Sjoberg Laura. 2017 . “ Undisciplined IR: Thinking without a Net .” In What's the Point of International Relations? , edited by Dyvik Synne L. , Selby Jan , Wilkeinson Rorden , 159 – 69 .. London : Routledge .

Smith Heather A. , Hornsby David J. . 2021 . “ Introduction: Teaching International Relations in a Time of Disruption and Pandemic .” In Teaching International Relations in a Time of Disruption , edited by Smith Heather A. , Hornsby David J. , 1 – 7 .. Cham : Palgrave MacMillan .

Smith Heather A. , Yahlnaaw . 2021 . “ Disruption as Reconciliation: Lessons Learned when Students as Partners Become Students as Teachers .” In Teaching International Relations in a Time of Disruption , edited by Smith Heather A. , Hornsby David J. , 37 – 48 .. Cham : Palgrave MacMillan .

de Oliveira Vinícius Tavares . 2021 . “ In the End It's all Ismália: A Story of Three Stories .” Journal of Narrative Politics . 8 ( 1 ): 22 – 25 .

Tickner Arlene B. 2020 . “ War and conflict .” In International Relations from the Global South: Worlds of Difference , edited by Tickner Arlene B. , Smith Karen , 115 – 38 .. London : Routledge .

Trigwell Keith . 2006 . “ An Analysis of the Relations between Learning and Teaching approaches .” In Lifelong Learning: Concepts and Contexts , edited by Crowther Jim , Sutherland Peter , 108 – 16 .. London : Routledge .

Väyrynen Tarja. 2019 . “ Mundane Peace and the Politics of Vulnerability: A Nonsolid Feminist Research Agenda .” Peacebuilding . 7 ( 2 ): 146 – 59 .

Wemheuer-Vogelaar Wiebke , Peters Ingo , Kemmer Laura , Kleinn Alina , Linke-Behrens Luisa , Mokry Sabine . 2020 . “ The Global IR Debate in the classroom .” In International Relations from the Global South: Worlds of Difference , edited by Tickner Arlene B. , Smith Karen , 17 – 37 .. London : Routledge .

Wibben Annick T. R. , Confortini Catia , Roohi Sanam , Aharoni Sarai B. , Vastapuu Leena , Vaittinen Tiina . 2019 . “ Collective Discussion: Piecing-Up Feminist Peace Research .” International Political Sociology . 13 ( 1 ): 86 – 107 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1528-3585
• Print ISSN 1528-3577
• Copyright © 2024 International Studies Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Perspective article, building a culture of peace in everyday life with inter- and transdisciplinary perspectives.

• Facultad de Comercio, Administración y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico

In this article, peace is emphasized as a vital condition for all aspects of our existence, as individuals, as a society, and in our planet. The importance of inter- and transdisciplinarity in promoting a culture of peace and peace education is presented. Some examples of initiatives aimed at cultivating a culture of peace from diverse areas of knowledge are also provided. The paper presents a current and interconnected viewpoint on peace study, as well as some ideas for combining peace with education in the everyday routine of teaching and research work, regardless of discipline.

Introduction

Peace is a global concept that is more relevant than ever in today’s society. It is not simply a concern for countries and governments; it is also a concern for individuals in their relationships with others and with the planet. According to Capistrano (2020) , peace is linked to the harmonious coexistence of individuals in their environment, which depends on principles such as social justice, sustainability, democracy and tolerance. A culture of peace can be fostered and promoted via education not only in large projects but also in everyday life. As stated by Cuéllar (2009) , ordinary life is a key object of philosophical reflection from which “a humanism up to the mark of our time” can be derived, and everyday life is “where we begin to forge ourselves as people, where we can completely fulfill ourselves, in terms of work, production and rest, in married and family life, in the experience of love, freedom and recognition of the other.”

This article highlights the importance of promoting peace education and a culture of peace through inter- and transdisciplinarity. The paper also provides examples of initiatives aimed at fostering a culture of peace from diverse areas of knowledge. Additionally, various concepts for integrating peace with education in everyday life are given, regardless of discipline.

An Imperfect and Everyday Peace

When asked “what is peace?” we tend to define it in terms of the absence of war, warlike conflicts, or discord. Known as a negative conception of peace, this perspective has persisted since ancient times. Conversely, positive peace emphasizes the promotion of values, respect, justice, equity, communication, collaboration, empathy, collaboration, and non-violence. Positive peace desires peace and wellbeing and avoids conflict at all costs. However, this concept appears perfect, utopian, or unattainable. As a result, a new approach termed “imperfect peace” has been developed ( Comins-Mingol, 2002 ). The reason it is imperfect is that we are perpetually reconstructing it; it is a dynamic, continuous, and multifaceted concept. Imperfect peace admits that peace and conflicts coexist. Acosta Oidor et al. (2021) explain that peace and violence are both present in every aspect of daily life and not only in a single field such as politics. Furthermore, they quote that peace is a road and not a state. Imperfect peace alludes to the imperfect nature of every human. The concept of imperfect peace is a productive field on which we can produce from our regular work routine.

Culture of Peace

Culture of peace refers to “lifestyles, belief patterns, values, behaviors, (…) wellbeing, equality, equitable administration of resources, security for individuals and families, (…) non-violence, and harmony” ( Cabello et al., 2016 ). Culture of peace is inclusive and complex because it incorporates knowledge, values, and communication. It also integrates physical, biological, and social aspects. Culture of peace is all-encompassing. Page (2008) defines peace education as “the process of acquiring values, knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviors to live in harmony with oneself, others, and the natural environment.” Peace education encompasses personal, social, and planetary dimensions. Thus, can we integrate peace into every facet of our lives? Is it possible to improve coexistence between people to foster a culture of peace? Personally, I believe we may achieve both goals through our daily life activities.

Rationale for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity

Should we continue to foster a culture of peace by focusing on a single discipline or collaborating on several? According to Edgar Morin’s complex thinking ( Morin, 1994 ), our contemporary reality, phenomena, and problems are complex by nature. Complexity entails more than just difficulty; it also signifies that the problems are interconnected in a framework spanning several knowledge domains. Accordingly, to address problems and better comprehend our reality, they must be regarded as interconnected and inseparable in a feedback loop, that is, from a holistic and collaborative perspective of multiple disciplines. For this reason, reductionist perspectives are no longer enough for a pertinent understanding of our reality. In this context, two key elements emerge, namely the integration of diverse specialties and collaborative work, which facilitate inter and transdisciplinary work.

According to the literature, the concept of inter- and transdisciplinarity derives from an advanced and mature level of collaboration between multiple disciplines ( Escobar, 2010 ). First, disciplinarity occurs from specialization in a single area of knowledge. Then, multidisciplinarity emerges when several fields study the same object without interacting with one another. Pluridisciplinarity is the result of uncoordinated collaboration between different areas of knowledge. Finally, inter- and transdisciplinarity are achieved when some methodologies are transferred between disciplines (the former) and when a comprehensive and holistic perspective supports collaborations between disciplines, through them, and beyond them (the latter) ( Klein, 2010 ). In transdisciplinarity, cognitive schemes intersect disciplines. As a result of this advanced level of collaboration, disciplines often face problems, difficulties, or challenges. Transdisciplinarity itself is not an exception; the different approaches to its conceptualization have led to contradictory points of view. For Rigolot (2020) , these contradictions can be surpassed, by considering transdisciplinarity both as a discipline by itself and as a way of being. As a way of being, transdisciplinarity is fully incorporated into the human life and cannot be reduced to professional activities. This vision is compatible with that of Edgar Morin, who fully integrated transdisciplinary work with his personal life experiences ( Rigolot, 2020 ).

Inter- and Transdisciplinary Peace Education

Considering the aforementioned perspectives, effective peace education should be inter- and transdisciplinary. But how can we develop peace education through these approaches? First, embracing a complex conception of reality. In other words, reality should be viewed and understood from a broad perspective to avoid self-serving simplifications that prevent us from collaborating across disciplines. Second, our education should connect key issues such as life, humanity, culture, the planet, complexity, literature, art, philosophy, sustainability, and values regardless of field of knowledge. Third, teaching-learning processes should be adaptable, allowing teachers and students to see each subject as part of a complex whole interconnected through various mediations.

Accordingly, Lappin (2009) explains that it has been well acknowledged that peacebuilding is complex; however, there is a long-standing tendency to address peacebuilding from the point of view of a single discipline. Nicolescu (2012) adds that there is a direct and inexorable link between peace and transdisciplinarity and that any fragmented way of thinking is incompatible with peace research. Hence, education and the university must evolve to welcome a new humanism and adopt transdisciplinarity in their organization and conceptions. Along the same vein, Galtung (2010) asserts that true transdisciplinarity must be present in all aspects of the human condition, as multiple restricted or skewed perspectives will not provide a clear overview or an encompassing understanding of the whole.

Cabello et al. (2016) advocate that peace should be built on “education for justice and freedom; for reconciliation and brotherhood; for critical conscience and solidarity; for integral development and democracy; for the common good and participation; for human rights, and all the values that support and enable a culture of peace.” Acevedo Suárez and Báez Pimiento (2018) explain that educating for peace is inviting to act in the school microcosm and at the macro level of social structures. They conclude that peace education is a necessity that every educational institution must assume. París Albert (2019) exposes that peace education is also a primary tool to achieve the sustainable development goals of the 2030 Agenda; this tool consists of creativity to imagine careful alternatives to face daily situations, as well as situations of injustice, social inequalities, environmental crises, and sustainable development.

Now comes the question of how we can educate for peace in our daily teaching and research work. Some guidelines ( Zurbano Díaz de Cerio, 1999 ) include cultivating values, learning to live with others, facilitating positive experiences, educating in conflict resolution, developing critical thinking, combating violence, educating in tolerance to diversity of dialogue, and rational argumentation. Furthermore, as educators, we must remember that our example is a powerful ally in all educational processes. We can deliver beautiful and eloquent speeches, but it is our everyday example that sows the most seeds of peace in others. We are also educating for peace via our own actions. We, as teachers, may encourage active listening, empathy, depersonalization of conflicts, and respect for limitations and opinions. In this approach, we may take small steps toward strengthening our coexistence and promoting a culture of peace.

Peace education must also be established at all levels, for all ages, and for all people. However, peace education has a significant impact on youth. Peace education is crucial during childhood and youth because the seeds we sow in them when they are young will flourish henceforth and bear fruit in the future for the benefit of our society. For this reason, youth represents both present and future peace and play a key role in peace education.

Currently, several discourses, initiatives, and indicators from different disciplines describe peace education. Many of them, though, remain limited to inert speeches. Peace, on the contrary, requires action ( Jordan et al., 2021 ). We can make peace education a reality in our teaching activities through inter- and transdisciplinary approaches. Teachers can have influence in everyday life by building meaningful relationships between education and research, as well as by consistently implementing curricular and extracurricular activities that foster a culture of peace through formal and non-formal training.

Examples of Peace-Building Initiatives From Institutions, Research, Teaching and Personal Experience

Initiatives aimed at fostering a culture of peace are commonly promoted by institutions, researchers or teachers. For example, the study by Jordan et al. (2021) highlights an institutional peacebuilding initiative at the University of New Mexico School of Engineering and Health Sciences Center, where summit of the World Engineering Education Forum and Global Engineering Deans Council were hosted. The theme was “Peace Engineering” with the focal point of science and engineering-based solutions to the world’s transcendent challenges. The event responded to the urgent need for engineers to reflect, understand, measure, and anticipate the intended and unforeseen implications of their work in a global context. The results of these events comprised establishing academic programs, starting new areas of education, research, and innovation relating to climate change, water, healthcare, food security, ethics, transparency, resilience, sustainability, social equity and diversity, as well as face-to-face and virtual academic events addressing peace, and engineering concerns.

In the research context, the project by Del Río Fernández et al. (2019) attempts to promote peace via the use of plastic and visual languages. The researchers gained this interdisciplinary experience with early childhood education student teachers through photographic exhibitions and mural workshops. They focused on developing respect for the ideas and beliefs of others, improving peaceful community life, and fostering pacific conflict resolution. This project is a clear illustration of how peace can be promoted from a variety of perspectives, such as the plastic arts.

In the teaching field, Miralay (2020) found that according to teachers’ perceptions, the awareness of the culture of peace by students through arts education would promote individual and social peace. They also found that families, school administrators and governmental institutions have an essential role in promoting peace. Also, it was evident that there are deficiencies in the institutions while performing this process. On the other hand, the work of Domínguez and Ordinas (2019) describes the application of a novel methodology to promote socially equitable education in university teaching in courses involving the past and present of relations between human societies and cultures on a global scale. The aim of their work is to use ludic methods instead of traditional methods of study. Their students were encouraged to have a critical, pluralistic, cooperative outlook on the meaning of peace. This pedagogical approach has enriched the way of teaching and generating historical knowledge by using cooperative games in the classroom.

I can present my personal experience with teaching software development. In the classroom I have incorporated agile approaches which recognize that software development has a strong human dimension. Thus, people take precedence over tools ( Beck et al., 2021 ). When these approaches are used in the classroom, students not only learn to program but also to collaborate while also learning to be tolerant. The principles of Egoless Programming ( Waychal and Capretz, 2018 ) are also addressed during the practical lessons to help students understand the importance of good interpersonal relationships when collaborating. These approaches have been incredibly helpful in software development teaching because they strengthen understanding, respect, empathy, tolerance, and collaboration among students. In addition, I have found through quantitative and mixed research approaches that collaborative programming can produce software with better attributes than those of individually developed programs. For example, pair programming has produced elevated levels of acceptance and well-structured programs in our sessions.

Peace and peace research are pertinent needs in our society. As teachers, we must promote peace education and a culture of peace from various angles. However, this is not an exclusive duty of teachers, but also requires the enthusiastic collaboration of institutions, students, parents, families, and communities. In this process, it is important to reflect on the contributions to peace that we can make in our everyday practice. Then, let us promote collaboration, dialogue, respect, active listening, and inclusion, using a cultural vision and living example of our behavior, thereby creating a culture of peace based on values and love in our daily lives as teachers or researchers.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author Contributions

RR-H: conception, research, writing, editing, revising, and final draft.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We thank everyone who contributed to my encounter with the ideas presented in this manuscript. We thank Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas for the support provided to carry out this work.

Acevedo Suárez, A., and Báez Pimiento, A. (2018). La educación en cultura de paz. Herramienta de construcción de paz en el posconflicto. Ref. Política 20, 68–80. doi: 10.29375/01240781.3455

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Acosta Oidor, C., Tabares Rojas, L. A., Castillo Acosta, P. N., López Andrade, M. C., Ramírez Luque, L. F., Ortiz Arévalo, A. M., et al. (2021). Estrategias y mecanismos para la construcción de una cultura de paz en la educación secundaria en Bogotá, Colombia. Rev. Int. Educ. para Justicia Soc. 10, 245–258. doi: 10.15366/RIEJS2021.10.1.015

Beck, K., Beedle, M., Bennekum, A., van Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., et al. (2021). Agile ManifestoManifesto for Agile Software Development. https://agilemanifesto.org/ (accessed December 31, 2021).

Google Scholar

Cabello, P., Gorjón, C. C., Sáenz Vázquez, I., Sáenz, I., Gorjón, C., and At, E. (2016). Cultura de paz (1st ed.). Mexico City: Grupo Editorial Patria.

Capistrano, D. (2020). Education and support for a culture of peace: a critical comparative analysis using survey data. Glob. Change Peace Secur. 32, 39–55. doi: 10.1080/14781158.2020.1707790

Comins-Mingol, I. (2002). Reseña: “Construyendo la Paz, una Perspectiva Interdisciplinar y Transdisciplinar. Convergencia Rev. Cienc. Soc. 9, 321–336.

Cuéllar, H. (2009). Hacia un nuevo humanismo: filosofía de la vida cotidiana. Claves Pensam. 3, 11–34.

Del Río Fernández, P., Texeira Jiménez, R., and Ramos Delgado, S. (2019). “Educación para la paz a través de lenguajes actuales plásticos visuales: Una experiencia interdisciplinar en el grado de maestros de educación infantil,” in Proceedings of the VII Congreso de Educación Infantil y Formación Infantil y Formación de Educadores. Prácticas Emergentes En Educación Infantil , (Málaga: Universidad de Málaga), 1–9.

Domínguez, F. P., and Ordinas, E. B. (2019). Games for peace. Design of historical cooperative games in the classroom. Rev. Int. Educ. para Justicia Soc. 8, 163–180. doi: 10.15366/RIEJS2019.8.1.010

Escobar, Y. C. (2010). Interdisciplinariedad: Desafío Para La Educación Superior Y La Investigación. Luna Azul 31, 156–169. doi: 10.17151/luaz.2010.31.12

Galtung, J. (2010). Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution: The Need for Transdisciplinarity. Transcult. Psychiatry 47, 20–32. doi: 10.1177/1363461510362041

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jordan, R., Agi, K., Arora, S., Christodoulou, C. G., Schamiloglu, E., Koechner, D., et al. (2021). Peace engineering in practice: A case study at the University of New Mexico. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 173:121113. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121113

Klein, J. T. (2010). A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity. in The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity , eds R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, and C. Mitcham (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 15–30.

Lappin, R. (2009). Peacebuilding and the Promise of transdisciplinarity. Int. J. World Peace 26, 69–76.

Miralay, F. (2020). Peacebuilding Strategies in Conflict Societies Through Art Education?: Cyprus. Propósitos y Representaciones 8, 1–15. doi: 10.20511/pyr2020.v8nSPE2.795

Morin, E. (1994). Introducción al Pensamiento Complejo. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Nicolescu, B. (2012). The Need for Transdisciplinarity in Higher Education in a Globalized World. Transdiscipl. J. Eng. Sci. 3, 11–18. doi: 10.22545/2012/00031

Page, J. (2008). Peace Education: Exploring Ethical and Philosophical Foundations. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

París Albert, S. (2019). Educación para la Paz, Creatividad Atenta y Desarrollo Sostenible. Rev. Int. Educ. para Justicia Soc. 8:27. doi: 10.15366/riejs2019.8.1.002

Rigolot, C. (2020). Transdisciplinarity as a discipline and a way of being: complementarities and creative tensions. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 7:100. doi: 10.1057/s41599-020-00598-5

Waychal, P., and Capretz, L. F. (2018). Universality of egoless behavior of software engineering students. Int. J. Technol. Hum. Interact. 14, 99–112. doi: 10.4018/IJTHI.2018010106

Zurbano Díaz de Cerio, J. L. (1999). Educación Para la paz. Bases de una Educación para la paz y la Convivencia. Pamplona: Gobierno de Navarra.

Keywords : culture of peace, peace, peace education, higher education, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinary education

Citation: Roque-Hernández RV (2022) Building a Culture of Peace in Everyday Life With Inter- and Transdisciplinary Perspectives. Front. Educ. 7:847968. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.847968

Received: 03 January 2022; Accepted: 06 June 2022; Published: 23 June 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Roque-Hernández. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Ramón Ventura Roque-Hernández, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Education and Society: New Approaches for New Challenges

Journal of Peace Education

Subject Area and Category

• Political Science and International Relations
• Sociology and Political Science

Publication type

17400201, 1740021X

Information

How to publish in this journal

[email protected]

The set of journals have been ranked according to their SJR and divided into four equal groups, four quartiles. Q1 (green) comprises the quarter of the journals with the highest values, Q2 (yellow) the second highest values, Q3 (orange) the third highest values and Q4 (red) the lowest values.

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Evolution of the number of published documents. All types of documents are considered, including citable and non citable documents.

This indicator counts the number of citations received by documents from a journal and divides them by the total number of documents published in that journal. The chart shows the evolution of the average number of times documents published in a journal in the past two, three and four years have been cited in the current year. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.

Evolution of the total number of citations and journal's self-citations received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Journal Self-citation is defined as the number of citation from a journal citing article to articles published by the same journal.

Evolution of the number of total citation per document and external citation per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. External citations are calculated by subtracting the number of self-citations from the total number of citations received by the journal’s documents.

International Collaboration accounts for the articles that have been produced by researchers from several countries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal's documents signed by researchers from more than one country; that is including more than one country address.

Not every article in a journal is considered primary research and therefore "citable", this chart shows the ratio of a journal's articles including substantial research (research articles, conference papers and reviews) in three year windows vs. those documents other than research articles, reviews and conference papers.

Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three years windows, that have been cited at least once vs. those not cited during the following year.

Leave a comment

Name * Required

Email (will not be published) * Required

* Required Cancel

The users of Scimago Journal & Country Rank have the possibility to dialogue through comments linked to a specific journal. The purpose is to have a forum in which general doubts about the processes of publication in the journal, experiences and other issues derived from the publication of papers are resolved. For topics on particular articles, maintain the dialogue through the usual channels with your editor.

Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2024. Data Source: Scopus®

Cookie settings

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Privacy Policy

Peace Education: Exploring Some Philosophical Foundations

• Published: January 2004
• Volume 50 , pages 3–15, ( 2004 )

Cite this article

• James S. Page 1  

783 Accesses

28 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Peace education has been recognized as an important aspect of social education for the past three decades. The critical literature as well as official documents, however, have given little attention to its philosophical foundations. This essay explores these foundations in the ethics of (1) virtue, (2) consequentialism, (3) aesthetics, (4) conservative politics and (5) care. Each of these alone composes a significant element of peace education, although ultimately its solid basis can only be established through an integrative approach encouraging a culture of peace. The more complete development and articulation of the philosophical rationale of peace education is yet to be accomplished and remains a task for the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Mindfulness and Social Emotional Learning (SEL): A Conceptual Framework

Decolonizing Healing Through Indigenous Ways of Knowing

Virtue Monism. Some Advantages for Character Education

Adelson, Anne. 2000. Globalization and University Peace Education. Peace Review 12(1): 117–122.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bai, Heesoon. 1997. Ethics and Aesthetics are One: The Case of Zen Aesthetics. Canadian Review of Art Education 24(2): 36–51.

Google Scholar  

Bai, Heesoon. 2001. Challenge for Education: Learning to Value the World Intrinsically. Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice 14(1): 4–16.

Brock-Utne, Birgit. 1985. Education for Peace: A Feminist Perspective . New York: Pergamon Press.

Brock-Utne, Birgit. 1989. Feminist Perspectives on Peace and Peace Education . New York: Pergamon Press.

Burns, Robin J., and Robert Aspelagh. 1983. Concepts of Peace Education: A View of Western Experience. International Review of Education 29(3): 311–330.

Burns, Robin J., and Robert Aspelagh. 1996. Three Decades of Peace Education Around the World . New York: Garland Publishing.

Carr, David. 1991. Educating the Virtues: An Essay on the Philosophical Psychology of Moral Development and Education . London, New York: Routledge.

Carr, David, and Jan Steutel. 1999. Virtue Ethics and Moral Education . London: Routledge.

Cellitti, Anarella. 1998. Teaching Peace Concepts to Children. Dimensions of Early Childhood 26(2): 20–22.

Davenport, Manuel M. 1974. The Aesthetic Foundation of Schweitzer's Ethics. The Southwestern Journal of Philosophy 5(1): 39–47.

Düwell, Marcus. 1999. Ästhetische Erfahrung und Moral: zur Bedeutung des Ästhetischen für die Handelspielräume des Menschen . Freiburg, München: Alber Verlag.

Eaton, Marcia Muelder. 1992. Integrating the Aesthetic and the Moral. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 67(1): 219–240.

Eaton, Marcia Muelder. 1989. Aesthetics and the Good Life . Cranbury: Associated University Press.

Eaton, Marcia Muelder. 2001. Merit, Aesthetic and Ethical . New York: Oxford University Press.

Früchtl, Josef. 1996. Ästhetische Erfahrung und moralisches Urteil: eine Rehabilitation . Frankfuhrt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Galtung, Johan. 1975. Peace: Research, Education, Action: Essays in Peace Research I . Copenhagen: Ejlers.

Galtung, Johan. 1983. Peace Education: Learning to Hate War, Love Peace, and to Do Something About It. International Review of Education 29(3): 281–287.

Galtung, Johan. 1997. Cultural Peace: Some Characteristics. In: A Culture of Peace and Democracy. Part I: A Culture of Peace: A Handbook , ed. by Alexander Chubarian, 259–278. Paris: UNESCO; Moscow: International Institute for a Culture of Peace and Democracy.

Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Gilligan, Carol. 1995. Hearing the Difference: Theorizing the Connection. Hypatia 10(2): 120–127.

Gordon, Haim, and Leonard Grob. 1987. Education for Peace: Testimonies from World Religions . Maryknoll: Orbis Books.

Gur-Ze'ev, Ilan. 2001. Philosophy of Peace Education in a Postmodern Era. Educational Theory 51(3): 315–336.

Haavelsrud, Magnus. 1975. Principles of Peace Education . Oslo: University of Oslo.

Haavelsrud, Magnus. 1981. Approaching Disarmament Education . Guildford: Westbury House.

Hague Appeal for Peace Conference. 1999. Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the 21st Century . The Hague: Hague Appeal for Peace.

Harris, Ian. 1988. Peace Education . Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company.

Harris, Ian. 1996a. Editor's Introduction: Peace Education in a Postmodern World. Peabody Journal of Education 71(3): 7–11.

Harris, Ian. 1996b. From World Peace to Peace in the 'Hood: Peace Education in a Postmodern World. Journal for a Just and Caring World 2(4): 378–395.

Harris, Ian, and Linda R. Forcey. 1999. Peacebuilding for Adolescents: Strategies for Educators and Community Leaders . New York: Peter Lang.

Henderson, George. 1973. Education for Peace: Focus on Mankind . Alexander: ASCD Press.

Hicks, David. 1988. Education for Peace — Issues, Principles and Practice in the Classroom . New York: Routledge.

Hursthouse, Rosalind. 1999. On Virtue Ethics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hutchinson, Francis P. 1996. Educating Beyond Violent Futures . London, New York: Routledge.

Jackson, Owen R. 1992. Dignity and Solidarity: An Introduction to Peace and Justice Education . Chicago: Loyola Press.

Kaman, Julienne, and Geoff Harris. 2000. Does Studying Peace Make a Difference? An Experiment at the University of Papua New Guinea. Australian Journal of Adult Learning 40(21): 83–93.

Leverkühn, André. 2000. Das Ethische und das Ästhetische als Kategorien des Handelns: Selbstwerdung bei Søren Aabye Kierkegaard . Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.

Mack, John E. 1984. Resistance to Knowing in the Nuclear Age. Harvard Educational Review 54(3): 260–270.

Marks, Stephen. 1983. Peace, Development, Disarmament and Human Rights Education: The Dilemma Between the Status Quo and Curriculum Overload. International Review of Education 29(3): 289–310.

Markusen, Eric, and John B. Harris. 1984. The Role of Education in Preventing Nuclear War. Harvard Educational Review 54(3): 282–303.

McCarthy, Coleman. 2002. I'd Rather Teach Peace . Maryknoll: Orbis Books.

McIntyre, Alasdair. 1985. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory . 2nd ed. London: Duckworth.

Noddings, Nel. 1984. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education . Berkley: University of California Press.

Noddings, Nel. 1992. The Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education . New York: Teachers College Press.

Noddings, Nel. 1995. Philosophy of Education . Boulder: Westview Press.

Oakeshott, Michael K. 1962. Rationalism in Politics: And Other Essays . London: Methuen.

Okamoto, Mitsuo. 1984. Peace Research and Peace Education: What is Peace Education in the New Light of Peace Research?. Ghandi Marg 6(4/5): 217–228.

O'Reilly, Mary Rose. 1993. The Peaceable Classroom . Portsmouth: Boynton Cook Publishers.

Page, James S. 2000. Can History Teach Us Peace? Peace Review 12(3): 441–448.

Page, James S. 2001. The International Year for the Culture of Peace — Was It Worthwhile? International Journal of Cultural Studies 4(3): 348–351.

Peters, Richard Stanley. 1964. Education as Initiation . London: George Harrap and the London Institute of Education.

Peters, Richard Stanley. 1966. Ethics and Education . London: Allen and Unwin.

Quinton, Anthony. 1978. The Politics of Imperfection . London, Boston: Faber and Faber.

Raviv, Amiram, Louis Oppenheimer, and Daniel Bar-Tal. 1999. How Children Understand War and Peace: A Call for International Peace Education . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications.

Ray, Douglas. 1988. Peace Education — Canadian and International Perspectives . London: Third Eye.

Reardon, Betty A. 1989. Comprehensive Peace Education . New York: Teachers College Press.

Reardon, Betty A. 1997. Human Rights as Education for Peace. In: Human Rights Education for the Twenty-First Century , ed. by George J. Andreopoulos and Richard Pierre Claude, 21–34. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Rees, Linda W. 2000. A Thousand Cranes: A Curriculum of Peace. English Journal 89(5): 95–99.

Rivage-Seul, Marguerite Kaye. 1987. Peace Education: Moral Imagination and the Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harvard Educational Review 57(2): 153–169.

Roumanes, Jacques-Bernard. 1993. Le paradigme esthétique. Horizons philosophiques 40: 53–76.

Ruddick, Sara. 1989. Maternal Thinking: Towards a Politics of Peace . London: Women's Press.

Salomon, Gavriel, and Baruch Nevo. 2002. Peace Education: The Concept, Principles, and Practices around the World . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Seel, Martin. 1996. Ethisch-ästhetische Studien . Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Thomas, Daniel, and Michael Klare. 1989. Peace and World Order Studies: A Curriculum Guide . 5th ed Boulder: Westview Press.

Toh, Swee-Hin, and Virginia Floresca-Cawagas. 1990. Peaceful Theory and Practice in Values Education . Quezon City: Phoenix.

UNESCO. 1945. Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization . London: UNESCO.

UNESCO. 1974. Recommendation Concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms . Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. 1980. World Congress on Disarmament Education: Final Document and Report . Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. 1994/95. Declaration and Integrated Framework of Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy . Declaration of the International Conference on Education, Geneva, 1994, endorsed by the General Conference of UNESCO in 1995. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. 1995. Declaration of Principles on Tolerance . Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. 2000. World Directory of Peace Research and Training Institutions . Paris: UNESCO.

UNICEF. 1996. State of the World's Children . New York: Oxford University Press.

UNICEF. 1999. Peace Education in UNICEF . Staff Working Paper Series. Prepared by Susan Fountain. New York: UNICEF.

United Nations. 1945. Charter of the United Nations . San Francisco: United Nations Conference on International Organization.

United Nations General Assembly. 1949. Universal Declaration of Human Rights . Final authorized text. Resolution 217 A (III), 1948. New York: United Nations Department of Public Information.

United Nations General Assembly. 1978. Final Document of the Tenth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly (SSODI-Special Session on Disarmament I) . A/S-10/4. New York: United Nations General Assembly.

United Nations General Assembly. 1995. International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World (2001–2010) . Resolution 53/25. New York: United Nations General Assembly.

United Nations General Assembly. 1996. Final Report on the United Nations Year for Tolerance . Resolution A/51/201. New York: United Nations General Assembly.

United Nations General Assembly. 1999. Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace . Resolution A/53/243. New York: United Nations General Assembly.

United Nations General Assembly. 2002. United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-proliferation Education . Resolution A/57/124. New York: United Nations General Assembly.

Wils, Jean-Pierre. 1990. Ästhetische Güte: philosophisch-theologische Studien zu Mythos und Leiblichkeit in Verhältnis von Ethik und Ästhetik . München: Wilhelm Fink.

Zars, Belle, Beth Wilson, and Ariel Phillips (eds.). 1985. Education and the Threat of Nuclear War . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Social Sciences, Southern Cross University, Lismore, New South Wales, 2480, Australia

James S. Page

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Page, J.S. Peace Education: Exploring Some Philosophical Foundations. International Review of Education 50 , 3–15 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:REVI.0000018226.19305.6c

Download citation

Issue Date : January 2004

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1023/B:REVI.0000018226.19305.6c

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Integrative Approach
• Significant Element
• Solid Basis
• Critical Literature
• Official Document
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Peace Education, Transformation, and Responding to Climate Chaos

• Leonisa Ardizzone Vassar College

Peace education rooted in an analysis of structural, cultural, and direct violence provides a vehicle for an anti-capitalist, pro-indigenous, and spiritually-grounded methodology to examine climate chaos. Through autoethnographic reflection, the author reviews the root causes that led us to planetary disaster, analyzes peace education responses, and shares peace-education-based climate education models to transform our teaching and our relationship to Earth.

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Information

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Peace Studies and Peace Education at The University of Toledo

• Reference Examples
• In-Text Citation

Purdue OWL: APA Formatting and Style Guide

Developed By

A service of the University of Toledo Libraries

Technical Contact (Report access and other technical issues):

Arjun Sabharwal, Professor/Digital Initiatives Librarian Email: [email protected] Phone: (419) 530-4497

Teaching Peace Through Structured Controversy

• Barbara L. Watters Author

This article describes a collaborative classroom technique called structured controversy. In the technique, students choose a controversial social issue, prepare pro and con arguments about it based on course material, debate the issue formally in class, and engage in small-group discussions to discover common values and solutions. Although this article describes the use of structured controversy in undergraduate psychology courses, other versions of the technique have been used successfully with different age groups and academic subjects. Predictions are made regarding the effectiveness of structured controversy for undergraduates of traditional versus nontraditional age, as well as for international versus U.S.-born students.

Access Agreement Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

Before proceeding you must agree to the terms and conditions of usage as outlined below by clicking on the Accept button and/or by both parties’ signatures below. You will have to do this only once. After agreement, you will be redirected back to the main Journal page. A pdf copy of the terms is available for download.

This Access Agreement (the "Agreement") is effective upon processing of payment ("Effective Date") and is entered into by and between the Journal on Excellence in College Teaching (“JECT”) and the Customer (“Customer").

This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and supersedes and voids all prior communications, understandings, and agreements relating to the Product(s), including any terms of use displayed to Authorized Users via the online site of the Product(s). Alterations to the Agreement and to any Addendum to the Agreement are only valid and binding if they are recorded in writing and signed by both parties

. I. Definitions

"Authorized Users" shall mean individuals who are authorized by the Customer (which shall include those individuals authorized by the Institutions hereunder) to access the Customer's information services whether on-site or off-site via secure authentication and who are affiliated with the Customer as a student (undergraduates and postgraduates), employee (whether on a permanent or temporary basis), or a contractor of the Customer. Individuals who are not a current student, employee, or a contractor of the Customer, but who are permitted to access the Customer's information services from computer terminals within the physical premises of the Customer ("Walk-In Users"), are also deemed to be Authorized Users, but only for the time they are within the physical premises of the Customer. Walk-In Users may not be given means to access the Product(s) when they are not within the physical premises of the Customer.

"Commercial Use" shall mean use for the purpose of monetary reward (whether by or for the Customer or an Authorized User) by means of the sale, resale, loan, transfer, hire, or other form of exploitation of the Product(s). For the avoidance of doubt, neither recovery of direct cost by the Customer from Authorized Users, nor use by the Customer or Authorized Users of the Product(s) in the course of research funded by a commercial organization, shall be deemed to constitute Commercial Use.

"Educational Purposes" shall mean for the purpose of education, teaching, distance learning, private study and/or research as described in Section II below.

"Institutions" shall mean the Customer's participating institutions, if applicable.

"License" shall mean the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and use the Product(s) pursuant to the specific terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

"Product(s)" shall mean the products, materials and/or information contained therein that are subject to this Agreement. Product(s) include the Journal on Excellence in College Teaching and the archive of the Learning Communities Journal.

"Reasonable Amount" shall be determined based on guidelines set forth by 17 U.S. Code § 107 (Limitations on exclusive rights, Fair use).

"Secure Authentication" shall mean access to the Product(s) by Internet Protocol ("IP") ranges or by another means of authentication agreed between the Publisher and Customer or Institutions (if applicable) from time to time.

II. Authorized Use of Product(s)

Customer, the Institutions (if applicable), and Authorized Users may use the Product(s) for Educational Purposes as follows:

Analysis . Authorized Users shall be permitted to extract or use information contained in the Product(s) for Educational Purposes, including, but not limited to, text and data mining, extraction and manipulation of information for the purposes of illustration, explanation, example, comment, criticism, teaching, research, or analysis.

Course Packs . Customer, the Institutions, and Authorized Users may use a Reasonable Amount of the Product(s) in the preparation of course packs or other educational materials.

Digital Copy . Customer, the Institutions, and Authorized Users may download and digitally copy a Reasonable Amount of the Product(s).

Display . Customer, the Institutions, and Authorized Users shall have the right to electronically display the Product(s) to the extent necessary to further the intent and purpose of this Agreement.

Electronic Reserve . Customer, the Institutions, and Authorized Users may use a Reasonable Amount of each of the Product(s) in connection with specific courses of instruction offered by Customer.

Interlibrary Loan . The Customer and the Institutions shall be permitted to use Reasonable Amounts of the Content to fulfill occasional requests from other, non-participating institutions, a practice commonly called Interlibrary Loan ("ILL"). Customer and the Institutions shall fulfill such requests in compliance with Section 108 of the United States Copyright Law (17 USC S108, "Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives") and the Guidelines for the Proviso of Subsection 108(2g)(2) prepared by the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU).

The electronic form of the Product(s) may be used as a source for ILL. Customer and the Institutions shall include copyright notices on all ILL transmissions. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in no event shall any non-secure electronic transmission of files be permitted.

Print Copy . Customer, the Institutions, and Authorized Users may print a Reasonable Amount of the Product(s).

Recover Copying Costs . Customer and the Institutions may charge a reasonable fee to cover costs of copying or printing portions of Product(s) for Authorized Users.

Scholarly Sharing . Authorized Users may transmit to a third party colleague in hard copy or electronically, Reasonable Amounts of the Product(s) for personal use, professional use, or Educational Purposes but in no event for Commercial Use. In addition, Authorized Users have the right to use, with appropriate credit, figures, tables, and brief excerpts from the Product(s) in the Authorized User's own scientific, scholarly, and educational works.

Text Mining . Authorized Users may use the licensed material to perform and engage in text mining/data mining activities for legitimate academic research and other Educational Purposes. Those uses beyond educational use shall require permission from the Publisher.

III. Restrictions

Except as provided herein, the institution shall make reasonable efforts to inform its authorized users not to use, alter, decompile, modify, display, or distribute the Product(s) as follows:

Alter Identification . Remove, obscure, or modify copyright notices, text acknowledging, attributions, or other means of identification or disclaimers as they appear. Alter Product(s).

Alter, decompile, adapt, or modify the Product(s), except to the extent necessary to make it perceptible on a computer screen, or as otherwise permitted in this Agreement. Alteration of words or their order is strictly prohibited.

Commercial Use . No Commercial Use of the Product(s) shall be permitted unless the Customer or an Authorized User has been granted prior written consent by an authorized representative of the Product(s). Use of all or any part of the Product(s) for any Commercial Use or for any purpose other than Educational Purposes.

Distribution . Display or distribute any part of the Product(s) on any electronic network, including without limitation, the Internet, and any other distribution medium now in existence or hereinafter created, other than by a Secure Authentication; print and distribute any portion(s) of the Product(s)s to persons or entities other than the Customer or Authorized Users, except as provided in Section II.

JECT acknowledges that the Customer cannot police or control the actions of its students, faculty, and other Authorized Users with respect to their use of the Product(s). In the event of abuse, the institution shall make prompt and reasonable efforts to heal the breach and notify the publisher.

IV. Term and Termination

This agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall remain in effect unless and until terminated as permitted herein (the "Term"). There is no perpetual electronic access to content made available during the term of the agreement.

JECT may terminate this Agreement if Customer violates any of the terms and conditions set forth herein. In the event of any termination of access, JECT will promptly notify the Customer of the basis for termination.

The Customer may terminate this Agreement if sufficient funds are not provided or allotted in future government-approved budgets of the Customer (or reasonably available or expected to become available from other sources at the time the Customer’s payment obligation attaches) to permit the Subscriber, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue this Agreement.

In the event of any unauthorized use of the Product(s) by an Authorized User, Customer shall cooperate with JECT in the investigation of any unauthorized use of the Product(s) of which it is made aware and shall use reasonable efforts to remedy such unauthorized use and prevent its recurrence. JECT may terminate such Authorized User's access to the Product(s) after first providing reasonable notice to the Customer (in no event less than two (2) weeks) and cooperating with the Customer to avoid recurrence of any unauthorized use. In the event of any termination of access, JECT will promptly notify the Customer

. V. Refunds

In the event that a subscription is canceled by the Customer prior to the subscription end date, the following will be used as guidelines for refunds.

Electronic subscriptions . The Customer shall be entitled to a full refund within 14 days of the start of the most recent subscription term. Refunds requested after 14 days but no later than 60 days from the start of the most recent subscription term will be allowed, minus a 30% processing fee. Refunds will not be granted if requested more than 60 days after the start of the most recent subscription term.

Journal on Excellence in College Teaching Center for Teaching Excellence Miami University 317 Laws Hall Oxford, Ohio 45056

All rights reserved | Miami University | The Journal on Excellence in College Teaching