Learning in Conflict and Postconflict Contexts

Author(s): Lynn Davies and Christopher Talbot

Source: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 52, No. 4, Special Issue on Education in Conflict
and Postconflict Societies<break></break>Guest Editors: Lynn Davies and Christopher Talbot
(November 2008), pp. 509-518
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Comparative and International
Education Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/591295 .
Accessed: 27/01/2014 11:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Comparative and International Education Society are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Education Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 160.39.92.227 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:24:50 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Guest Editorial
Learning in Conflict and Postconflict Contexts
LYNN DAVIES AND CHRISTOPHER TALBOT

The field of the relationship of education to conflict is a fast-growing one,

with increasing amounts of research, publications, conferences, and indeed
special editions of journals. During the past decade, there has been a growing
global recognition of the vital role played by the provision of high-quality
education in conflict, emergencies, and early reconstruction. At Dakar in
April 2000, the governments and agencies that committed themselves to the
achievement of Education for All (EFA) explicitly acknowledged conflict and
disasters as obstacles to that achievement and agreed to work together to
ensure that education would be available during crises.
The global humanitarian assistance community has also acknowledged
the importance of educational response during the heat of emergency and
early recovery. Education is widely perceived as contributing to the physical,
psychosocial, and cognitive protection of children, adolescents, and adult
learners. It is also evidently essential as a preparation for economic and social
reintegration of refugee and internally displaced populations. Under the
reforms to humanitarian response introduced since late 2005, a coordinating
mechanism of humanitarian clusters has been established, with strict ac-
countability to beneficiaries, governments, and donors. For each cluster, one
or more lead agencies has been designated. The Education Cluster, which
formally came into being in December 2006, is led globally by a partnership
of UNICEF and the Save the Children Alliance. This represents a broad
institutional commitment to education in emergencies.
One major reason for these successes has been the effective advocacy of
the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE). INEE was
founded in November 2000 expressly to provide support to professionals
working in the field of education in emergencies through information shar-
ing, tools development, and advocacy. It has grown to a worldwide mem-
bership of over 2,600, with a four-person secretariat. INEE’s outstandingly
rich Web site (http://www.ineesite.org), valuable e-mail listserv, and highly

We would like to acknowledge with much gratitude the key work of the external reviewers, who
gave hugely detailed comments and constructive critiques. This not only enabled contributors to this
volume to refine their articles but will assist others to be published in the future. We would also like
to acknowledge the important work of the managing editor for this volume, Dai Li, who dealt with all
the communications and processing of articles with such skill.

Electronically published August 7, 2008

Comparative Education Review, vol. 52, no. 4.
䉷 2008 by the Comparative and International Education Society. All rights reserved.
0010-4086/2008/5204-0001$10.00

Comparative Education Review 509

This content downloaded from 160.39.92.227 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:24:50 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DAVIES AND TALBOT

effective soft convening power have helped to raise the profile and deepen
the quality and accountability of educational work in conflict, emergencies,
and reconstruction. As a network, INEE has allowed individual agencies and
governments to leverage their own actions with those of others and has
created space for genuinely disinterested teamwork. INEE’s greatest achieve-
ments have been to facilitate the articulation, publication, and dissemination
of Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early
Reconstruction (INEE 2004), to launch a huge training campaign on the use
and application of the minimum standards, and to analyze their impact.
Compatible with but institutionally separate from the general standards for
humanitarian response, the INEE Minimum Standards now constitute the
normative framework for humanitarian response in the education sector.
They are increasingly becoming points of reference for government minis-
tries of education, as they systematically address their responsibilities to con-
flict- and disaster-affected children and youth.
A major development of the past few years has been the growing positive
engagement and commitment of donor governments and multilateral donor
and lending agencies to addressing educational needs in multisectoral, post-
conflict reconstruction operations. Much of this interest has focused on the
issue of educational provision in contexts of state fragility, which refers to
situations in which the sovereign government of a state is unable or unwilling
to provide satisfactory education for all of its population. This is a wider
analytical concept than education in emergencies and reconstruction, taking
in situations of extreme poverty and state decline. The Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance
Committee, the EFA Fast Track Initiative, individual governments, and multi-
laterals have devoted considerable attention in recent times to analysis of the
relationships between provision of high-quality education and the diminution
of state fragility, as well as to identifying conditions under which donors may
invest with confidence in education systems in fragile situations. In 2008,
INEE launched a Working Group on Education and Fragility to promote
research and advocacy for these issues.
Ten years have passed since the publication of the first serious, rigorously
researched studies of the particularities of education in conflict and emer-
gencies. During this time there has been a flowering of studies devoted to
educational provision in particular conflict-affected countries and territories.
More and more, researchers are examining large thematic issues in inter-
national comparative studies. The findings of these research efforts have been
rapidly transferred into the development of increasingly targeted and so-
phisticated program-planning and management tools, for use by government
ministries, UN agencies, and nongovernmental organizations in emergency
response and early postconflict and postdisaster reconstruction.
A key question emerging from recent research is how powerful the school

510 November 2008

This content downloaded from 160.39.92.227 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:24:50 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EDITORIAL

or education system is, particularly in contexts of active armed conflict, tran-

sition, and postconflict reconstruction, and more generally in situations of
state fragility. It is now conventional to acknowledge the duality of educational
institutions both in contributing to peace and at the same time possibly
contributing to and prolonging conflict and violence (Bush and Saltarelli
2000; Smith and Vaux 2003; Davies 2004).
In putting together this volume, we therefore called for articles that
examined, through research, the impact of initiatives and policy on education
during conflict and in early reconstruction. We received five times the num-
ber of articles we were able to publish, again demonstrating the wealth of
study and interest in this field. Having sent articles out to a wide range of
external reviewers and having to make difficult choices, we decided to take
a specific focus in this special issue—that of learning, teaching, and curric-
ulum. What and how do learners learn in contexts of conflict, displacement,
postconflict reconstruction, and state fragility? This allows themes such as
student voice and learner memories to act as a foil to more top-down analyses
of policies on curriculum or integration. We chose articles that had a solid
research foundation, had original findings, and fitted together to develop
implications for policy. They were selected to reflect different aspects of
policy—policies on inclusion, integration, and reintegration; on curriculum;
and on teaching in “normal” schools in wartime as well as learning sites
established as a result of conflict. We also tried to have a range of physical
and geographical contexts, including schools in refugee and internally dis-
placed persons’ camps as well as in situations that do not involve forced
migration, and a variety of political and historical contexts. Based on reviewer
input, we selected the following seven manuscripts to be included in this
special issue of the Comparative Education Review.
Rebecca Winthrop and Jackie Kirk draw on research with primary school
children in refugee and postconflict contexts in Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and
Liberia to examine the concept of well-being. They argue that schooling can
support children’s well-being, but in ways given little attention in the edu-
cation-in-emergencies literature and policy arena. What students value most
in school is learning, both academic and social, and they present themselves
as actively participating in and making choices about their school experience
rather than just as innocent, vulnerable, or helpless.
A very different learner’s perspective is provided in the article by Julia
Dicum. This compares the results of two oral history case studies: Eastern
European or German survivors of World War II and Afghan survivors of post-
1979 Afghanistan. In talking of what they remembered and experienced in
education, the most important facets emerge as teacher-student relations,
methods of teaching, resource availability, the politicization of school rou-
tines, and peer relationships among learners—that is, the implicit and the
taught curriculum.

Comparative Education Review 511

This content downloaded from 160.39.92.227 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:24:50 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DAVIES AND TALBOT

Theresa S. Betancourt, Stephanie Simmons, Ivelina Borisova, Stephanie

E. Brewer, Uzodinma Iweala, and Marie de la Soudière discuss the reinte-
gration and education of former child soldiers in Sierra Leone. The study
reveals a number of challenges as well as opportunities—challenges of stigma,
peer harassment, and the need for psychosocial support—all of which have
limited the ability of war-affected youth to learn and to benefit from edu-
cation. Yet important aspects emerge of individuals regaining a purpose
within a nonauthoritarian and inclusive environment.
Su-Ann Oh and Marc van der Stouwe write on education, diversity, and
inclusion in Burmese refugee camps in Thailand. Here, the diversity of ethnic
groups is combined with discussion of three very contentious and sensitive
issues: language and curriculum, teenage pregnancy and dropout, and special
education. The questions that arise are the mechanisms of educational in-
clusion and exclusion and how these are linked to societal attitudes, the
refugee experience, and notions of identity and nationhood.
A different form of inclusion is covered in the article on the attempted
integration of the Mostar Gymnasium in Bosnia and Herzegovina by Azra
Hromadžić. Here the complexities of the international community’s desire
for integration and reunification collide with ethnonationalist sentiments,
particularly of the Bosnian Croats, who desire to retain national “purity” and
a national language. While a unique context, the ethnographic study reveals
why interventionist education programs may fail if broader questions of po-
litical strategy and political belonging are not taken into account.
Sarah Warshauer Freedman, Harvey M. Weinstein, Karen Murphy, and
Timothy Longman write on Rwanda, on teaching history after identity-based
conflicts. The study is a wonderful example of the complex tensions involved
in teaching history to promote a national identity while incorporating the
realities of continuing social group identities—a tension further complicated
by the need for democratic teaching methods that include critical think-
ing. Yet another dimension is the role of outside intervention in developing
curriculum.
Ulrike Niens and Marie-Hélène Chastenay provide a comparative study
of citizenship education in Quebec and Northern Ireland, that is, in divided
societies. It aims to evaluate the impact of citizenship education on sustainable
peace. In the curricula, the role of conflict and reconciliation is not as prom-
inent as might be expected in either country, and the divided education
system itself impedes the potential impact of citizenship education on social
cohesion. Do citizenship education programs and the curriculum as a whole
allow students to develop identities and behaviors that transcend the historical
divisions?

512 November 2008

This content downloaded from 160.39.92.227 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:24:50 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EDITORIAL

Emergent Themes

We identify five central themes that emerge from this collection: (a) the
importance of learning and the focus of education, (b) identity as a learner,
(c) pedagogy, (d) discipline and abuse, and (e) peers and friends. They paint
a picture of the learner as a much more active and discerning agent than
has sometimes been portrayed. Particularly in fragile states, learners want
and need to take control of their lives. As various contributors point out,
they are keenly aware of when they are learning and when they are not
learning. They are experts on their own experience. And while they are
influenced by the regime of schooling and by the divisive politicization of
learning and identity, they can equally subvert well-meaning attempts to make
them learn together in ways that do not then fit their identities.

Importance of Learning and the Focus of Education

There has been much emphasis in humanitarian literature on education
postconflict of the importance of school in restoring normality: the impli-
cation is that it would almost be enough to get the children back into school
and that the routines of schooling are as important as its content. Yet articles
in this collection nuance this oversimplification. What is learned is crucial
to rehabilitation and reconstruction. Schooling for these learners provides
hope for the future. This means that acquisition of skills is vital—not nec-
essarily vocational skills directly but definitely those that provide both an
entry into jobs and entry into the world of those who are making decisions
about people’s lives. The importance of functional literacy is confirmed as
part of this entry procedure. It is also necessary to enable people to under-
stand messages from the powerful—not to be duped or exploited. An eco-
nomic future is central in preventing child soldiers being re-recruited. Goal
setting is crucial for all learners so that the future can be envisaged and the
learner’s place in getting there identified. Memories of learners in conflict
situations reveal the politicization of education through curriculum, text-
books, and symbols but also the resilience of learners in using education
instrumentally. In postconflict situations, nonformal learning takes place
through work, apprenticeships, and informal experiences of economic and
personal survival outside of school. Dicum would argue that learning the
skills of economic survival and the skills for developing personal resilience
are two of the most important outcomes of nonformal opportunities. Ques-
tions arise: Should these outcomes be sought through formal education?
How can individuals become resilient? And how can schools as community
and state institutions also become resilient?

Identity as a Learner
This links to a second theme that emerges from these articles, that of
one’s identity as a learner and how this is conditioned or mediated through

Comparative Education Review 513

This content downloaded from 160.39.92.227 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:24:50 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DAVIES AND TALBOT

the education one receives. The first of these is of course simply being a
learner in the sense of the responsibility or status provided by being in a
purposely educational setting, whether in a refugee camp or a “regular”
school. This is about membership in the club of learners, not only an in-
dividual path to tread. But membership is highly complex in divided societies.
The articles in this special issue show the extreme challenges of inclusion—
whether ethnonationalist as in Bosnia and Herzegovina, religious as in
Northern Ireland, ethnotribal as in Rwanda, or cultural/linguistic as in Can-
ada. Such divisions are then overlaid with other forms of inclusion/exclusion,
such as gender or disability, as in Afghanistan or in the Burmese camps in
Thailand. On top of this are revealed the pitfalls of some attempts at inte-
gration. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the international community did not
fully foresee the strength of nationalism that would prevent learners wanting
to learn alongside others and in a common language. To the learner—and,
sometimes, the teacher—commonality is threatening the purity of identity
that gives the sense of self and a place in history. The concern with purity
has been identified as being significant in other divided societies, such as
Sri Lanka (Silva 2002) and in the appeal of extremism and fundamentalism
(Davies 2008). What becomes very clear is that any attempts at “inclusive
education” must take into account the long histories of political and cultural
division or hostility and how these affect the continued struggles for identity
formation and stability of learners. Inclusive education programs can become
battlegrounds for the political loyalties of large population groups.

Pedagogy
Teachers in conflict situations can take on many roles, helping learners
in and out of school and in establishing alternative learning spaces. Yet a
recurring theme in the articles included here is not just what is taught, with
whom, and where, but how. The curriculum articles on Rwanda and on
Quebec/Northern Ireland show the importance of democratic teaching and
learning styles, which would enable critical thinking and critical exploration.
Learner-centered teaching is now accepted as an ideology in most countries
but is not always practiced in reality. The articles show the many challenges
to this being accepted. Teacher education rarely gives teachers the oppor-
tunity to develop skills in teaching controversial issues or even the skills of
organizing classroom debate. Particularly during or after conflict, teachers
may be untrained or poorly trained. They may lack confidence even in con-
ventional methods, let alone what are seen as more radical ones. Democratic
methods may be seen as time consuming in an overcrowded curriculum and
to contradict the drive for examination passing, qualifications, and jobs,
which are very important for giving students hope in the midst of fragile
situations. But even more challenging, perhaps, are the political realities. In
a society characterized by ethnic or religion tensions, is it easier or safer not

514 November 2008

This content downloaded from 160.39.92.227 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:24:50 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EDITORIAL

to raise questions of different versions of the political history of the country

nor to engage in conflict analysis? Pedagogy and curriculum content con-
verge in this analysis, with the need for a consistency of approach if learners
are not to see through the hypocrisy of being told to live together peacefully
and democratically if (a) politicians in the country are not doing so and (b)
their classrooms are not run in this fashion.
Discipline and Abuse
Closely linked to pedagogy is classroom and school “discipline.” It is
significant that in the memories of the learners in World War II and in
Afghanistan, what is remembered very clearly is the teacher-student relation-
ship. Corporal punishment is a vivid reminder of authoritarian relations, and
a violent society will be reflected in ways of interacting in school (Harber
2005). Winthrop and Kirk point out that student “distress” in school, which
was related to not learning well, was due to harsh teacher discipline, severe
beatings, yelling, and insults, particularly in Sierra Leone. Students in Ethi-
opia and Afghanistan appeared less worried about being hit by teachers, as
long as it was not hard. There appears to be a normalization of violence,
that is, violence as a “normal enforcement tool” (Salmi 2006), which would
not bode well for future orientations on how to solve problems. But partic-
ularly problematic was teacher bribery, corruption, and sexual abuse and
harassment, or trading sex for grades. This has been well documented by
Fiona Leach and Claudia Mitchell (2006). Winthrop and Kirk write that in
all the countries they studied, students mentioned that a good strategy as a
learner was to respect the teacher and even to help with the teaching and
learning processes in the class. There are important messages here about
the active agency of students: that discipline is not about control of behavior
or about punishment but about capitalizing on students’ desire to respect
the teacher and hence operate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. This
has been formalized in the INEE Minimum Standards (INEE 2004), UNICEF
UK’s Rights Respecting Schools (Covell and Howe 2005), and UNICEF’s
Child Friendly Schools (Chabbott 2004). It is particularly important in fragile
contexts so that violent or abusive relations that are part of intersocietal and
intrasocietal violence are not replicated in the school. Gendered violence is
not just a problem for females but also for males and for a peaceful society
generally. Learning to be or not to be violent is a crucial aspect of pedagogy.
The stress in many articles, including that on the reintegration of child
soldiers, is on reconciliation rather than revenge; schools on their own cannot
bring about reconciliation, but they can examine whether their own punish-
ment regimes reinforce the acceptance of reprisal for a student “offense” or
whether they can model the notion of more restorative justice.

Comparative Education Review 515

This content downloaded from 160.39.92.227 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:24:50 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DAVIES AND TALBOT

Peers and Friends

But it is not just teacher-student relations that are a key part of learning.
The articles included in this special issue demonstrate vividly the significance
of peer relationships. Friends are important not just in social solidarity but
as partners in learning. It should be part of the normal experience of school-
ing that one learns and cooperates with others. Several of the articles signal
the barriers to learning when peer relationships are not conducive to this.
Returning child soldiers experienced stigma linked to their history of in-
volvement in violence but also because they were “over age,” having missed
out on crucial years of schooling and needing to be placed in a lower class.
Elsewhere there is abuse and harassment of students by peers as well as by
teachers, which again acts as a block on any sustained and effective partici-
pation in learning. Young women who become pregnant are usually excluded
from participation in formal schooling. Oh and van der Stouwe demonstrate
the importance of students’ views on sexual health and on the stigma attached
to pregnancy. In both stable and conflict-affected societies, students expe-
rience the endemic, low-level disruption to learning caused by peers fighting,
shouting, interrupting lessons, and stealing pencils and books. As elsewhere,
this is seen as gendered, with boys more likely to be fighting in class and on
the playground but with girls arguing and disrupting lessons as well. But of
particular significance to conflictual societies is the identity question, with
whom one is friends, and whether this is based on an identity category such
as ethnicity, tribe, or religion. Students will self-segregate in and out of the
classroom. The question is whether or how a policy seeks to override this,
creating new “friends,” as in contact theory (Allport 1954) or engineering
various sorts of cooperative learning in the classroom. Inclusive practices with
regard to disability deal with resource issues of mainstreaming versus special
provision, but such practices may not directly affect how learners see each
other and can help each other, as the example of the Burmese camps in
Thailand reveals.
The policy questions arising from these articles and themes underscore
the need for highly nuanced strategies for education in conflict and fragility.
Immediate humanitarian responses in the education sector can be blanket
ones that do not differentiate between different types and combinations of
vulnerabilities. We want schools and students to be resilient but need to avoid
supporting the reconstruction of identities, differentiations, and patterns of
interacting that may have reflected or even contributed to the initial conflict.
The voice and agency of the learner are going to be crucial in understanding
such processes; this collection of articles demonstrates the extensive contex-
tual research that still needs to be done to articulate this voice.

References
Allport, Gordon. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

516 November 2008

This content downloaded from 160.39.92.227 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:24:50 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EDITORIAL

Bush, Kenneth, and Diana Saltarelli. 2000. The Two Faces of Education in Ethnic
Conflict: Towards a Peacebuilding Education for Children. Florence: UNICEF Inno-
centi Research Centre.
Chabbott, Colette. 2004. UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Schools Framework: A Desk Review.
New York: UNICEF.
Covell, Katherine, and R. Brian Howe. 2005. “Rights, Respect and Responsibility.”
Report on the RRR Initiative to Hampshire Education Authority, Children’s
Rights Centre, Cape Breton University.
Davies, Lynn. 2004. Education and Conflict: Complexity and Chaos. London: Routledge.
Davies, Lynn. 2008. Educating against Extremism. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham.
Harber, Clive. 2005. Schooling as Violence: How Schools Harm Pupils and Societies. Lon-
don: Routledge.
INEE (Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies). 2004. Minimum Stan-
dards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction. Paris:
INEE.
Leach, Fiona, and Claudia Mitchell, eds. 2006. Combating Gender Violence in and
around Schools. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham.
Salmi, Jamil. 2006. “Violence, Democracy and Education: An Analytic Framework.”
In Promoting Social Cohesion, ed. E. Roberts-Schweitzer. Washington, DC: World
Bank Institute.
Silva, Neluka, ed. 2002. The Hybrid Island: Culture Crossings and the Invention of Identity
in Sri Lanka. London: Zed.
Smith, Alan, and Tony Vaux. 2003. Conflict and International Development. London:
Department for International Development.

Comparative Education Review 517

This content downloaded from 160.39.92.227 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:24:50 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions