University for Peace

Peace Education

Independent Research Project

Stephanie Knox Cubbon

Exploring the Culture of Peace at the University for Peace

June 29, 2010

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

Acknowledgements
To all who have taught me.
To all UPEACE community members, who contributed more to this project than I
could have ever hoped. I extend my deepest gratitude to you.
To my Peace Education classmates, who supported and encouraged me
throughout the year, and from whom I learned so much.
To Virginia Cawagas, Swee-Hin Toh, and Dina Rodriguez, for their constant
support, generous spirits, and deep commitment to peace education.
To my parents, for giving me every opportunity in life, including this one.
To my husband Alistair, for his support, encouragement, love, and for helping
me to reach my highest potential each day.

2
Table of Contents

1. Introduction 7

2. History of a Culture of Peace 9

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

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

3. The University for Peace 12

3.1 UPEACE and contributions to the UN Culture of Peace programme

12

3.2 UPEACE: The setting 13

4. Statement of the Research Topic 14

4.1 Purpose 14

4.2 Statement of the problem 15

4.3 Research questions 15

5. Research Methodologies 15

5.1 The Researcher’s Role 16

5.2 Worldviews 16

5.3 Data Collection 16

5.4 Sampling 17

5.5 Data Analysis 17

5.6 Assumptions, Ethical Issues and Constraints 17

6. Literature Review 18

6.1 Culture of Peace Conceptual Frameworks 18

6.1.1 UNESCO framework 19

6.1.2 The flower model 20

6.1.1 The Integral model 21

6.2 Culture of Peace Indicators and Assessment 22

6.2.1 David Adams 22

6.2.2 Other culture of peace indicators and assessment tools 24

 6.3 UPEACE related documents 24

6.4 UPEACE independent research projects 25

7. Culture of Peace Framework for this study 25

7.1 Education 26

7.2 Environmental sustainability 27

7.3 Human rights 28

7.4 Democratic participation 29

7.5 Equality between men and women 29

7.6 Understanding, tolerance, and solidarity29

7.7 Participatory communication and the free flow of information and

knowledge 30

7.8 International peace and security 30

7.9 Local peace and security 31

7.10 Inner peace 31

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

9. Questionnaire: Findings and analysis 37

9.1 Personal information for statistical purposes 38

9.2 A culture of peace through education 41

9.3 Environmental sustainability 46

9.4 Human rights 47

9.5 Equality between men and women 51

9.6 Democratic participation 52

9.7 Understanding, tolerance and solidarity 55

9.8 Participatory communication and the free flow of information and

knowledge 61

9.9 International peace and security 63

9.10 Local peace and security 64

9.11 Inner peace 67

4
 9.12 Culture of peace 68

10. Feedback session and discussion 72

10.1 Discrimination72

10.2 Culture of peace comparison 73

10.3 Communication 73

10.4 Inner peace 73

11. Conclusions 74

12. UPEACE Culture of Peace Action Plan 78

12.1 Policy 78

12.2 Further research 80

12.3 Education and trainings 80

13. References 87

12. Appendices 93

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

93

B. Proposal for the Community Liaison Office 99

List of Figures
Figure 1: Flower Model 20

Figure 2: The Integral Model of Peace Education 21

Figure 3: Participants by Programme 39

Figure 4: Participants by Region 40

Figure 5: Participants by Gender 41

6
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Culture of Peace Indicator Working 32

Table 2: Teaching Methods 42

Table 3: Programmes at UPEACE 43

Table 4: Environmental Sustainability 46

Table 5: Human Rights 47

Table 6: Equality between Men and Women 51

Table 7: Democratic Participation at UPEACE 52

Table 8: Democratic Participation in the Classroom 54

Table 9: Understanding 55

Table 10: Tolerance 56

Table 11: Solidarity 57

Table 12: Peer Pressure for School-related Events 58

Table 13: Institutional Pressure for School-related Events 59

Table 14: Peer Pressure for Social Events 59

Table 15: Harassment 60

Table 16: Communication at UPEACE 61

Table 17: Interpersonal Communication at UPEACE 62

Table 18: International Peace and Security 63

Table 19: Safety 64

Table 20: Personal Security Violations 65

Table 21: Conflict Resolution 66

Table 22: Inner Peace 67

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

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

Table 25: Culture of Peace at UPEACE 69

Table 26: Summary of Participants’ Recommendations 71

Table 27: Summary of UPEACE Culture of Peace Strengths and Weaknesses 7
4

1. Introduction

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

culture of peace, a world free from violence, poverty, injustice, inequality, and
fear. A world free from conflict is not necessarily possible nor desirable, as
conflict itself is not inherently negative, and can lead to positive change and
transformation; rather, we must find peaceful ways of handling conflict.
However, creating a peaceful world is more than simply finding peaceful
solutions to conflict, or in other words, achieving negative peace. It also
requires cultivating positive peace, which encompasses the elimination of
structural violence and the promotion of principles such as equality, justice,
and understanding. A culture of peace encompasses both negative and positive
peace, and is a process of dismantling the current culture of war and promoting
human rights, multiculturalism, solidarity, respect, and environmental
stewardship from local to global levels.
A culture of peace is not an endpoint, but rather a process and a vision;
it is not static, but rather dynamic, always changing based on how a
community changes (Adams, 2009). According to Adams (1995), "a culture of
peace consists of values, attitudes, behaviors and ways of life based on
nonviolence, respect for human rights, intercultural understanding, tolerance
and solidarity, sharing and free flow of information and the full participation of
women" (16). This process does not imply the absence of conflict. Diverse
communities will always encounter conflict, and it is not the conflict itself that
is negative, as conflict can create tension that leads to creative solutions and
actually improve our lives; it is when we handle conflict violently that it
becomes problematic. A culture of peace is a constantly evolving process of
nonviolence, in contrast to the current culture of war in which violence and
injustice are pervasive.
Education is a key tool in both dismantling the culture of war and
cultivating a culture of peace, and this is the primary goal of peace education.
According to the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation

8
(UNESCO) charter (1945), “Since war begins in the minds of men, it is in the
minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” Through
education, we can learn the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for
creating a culture of peace.
The principle that education is crucial to creating global peace is the
foundation of the United Nations-mandated University for Peace (UPEACE), an
institution of higher learning devoted to master’s degree programs in peace-
related specializations. The present research explores the culture of peace in
this unique environment.

2. History of a culture of peace

2.1 Culture of peace as it evolved in the United Nations

While the concept of a culture of peace has been developed over the
past two decades at the UN, the founding of the UN itself was a major step
towards building an international culture of peace. The UN's mission statement
includes the negative peace element of saving "succeeding generations from
the scourge of war," as well as human rights, justice and social progress
(United Nations, 1945). At its inception, the UN's concept of peace was broader
than merely the cessation of violent conflict.
In 1986, UNESCO convened a meeting of scientists in Seville, Spain to
discuss the question of whether violence is a natural human tendency. The
attending scientists agreed upon five principles, which are:
1. It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a
tendency to
make war from our animal ancestors.
2. It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent
behaviour is
genetically programmed into our human nature.
3. It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human
evolution
there has been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than
for other kinds of behaviour.
 4. It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a 'violent
brain'.
5. It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by 'instinct'
or any single motivation (Adams, et. al., 1986).
From these principles, the scientists concluded that "the same species who
invented war is capable of inventing peace" (Adams, et. al., 1986). It followed
that that war and peace are essentially cultural, human-created phenomena,
and that humanity has the power to set our course, which led to the
development of the concept of a culture of peace
This concept was first elaborated at the International Conference on
Peace In the Minds of Men, held in Yamoussoukro in 1989. The document that
resulted from the meeting was the Yamoussoukro Declaration on Peace in the
Minds of Men, which elaborated a programme for peace. Through this
declaration, the Congress invited states, intergovernmental and
nongovernmental organizations, the scientific, educational, and cultural
communities of the world, and all individuals to "help construct a new vision of
peace by developing a peace culture based on the universal values of respect
for life, liberty, justice, solidarity, tolerance, human rights, and equality
between women and men" (International Conference on Peace In the Minds of
Men, 1989). This declaration directly referenced the Seville Statement, and
recommended that UNESCO should work towards disseminating the Statement
and developing explanatory material (ICPIMM, 1989). Furthermore, the
document stated that the endorsement of the Seville statement was the first
stage in refuting the myth that organized human violence is biologically
determined (ICPIMM, 1989). Heeding this call, UNESCO began to mainstream
the culture of peace concept into the organization's work, which included the
publication of From a culture of violence to a culture of peace (1996), and in
1997, the adoption of "Towards a culture of peace" as the theme for its
transdisciplinary program.
Subsequently, in 1998, the UN General Assembly drafted a resolution
entitled Culture of Peace (A/RES/53/13, 1998), which acknowledged UNESCO's
work towards a culture of peace, and called for the promotion of a culture of
peace based on the principles established in the Charter of the United Nations.
The General Assembly then proclaimed 2000 to be the International Year for a

10
Culture of Peace (A/RES/52/15, 1998), and 2001-2010 to be the International
Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World
(A/RES/53/25, 1998; henceforth referred to as "The Decade"). To further
elaborate the concept, the UN General Assembly passed the Declaration and
Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace (A/RES/53/243, 1999), which
created eight program areas under the culture of peace theme: a culture of
peace through education; promoting sustainable economic and social
development; respect for all human rights; promoting equality between men
and women; promoting democratic participation; advancing understanding,
tolerance, and solidarity; promoting participatory communication and the free
flow of information; and promoting international peace and security.

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

launched an awareness-raising campaign with Manifesto 2000, a personal
commitment by Nobel Peace Prize laureates that put the culture of peace
principles into a form that can be integrated into observance and practice in
daily life. The principles of the Manifesto 2000 are to:

“Respect the life and dignity of each human being without

discrimination or prejudice;

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

physical, sexual, psychological, economical and social, in particular
towards the most deprived and vulnerable such as children and
adolescents;

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

put an end to exclusion, injustice and political and economic
oppression;

Defend freedom of expression and cultural diversity, giving

preference always to dialogue and listening without engaging in
fanaticism, defamation and the rejection of others;

Promote consumer behaviour that is responsible and development

practices that respect all forms of life and preserve the balance of
nature on the planet; and
 Contribute to the development of my community, with the full
participation of women and respect for democratic principles, in
order to create together new forms of solidarity” (UNESCO, 1999).

The Manifesto was signed by over one percent of the world's population (75
million people) during the year (UNESCO, 1999).
The Decade initiated a concerted, unified effort among the UN bodies,
Member States, international organisations, and civil society to promote a
global culture of peace. The emphasis of the Decade, according to its initial
report, was to put children at the centre and to priority to be given to
education, and more specifically, education for peace (UN General Assembly,
A/55/377, 2000). For each year of the Decade, UN bodies, as well as some
States and civil society organizations, reported their efforts to the UN General
Assembly and indicated the actions they had been taking in the culture of
peace framework. These formal reports indicate the patterns within the
Decade, and show trends of greater involvement throughout the UN, and
greater collaboration between UN agencies.
While the UN has played a key role in promoting action for a culture of
peace, civil society movements have also been instrumental in taking actions
and implementing programs for a culture of peace. Some civil society efforts
were documented in the UN Mid-term report (A/RES/60/279, 2005), as well as
an independent civil society world report (Culture of Peace Foundation, 2005).
Certainly for all the efforts that were reflected in the report, more efforts
existed that were not accounted for in these reports.
This year, 2010, is the conclusion of the Decade, and will be concluded
with final reports by the UN and civil society, as well as a civil society
conference to be held in December in Spain. These reports and events will
show the progress that has been made in the Decade, and the areas that
require emphasis for moving forward.

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

(1996)
In the UNESCO publication From a culture of war to a culture of peace
(1996), Groff and Smoker use six perspectives of a culture of peace that are
based on the evolution of the peace concept. These perspectives of the culture

12
of peace evolve as: the absence of war; the balance of forces in the
international system; for negative (no war) and positive peace (structural
violence); for feminist peace on macro and micro levels; for peace with the
environment; and for holistic inner and outer peace (1996). Their analysis of
the culture of peace concept traces how the concept of peace has evolved over
time in Western peace research, from the absence of war to the more holistic
perspectives that include dimensions of gender, the environment, and inner
peace. Groff and Smoker also propose working on culture of peace initiatives at
local and global levels as a key strategy for creating global cultures of peace
(1996).
As the concept of peace has evolved over time, so has the concept of a
culture of peace. The concept of a culture of peace varies across cultures and
across time. By simultaneously working at the individual and international
levels, and applying a holistic approach, we can create an international culture
of peace. The University for Peace operates at both levels, by educating
individuals to promote international peace.

3. The University for Peace

In efforts to strengthen efforts for international peace, the UN General
Assembly established the University for Peace in Costa Rica through a petition
by then-president of Costa Rica, Rodrigo Carazo (General Assembly, 1979). The
university's mission explicitly states that it exists to
"…provide humanity with an international institution of higher
education
for peace and with the aim of promoting among all human beings
the spirit of understanding, tolerance and peaceful coexistence, to
stimulate cooperation among peoples and to help lessen obstacles
and threats to world peace and progress, in keeping with the noble
aspirations proclaimed in the Charter of the United
Nations". (Presidential Commission for the University for Peace,
1982: 251).
During its first twenty years of existence, UPEACE went through periods
of high and low activity, but did not maintain a consistent student body. The
UPEACE Council is the governing body of the university, as established in the
UPEACE Charter (A/RES/35/55, 1980). The Council includes the Rector, two
representatives appointed by the UN Secretary-General and UNESCO Director-
General, two representatives of the host country government, the UPEACE
Chancellor, and ten representatives “of the academic community or other
persons eminent in the field of peace and security” (A/RES/35/55, Annex,
Article 6, 1980). In 2001, the UPEACE Council adopted a 5-year revitalisation
plan that included four major goals: the development and teaching of a
coherent academic programme and its dissemination through state-of-the-art
technologies; building up a critical mass of students and faculty at UPEACE
Headquarters; the extension of UPEACE activities into major regions of the
world in response to its global mandate; and the establishment of a sound
financial and management structure (University for Peace, 2005). This
revitalisation marked a new beginning for UPEACE, in which it would expand its
reach and impact towards increasing international peace.

3.1 UPEACE and contributions to the UN Culture of Peace

Programme
Simultaneously, the Decade began, and the 2001 report highlights the
role of UPEACE in the Decade (UN General Assembly, A/56/349). Education for
peace was established as a priority of the Decade (A/55/377, 2001), and
UPEACE, as one of the UN bodies involved with education, along with UNESCO
and UNICEF, was called on to play a key role in the Decade and efforts towards
education for peace in a culture of peace. The 2001 report outlines the
university's plans during the Decade as they correspond to the eight program
areas. Through the Decade reports, UPEACE's efforts towards a global culture
of peace can be traced, and it is apparent that the university undertook many
efforts and actions that contribute to promoting an international culture of
peace (See Appendix A: Summary of UPEACE contributions to the UN Decade
Reports 2001-2005).
These reports show how UPEACE has been contributing to UN efforts
towards a culture of peace at the international level, indicating clear actions in
all culture of peace programme areas that the university has initiated.
However, they do not tell us what the culture of peace at UPEACE is like, nor if
there is a culture of peace at UPEACE at the local level. As noted by Groff and
Smoker (1996), it is important to work towards a culture of peace at all levels,

14
and hence a further exploration of how UPEACE is working towards a local
culture of peace is needed.

3.2 UPEACE: The setting

UPEACE is a place where creating a culture of peace is not only desirable
but necessary for its greater aims. UPEACE is a unique, UN-mandated
graduate-level institution which offers master’s programmes focused on peace,
and which draws students from approximately 60 different countries and even
more cultures. The university's setting, about 30 kilometers outside of San
José, Costa Rica in the small farming community and protected area of El
Rodeo, provides a unique opportunity for cultivating a culture of peace. The
isolation and natural beauty of the campus contribute to its uniqueness and
tranquility, and while it is situated in the Costa Rican context, the overall
culture is very international due to the diverse population of its student body,
faculty and staff. UPEACE has a unique ability to have a culture of peace at the
local, campus level, and for community members to develop skills in promoting
a culture of peace and to return to their home countries to implement these
skills. Just as individuals can cultivate inner peace so that they can act more
peacefully, communities can cultivate peace in order to contribute to peace in
the wider world.
UPEACE has the potential to promote both a local and international culture of
peace.
Another unique aspect of the community is that its composition is always
changing. The one-year master’s programmes result in very little continuity
within the student body, with the exception of the American University
students, who overlap with two different graduating classes. Staff are also
primarily on one-year contracts, although many are renewed every year, and
some students are hired as staff upon graduation. The ever-changing
population of the community means that the culture of the community is also
frequently changing; however, this does not preclude it from developing a
distinct culture, a culture of peace or a sense of community. While there are
many sub-cultures at UPEACE, for example between programmes, or between
students, staff and faculty, there is also a unifying, overarching community
culture. This would be similar to other diverse communities, whose cultures are
also be dynamic and include subcultures, and are in constant contact with
other cultures. As Avruch (1998) notes, individuals in a population are
organized in many different groupings, and each group has the potential for its
own culture; thus no population can be described by a single culture, and
hence the need for the notion of subculture. This does not mean that we
cannot talk about the culture of a population; it means that we need to be
specific that this culture will be experienced differently and to a different
degree by individuals within that population. Thus while at UPEACE there are
many different subcultures, there are some factors that lead to a community
culture. Some institutional factors may contribute to a culture of peace, such as
policies, programmes, and practices, and through institutional memory, may
contribute to a certain level of cultural continuity. Furthermore, as the UPEACE
mission is to promote peace throughout the world, it could be assumed that
members who are drawn to the community are seeking to cultivate global
peace. UPEACE is a multicultural community whose members are seeking
professional development in order to promote international peace.
Another remarkable factor about UPEACE is that it is at a very interesting
stage of its development as it marks its thirtieth anniversary. Although it has
existed for 30 years, it is only since 2001 that it has been granting master’s
degrees on a regular basis to a significantly sized student body. Since 2000, the
university has been growing at a very rapid rate, both in the student population
and in the programs offered. From 2003 to 2009, the student enrollment
increased from 22 to 164 students, and over the course of the decade, the
number of programmes offered increased from two to ten (University for Peace,
2008). At this stage in its growth, it would be an ideal point in time for the
university to develop self-awareness, to better understand its present situation,
so that it can move forward to a clear vision of the future. As UPEACE alumnus
Rizzi Carlson (2009) notes, it is “a most opportune moment for...the formal
establishment of a culture of peace on campus, as well as the transformational
shift that will add even more meaning to UPEACE’s 30th birthday.”
A culture of peace at UPEACE is desirable in and of itself, and because
the students, staff and faculty have the opportunity to create at UPEACE what
they would like to see in the outside world. UPEACE, as a learning lab, can be a
center where we learn to create a culture of peace, and are better equipped to
foster one when we leave to our respective regions. Not only is this desirable, it

16
is critical for UPEACE to embody the culture of peace that it seeks its learners
to build in the outside world.
The year 2010 signifies two important events for a culture of peace: the
final year of the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence
for the Children of the World and the 30th anniversary of the founding of the
UN-mandated University for Peace. It is a timely opportunity to study the
culture of peace at UPEACE.

4. Statement of the Research Topic

4.1 Purpose
The purpose of this research is to explore the culture of peace at the
University for Peace, and to contribute to the larger field of community-level
and institutional-level culture of peace analysis. In investigating the culture of
peace at UPEACE, the strengths and weaknesses of the current culture of
peace at UPEACE can be determined, and recommendations can be made for
interventions based on a culture of peace analysis in order to strengthen the
culture of peace. With respect to the strengths that are found, they can be
further supported and also shared with other communities so that their culture
of peace may become stronger as well. Weaknesses that are found can also be
addressed and areas which are weaker can be improved upon. This research
will also contribute to the field of local culture of peace assessment, as this is a
new field. The audiences that will profit are the UPEACE community, as well as
any community or institution that is seeking to assess its progress towards
cultivating a culture of peace.

4.2 Statement of the Problem

The problem that this research is addressing is that while a culture of
peace may exist at the University for Peace, we do not know to what extent it
exists because it has not yet been studied. In order to progress towards a
culture of peace, we need to know the current status of the culture of peace to
move forward in a holistic, coherent, intentional way.

4.3 Research questions

To accomplish the purposes of this research, I seek to answer the following
central questions:
 • Is there a culture of peace at UPEACE?
• What are students' experiences of a culture of peace at UPEACE?
• What policies, practices and behaviors contribute to cultivating a
culture of peace at UPEACE?
• What policies, practices and behaviors are detrimental to the culture of
peace at UPEACE?
• How can we assess or measure the culture of peace at UPEACE?

5. Research Methodologies and Assumptions

The research methods used to answer these questions are summarized
as follows:
1. Culture of Peace Framework and Indicator working group
2. Questionnaire (qualitative and quantitative data)
3. Presentation/Feedback session

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

compiled a conceptual framework for a culture of peace to begin my study. I
then held a working group in the UPEACE community on the culture of peace
framework and indicators. After this, I designed a comprehensive qualitative
and quantitative survey to gauge students' experiences of a culture of peace at
UPEACE. Then I conducted a presentation/feedback session with the members
of the community to present the preliminary results and to receive feedback
from the community as to what these results mean and the process as a whole.
Simultaneously, I analysed relevant UPEACE documents and policies, such as
the Student Bill of Rights and the Non-Discrimination Policy.

5.1 The Researcher’s Role

As I am a member of the UPEACE community, and thus know personally
most participants, and my role as a community member could compromise my
objectivity. However, I address this by making clear my conscious partiality
from the outset, which Creswell (2009) says is a technique to clarify the bias of
the researcher, and which creates a more open and honest narrative. I also feel
that my role as a UPEACE student will increase my effectiveness as a
researcher because I am familiar with the community and its culture. My role as

18
community member/researcher is also consistent with Adams' (2009)
recommendations for culture of peace assessment, that the assessment should
come from within the community and be conducted by community members
rather than outsiders.

5.2 Worldviews
The worldviews that are informing my research are a combination of
constructivism, pragmatism, and participatory action. Pragmatism arises out of
actions, situations and consequences rather than conditions, and is problem
focused, thus using all available tools to analyze the problem (Creswell, 2009).
The pragmatic worldview is conducive to the mixed methods approach that I
will be using. The participatory action world view is in line with the nature of
this research, as I tried to involve community members in each step to explore
the culture of peace at UPEACE. The participatory action world view is also
compatible with culture of peace assessment principles (Adams, 2009; see
Literature Review).

5.3 Data collection

In order to explore the culture of peace at UPEACE, I used a mixed
methods approach, applying both quantitative and qualitative data collection
and analysis. The participants in this study are current UPEACE community
members, with a primary focus on students through the questionnaire, and
inclusion of staff and faculty in the working group and feedback session.
I began with a two-hour working group to look at the culture of peace
framework and collectively develop indicators for the UPEACE environment.
Participation of community members in the development of indicators ensures
that the culture of peace assessment reflects the campus community. The
indicators were then used to develop the questionnaire questions.
Following the indicator working group, I developed a questionnaire to
assess students’ experiences of a culture of peace. Through the questionnaire I
accumulated quantitative data, using a Likert scale (for example, strongly
agree/strongly disagree statements), several yes/no questions, as well as
qualitative data, through open-ended comment boxes at the end of each
section.
 Following the questionnaire collection, I presented the preliminary results
at a gathering of students, staff, and faculty (called a "brown bag" in UPEACE
parlance; see Chapter 10).

5.4 Sampling
For the working group, I used convenience sampling, which was most
appropriate here, as participants contributed up several hours of their time. I
compensated participants by providing coffee, tea, snacks so as to encourage
participation. For the questionnaire I used voluntary response sampling, as I
sent the survey to the entire student body, and participants had the choice to
participate. For the presentation and feedback session, I again used
convenience sampling, based on community members who were available,
able and willing to attend the session.

5.5 Data analysis

I used Survey Monkey to analyze the quantitative data, which allowed
me to get an overall picture of how community members view the culture of
peace at UPEACE. For the qualitative data, which will provide greater detail
about the culture of peace at UPEACE, I coded the data by clustering by
themes in my analysis.

5.6 Assumptions, Ethical Issues and Constraints

A key assumption to this project is that cultivating a culture of peace is
desirable to the UPEACE community. This is based on the idea that all students,
staff, and faculty have chosen to work and/or study at this institution which
bears "peace" in its name, which has a mandate to support world peace, and
which is affiliated with the United Nations.
Another key assumption is that there is some degree of continuity with
the community composition over time. While the student body changes year to
year, and certainly has a different culture every year, I am assuming that there
are some characteristics that will be similar from one population to the next.
For example, the student body is always highly diverse, coming from an ever-
increasing number of countries and cultures as the student body grows. For

20
these reasons, I assume that while the student body changes overall, students
are consistently culturally diverse and have an interest in peace.
I assumed that respondents were familiar with the concepts in the
questionnaire, and it was up to the respondents to interpret the terms, and
thus I did not provide definitions of terms used in the questionnaire. I thought it
was important for respondents to identify with the terms as they understood
them. However, this may affect the results, as what one term (for example,
"discrimination") means to one person might mean something else to another,
particularly of a different cultural-linguistic background. However, as all
participants are master’s degree candidates in the field of peace and conflict
studies, I assumed that they were familiar with these terms.
In order to ensure ethical treatment of all participants, I clearly
communicated the goals and objectives of the research in the working group,
questionnaire, and presentation. I asked participants for their consent, and
guarantee anonymity and confidentiality. Participants had the opportunity to
withdraw at any time. I also gained approval to conduct this research from the
Vice-Rector.
A constraint of this survey was its focus on the student population.
While the students make up the largest percentage of the UPEACE community,
they are the component of the community which changes the most. The staff
and faculty are the more consistent, stable part of the population. Due to time
limitations, as well to the limitation of length of this research project, I chose to
focus on students, although staff and faculty contributed to the working group
and feedback session. Ideally, in future culture of peace assessment projects,
all community members should be included. This will be explored in greater
detail in the recommendations section (Chapter 12).

6. Literature Review
In order to study the culture of peace at the University for Peace (UPEACE),
I have identified four main areas for theoretical research: frameworks for a
culture of peace, culture of peace indicators and assessment, UPEACE-related
documents, and relevant independent research projects written on UPEACE by
alumni relating to a culture of peace.

6.1 Culture of Peace Conceptual Frameworks

 A number of different frameworks have been developed to conceptualize a
culture of peace. For this research, I have identified three key models for
investigation: UNESCO (1999), the flower model (Toh & Cawagas, 2002), and
the Integral Model of Peace Education (2004).
While these frameworks provide useful guidelines for a culture of peace,
it is important to note that there is not a singular concept of culture of peace.
Groff and Smoker (1996) discuss the existence of different definitions for
"culture" and "peace", noting that definitions can be narrow or broad for both
terms. These terms are inherently ambiguous and can be interpreted in many
different ways, ranging from a narrow definition focusing on the arts, to
broader definitions that include all socially learned behavior, and hidden
elements such as values and underlying assumptions (Groff and Smoker,
1996).
As such, the concept of a “culture of peace” may have different
meanings across cultures. Brenes (2004) notes that the values and principles of
a culture of peace "can be expressed in diverse ways in different cultures" (79).
According to Wessells (1994), "it would be culturally insensitive to prescribe an
exact meaning of 'culture of peace'" (6). As there is not a singular definition for
culture, nor a single definition of peace, there is not a singular concept for a
culture of peace, which should have flexibility for cultural interpretation.
These issues are particularly relevant with respect to the UPEACE
community, which has a very high level of cultural diversity, and requires the
concept of "culture of peace" at UPEACE to have room for cultural plurality. For
this reason, the UPEACE community was consulted before deciding upon the
culture of peace framework and indicators used in this study, which are
elaborated in Chapter 7.
The following models provide frameworks for conceptualizing a culture of
peace.

6.1.1 UNESCO Framework

According to the UN Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of
Peace, a culture of peace is:
"a set of values, attitudes, traditions, and modes of behaviour and
ways of life based on:

22
 a) Respect for life, ending of violence and promotion and practice
of non-violence through education, dialogue and cooperation;
b) Full respect for the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity
and political independence of States and non-intervention in
matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of
any State, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and
international law;
c) Full respect for and promotion of all human rights and
fundamental freedoms;
d) Commitment to peaceful settlement of conflicts;
e) Efforts to meet the developmental and environmental needs of
present and future generations;
f) Respect for and promotion of the right to development;
g) Respect for and promotion of equal rights and opportunities for
women and men;
h) Respect for and promotion of the right of everyone to freedom of
expression, opinion and information;
i) Adherence to the principles of freedom, justice, democracy,
tolerance, solidarity, cooperation, pluralism, cultural diversity,
dialogue, and understanding at all levels of society and among
nations;
and fostered by an enabling national and international environment
conducive to peace" (A/RES/53/243, Art. 1, 1999).
From this definition, the UN General Assembly elaborated the programme
of action, which includes the eight areas of education, sustainable social and
economic development, human rights, gender equality, democratic
participation, participatory communication and the free flow of information,
advancing understanding, tolerance and solidarity, and international peace and
security (A/RES/53/243, 1999). As UNESCO was named the lead agency for
promoting the culture of peace, this framework is henceforth referred to as the
UNESCO model throughout this paper.
The UNESCO model is perhaps the most widely-known framework for a
culture of peace, as it is disseminated by the UN. The framework is
comprehensive in its breadth, international in its scope. An important addition
to this model is the area of participatory communication and the free flow of
information, which is not explicitly found in the other models.

6.1.2 Flower model

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

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

Cawagas (2002) has "educating for a culture of peace" at the center, and six
petals for: 1) dismantling the culture of war; 2) promoting human rights and
responsibilities; 3) living with justice and compassion; 4) building cultural
respect, reconciliation and solidarity; 5) living in harmony with the earth, and 6)
cultivating inner peace.
This model offers several notable contributions. First is the area of
dismantling a culture of war, which most closely corresponds to promoting
international peace and security in the UNESCO model. Ideally, in a culture of
peace, international security would be equated with total disarmament. The
flower model (Toh & Cawagas, 2002) goes farther by explaining that real
international peace and security will require dismantling the culture of war,
ranging from disarmament at an international level, to nonviolent conflict
resolution at micro levels, such as in communities and schools, as well as
promoting attitudes and values of non-violence. This petal includes
disarmament education.
Secondly, the idea of "living in harmony with the earth" correlates to
"sustainable social and economic development," but goes deeper by
24
highlighting the harmonious relationship with the environment. The word
"development" has very different connotations and definitions, and the growth-
centered approach to development is arguably the source of much
environmental degradation. While these two themes imply similar ideas, the
flower model (Toh & Cawagas, 2002) emphasizes the need to live in a way that
is not only sustainable, but in union with the natural world.
Finally, the inclusion of inner peace as a component to a culture of peace
is an important addition of this model. The petal of inner peace is not in the
UNESCO framework, and is a notable omission. The UNESCO framework
touches on interpersonal relations, between people, but not intrapersonal
relations, within one’s self.

6.1.3 Integral Model of Peace Education

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

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

Education (IMPE; henceforth referred to as “the Integral model”), which was
developed by the University for Peace and Central American governments
during the first phase of the Culture of Peace and Democracy Program, from
1994 to 1996 (Brenes, 2004). The Integral Model is a mandala-shaped, person-
centered framework, which incorporates the contexts of peace with oneself,
with others, and with Nature, at ethical, mental, emotional and action levels
(Brenes, 2004). This model "considers 'peace' as a state of integrity, security,
balance and harmony" (Brenes, 2004: 83), and essentially considers the
individual as the starting point for peace. According to this model, an individual
lives within three relational contexts: to the self, to others, and to nature, and
violence or peace can be expressed in each one.
This model also emphasizes the importance of personal or inner peace,
with respect to the body, heart and mind, and also includes more public
spheres, and explicitly includes political and social participation, democratic
participation, and a culture of democracy. Its approach to ecological peace is
similar to the flower model (Toh & Cawagas, 2002), although more explicit in its
definition, but explaining that peace with nature encompasses ecological
consciousness, biodiversity, and natural balance. It is interesting that this
model was actually developed at the University for Peace, indicating that these
themes are important to the university, and that the university is contributing
to a culture of peace by facilitating the development of such theoretical
models. Another interesting component of this model is that it explicitly
includes health, which is unique to this model compared to the other models.
The Integral model includes principles from the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (1948) and the Earth Charter (1997), which takes an ecological
sustainability-focused approach to a culture of peace. According to the Earth
Charter preamble (1997), at this critical moment in Earth's history, "we must
join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for
nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace." The
Earth Charter contains sixteen principles, guided by the following themes:
respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, social and
economic justice, and democracy, nonviolence and peace. Each of the sixteen
themes is elaborated with more specific actions for how the principle translates
into action. In the Earth Charter, the principle of universal responsibility goes

26
beyond our relationship one another to include future generations and the
biosphere (Brenes, 2004).
In Chapter 7, I will discuss how these conceptual frameworks informed
the development of the conceptual framework used for this study.

6.2 Culture of Peace Indicators and Assessment

While the area of culture of peace indicator research is quite new, a
number of indicator and assessment tools have been developed to assess a
culture of peace at local, national, and global levels.

6.2.1 David Adams

David Adams, one of the scientists who developed the Seville Statement
(Adams, et. al, 1986), director of the UNESCO Culture of Peace program from
1992, and coordinator of the 2005 civil society World Report on a Culture of
Peace (Culture of Peace Foundation, 2005), writes extensively on assessing a
culture of peace in his book World Peace through the Town Hall (2009). This
book was highly influential in the development of this research project.
Adams writes that
"it is essential to measure progress toward a culture of peace at
the local level. But it should not be reduced to a simple formula, or
calling in experts to do the job. Instead, it needs to be a process of
regular assessment to know if the initiatives we take are successful
or not, what works and what doesn't work, and whether we are
making progress" (2009: 93).
In measuring progress at the local level, the assessment, he elaborates, should
be "participatory and educational," involving the people who are concerned
with the various areas of a culture of peace (2009: 93). Adams states that "this
reflects the fundamental nature of culture itself which is a process that involves
the entire society and in which everyone is constantly learning and teaching at
the same time" (2009: 93). Thus the process of assessing a culture of peace
should be a learning experience for all participants.
Furthermore, the assessment of progress towards a culture of peace
should not be used to "'prove' that one entity...is better than another" (Adams,
2009: 94), but rather should be used to compare the entity to itself year after
year, to see if progress is being made or not.
 Beyond the measuring of progress, another useful outcome of will be of
new ideas that emerge for initiatives to address the weaknesses (Adams, 2009:
94). In the case of the present research, numerous ideas came out in the
student survey, which will be elaborated in Chapter 9.
Adams also advocates for basing the assessment on the UNESCO
programme areas. He asserts that "this is the only way to attain universally
valid results in a subject which otherwise would be politicised and
controversial" (2009: 95).
As the process is educational, “citizens involved in measuring a culture of
peace will come to learn what the culture of peace is all about" (Adams, 2009:
98). Many members of the UPEACE community have heard of the concept of a
culture of peace prior to enrollment (to be elaborated Chapter 9), and a culture
of peace is discusses briefly in the foundation course, which is mandatory for
all masters students, and for which Toh (2007) is required reading. While
members have some initial knowledge and familiarity with the concept,
UPEACE provides great opportunity to learn more from one another about a
culture of peace.
Adams (2009) also notes that while holistic culture of peace assessment
is a new area, each of the programme areas have been studied through
indicators. For example, another institution may develop indicators on
sustainability or human rights that could be modified for the UPEACE context,
or could serve as a guide.
It is also important, in looking at the different programme areas, to not
lose sight that the programme areas are interrelated parts of the broader
culture of peace. Adams writes that "in distinguishing the various programme
areas, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that they are all interrelated to
a general overall culture of peace (2009: 109). While exploring the culture of
peace, the programme areas are useful for analysis and the development of
projects and interventions; however it is important to retain an awareness that
they are interrelated parts of a holistic conception of a culture of peace.

6.2.2 Additional culture of peace indicators and assessment

tools

28
 At the local, institutional level, Cawagas and Toh (1987) developed a
checklist to assess the culture of peace at schools in the Philippines. While the
context for this research – UPEACE - is very different from the setting for their
questionnaire - primary and secondary schools in the Philippines - this checklist
helped to inform the structure of my questionnaire. Their questionnaire uses
the flower model as a conceptual framework, and addresses knowledge,
values, and practices, within the curriculum, administrators, teachers, students
and community. Candice Carter (2005) has developed peace education
standards for students, teachers, teacher educators and administrators,
grouped by knowledge, skills, and disposition. While these standards are
education-specific, can be used to explore the education practices of the
university.
Joseph de Rivera (2004) developed a template for assessing a culture of
peace at a national level, and has used this template to assess the culture of
peace the United States. De Rivera proposes using “objective” national
indicators such as GDP and crime rates, in addition to questionnaires that
measure attitudes, norms, and “emotional climate” to examine a national
culture of peace (2005: 2). To address the objectivity of national indicators
such as GDP, infant mortality, and crime, which I question, is beyond the scope
of this research. While these particular statistics are not relevant to the local,
institutional level, the areas that he looks at can be used as a guide for areas
that can be explored at UPEACE. The current research thus focused on his
second recommendation, the survey of attitudes, norms, and emotional climate
of the community in regards to a culture of peace, which I explored through the
student questionnaire.
Robyn Stewart (2007, 2008), UPEACE alumnus and Director of Canadian
Centres for Teaching Peace has developed a culture of peace assessment
tool/report card based on the principles of the UNESCO Culture of Peace
Program (see Appendix 2). This assessment tool served as a guide for the
working group on indicators (to be explored in Chapter 7). For her master’s
thesis at UPEACE (2007), Stewart conducted a thorough analysis of correlates
of peace cultures.

6.3 UPEACE-related documents

 Also relevant to this study are UPEACE documents, such as the founding
documents of the university (Presidential Commission for the University for
Peace, 1981) and including UN documents that relate to the university and to a
culture of peace. The UPEACE Charter includes its mission statement, as
declared in Article 2 under "Aims and Purposes," which is clearly in line with
contributing to a global culture of peace through higher education (UN General
Assembly, 1980). Furthermore, in a provisional report by Reardon & Diallo
(1980), the authors asserted, "in that the human mentality is primarily
conditioned by culture, it is suggested that University for Peace add to its
integrity principles the concept of culture." These documents help to verify that
a culture of peace is important to the University for Peace and provide support
for the culture of the university to be examined in greater detail. The
aforementioned UN documents relating to the Decade (see Chapters 2 & 3)
further strengthen the importance of a culture of peace to UPEACE, its mission,
and the greater mandate of the United Nations, but do not reflect the culture of
peace at UPEACE. Another key document is the Student Handbook, which
includes policies such as the Student Bill of Rights and the Non-Discrimination
Policy (UPEACE, 2009).

6.4 UPEACE independent research projects

In addition to Stewart (2007), other UPEACE students have incorporated
the theme of culture of peace at into their independent research projects,
several of whom have examined the UPEACE context. Rizzi Carlson (2009)
carried out focus-group research on creating a peacebuilding centre on
campus, which would serve as an institutional centre for the culture of
peace. His research (2009) indicates that a centre for a culture of peace is
desired by the community. By examining the culture of peace at UPEACE, we
can better determine what aspects of the culture of peace need greater
support, perhaps through such a center or other institutional entities.
Wichman (2009) conducted a survey on inner peacefulness with
students, faculty and alumni, and found that 68% of participants perceive
individual peacefulness as important to the creation of cultures of peace.
Vaughn Chaverri (2007) explored health initiatives toward a culture of peace at

30
UPEACE, and made health-specific recommendations to increase a culture of
peace at UPEACE.
This research indicates the importance and desire of the UPEACE
community to have a culture of peace on campus. As these research efforts
reflect the UPEACE community from 2006-2009, they indicate a continued
interest within the community on a culture of peace, not only by the
researchers but by the participants, all of whom are community members.
While the community itself changes membership to a certain degree each year,
the interest in developing a campus culture of peace remains continuous.
Through this literature review, I found that little research has been done
in developing indicators for a culture of peace, and that the culture of peace at
UPEACE has not been measured or studied in detail. Through the present
research, I intend to contribute to the greater field by further developing
indicators for a culture of peace at a community or institutional level, and to
contribute to the UPEACE community by measuring the culture of peace so that
we can strengthen it.

7. Culture of Peace Conceptual Framework for this Study

With respect to the culture of peace framework for this study, I have
adapted and expanded the UNESCO model. I chose this model to adapt
because it is the most universally recognized, and has been used as a model
for other culture of peace assessments (Stewart, 2008; Adams, 2009). Adams
(2009) also emphasised the relevance of the UNESCO model in attaining
universal valid results. However, I will also include inner peace practices in my
study, as I and others (Toh & Cawagas, 2002; Brenes, 2004) feel that this is
extremely important in the cultivation of a culture of peace, and is an omission
of the UNESCO model. Toh notes that “there is a growing consensus that the
inner dimensions and sources of peaceful values and practices should not be
ignored” (2007: 12). With respect to the sustainable development program
area, I will focus on the environmental practices and policies of the university,
incorporating the ecological emphasis of the flower (Toh & Cawagas, 2002),
and Integral (Brenes, 2004) models.
Another area of the UNESCO framework requiring adaptation is
international peace and security. For most communities and institutions, the
area of international peace and security might not apply directly. However, to
UPEACE, it does, as the mission of UPEACE aims to provide "humanity" with an
institution of higher education and to "lessen obstacles and threats to world
peace and progress" (UN General Assembly, A/RES/35/55, 1980). Thus rather
than omit this category in its entirety, I chose to keep it and add an additional
element of "local peace and security," focusing on campus, but including El
Rodeo and Ciudad Colon, where most community members live. Thus while the
UNESCO framework is the primary source used to inform my study, ultimately
the framework is a unique combination of the UNESCO framework and others
to provide a holistic approach to analysis.
For this study, a culture of peace will be assessed in the following areas:
1. Education
2. Environmental sustainability
3. Human rights
4. Democratic participation
5. Equality between men and women
6. Understanding, tolerance and solidarity
7. Participatory communication and the free flow of information and knowledge
8. International peace and security
9. Local peace and security (i.e. campus, El Rodeo, Ciudad Colon)
10. Inner peace
Below I will examine each of these areas in more detail.

7.1 Education
According to the UNESCO framework, a culture of peace through
education entails “revising the educational curricula to promote qualitative
values, attitudes and behaviours of a culture of peace, including peaceful
conflict-resolution, dialogue, consensus-building and active non-violence”
(UNESCO, 2010). This educational approach should also encompass the other
seven programme areas. Although UNESCO does not refer to this as “peace
education,” Adams (2009), who has been a key figure in the development of
the UN Culture of Peace initiatives, uses “peace education” to describe the
education section in his chapter on Assessing Progress Towards a Culture of
Peace at the Local Level (106).

32
 The field of peace education has been deeply influenced by the work of
Brazilian pedagogue and educator Paolo Freire. According to Freire (1970), key
elements of the educational process are reforming the student-teacher
relationship to be horizontal and equal; using dialogue as a pedagogical tool;
valuing the knowledge and experience that students bring to the classroom;
and praxis, or continuous engagement with theory and practice. These
elements are elements are crucial to peace education, and as such, are crucial
to education for a culture of peace.
In referring to the UNESCO report to the UN Secretary General in 2000,
Adams writes:
It also proposes that the culture of peace should be modeled in the
policies and practices of the classroom, the school, and other
learning environments, providing opportunities for all members of
the school community to participate in democratic decision making
and governance processes (2009: 107).
Thus, when learning about peace, it is important for the policies and classroom
practices of UPEACE to reflect the values of a culture of peace.
According to Cawagas (2007), educating for a culture of peace requires
four crucial pedagogical principles: holism, or viewing multiple dimensions of
conflict and violence with a holistic vision; values formation, or explicitly
teaching for preferred values such as compassion, justice, equality and
nonviolence; dialogue, which entails a more horizontal teacher-learner
relationship as both educate and learn from one another; and critical
empowerment, through which learners develop critical consciousness and seek
to take transformative action. Cawagas emphasizes values development for a
culture of peace, and dialogue as a pedagogical tool.
Notably, the UN Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace
(A/RES/53/243, 1999) directly refers to the University for Peace in the
education section, in which it calls to:
Expand initiatives to promote a culture of peace undertaken by
institutions of higher education in various parts of the world,
including the United Nations University, the University for Peace,
and the project for twinning universities and the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Chairs Programme
(6).
This illustrates UPEACE’s direct call from the UN to expand its efforts towards a
culture of peace through education.
While education itself is a programme area, education for a culture of
peace will include educating for all other programme areas.

7.2 Environmental sustainability

According to UNESCO (2010), sustainable economic and social
development includes “reducing economic and social inequalities, by
eradicating poverty and by assuring sustainable food security, social justice,
durable solutions to debt problems, empowerment of women, special measures
for groups with special needs, environmental sustainability...” However, issues
of social inequality, poverty, social justice, and special measures for groups
with special needs can be incorporated into the human rights section, and
empowerment of women in the equality, section. Therefore I chose to focus this
section explicitly on environmental sustainability, as I felt other aspects of
social and economic development were captured by other areas. Furthermore,
the flower model (Toh & Cawagas, 2002) and Integral Model of Peace Education
(Brenes, 2004) also focus more explicitly on environmental sustainability.
Environmental sustainability is extremely important to a culture of peace,
and is integrally linked to all other aspects of a culture of peace. Toh (2006)
analyzes how education for sustainability relates to education for a culture of
peace by examining the role of sustainability in each of the areas of the flower
model for conceptualizing a culture of peace (Toh & Cawagas, 2002). The
current pace of environmental degradation is related to the culture of war, as
militarism and overconsumption lead to resource depletion and inequitable
distribution, and resulting in environmental destruction. The relationships
between environmental degradation and physical and structural violence are
complex and intertwined, and Wenden (2004) notes the links between social
and ecological peace. Thus environmental sustainability is a key component of
promoting a culture of peace.

7.3 Human Rights

According to UNESCO (2010), “human rights and a culture of peace are
complementary: whenever war and violence dominate, there is no possibility to

34
ensure human rights; at the same time, without human rights, in all their
dimensions, there can be no culture of peace.” The link between human rights
and a culture of peace is so imbedded that they cannot be separated one from
the other. All three culture of peace frameworks discussed above include a
human rights component.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN General Assembly, 1948)
is the most fundamental international human rights document, which outlines
basic rights of all human beings. The document states that the “recognition of
the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of
the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”
(UN General Assembly, 1948). Cawagas & Toh (2004) discuss five major types
of human rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural.
According to Brenes, fraternity is a key value necessary for human rights,
which entails “a recognition of the need to balance the universal protection of
each person, with each person’s consciousness of his/her universal
responsibility towards others, towards other living beings, and towards the
natural systems of the Earth” (2004: 81). Human rights necessitate
responsibility, and it is through a balance of exercising rights and
responsibilities that human rights are promoted.
Human rights, as universally valid principles to which all humans are
entitled, are inextricably part of a culture of peace.

7.4 Democratic participation

The UNESCO model and Integral Model both explicitly incorporate
democratic participation as being a component of a culture of peace. UNESCO
states that democratic principles, practices, and participation in all sectors of
society are “indispensable foundations for the achievement and maintenance
of peace and security” (2010). According to Brenes (2004: 85), “culture of
democracy refers to the critical and responsible participation of all citizens in
promoting the common good and security of all humans and the community of
nature.” Brenes goes on to say that as we do not live in isolation, “we need to
be able to participate critically and autonomously in the making of decisions at
all…levels” (2004: 85). Democratic participation is important for a culture of
peace so that all participants can be empowered to contribute to this culture.
 7.5 Equality between men and women
The UN General Assembly explained the importance of this programme
area to a culture of peace as follows:
“As recognized by the Fourth World Conference on Women
(Beijing 1995), there is an inextricable linkage of peace with
equality between women and men. Only this linkage of equality,
development and peace can replace the historical inequality
between men and women that has always characterized the
culture of war and violence” (A/53/370, 1998).

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

war, equality between men and women is a crucial part of a culture of peace.
Synott (2004: 27) writes that “the situation of women around the world
remains one of the most important challenges to the development of an
egalitarian society where relationships are based upon concepts of universal
human rights.” Synott also notes that domestic violence is represents the most
common form of violence in the world (2004). In order to promote a culture of
peace, promoting equality between men and women is absolutely necessary.

7.6. Understanding, tolerance and solidarity

“Advancing understanding, tolerance, and solidarity” is a program area
from the UNESCO framework, and these concepts are implicitly and explicitly
included in the Integral (Brenes, 2004) and flower (Toh & Cawagas, 2002)
models. UNESCO states that “to abolish war and violent conflicts we need to
transcend and overcome enemy images with understanding, tolerance and
solidarity among all peoples and cultures. Learning from our differences,
through dialogue and the exchange of information, is an enriching process”
(UNESCO, 2010).
Numerous United Nations documents note the importance of
understanding. The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO, 2001)
asserts that “respect for the diversity of cultures, tolerance, dialogue and
cooperation, in a climate of mutual trust and understanding are best
guarantees of international peace and security.” Understanding is critical for
preventing intercultural conflict, and for promoting local and global cultures of
peace.

36
 According to the UNESCO’s Declaration on Principles of Tolerance (1995),
tolerance is defined as
“…respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our
world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. It is
fostered by knowledge, openness, communication, and freedom of
thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in difference. It is
not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement.
Tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the
replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace.”
This document goes on to include solidarity as an integral part of
education for tolerance. UNESCO itself was founded on the principle of
solidarity, and its constitution states that “peace must therefore be founded, if
it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind” (UNESCO,
1945). Toh (2007) writes that, “in situations of unequal power relations and
injustices, cultural groups that are already economically and politically
advantaged have a social
responsibility to be in solidarity with marginalized groups and communities”
(10). Here the emphasis is not solidarity within a group, but rather with other
groups, and specifically groups that are disadvantaged. The principles of
understanding, tolerance and solidarity are deeply intertwined and are
necessary components of a culture of peace.

7.7. Participatory communication and the free flow of

information and knowledge
Communication is crucial for peace, as miscommunication is so often a
source of conflict. When knowledge and information can flow freely,
communication is clearer, and misunderstanding is less likely to happen.
According to UNESCO, “freedom of information and sharing of knowledge and
information are indispensible for a culture of peace” (UNESCO, 2010).
Furthermore the free flow of information is directly linked to democratic
participation, as participants require knowledge and information in order to
make informed decisions, and also facilitates understanding.

7.8. International peace and security

 International peace and security is the macro-level of a culture of peace.
In order to create long-lasting, global peace, it is necessary to address
international peace and security issues. In a culture of peace, security would be
achieved through dialogue and international understanding, rather than
through armed force. As Renner (2005) notes, “weapons do not necessarily
provide security” (5). Renner outlines a new security policy for a more secure
world, which must be preventative in nature, cross-cutting, integrative and
understanding of the root causes of conflicts (2005). It is important to note the
links between militarized security and structural injustices which occur when
national resources are diverted from meeting basic human needs to military
spending. As the global military complex is related to human rights violations,
gender inequalities, environmental degradation, disarmament is a critical
component of a culture of peace.

7.9. Local peace and security

This component to a culture of peace is similar to 7.8, but examines
security issues in a local context. Adams (2009) notes that international peace
and security does not generally apply to local contexts, and can be applied as
two separate programme areas: security (public safety) and solidarity with
other communities on an international level. In the UPEACE context, both
international and local peace are relevant to a culture of peace. For the
purposes of this research, local security will include campus security, local
security (including El Rodeo and Ciudad Colon), and conflict resolution on
campus.

7.10. Inner peace

Inner peace is the micro-level component of the culture of peace. While
not addressed in the UNESCO framework, this is a component of both the
flower (Toh & Cawagas, 2002) and Integral (Brenes, 2004) models. Nhat Hanh
(2003) calls on individuals to cultivate nonviolence by practicing mindfulness in
our daily lives so that we can transform not only ourselves, but our nations and
the world, thus illustrating the link between inner peace and international
peace. Toh (2007) explains that cultivating inner peace is important to creating
a culture of peace, but cautions against cultivating inner peace in a self-

38
centered way, without examining and continuing to work towards justice for all.
In the Integral Model (Brenes, 2003), there are three kinds of peace with one’s
self: peace with the body (bodily health); peace of heart (satisfaction of
psychological needs; and peace of mind (potential for self-realization based on
a consciousness of universal responsibility (84). As a culture is made up of
individuals, more peaceful individuals who are living peaceful values and
exhibiting peaceful behavior can help create more peaceful societies. Inner
peace is thus an integral component of promoting a culture of peace.
This framework is a start for an initial exploration of the culture of peace
at UPEACE. As the concept of a culture of peace is dynamic, this framework
should be adapted over time to ensure its relevance and applicability to the
UPEACE community.

8. Working group on culture of peace framework and indicators

As mentioned previously, community members participated in the
development of the framework and indicators in order to inform the definition
of a culture of peace for this diverse community, and to make the process of
culture of peace assessment as participatory as possible. An invitation to the
working group was sent out to the community email list, and thus all
community members were invited to attend and share input. Nine community
members - one faculty, one non-academic staff, and seven students - attended.
The above framework was presented to the working group, and the culture of
peace assessment tool developed by Stewart (2008) was given to participants
to help guide the discussion.
Table 1 summarizes the group’s discussion.
Table 1: Summary of Culture of Peace Indicator Working Group
What is a culture of · Complex – includes many different people,
peace? personalities, cultures, values
· People comfortable to be themselves
· Values and behaviors
· Tolerance, understanding, agreement, equality,
solidarity, participation
· Conflicts resolved peacefully
· Respectful communication
· A way of life without conflict
· A process
· Peace of mind
· Recognizing others' identities
· Respect the rights of others

Education · What educational standards exist?

· Is there intercultural training?
· What pedagogies are used?
· What programs exist at the university? Are they
important? Holistic?
· Is there sharing between programs?
· Is gender mainstreamed in all programs?
· Is there informal education modeling in
classroom and structure?
· Number of theories studies/learned
· Are the values taught consistent with
behaviours?
· What are the intentions of students post-
graduation?
· Skills indicators: Can students ____?
· Are teachers trained?
· Evaluation: students being evaluated; students
evaluating their own programs; external
evaluation
· Is the students’ knowledge valued?

40
 Participatory · Are there consistent procedural messages?
Communication
and the Free flow · Look at communication at different levels -
of information and personal, interpersonal, between departments
knowledge · What are attitudes and behaviors towards other
programs (stereotypes)?
· What is the language of instruction compared
to the language of students, faculty and staff?
· How is participation evaluated
· Is it easy to meet with faculty
· What publications exist?
· What mechanisms exist for
feedback/evaluation?
· What are the communication channels
(mediums)? (e.g., Town Hall, SFS, email,
conferences; formal vs. informal)
· Are the communication channels effective
(what is the quality of the communication
channels)?
· Does the intended audience receive the
message?
· Does the intended audience receive the
message in time?
· Are there communication standards? If so, do
standards incorporate multiculturalism?
· Are there trainings for communications skills?
· Are there informal discussion groups? Are there
institutionally supported discussion groups?
· Is there transparency?
· What role do rumors play?
· How to measure miscommunications (i.e.,
double-booking of rooms)?
 Democratic · Universities (in general, as institutions) are not
participation historically democratic
· What is the impact of course evaluations?
· Examine SFS, council - governing structures
· Are participants aware of goals, objectives? Is
their duty described?
· Is there a consensus on guidelines for decision
making?
· What is decision-making at the institutional
level? classroom level?
· What are the processes for selection, election,
appointment of representatives of different
governing structures?

Understanding, · What skills are required for understanding?

tolerance,
solidarity · How well do students work in groups?
· Linking understanding to communications – if you
are able to communicate differences, you can
promote deeper understanding
· What is participation like at different
events/activities (i.e. this workshop)?
· What student initiatives exist for helping each
other?
· Do community members have an awareness or
understanding of others?
· How to measure social skills
· How do you engage those less willing to talk in this
discussion?
· social skills?
· How does UPEACE support students in dealing with
culture shock?

42
Human Rights · What are community members’ experiences of
inequality, discrimination?
· How can we measure the domination of cultural
values (i.e. hugging)?
· What are the policies about human rights (look
at student handbook, non-discrimination
policy)?
· Are human addressed in your classes?
· Is there a community consensus on human
rights? on behaviours?
· Use Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Articles as basis for indicators
· What mechanisms exist that promote human
rights (e.g., Human Rights Center, Office for
Diversity and Equality)
· What are the processes or mechanisms for
solutions to human rights issues?
· Use “Measuring the Human Rights Temperature
of Your School” as indicators (Shiman &
Rudelius-Palmer, 1999)
Gender equality · Why gender equality, and not other kinds of
equality (e.g. ability, linguistic, cultural)?
· Is gender equality ethnocentric? Generational?
· Is equality the ideal term? What about equity?
· Is gender-neutral language used?
· Is gender mainstreamed at UPEACE?
· Is there affirmative action in the enrollment
process? Scholarships?
· Are there maternity/paternity benefits for
staff/faculty members?
Environmental · What policies does the cafeteria have relating
Sustainability to environmental sustainability?
· What are the campus policies for energy, paper,
recycling?
· What happens to the vegetables from the
UPEACE garden?
· What is the sustainability of student initiatives
vs. institutional?
· Is the university’s funding sustainable?
· What is the sustainability of peace? Need for
continuous improvement, progress
 There was adequate time to discuss seven of the programme areas, as
the dialogue began with a broader discussion about the meaning of a culture of
peace, which resulted in the topics of international peace and security, local
peace and security, and inner peace not being discussed in the session. While
the topics were presented to the participants, participants chose the sequence
of discussion. The discussion generated concrete indicators (such as “What
pedagogies are used?”), and also generated further questions that need to be
elaborated, and may be beyond the scope of this paper (such as “What is the
sustainability of peace?”).
One particular programme area that caused debate was the "equality
between men and women" category. Participants noted that many inequalities
exist other than gender, such as inequality experienced by those with physical
disabilities, or different linguistic groups, and questioned whether this category
should be expanded to include other types of equality. There was also debate
as to whether "equality" or "equity" was the desirable term. Ultimately, the
group did not reach a consensus, and I decided to maintain the category to
remain consistent with the UNESCO framework.
One of the key findings of the working group was the difficulty in
developing indicators. Many of the culture of peace concepts are hard to
quantify, and much discussion centred around the idea of a culture of peace
and the conceptual framework. While this discussion was enriching and an
educational experience for all involved, it could have gone on endlessly, and in
fact the entire research project could have been about developing the
framework and definition for a culture of peace at UPEACE. Ultimately, I
decided to continue with the UNESCO adapted framework, for its wider
applicability and validity.

9. Questionnaire: Findings and analysis

Following the working group, I developed a questionnaire entitled
"Culture of Peace at UPEACE" and posted it on Surveymonkey.com. All
questions are included in the current chapter. Prior to releasing the
questionnaire, I pilot tested the survey with 6 students from different regions,
who provided feedback as to the clarity, readability, and cultural sensitivity of
the survey which was incorporated into the final draft of the survey. The

44
UNESCO culture of peace definition, as well as the work of Toh and Cawagas
(1987), Carter (2005) and Stewart (2008) were used to guide the development
of questions, and thus the questions primarily addressed knowledge, skills,
values, attitudes and behaviours with respect to the ten areas.
The survey consisted of 110 questions relating to the culture of peace
framework described in Chapter 7. Most of the questions, with the exception of
three, were closed-ended quantitative, used a 5-point Likert scale of Strongly
disagree/Strongly agree or Never/Always, and several Yes/No/Undecided
questions. Each section also included a comment box which stated "Please add
any additional comment about any aspect of this section." Thus participants
were welcome, though not required, to give qualitative information and explain
their answers to each section.
The survey link was sent via individual email to 209 students from the
2009-2010 academic year. I chose this method rather than send the email via
the community email list, as many students either disregard email to this list or
opt not to receive it. Later I used the community email list to send reminder
emails about the survey deadline. The survey was open for a period of 2
weeks, from March 23 to April 9, 2010. This overlapped with the UPEACE spring
break, which I hoped would result in more surveys completed, as students
would have more time to complete it than during the intensive 3-week class
periods. In addition to all students enrolled in classes at the time of
administering the survey, I included the American University Natural Resources
and Sustainable Development (AU/NRSD) students who had left in November,
the new AU/NRSD who arrived in January, as well as the Asian Leaders Program
(ALP) students who attended UPEACE from August 2009 through February
2010. In this way, I was able to reach all students who were present during the
2009-2010 academic year, which is the focus of this project.
I provided an additional incentive to complete the survey through a
raffle. Each student who completed the survey had the opportunity to follow a
link to enter their name into the raffle, the prize for which was dinner for two at
a popular local restaurant, Che's. Surprisingly, only 29 respondents entered the
raffle. The 29 names were placed in a hat and a neutral third party drew the
winning name. The prize was delivered at the end of May.
Of 209 students, 134 completed the survey, which is 64% of the 2009-
2010 student population. This is a significant number, and indicates the
interest in and importance of this topic to the community. Of the 134 students
who started the survey, 99 (73.9%) completed the survey in its entirety. This is
most likely due to the length of the survey. While students were told in the
initial email that the survey would take approximately 15-20 minutes to
complete, it is possible that it took longer for some, and this may have caused
incomplete surveys.
It is important to note the sheer quantity of data, both quantitative and
qualitative, that participants contributed to this survey. Due to the breadth of
the information, the analysis will include highlights, rather than analysing each
individual question. Similarly, with the qualitative information, highlights will be
discussed.
In discussing the survey, I will refer to the number of participants who
responded with a particular answer or combination of answers, followed by the
percentage. In general, when I say “participants agreed,” this will mean I have
added the numbers and percentages for the responses “agree” and “strongly
agree,” unless otherwise stated. Likewise, when I say “participants disagreed,”
this will mean I have added the numbers and percentages for the responses
“disagree” and “strongly disagree.” The terms “respondent,” “participant,” and
“student” are used interchangeably.

9.1 Personal information for statistical purposes

The first section involved three questions about demographics: program,
gender, and region. These questions were asked for the purposes of cross-
tabulation so that I could make a more thorough analysis if needed. However,
after an initial cross-tabulation analysis, I found that there were no noticeable
anomalies, and thus this analysis will focus on the overall university profile,
rather than by gender, programme, or region. This data was not used to
identify participants individually in any way.

46
 Figure 3: Participants by Programme

These numbers correlate proportionally to the number of students in programs,

with the largest proportion of students in International Peace Studies and
Natural Resources and Sustainable Development.
Figure 4: Participants by region
 Figure 4: Participants by region

Again, these numbers correspond to the proportions of the overall student

population, with the largest proportions of students from Asia and North
America, which partially relates to the joint degree programmes with American
University and the Asian Leaders Programme.

48
 Figure 5: Participants by Gender
According to the Department of Academic Administration (Ortiz, 2010), there
were 114 females enrolled at UPEACE during the 2009-2010 year, which is 57%
of the total population. This corresponds directly to the proportion of females
who responded to this questionnaire, also 57%. I was unable to obtain any
additional data from UPEACE on population statistics.

9.2 A Culture of Peace through Education

This section consisted of two main question blocks about teaching
methods and students’ programmes, and two comment boxes for qualitative
responses.
Table 2: Teaching Methods
To what extent are the following teaching methods used in your program? Please choose one
response per line.

Rarely Usually Always Don't

Sometim Respons
Answer Options Never (few (most (everyda know/un
es e Count
days) days) y) decided

Lecture 0 3 19 54 42 0 118
Discussion 0 0 15 54 49 0 118
Group activities 2 17 55 36 7 0 117
Reflective exercises 4 46 42 16 4 5 117
Student-led activities 10 35 38 23 7 0 113
Additional Comments 24
answered question 119
skipped question 15

As shown in Table 2, 87% of respondents claim that discussion is usually

or always used as a teaching method, and 81% claim that lecture is usually or
always used. The teaching method never or rarely used is “reflective exercises”
according to 42%.
In the qualitative section, 24 participants wrote comments. Sixteen
respondents described the teaching methodologies used in their classes, and 8
students stated a combination of lecture, discussion and group activities as
being most common. In the qualitative data, one participant noted too much
discussion and too little instructor-led activity, while one participant noted the
opposite (too much lecture and too little discussion). One participant wrote
“Finding the balance between lecture, discussion, and student-led activities is a
work in progress.” This statement aptly captures the challenge in balancing
these pedagogies. Three participants also noted how the pedagogies varied
greatly from class to class, with one student noting that “it’s hard to answer
because it is very different from one class to another.”
Three students also wrote about field trips; one student noted that field
trips were part of the methodology in their program; two students noted that
field trips were not a part of the methodology of their program. Field trips or
field work were not included as a methodology, and this is an omission of this

50
questionnaire. Field work or study is an important element in peace education
pedagogy, in the process of praxis, which is moving between theory and reality
(Freire, 1970). In future surveys, field trips should be included in such a survey
as a pedagogical practice for peace education.
The UNESCO framework does not explicitly state what methodologies
should be used in a culture of peace. However, as discussed in Chapter 7, a
culture of peace through education would require the implementation of the
values and principles that are being taught, such as nonviolence, equality, and
democratic participation. Teaching in a culture of peace also means developing
equality between the professor and students through a process of dialogue
(Freire, 1970; Cawagas, 2007). A lecture, while at times a necessary part of
education, is the type of methodology with the least amount of student input,
whereas discussion and group activities would allow for more space for
dialogue. For education in a culture of peace, more dialogic activities, such as
group work, reflective exercises and student-led activities should be integrated.
Ultimately, the variability between classes and professors made it
difficult to answer these questions, as some participants noted. There appears
to be significant variability from class to class and professor to professor, and
students have varying opinions as to whether there is too much lecturing and
not enough discussion or vice versa. Thus it is hard to make a conclusion about
the overall teaching methods used at the university.

Table 3: Programmes at UPEACE

How do you feel about the following statements in regards to your program at UPEACE? Please
choose one response for each statement
Neither
Don't
Strongly agree Strongly Respons
Answer Options Disagree Agree know/un
disagree nor agree e Count
decided
disagree
The relationship between
teacher and students is equal 3 23 26 51 8 6 117
in my program.
We develop knowledge about
4 24 22 58 9 1 118
peacebuilding in my program.
We develop skills for
4 30 32 44 6 2 118
peacebuilding in my program.
The amount of work (reading,
assignments, etc.) assigned in 1 17 17 77 5 1 118
my program is reasonable.
Different viewpoints (cultural,
political, etc.) are represented
2 14 21 68 10 2 117
in the assigned readings for
my program.
There is a diversity of
viewpoints (cultural, political,
4 10 20 66 16 1 117
etc.) among the professors
who teach in my program.
Different viewpoints are
1 8 14 63 30 1 117
respected in my program.
Students' knowledge is
respected in my program by 1 7 11 66 31 1 117
other students.
Students' knowledge is
respected in my program by 2 4 14 62 31 2 115
professors.
The way I am evaluated (i.e.,
grades, assignments, 9 18 24 54 9 4 118
participation) is fair.
Overall, I am satisfied with my
8 14 18 57 19 2 118
academic program at UPEACE.
Additional Comments 41
answered question 119
skipped question 15

As shown in Table 3, 57% of participants agreed that they developed

knowledge about peacebuilding in their programs, 79% agreed that different
viewpoints are respected, 83% agreed that students’ knowledge is respected
by other students, and 81% agreed that students’ knowledge is respected by
professors. Regarding the student-teacher relationship, 50% agreed that the
relationship is equal. The statement with the most disagreement was “We
develop skills for peacebuilding in my programme,” to which 29% of
participants disagreed.
In the qualitative data, 41participants wrote comments. Six participants
commented that the literature and views presented are too Western-centric.
One participant commented that “the most of the literature introduced by the
professor is US and European-centric”. One participant commented that their
programme lacked a Latin American perspective in the literature, and one

52
participant commented that their programme lacked an Asian perspective in
the lectures and readings.
With respect to different viewpoints, three students wrote comments that
they were absent in their programmes, while one student wrote that they were
not respected. One student commented “I’ve never heard too many conflicting
viewpoints in my program (outside the confines of debates).” One student
wrote “I miss really challenging views from the other side, not only expressed
by teachers coming from the northern part of the world or that type of
education.” Regarding disrespect, one student wrote, “the classmates within
our programme respect each others’ differing viewpoints, but we have had a
number of disrespectful incidents involving other UPEACE students from other
programmes invited into our class session.”
With respect to the student-teacher relationship, one participant wrote
that “I think in general the nature of student teacher dynamics makes it slightly
uneven.” In the qualitative data, 22% of participants disagreed that the
relationship between students and teachers is equal. However, one of the key
principles of peace education, based on the pedagogy of Freire (1970) is the
development of a horizontal student-teacher relationship. Furthermore, Freire
asserts that the way oppression seems inevitable is one of the ways that
oppression is perpetuated, saying that “until they [the oppressed] concretely
discover their oppressor, and in turn their own consciousness, they nearly
always express fatalistic attitudes towards their situation” (1970: 61). While an
unequal, hierarchical relationship may be more prevalent and hence seem
natural, the process of promoting a culture of peace involves transforming
hierarchical, unequal, and oppressive relationships. That an unequal
relationship seems “natural” is no justification for its existence.
With respect to grading and evaluation, 14 students wrote comments.
Seven participants commented that the evaluation is subjective. Three
participants wrote that they wanted more feedback, rather than just a
numerical mark. One of these participants wrote that “it makes me sad to think
about all the work I put into my papers and do not receive constructive
criticism so that I may improve my writing style and arguments.” Two
participants wrote that it is too easy to get good grades. One specifically said
“Grading is not serious here – always will pass, doesn’t really mean anything.”
With respect to of participation, one participant wrote
 “I actually discovered that Asian students tend not to participate
because in their culture this would mean to question the hierarchy
(and a student is not supposed to question a professor. I am not
sure if professors are aware of that and as a consequence the
discussions are lead by North American students.”
While there is little literature on educational evaluation in a culture of
peace, presumably the evaluation process would involve some exchange of
ideas (verbal or written) between the teacher and learner. Incorporating more
feedback, in a more dialogic manner, would allow students to learn more and
be more empowered through the evaluation process (Freire, 1970; Cawagas,
2007). While the system of numerical grades and corresponds to the banking
system of education (Freire, 1970), a system of evaluation that is consistent
with culture of peace values still needs to be developed. UPEACE should
develop a more transparent, cohesive system of grading, so that students
understand how they are being marked. This is especially important with
respect to the participation marks, which often make up large percentages of
the student’s overall mark for a course.
The issue of participation evaluation is of concern, as the only guideline
for participation in the student handbook is “Students who fail to attend more
than 20% of the class will not be approved to complete the class” (University
for Peace, 2009: 29). There are no other policies on how participation is
evaluated, and it is unclear as to whether cultural sensitivities are taking in
consideration during participation evaluation.
Through providing ten masters programmes relating to peace, UPEACE is
advancing a culture of peace through education. However, in order to progress
towards a culture of peace, the principles of a culture of peace, such as
equality, diversity, and cultural respect need to be further integrated into these
programmes. It should be noted that the following nine sections all contain
questions about knowledge and learning, and thus all of the remaining sections
also include an educational element, as education is the primary goal of the
institution, and a fundamental aspect of a culture of peace.

54
 9.2 Environmental sustainability

Table 4: Environmental Sustainability

What do you think about the following statements about environmental sustainability at
UPEACE? Please choose one response for each statement.
Neither
Don't
Strongly agree Strongly Respons
Answer Options Disagree Agree know/un
disagree nor agree e Count
decided
disagree
In my program, we learn about
11 35 18 29 24 0 117
environmental sustainability.
In my experience, UPEACE
community members behave
8 41 36 25 3 2 115
in ways that are
environmentally responsible.
At UPEACE, I have developed
12 38 26 33 7 0 116
skills for sustainable living.
UPEACE is an environmentally-
13 28 42 30 2 1 116
friendly institution.
Comments 36
answered question 117
skipped question 17

As shown in Table 4, 45% of participants agreed that in their program,

they learn about environmental sustainability, while 39% disagreed with this
statement. Forty-two percent (42%) of participants disagreed with the
statements "In my experience, UPEACE community members behave in ways
that are environmentally responsible," and 43% disagreed with "at UPEACE, I
have developed skills for sustainable living." With respect to the statement
"UPEACE is an environmentally friendly institution," results were very mixed,
with 35% disagree, 36% neither agree nor disagree, and 28% agree, and 1%
don't know/undecided.
Four out of ten masters programmes at UPEACE relate to the
environment or sustainable development (Environment, Security and Peace;
Natural Resources and Peace; Natural Resources and Sustainable Development;
and Responsible Management and Sustainable Development), and in this
survey, 37% of respondents belong to one of these four programs. The number
of students who said they learn about sustainability in their programmes is 8%
greater than the number of students in these programmes. While my analysis
does not include a programme-by-programme breakdown, this indicates that
the percentage of students who learn about environmental sustainability is
greater than the number of students in the aforementioned programmes.
In the qualitative section, 36 participants wrote responses. Fifteen
students wrote about specific unsustainable environmental practices at
UPEACE, such as: paper cups (which, since this survey, have been replaced by
mugs in the cafeteria and removed from most water coolers); single-use items
in the cafeteria; the use of bottled, filtered water in the water coolers; too
many photocopies; transport inefficiencies resulting in unnecessary waste; use
of air conditioning in the Council Room, and energy waste overall. Four
participants discussed the contradiction between the academic theory that is
being taught and daily practice at the university. One student wrote, “What
UPEACE is teaching us and what UPEACE is doing has so much gap, and I
always felt that the theory and reality is quite different.” One participant
wrote, “subjects are taught but not lived up to here. In this way we are just
again educated to tolerate hypocrisy.” Four participants noted that UPEACE
was more environmentally friendly than other institutions. One participant
wrote, “UPEACE can be a lot more environmentally friendly, but as far as
institutions go, it’s doing pretty well.” One respondent noted the need to clarify
the term “environmental sustainability,” which could have many definitions.
This section reflects a need for improvement with respect to
environmental sustainability at UPEACE. While the subject of environmental
sustainability is studied in many programmes, these theories are not integrated
into the practices of the university or community members. It was very helpful
that participants elucidated specific practices where the university could make
progress. By mainstreaming the principles of environmental sustainability, such
as those elaborated in the Earth Charter (1997), into the university’s policies
and practices, the culture of peace would be enhanced by aligning academic
theory with daily life.

9.4 Human rights

Table 5: Human Rights

56
What do you think about the following statements regarding human rights at UPEACE? Please
choose one response for each statement.

Neither Don't
Strongly Strongly Respons
Answer Options Disagree agree nor Agree know/un
disagree agree e Count
disagree decided

I am familiar with the

Universal Declaration of 0 6 10 66 31 0 113
Human Rights.
Human rights are culturally
12 16 22 47 13 3 113
relative.
In my program, we learn
0 15 16 52 30 0 113
about human rights.
UPEACE community members
promote the human rights of 2 5 33 52 13 8 113
others.
UPEACE community members
promote their own human 0 6 26 61 13 7 113
rights.
UPEACE community members
respect the human rights of 1 4 24 64 17 3 113
others.
Human rights are valued at
1 3 16 68 22 2 112
UPEACE.
In my program, we develop
skills to promote human 2 15 28 51 14 1 111
rights.
I have experienced
15 47 13 28 9 1 113
discrimination at UPEACE.
At UPEACE, I have been
treated unequally due to any
aspect of my identity
(language, culture, gender, 23 52 18 13 4 2 112
sexuality, ability, etc) by
UPEACE as an institution.

At UPEACE, I have been

treated unequally due to any
aspect of my identity
(language, culture, gender, 17 46 18 27 3 2 112
sexuality, ability, etc) by
other students.
At UPEACE, I have been
treated unequally due to any
aspect of my identity 20 15 13 1 2 112
(language, culture, gender,
sexuality, ability, etc) by staff.
At UPEACE, I have been
treated unequally due to any
aspect of my identity
24 60 10 13 3 1 111
(language, culture, gender,
sexuality, ability, etc) by
professors.
I have witnessed
12 33 16 38 10 3 112
discrimination at UPEACE.
Freedom of speech is valued
6 9 17 54 22 4 112
at UPEACE.
Comments 30
answered question 114
skipped question 20

As shown in Table 5, 86% of respondents agreed that they are familiar

with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and 73% of respondents
agreed that they learn about human rights in their programmes. With respect
to the cultural relativity of human rights, 53% agreed that human rights are
culturally relative. This section also included discrimination, and while 55% of
participants disagreed that they had experienced discrimination at UPEACE,
33% agreed that they had experienced discrimination at UPEACE.
When asked about unequal treatment due to any aspect of their identity
(gender, sexuality, ability, etc.) by other students, staff, the institution, or
professors, 27% of students reported being treated unequally from other
students, compared to 15% reporting unequal treatment by the institution,
13% by staff, and 14% by professors. Furthermore, 43% of participants agreed
that they had witnessed discrimination at UPEACE.
In the qualitative section, 30 participants wrote comments. Eight
participants from North America talked about feeling discriminated against
because of where they are from; four of these comments reflected students
feeling that their opinions were not valid because of where they are from, and
four of the comments pertained to the lack of financial aid given to students
from North America. With respect to the former claim, one respondent wrote
“situations have arisen where peers feel like the opinions of ‘white North
58
Americans’ are not valid because we are perceived to not have as much ‘life
experience’ because of the North American lifestyle.” With respect to the latter
claim about financial aid, one respondent wrote, “I feel that due to the North
American country I come from I was disregarded for financial aid even though I
have incredible need for it, more so than others who were afforded it.” Another
student commented, “It is frustrating when I see students on scholarship going
clothing shopping at Multiplaza all the time, traveling all over the Americas on
the breaks, etc while other students are struggling financially because they
were not even considered for financial aid because of their country of origin.”
These participants felt that financial aid is distributed by region, rather than by
financial need, and they see this as being unfair.
Three participants said they felt discriminated against because they were
non-native English language speakers. Five students wrote that they felt that
freedom of speech was valued theoretically but not practically, in the sense
that they feel that students can say things, but don’t feel that the
administration is listening. One student wrote “I believe that freedom of speech
is tolerated at UPEACE, but the next question is whether anyone in power is
listening.” Another participant, addressing this next question, wrote “I know
many students who have tried to be heard by the university and were not
listened to. We have a lot of suggestions and constructive criticism that is
undervalued.”
With respect to accessibility, one participant wrote:
“As an institution UPEACE certainly has unequal access to people
with disabilities. However, I would only call it discrimination when
there is no intention to accommodate for special needs and
UPEACE has shown their willingness (and to a lesser extent
commitment) to make changes in the accessibility of the
institution. Yet, I am not sure to what extent equal access is really
recognized as a human right by members of the UPEACE
community.”
Another comment referred to religious freedom: “Friday is very crucial
and important day for a Moslem but it’s hard to pray in the mosque or at
UPEACE for the reasons of accessibility or arrangement of learning schedule.
Most of the Moslem student sacrifice that day to attend the class.”
 The operating definition of discrimination in this survey was “unequal
treatment due to any aspect of one’s identity (language, culture, gender,
sexuality, ability, etc).” According to the UNESCO Convention on Discrimination
in Education (1960), discrimination is “any distinction,
exclusion, limitation or preference which, being based on race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic
condition or birth, has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing equality of
treatment.”
With respect to financial aid, Section 2 of the Non-Discrimination Policy
(University for Peace, 2009) states that “The University will take affirmative
action to admit students who are under-privileged. This includes financial
assistance to prospective and current students from developing nations” (40).
This policy does not explicitly exclude students from developed countries.
Greater transparency about this process, such as elucidating specific criteria
and their respective weight for financial aid consideration, would create greater
overall understanding.
The issue of language discrimination is of great concern, as English is the
language used in the institution, but many students are non-native English
speakers. Additional language support could help, but discrimination requires
that all community members – native English speakers and non-native English
speakers alike – have an understanding of language rights. Education about
cultural rights and specifically linguistic rights, such as through the Universal
Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001), would be one way to raise awareness
of this issue.
With respect to accessibility, UPEACE took many initiatives this year to
make the campus more accessible to individuals in wheelchairs. However, not
only is it important for the university to have equal access to people of all
types of ability, but it is also critical that all community members recognize
equal access as a human right. Again, this could be addressed through
education and awareness-raising, using the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(2006).
With respect to religious freedom, it may be difficult for the university to
adjust its schedule to accommodate all religions, as different religions have

60
different holy days, and many religions are represented in the UPEACE
community. However, providing a safe space that is devoted to student
reflection, meditation and prayer, that is easily accessible on campus, would
allow students to practice their faiths more freely. The university could consider
building a multi-faith reflection room as part of its building plans.
It should be noted that in the Non-Discrimination Policy (University for
Peace, 2009), the channel through which community members are to use to
handle discrimination cases is the Office of Diversity and Equality. However, at
this time, this office exists only on paper. There was a movement this year to
try to establish this office, but as of now, the office has yet to be established,
and the channel that students have to address discrimination issues is through
the administration.
This section demonstrates that while the majority of students feel that
human rights are protected, promoted, and valued at UPEACE, there is still
substantial room for improvement, particularly with respect to discrimination,
linguistic rights, equal access, and facilitating religious freedom.

9.5 Equality between men and women

Table 6: Equality between men and women

What do you think about the following statements about gender equality at UPEACE? Please
choose one response for each statement.
Neither
Don't
Strongly agree Strongly Respons
Answer Options Disagree Agree know/un
disagree nor agree e Count
decided
disagree
Gender equality is culturally
14 18 21 45 10 3 111
relative.
In my program we learn about
3 17 19 56 15 0 110
gender equality.
In my program we develop
skills to promote gender 5 27 26 40 11 1 110
equality in our work.
At UPEACE, men and women
are treated equally across the 0 10 19 70 9 2 110
community.
At UPEACE, gender equality is
0 6 14 74 14 2 110
valued.
At UPEACE, I have
experienced discrimination 29 48 22 7 2 2 110
based on my gender.
Additional Comments 8
answered question 111
skipped question 23

As shown in Table 6, 50% of respondents claim that gender equality is

culturally relative, and 65% agree that in their program they learn about
gender equality. In addition, 72% of respondents agreed that men and women
are treated equally across the community, 80% agreed that gender equality is
valued, and 47% agreed that they develop skills to promote gender equality in
their work.
In the qualitative data, 8 respondents wrote comments. One participant
remarked that “it [gender equality] is valued theoretically but not practically.”
Another wrote that “I think more than in most other universities, men and
women are treated equally at UPEACE.” Another respondent commented that “I
have seen or felt gender-based discrimination during class discussions with
male students that do not believe in gender equality.”
One participant remarked that
“I feel like gender is often mentioned at a superficial level but
rarely discussed and understood more deeply…at UPEACE it is clear
to everyone that it is important to pay attention to gender
inequality somehow, but it is unclear to most how that needs to be
done appropriately.”
One student from the gender program remarked that “I have been
disappointed by the gender awareness at UPEACE.” This student referred to
interviews that the gender class conducted across campus about gender
awareness, and called the results “disheartening.” However, as this was during
the first course, it would be interesting to conduct a similar survey again, to
see if there had been an increase in gender awareness throughout the year.
This section indicates that most students agree that gender equality is
valued and promoted at UPEACE. However, it is not experienced equally by all
community members, as some of the data indicates. There appears to be a gap
between knowledge-building and skill-building, in the sense that a number of
students report developing knowledge about gender equality, but fewer report
62
developing skills to promote gender equality. This indicates that there is room
for improvement with respect to gender equality at UPEACE. A deeper
exploration of gender dynamics, as well as more skills-based initiatives for
integrating gender equality, are possible steps for improvement

9.5 Democratic participation

This section is comprised of two subsections: one about democratic
participation at UPEACE, and the second specifically dealing with participation
in the classroom.

Table 7: Democratic Participation at UPEACE

How do you feel about the following statements regarding democratic participation at
UPEACE? Please choose one response for each statement.
Neither
Don't
Strongly agree Strongly Respons
Answer Options Disagree Agree know/un
Disagree nor agree e Count
decided
disagree
At UPEACE, we develop
knowledge about democratic
5 8 20 65 9 3 110
principles and decision
making.
At UPEACE, I can participate in
democratic decision making
9 22 26 46 4 3 110
about decisions that affect
me.
At UPEACE, democratic
participation is valued in the 3 10 16 72 8 0 109
classroom.
At UPEACE, democratic
participation is valued outside 6 16 28 56 3 2 111
the classroom.
SFS (Students/Faculty/Staff) is
a democratic decision making 13 19 27 27 3 21 110
body.
Additional Comments 27
answered question 111
skipped question 23

As shown in Table 7, 73% of participants agree that democratic

participation is valued at UPEACE, and agree 67.3% that they learn about
democratic decision making. With respect to decisions that affect them, 45% of
students agree that they can participate in democratic decision making. When
asked about the Students/Faculty/Staff (SFS) organisation, there was no clear
outcome as to whether students think that SFS is a democratic decision making
body, as 29% disagreed, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed, 45% agreed, and
19% answered “don’t know/undecided.”
In the qualitative additional comment box, 27 students wrote comments.
Thirteen participants made claims about students not being able to participate
in decision making because of the hierarchical structure of the university. One
student wrote, “UPEACE is a vertical institution. You can push to have new
decisions, you are free to take any initiative, but when it comes to changes, it is
hard…everything finally depends on the will of the vice-rector and the rector.
There is no real accountability.” Twenty participants made comments related to
SFS. One participant wrote,
“During my year at UPEACE I witnessed decisions made by high
leaders (such as the rector and vice-rector) at the institution that
surpassed the SFS’ decisions. In one occasion SFS said “no” to a
procedure and still the higher level decision makers preferred to
say “yes” and the end result did not reflect SFS’s decision at all.”
Three participants explicitly noted the gap between theory and values,
on one hand, and application in daily life, on the other, in democratic decision
making. One participant wrote, “Democratic principles are valued highly across
the board, but are not practiced as much.”
The comments above reflect that the students see a structural issue with
democratic decision making at UPEACE. In a comparative study of models of
transformative peace education, Turay & English (2008) studied UPEACE:
“As the name suggests, the University for Peace in Costa Rica, is
basically oriented to peace. Yet its very structure and organization
as a bona fide university militates against participatory planning
and widespread attention to indigenous issues. Although it does
have a diversity of offerings in peace studies…its traditionally
based program is limited by its hierarchical organization” (292).
The structure of UPEACE (University for Peace, 2007: 5) is common in
universities and in UN bodies, and any organization or institution requires some
structure in order to ensure the flow of responsibilities. However, this structure

64
may inhibit democratic decision making and participation by all community
members.
SFS is a new body, and its role needs to be clarified in greater detail. A
committee was working on a charter for SFS, and this charter is one step in
clarifying its mission. It should be noted as well that this year student
representatives were present on most university committees this year, in an
effort to increase student involvement.
This section again reflects a gap between knowledge and values and
practical application in daily life. According to students’ experience, education
for democratic participation is strong, and most community members value
democratic participation. How this manifests in reality in university governance
and decisions, though, seems to be contrary to the knowledge and values,
according to students’ experiences, particularly with SFS.

Table 8: Democratic participation in the classroom

How do you feel about the following statements regarding participation in the classroom?
Please choose one response per line.
Neither
Don't
Strongly agree Strongly Respons
Answer Options Disagree Agree know/un
disagree nor agree e Count
decided
disagree
I am able to fully or actively
1 6 14 52 34 1 108
participate in my program.
My professors encourage
0 3 11 61 34 0 109
participation in my program.
Different forms or styles of
participation are valued in my 4 9 24 49 16 6 108
program.
I understand how my
participation is being 7 17 22 43 10 9 108
evaluated by my professors.
The way my participations is
6 15 32 37 8 10 108
evaluated is fair.
Additional Comments 24
answered question 109
skipped question 25

As shown in Table 8, 80% of participants agreed that they are able to

participate fully or actively in their programs. With respect to the evaluation of
participation, 22% of students disagreed and 20% neither agreed nor disagreed
that they understand how their participation is evaluated, and 30% neither
agreed nor disagreed with the statement “the way my participation is
evaluated is fair.”
In the qualitative data, 24 participants wrote comments. Four participants
wrote comments that they don’t understand how participation is evaluated.
Three students wrote that they think participation is graded in an unfair way,
and two students wrote that they think participation evaluation is fair or “fair
enough.”
One student commented upon the participation of Asian students, which
was also discussed in the Education section (9.2). This participant wrote “In
Asian culture…it is unusual for Asian student to stand up and argue the idea of
professor… Some of my Japanese friends get very low score on their
participation because he/she never speak in class.”
Participation is often a large percentage of evaluation for UPEACE
courses, often between 15-25%. Participation is an important element of a
culture of peace (Brenes, 2004; Adams, 2009), and should be an element of the
educational process to promote a continuous exchange among students and
between student and teacher (Freire, 1970). It is also important for students to
understand how their participation is being graded, and for this to be a process
that is culturally sensitive and accounts for different forms of participation,
such as active listening.
With respect to classroom participation, there needs to be a clearer
policy as to how participation is evaluated. This policy needs to take into
account different forms of participation that are culturally sensitive.

9.7 Understanding, Tolerance and Solidarity

This section was divided into three subsections and questions were asked
about each theme. These questions were followed by 4 yes/no questions about
peer pressure, institutional pressure, and harassment.

Table 9: Understanding
How do you feel about the following statements about understanding at UPEACE? Please
choose one response for each statement.

66
 Neither
Don't
Strongly agree Strongly Respons
Answer Options Disagree Agree know/un
disagree nor agree e Count
decided
disagree
I understand other members
0 3 30 66 5 3 107
of the UPEACE community.
Other members of the UPEACE
3 5 32 54 2 11 107
community understand me.
Understanding is valued in the
1 5 23 66 12 0 107
UPEACE community.
In my program we learn about
4 17 28 49 5 4 107
understanding.
UPEACE community members
behave in ways that promote 4 8 35 50 5 5 107
understanding.
There is understanding
between students, staff and 8 18 28 44 2 8 108
faculty.
Additional Comments 20
answered question 108
skipped question 26

As shown in Table 9, 66% of respondents feel they understand other

members of the UPEACE community, and 52% feel that other members of the
UPEACE community understand them. Furthermore, 73% feel that
understanding is valued in the UPEACE community, 51%
report that they learn about understanding in their program, and 51% agree
that community members behave in ways that promote understanding. With
respect to understanding between students, staff, and faculty, 47% of
participants agree that there is understanding.
In the qualitative section, 20 students wrote comments. Seven
participants wrote that community members make an effort to understand
others, but ultimately understanding is hard to achieve. One participant wrote,
“I think all strive for understanding and it is valued, and yet I’d be hesitant to
say I ‘understand’ other members of the UPEACE community….For all I learned,
I am sure there is a lot I didn’t learn as well.” Three participants noted the role
of communication in understanding. One such participant noted this link, and
connected it to language, saying
“Communication plays a key role in this understanding but there
are times due to vocabulary constraints, one has the inability to
 express oneself and this may be misinterpreted as submission or
withholding of information when it is just inability to further
articulate feelings, ideas and emotions.”
Three participants noted a lack of institutional support that promotes
understanding. One participant remarked, “I don’t necessarily think there is
much space, in the classroom or institutionalized, to understand different
viewpoints.”
This section illustrates the difficulty in achieving understanding, even in
an environment where people are trying. One participant noted that “there is a
general attempt to understand and respect each other even if we do not agree,
but this is not really discussed or taught in class.” This correlates to the
quantitative question about learning about understanding, to which 20% of
respondents disagreed. Understanding could be further promoted by
developing knowledge and skills for it, and through greater institutional
support.

Table 10: Tolerance

How do you feel about the following statements about tolerance? Please choose one response
for each statement.
Neither
Don't
Strongly agree Strongly Respons
Answer Options Disagree Agree know/un
disagree nor agree e Count
decided
disagree
There is a high level of
tolerance among the members 2 11 19 57 10 5 104
of the UPEACE community.
Tolerance is valued by the
members of the UPEACE 0 7 15 66 11 4 103
community.
The UPEACE community
members behave in ways that 1 10 22 60 7 3 103
promote tolerance.
We learn about tolerance in
6 21 32 36 6 2 103
my program.
Different viewpoints are
tolerated in the UPEACE 2 8 18 63 9 3 103
community.
Additional Comments 15
answered question 104
skipped question 30

As shown in Table 10, 64% of participants agreed that there is a high

level of tolerance among the members of the UPEACE community, and 74%

68
agreed that tolerance is valued by the community. In addition, 65% agreed that
UPEACE community members behave in ways that promote tolerance, and 70%
agreed that different viewpoints are tolerated by the UPEACE community, while
41% agreed that they learn about tolerance in their programs.
In the qualitative data, 15 participants wrote comments. Four participants
wrote that the term “tolerance” itself is problematic and has a negative
connotation. One student wrote, “This question should be about respect and
not tolerance at UPEACE. Tolerating people’s behavior is not the same as
respecting them. To me the term tolerance has a negative implication.”
Participants proposed “respect,” “acceptance,” and “compassion” as
alternative concepts to tolerance. Three participants questioned whether
community members tolerate of more conservative view points, saying that
they felt more conservative viewpoints are not tolerated. One participant
wrote, “I think the more conservative amongst us at UPEACE would tend to feel
like their views are not treated with the same legitimacy as more liberal
perspectives. UPEACE is quite hegemonic in this respect.”
According to the UNESCO (1995) definition, “tolerance” includes
“respect” and “acceptance”, which other students proposed as alternatives to
using tolerance. The Merrian-Webster (2010) dictionary offers a different
definition, which says that tolerance is “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or
practices differing from or conflicting with one's own; the act of allowing
something.” Many people probably relate more to the second definition, as this
is how the term is used more in common speech, and this definition does not
include the ideas of respect, acceptance or appreciation. In order to include
these terms in future questionnaires and in the culture of peace framework, we
should do so explicitly, and not by expecting that people will understand them
to be a part of “tolerance.”
Table 11: Solidarity
How do you feel about the following statements about solidarity at UPEACE? Please choose
one response for each statement.
Neither
Don't
Strongly agree Strongly Respons
Answer Options Disagree Agree know/un
disagree nor agree e Count
decided
disagree
There is a high level of
solidarity among the students 5 15 24 49 9 3 105
of the UPEACE community.
There is a high level of
solidarity among all the
members (students, staff, 5 18 33 36 6 7 105
faculty and administration) of
the UPEACE community.
We learn about solidarity in
8 32 27 29 5 4 105
my program.
Solidarity is valued by
members of the UPEACE 4 8 26 52 8 7 105
community.
UPEACE community members
behave in ways that promote 6 17 25 45 8 5 106
solidarity.
Other (please specify) 13
answered question 106
skipped question 28

As shown in Table 11, 55% of students agree that there is a high level of
solidarity among the students of the UPEACE community, and 40% agree that
there is a high level of solidarity among all community members. In addition,
57% agreed that solidarity is valued by members of the UPEACE community,
and 50% agreed that UPEACE members behave in ways that promote solidarity.
With respect to learning about solidarity, 38% of participants disagreed that
they learn about solidarity in their program.
In the qualitative section, 13 respondents wrote comments. Two students
said there was a high level of solidarity with personal problems or concerns.
One student wrote, “Somebody gets in trouble (family member dies), we pull
together – a couple of good examples throughout the year.” One participant
was unclear as to what solidarity meant, indicating a need to clarify the
concept.
While the questions in this survey dealt with solidarity within the
community, I did not ask explicitly about solidarity with other communities.
This should be included in future surveys. However, it should be noted that the
UPEACE community initiated a number of campaigns throughout the year to
raise money for communities abroad that were affected by disasters, such as
Haiti and the Philippines, and these initiatives indicate solidarity.
The last 4 questions of this section were Yes/No questions that referred to
pressure to take part in academic, extra-curricular and social events, and about
harassment.

Table 12: Peer pressure for school-related events

I have experience peer pressure to take part in school-related (academic or
extracurricular) events.

70
 Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Yes 55.6% 60
No 34.3% 37
Don't know/Undecided 10.2% 11
Comments 22
answered question 108
skipped question 26

As shown in Table 12, 56% agreed that they had experienced peer
pressure. In the qualitative section, 22 participants wrote comments. With
respect to specific events for which they felt pressured to be involved, seven
students cited the UPEACE Model United Nations Conference (UPMUNC), two
students cited open house, two students cited cultural nights (i.e.,
Thanksgiving, regional night celebrations), and one student cited the Vagina
Monologues. Four students mentioned feeling discomfort, a lack of
understanding, or disrespect for not participating. One student wrote
“sometimes the community doesn’t understand that an individual can’t
participate or doesn’t have the means to do so and then they frown upon you.”
Four students said they felt this pressure was positive. One student wrote that
they had experienced peer pressure “not really in a bad way – but people are
VERY encouraging to get involved.”

Table 13: Institutional pressure for school-related events

I have experienced institutional pressure (from professors or administration) to take
part in school-related (academic or extra-curricular) events.
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Yes 44.9% 48
No 46.7% 50
Not sure/Undecided 8.4% 9
Comments 20
answered question 107
skipped question 27
 As shown in Table 13, 45% respondents agreed that they had
experienced it to take part in school-related events. In the qualitative data to
Question 5, 20 participants wrote comments. With respect to specific events,
seven students cited UPMUNC, four cited the Open House event, one cited
election observation, and one cited special sessions that have been arranged
by their department head.

Table 14: Peer pressure for social events

I have experienced peer pressure to take part in social events (either at UPEACE or
within the UPEACE community).
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Yes 42.6% 46
No 49.1% 53
Don't know/undecided 8.3% 9
Comments 8
answered question 108
skipped question 26

As shown in Table 14, 49% of participants disagreed that they had

experienced peer pressure to take part in social events. In the qualitative
section, 8 participants wrote comments. Two students wrote that they felt this
was not a bad type of pressure, while two other students wrote that this
pressure was negative.

Table 15: Harassment

I have felt harassed in any way by members of the UPEACE community.
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Yes 13.0% 14
No 80.6% 87
Undecided 6.5% 7
answered question 108
skipped question 26

72
 As shown in Table 15, 81% of participants disagreed with the statement
“I have felt harassed in any way by members of the UPEACE community.” There
was no comment box for the question about harassment, which was an error in
survey design.
Peer and institutional pressure manifests as an extreme, and potentially
imposing form of solidarity, which is why I asked these questions. From the
quantitative data, it seemed that most students had experienced peer or
institutional pressure; however, in the qualitative information, it was a mixed
result as to whether this pressure was a positive element (inclusive and
encouraging) or negative (imposing).
Overall, there is a degree of understanding, tolerance, and solidarity
amongst the UPEACE community. It appears that these topics are not
necessarily included in students’ programmes, as the responses about learning
about these areas were low in agreement. One step to foster greater
understanding, tolerance (or acceptance and respect) and solidarity would be
to explicitly learn about these themes throughout all programmes. This would
give students a better background from which to develop daily life practices
that correlate to these values. However, in order to facilitate this behavior,
skill-building workshops on understanding, tolerance and solidarity could also
improve this area towards a culture of peace.

9.8 Participatory Communication and the Free Flow of

Information
Table 16: Communication at UPEACE
How do you feel about the following statements about communication at UPEACE? Please
choose one response for each statement.
Neither
Don't
Strongly agree Strongly Respons
Answer Options Disagree Agree know/un
disagree nor agree e Count
decided
disagree
Information is easily
14 30 25 31 4 1 105
accessible at UPEACE.
At UPEACE, there is
transparency (openness and 21 27 30 19 3 5 105
accountability) of information.
There are adequate methods
11 31 20 38 3 2 105
of communication at UPEACE.
There is a free flow of
information between students 8 8 24 58 4 3 105
at UPEACE.
There is a free flow of
information between the
18 30 23 29 3 2 105
administration and students at
UPEACE.
There are standards of
communication within the 9 20 33 31 2 9 104
UPEACE community.
Additional Comments 16
answered question 105
skipped question 29

As shown in Table 16, 42% of participants disagreed that information was

easily accessible, 46% disagreed that there is transparency of information, and
46% disagreed that there is a free flow of information between the
administration and students at UPEACE. Furthermore, 80% of respondents
agreed that there is a free flow of information between students at UPEACE.
With respect to adequate methods of communication, 40% of participants
disagreed and 39% agreed. With respect to standards of communication, 32%
agreed that there are standards, and 28% disagreed.
In the qualitative section, 16 participants wrote comments. Three
students wrote that there is a lack of transparency in the institution. Three
participants noted that perhaps communication was “too free” in the sense
that there were not standards of use for the community email lists, which
generates many emails per day. Two of these participants noted that a filter or
a daily digest of emails might solve this issue. Two participants noted the heavy
reliance on the Internet as the primary form of communication, and that this
can be problematic, particularly for students with less frequent access (for
example, students who do not own a computer or do not have Internet access
in their homes; it should be noted that all students have computer and Internet
access on campus, as there are a sufficient number of computers in the public
computer lab). Two participants also commented that the timing of information
74
was often inadequate. One participant wrote, “Getting crucial information to
the students days or weeks late puts incredible pressure on us to perform to
expectations that would have been reasonable with proper notification, but
become unreasonable at the last minute (Board of Directors meeting, Open
House).”
This section shows that the area of communication at UPEACE requires
improvement in order to progress towards a culture of peace, particularly with
respect to the accessibility of information in general, and communication
between the administration and students. Participatory communication and
free flow of information is important for most other aspects of a culture of
peace, particularly understanding and democratic participation. Improving
communications would also strengthen other areas of a culture of peace, and
thus strengthen the culture of peace overall.

Table 17: Interpersonal communication at UPEACE

How do you feel about the following statements about interpersonal communication at
UPEACE? Please choose one response for each statement.
Neither
Don't
Strongly agree Strongly Respons
Answer Options Disagree Agree know/un
disagree nor agree e Count
decided
disagree
Members of the UPEACE
community communicate 3 10 30 58 4 0 105
peacefully.
Members of the UPEACE
community value peaceful 1 7 15 72 8 2 105
communication.
In my program we develop
skills in nonviolent or peaceful 9 25 15 49 7 0 105
communication.
In my program, professors
communicate peacefully or 3 2 21 64 10 4 104
nonviolently.
In my program, students
communicate peacefully or 3 9 27 59 8 0 106
nonviolently.
Additional Comments 16
answered question 106
skipped question 28
 As shown in Table 17, 59% of participants agreed that UPEACE
community members communicate peacefully and 76% agreed that
community members value peaceful communication. With respect to skill
development, 53% reported that they develop nonviolent communication skills
in their programs. 71% agreed that professors communicate peacefully or
nonviolently, and 63% agreed that students communicate peacefully or non-
violently in their programmes.
In the qualitative section, 16 students wrote comments about
interpersonal communication. Six participants wrote that most community
members communicate peacefully, but some communicate unpeacefully. One
participant wrote “There are some students and professors with non-peaceful
communication.” Three participants said that there should be a nonviolent
communication course as a part of orientation or foundation course. One
participant wrote, “WE NEED NVC TRAINING. Thanks.”
This section illustrates that community members value nonviolent
communication and in their experience, community members communicate in
peaceful ways. Additional training in nonviolent communication for all
community members would strengthen this aspect of a culture of peace.

9.8 International Peace and Security

Table 18: International Peace and Security

How do you feel about the following statements about international peace and security?
Please choose one response for each statement.
Neither
Don't
Strongly agree Strongly Respons
Answer Options Disagree Agree know/un
disagree nor agree e Count
decided
disagree
At UPEACE we develop
knowledge about international 0 3 11 77 14 0 105
peace and security.
UPEACE community members
value international peace and 0 3 12 74 15 1 105
security.
At UPEACE we develop skills to
promote international peace 2 7 19 68 7 2 105
and security.

76
After I graduate from UPEACE,
I plan to work towards
1 5 14 46 27 13 106
improving international peace
and security.
UPEACE, as an institution,
contributes to international 1 7 17 51 20 9 105
peace and security.
Additional Comments 7
answered question 106
skipped question 28

As shown in Table 18, 87% of participants agreed that they develop

knowledge to promote international peace and security, 85% agreed that
UPEACE community members value international peace and security, and 72%
agree that they develop skills to promote international peace and security. With
respect to future plans, 69% of participants agree that they plan to work
towards improving international peace and security, and 68% agreed that
UPEACE as an institution contributes to international peace and security.
In the qualitative data, 7 respondents wrote comments, which was the
lowest number of written comments for any section. One student wrote that
UPEACE “contributes merely by existing as a space for people from many
regions in the world to coexist, interact, and support one another.” According to
participants’ responses, the area of international peace and security is one of
the strongest areas – or at least most agreed upon – in the culture of peace at
UPEACE framework.

9.10 Local Peace and Security

This section had two subsections, the first on local safety, and the second
on conflict resolution, as this was not explicitly dealt with in any other section,
but is an important part of promoting a culture of peace. The first section also
included a Yes/No question about violations of personal security on campus.

Table 19: Safety

How do you feel about the following statements about safety? Please choose one response for
each statement.
 Don't
Sometim Respons
Answer Options Never Rarely Usually Always know/un
es e Count
decided

I feel safe on the UPEACE

0 1 5 30 67 0 103
campus.
I feel safe getting from my
1 1 8 49 45 0 104
home to the UPEACE campus.
I feel safe off-campus. 0 5 20 52 25 0 102
Additional Comments 14
answered question 104
skipped question 30

As shown in Table 19, 94% of participants said they usually or always feel
safe on campus, and 90% usually or always feel safe getting from their home
to the UPEACE campus, while 75% usually or always feel safe off-campus.
In the qualitative data, 14 participants wrote comments. Four students
commented that they felt the road between Ciudad Colon and UPEACE is
unsafe. One participant wrote, “Traffic on the road to campus always makes me
feel very unsafe.” Another wrote that “the bridges are a little scary on the way
to UPEACE!” Two students specified campus safety issues; one participant said
they did not feel safe with regards to their belongings, and one student wrote “I
do not like the security guards carrying loaded guns.” Two students remarked
that they did not always feel safe on the streets of Ciudad Colon.
It should be noted that “off-campus” could mean many things – for most
students, this means El Rodeo or Ciudad Colon, the communities where most
students live. However, this could be interpreted as anywhere in Costa Rica,
and the university as an institution would have very little control or ability to
affect students’ experiences off-campus.
One participant wrote “Safe for me is when I can practice my religion
without hesitation and it only can be done in a boarding house or Mosque.”
This section indicated that students feel safe on-campus, but that some
efforts to making the road safer would improve overall safety. It should be
noted that during the 2009-2010 school year, a particularly rough patch of the
road was paved by the local government, thanks in part to lobbying by the
university.

78
Table 20: Personal security violations
Have you ever experienced a violation of your personal security (i.e., violence,
theft, etc.) on the UPEACE campus?
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Yes 7.7% 8
No 90.4% 94
Not sure/undecided 1.9% 2
Comments 12
answered question 104
skipped question 30

As shown in Table 20, 90% of participants said they had not experienced
a violation of their personal security on the UPEACE campus, while 8% of
participants experienced a violation and 2% respondents were not sure or
undecided.
In the qualitative information, ten respondents wrote comments. The
violations they cited included: sunglasses went missing; being flashed on two
separate occasions between UPEACE and home; being asked on a date by one
of the security guards; money stolen from bag; having been touched by other
community members; theft.
While violations of personal security rarely occur on campus, they still do
occur. With the recent change in security companies, there has been a clear
effort to improve security on campus.

Table 21: Conflict Resolution

How do you feel about the following statements about conflict resolution at UPEACE? Please
choose one response for each statement.
Neither
Don't
Strongly agree Strongly Respons
Answer Options Disagree Agree know/un
disagree nor agree e Count
decided
disagree
In my program we develop
knowledge about conflict 2 14 18 58 11 0 103
resolution.
At UPEACE, we develop
nonviolent conflict resolution 8 15 18 52 8 3 104
skills.
Nonviolent conflict resolution
2 3 9 74 10 4 102
is valued at UPEACE.
There are sufficient channels
at UPEACE for conflict
resolution to handle conflicts
within the UPEACE community 7 20 26 39 2 9 103
(i.e., between students,
between students and faculty,
etc).
UPEACE as an institution
promotes local peace and 6 13 26 42 7 9 103
security.
Additional Comments 10
answered question 104
skipped question 30

As shown in Table 21, 67% of participants agreed that they learned about
conflict resolution, 58% agreed that they developed nonviolent conflict
resolution skills, 82% agreed that nonviolent conflict resolution is valued, and
48% agreed that UPEACE as an institution promotes local peace and security.
Forty percent (40%) of participants agreed that there are sufficient channels at
UPEACE to handle comments within the community.
In the qualitative section, 10 participants wrote comments about conflict
resolution and local peace and security. Three participants commented that
UPEACE should be more involved with the communities of El Rodeo and Ciudad
Colon in order to promote local peace and security. One participant wrote that
“I would say that Upeace as an institution not only does not promote local
peace and security, but the opposite, since with the indifference it projects to
the local community it provokes negative feelings.” However, one student
commended UPEACE’s involvement with the communities, saying, “I fully
appreciate the strides that UPeace makes to develop good relationships with
members of El Rodeo and Ciudad Colon. Not all institutions would work so hard
at this, and it is commendable.”

80
 These comments reflect different opinions and perceptions about
UPEACE’s involvement with local communities in respect to local peace and
security. Less than half of the students in the quantitative data agreed that
UPEACE as an institution promotes local peace and security. As suggested by
some participants, one way UPEACE could improve local peace and security is
through developing a closer relationship to local communities.

9.11 Inner Peace

Table 22: Inner Peace

How do you feel about the following statements about inner peace (personal peace)? Please
choose one response for each statement.
Neither
Don't
Strongly agree Strongly Respons
Answer Options Disagree Agree know/un
disagree nor agree e Count
decided
disagree
In my program we develop
16 37 20 25 2 3 103
knowledge about inner peace.
Inner peace is valued by
members of the UPEACE 4 19 30 41 5 4 103
community.
In my program we develop
skills for cultivating inner 14 48 20 16 2 2 102
peace.
Inner peace is part of
4 9 12 42 33 3 103
cultivating a culture of peace.
I have adequate time for
personal peace practices in
7 19 21 39 12 5 103
my life at UPEACE (i.e., prayer,
meditation, movement etc.).
Additional Comments 15
answered question 104
skipped question 30

As shown in Table 22, 51% of participants disagreed that they developed

knowledge about or skills for inner peace in their program, 60% disagreed that
they develop skills for cultivating inner peace in their programmes, and 44%
agreed that inner peace is valued by UPEACE community members. With
respect to inner peace as part of cultivating a culture of peace, 73% of
participants agreed that it is. Fifty percent (50%) of participants agreed that
they have adequate time for personal peace practices.
 In the qualitative section, 15 participants wrote additional comments.
One student noted that practicing personal peace requires “not only adequate
time, but also places.” Three students wrote that they thought other students
had negative perceptions of inner peace. One participant wrote “Inner peace
has been looked down upon by many other students I have talked to.” Notably,
no students reported that they themselves had negative perceptions of inner
peace. One participant noted that inner peace is a large part of extracurricular
activities.
The data about inner peace as a part of a culture of peace corresponds to
research conducted at UPEACE by Wichmann (2009). Wichmann asked
participants “How important is individual peacefulness to peacemaking?” to
which 68% of respondents – who were UPEACE students, staff, and faculty -
said “very important” (on a Likert scale of not important to very important).
While the questions are slightly different in their wording, they illustrate that
two years in a row, over two-thirds of the UPEACE community feel that inner
peace (or individual peacefulness) is important to peacemaking and a culture
of peace.
Overall, this information illustrates that students feel that inner peace is
an important component of a culture of peace, but do not develop knowledge
or skills for it in their programmes at UPEACE. One way that UPEACE could
strengthen this aspect of a culture of peace is by providing more information
and skill-building workshops for inner peace.

9.12 Culture of Peace

This section consisted of three yes/no questions and three qualitative questions
about a culture of peace.

Table 23: Awareness of a culture of peace prior to UPEACE

Had you heard of the concept of a "culture of peace" prior to coming to UPEACE?
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Yes 46.2% 48
No 37.5% 39
Not sure/undecided 16.3% 17
If yes, please explain (where, when, how, etc.) 26
answered question 104

82
 skipped question 30

As shown in Table 23, 47% of participants agreed that they had heard of
the concept of a “culture of peace” prior to coming to UPEACE, while 38%
disagreed.
In the qualitative section, 26 participants wrote additional comments.
Students wrote that they had learned about a culture of peace in various
places, including: former studies (9 participants), jobs (5 participants),
extracurricular activities (2 participants), religion (3 participants), and books
they had read (5 participants).
This question was to gauge participants’ familiarity with a culture of
peace prior to coming to UPEACE. Less than half of the community was familiar
with the concept prior to their studies. This indicates that many students bring
knowledge about a culture of peace with them to the community; however,
many students do not, which is a strong reason to integrate the concept into
programs in a more intentional way.

Table 24: Knowledge, skills and values for cultivating peace

acquired at UPEACE
Has your overall knowledge, skills, and values in regards to cultivating peace
increased since beginning your studies at UPEACE?
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Yes 61.5% 64
No 17.3% 18
Not sure/undecided 21.2% 22
If so, how so? 28
answered question 104
skipped question 30

As shown in Table 24, 62% of participants indicated that their overall

knowledge, skills, and values in regards to cultivating peace increased since
beginning their studies at UPEACE.
In the qualitative section, 28 participants wrote additional comments.
Most comments reflected specific knowledge and skill increases. Three
respondents indicated that their knowledge had increased through interactions
with UPEACE community members. One participant wrote, “Efforts to interact
with students and faculty from other regions of the world and to get to know
Ciudad Colon community and families have increased my ability to cultivate
and value peace.”
This question indicates that most students’ knowledge, skills and values
with respect to cultivating peace have increased. However, it is slightly
alarming that so many participants disagreed with the question or were not
sure/undecided, as UPEACE is an educational institution which aims to increase
the knowledge of its students.

Table 25: Culture of Peace at UPEACE

Is there a culture of peace at UPEACE?

Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Yes 47.1% 48
No 12.7% 13
Not sure/undecided 40.2% 41
Please explain 43
answered question 102
skipped question 32

As shown in Table 25, 47% of respondents agreed that there is a culture

of peace at UPEACE, 13% disagreed, and 40% were not sure or undecided.
In the qualitative section, 43 respondents wrote additional comments,
which is the most of any comment box in the survey. With respect to strengths
of a culture of peace, participants wrote: nonviolence is highly valued (1
participant); diversity is a main characteristic (1 participant); peacebuilding is
promoted and strongly supported (1 participant); issues that bring tension or
conflict are resolved in a democratic manner (1 participant) or by personal
communication (1 participant) . One participant wrote,
“I feel that all the students especially, but also staff and faculty, are
so kind and open and tolerant. They are happy to share their views
and cultures and everyone is happy to witness them. This makes
everyone relaxed and feel respected and valued. This leads to
peace.”

84
 With respect to weaknesses, four participants claimed that UPEACE, as
an institution and community, is not modeling the principles and values it is
teaching. One student remarked, “I am not sure that people are committed to
walk the talk and become a model.” Three participants wrote that most
students tend to stay in their own cultural groups, and saw this as inhibiting
the culture of peace. One participant wrote, “Many people seem to spend most
of their free time with people from similar cultural backgrounds, which tells me
that there is still work to be done in strengthening this culture of peace.” Three
participants wrote that the university lacked an intentional, holistic, integrated
approach to a culture of peace. One participant remarked, “There are
components that could be used for a culture of peace but the whole institution
is not actively or intentionally doing it.”
The quantitative data and qualitative data confirm that there are
strengths to the culture of peace, such as the promotion of peacebuilding
overall, and members making an effort to promote peace. However, it also
confirmed that there are weaknesses, such as a potential gap between what is
being taught and whether this is modeled in daily life, and that the institution
lacks an intentional approach to building a community culture of peace.
In this section I also asked three open-ended questions:
1. What peacebuilding skills, knowledge and/or values
did you have prior to coming to UPEACE?
In response to this question, 71 participants gave written responses.
Participants listed a variety of skills, knowledge and values, including:
nonviolent communication (6 respondents), knowledge of social justice (2
respondents), facilitation skills (3 respondents), mediation (3 respondents),
negotiation (2 respondents), listening skills (4 respondents), inner peace (6
respondents), negotiation (2 respondents), conflict transformation (2
respondents), and self-reflecting (2 respondents). This section shows the
wealth of experience that UPEACE community members come to UPEACE
with.
2. Is there anything about your experience of a culture of
peace at UPEACE that this survey does not capture? If so, please
explain.
In response to this question, 23 participants gave written responses. No
participants wrote that the survey did not capture for their experience of a
 culture of peace. Fourteen respondents wrote “no” or “nothing”. Four
participants commented that they thought it was a comprehensive survey
that captured their experience adequately.
3. Finally, do you have any suggestions for how we can
strengthen the culture of peace at UPEACE?
In response to this question, 22 participants wrote responses. Students
also gave extensive recommendations throughout the survey, and in this
section I will include a summary of the responses to this question as well as
additional recommendations that were incorporated into other sections.

Table 26: Summary of Participants’ Recommendations

Education •Facilitate “best practice pedagogy” among permanent and
visiting faculty
•Develop standards for the way students are evaluated
•Establish a system for class participation evaluation
•Provide students with some feedback during the course
•Incorporate minority viewpoints in readings and in views
presented
•Put course evaluations online to allow for greater
transparency
•Infuse all programs with peace education methods and
pedagogies

Environmental •Create a more explicit environmental sustainability policy

sustainability •Use recycled paper for course readers
•Raise awareness of the university’s recycling program
•Improve the university’s recycling program
•Provide more natural and healthy options in the cafeteria
Democratic • Clarify SFS’s role through a mission statement
Participation • Provide democratic participation skill-building
workshops and exercises
Understanding, • Make the programs a year and a half long to
Tolerance, allow time for deeper understanding
Solidarity • Establish (institutionalize) a dialogue forum for
students to come together and discuss cultural
differences and issues
• Provide formal/institutionalized intercultural
training, education, and exchange; cultural
sensitivity training for all community members
• Provide harassment training to all community
members

86
 Communications • Provide nonviolent communication training for
all community members
• Make a daily email digest so as to cut down on
community emails received
• Improve transparency, particularly with respect
to tuition (how it is spent) and financial aid
(what the requirements are)
• Have a mechanism to ensure that students who
are on financial aid are working hard
Local peace and • More defined mechanisms for conflict resolution
security on campus
Inner peace • Offer a daily meditative exercise
Culture of peace • The administration should ask the students and
(in general) alumni how together we can all strengthen the
culture of peace at UPEACE
• More brown bags on the culture of peace
• Have a Town Hall meeting on this topic

• Share the results of this survey with the

community
• Teaching people to practice what they preach

One participant asked, “What would a place with a culture of peace look
like?” The respondent gave the following suggestions: greater respect for
others’ space and time; formalized training on non-violent communication;
formalized/institutionalized cultural exchange, training, and education; an
institutional recognition that inner peace is important for a culture of peace,
and setting time aside to cultivate inner peace.

10. Feedback session and discussion

In this section, I will discuss the main points that arose during the
presentation and feedback session on May 14 from 12:15-1:00, which was
attended by approximately 20 students, staff, faculty, and members of the
administration.

10.1 Discrimination
In the discussion forum, some participants felt that 32.8% was a high
percentage of the population to have experienced discrimination. One
participant commented that discrimination has to do with individual
sensitivities; for example, someone who witnesses discrimination might think it
is more important than the person experiencing it. However, this can also
relate to oppression in and of itself, and how the oppressed become
accustomed to being discriminated against and treated unequally (Freire,
1970). Thus one who is the victim of discrimination may not perceive it as
such.
Another participant commented that discrimination in and of itself is not
necessarily negative, as discrimination involves recognizing differences, which
UPEACE to some extent encourages by intentionally creating a multicultural
environment; the difficulty is how to determine when discrimination is a
negative thing rather than a grouping by difference and diversity, which should
be celebrated. This is a different definition of discrimination than the one used
by UNESCO, however, and different than the conceptualization used in this
survey.
The issue of discrimination at UPEACE requires deep consideration as to
how to address it. UPEACE has a Nondiscrimination and Non-Harassment Policy
which outlines procedures for complaints of discrimination, but as noted above,
the Office for Diversity and Equality, which is to handle such complaints, does
not exist. Establishing this office would be one way in which the university
could make steps in dealing with discrimination issues.

10.2 Culture of Peace Comparison

Another participant asked if similar data was available for other
institutions so as to compare UPEACE to other universities. According to Adams
(2009), and as discussed above, culture of peace assessment should primarily
be used to compare an institution or community to itself, not with another
institution or entity, over time to evaluate progress towards a culture of peace.
However, another participant noted that we can learn from other institutions or
communities by looking at their protocols in specific areas. Although
comprehensive culture of peace assessment is a new field, many of the related
fields have been assessed independently and researched heavily. For example,
Shuman & Rudelius-Palmer (1999) developed human rights indicators in their
self-assessment test Taking the Human Rights Temperature of Your School.
Furthermore, in cultivating local and global cultures of peace, institutions and
communities should share best practices so as to help one another advance

88
towards a culture of peace. Thus, while the culture of peace assessment should
be used to compare and institution or community to itself overtime,
comparisons - with the purpose of learning, rather than competition - can be
done with other communities and institutions.
One participant referred to this as “benchmarking,” and suggested that it
should be someone’s full-time job at the university to engage in a project of
comparison.

10.3 Communication
In the communications discussion, one participant reflected that there
needs to be another medium of communication other than email, and
suggested the use of the large bulletin board outside the cafeteria as another
medium of communication.
This issue was addressed in the questionnaire as well, and it would be
advisable for the university to find other forms of communication that are not
reliant on the Internet.

10.4 Inner peace

The topic of inner peace generated a lot of discussion. Several
participants noted that there are strong extracurricular student-run programs
for inner peace, such as yoga and meditation. A question arose as to how inner
peace can or should be integrated more fully into all programs. Another
participant noted that the physical location of the university was conducive to
peaceful, personal reflection and developing personal peace. Another
participant suggested that what students have added outside the program
should be considered to be added to the curriculum.
This feedback and discussion session brought up the new issue of culture
of peace comparison, and highlighted aspects of the survey such as
discrimination, communication, and inner peace. That these topics generated
the most discussion indicates that they are areas that community members
have particular interest or concern.

11. Conclusions
In the process of promoting a culture of peace, UPEACE is certainly
engaging in this process by providing graduate-level programmes in peace-
related fields. To progress more fully, UPEACE, as an institution and community,
should take a more holistic, intentional, comprehensive approach to promoting
a community culture of peace. In this way, the UPEACE community could be a
model for the values and practices of peacebuilding.
Students’ experiences of a culture of peace at UPEACE were very mixed,
as is visible from the survey results, and in particular to the question “Is there a
culture of peace at UPEACE?” In the qualitative data, some students wrote of
experiencing a culture of peace; others wrote of experiences that were not
peaceful.
It is clear that to a degree, there is a culture of peace at UPEACE. The
following chart highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each area, in
accordance with all data collected.

Table 27: Summary of UPEACE Culture of Peace Strengths and

Weaknesses
Culture of Peace Strengths Weaknesses
Programme Area
Education • All programmes • Uncertainty of
of study how students
related to are evaluated
peace • Reliance on
• Most students lecture as
develop teaching
knowledge method (by
about most some
culture of professors)
peace areas • Lack of skill
in most development
programmes for
peacebuilding

Environmental • Many students • Students do not

Sustainability develop develop skills
knowledge for
about sustainability
sustainability • Institutional
policies and
practices do
not always to
align with
principles of
sustainability

90
 Culture of Peace Strengths Weaknesses
Programme Area

Human Rights • Most students • Many

develop students
knowledge report
about human experiencing
rights discrimination
• Community , inequalities
members
value human
rights
Gender Equality • Most students • Some
develop students do
knowledge not develop
about gender skills to
equality promoting
• Men and gender
women are equality in
mostly their work
treated • Uncertainty
equally across about overall
the campus
community gender
awareness
Democratic Participation • Students • Unclear as to
develop role of SFS
knowledge • Many
about students do
democratic not feel able
principles and to participate
decision in decisions
making that affect
them
Understanding, Tolerance, • All three are • Many
& Solidarity valued in the students do
community not develop
knowledge for
these three in
their
programmes
• Many
students do
not develop
skills for these
in their
programmes
 Participatory • There is a free • Free flow of
Communication and the flow of information
Free Flow of Information information between
and Knowledge between administration
students and students
• Most is low
community • Most do not
members try develop skills
to for nonviolent
communicate communicatio
peacefully n in their
programmes

International Peace and • Most students

Security develop
knowledge,
skills, and
values for
international
peace and
security
• Most students
feel that
UPEACE
contributes to
international
peace and
security

Culture of Peace Strengths Weaknesses

Programme Area
Local Peace and Security • Most students • Some
always feel concerns
safe on about the
campus road between
• Most students UPEACE and
develop Ciudad Colon
knowledge • Concern about
about conflict relations with
resolution El Rodeo and
Ciudad Colon
communities
• Insufficient
conflict
resolution
channels
within UPEACE
community

92
 Inner Peace • Strong • Most students
extracurricula do not
r programmes develop
for inner knowledge
peace about or skills
• Setting of for inner
UPEACE peace
promotes
inner peace

A major strength for the culture of peace is that community members

develop knowledge in most areas. All ten master’s programmes are related to
peace, and most students develop knowledge for peacebuilding in their
programmes. Most students develop knowledge about the other programme
areas of a culture of peace in their programmes, including human rights,
sustainability, gender equality, democratic principles, international peace and
security, and conflict resolution. Most students report that community
members value most culture of peace programme areas, including human
rights, understanding, solidarity, tolerance, gender equality, and peaceful
communication. With respect to gender equality, most students agreed that
men and women are treated equally across the community. With respect to
peaceful communication, most students agreed that community members try
to communicate peacefully and that there is a free flow of information between
students. Most students agree that UPEACE contributes to international peace
and security. Regarding local peace and security, most students always feel
safe on campus. With respect to inner peace, there are strong extracurricular
programmes for inner peace, and the tranquil natural setting of the campus is
conducive to developing a state of inner peace. These strengths highlight the
degree to which UPEACE has already developed a culture of peace.
A challenge in all areas is the gap between knowledge development, and
skill development and application in daily life. In most areas, community
members develop knowledge and values for a culture of peace; however, the
way this manifests in daily life and in practice is often contradictory to the
knowledge and values. While this is probably often an issue in academia, which
tends to focus more on theory, it is absolutely critical that the practical, skills-
based component of the various peace-related master’s programmes be at
least as equally developed as the theoretical component. I believe that the gap
between peace theory and peace experience on campus partially relates to
skill development, and also to personal reflection as to how we are personally
integrating the knowledge and values that we are learning as individuals and
as a community. Furthermore, while each of the master’s programmes has a
different focus, there are skills relating to a culture of peace that are relevant
and necessary for peaceworkers in all fields that all community members
develop, such as active listening and conflict resolution skills.
With respect to the hindrances to a culture of peace at UPEACE, a
number of comments reflected the need to institutionalise various practices for
a culture of peace. This means to implement policies that support a culture of
peace, and for the institution to carry out these policies in practice. With a
more formal institutionalisation of these practices, more community members
should engage in behaviour that is consistent with the policies.
It is also important for community members - students, staff, faculty, and
administration - to receive support to initiate programs for a culture of peace.
According to the theory of Freire (1970), the ultimate goal of education is for
action towards transformation. It is critical that through the learning process -
which is happening at all times by all community members, inside and outside
the classroom - that members also have the opportunity to take action. With
respect to democratic decision making at UPEACE as discussed above,
participants in this survey stated that they did not feel as though their voices
were heard by the administration. As a result, and as reported in the qualitative
data, some community members felt disempowered, frustrated, and doubtful
of the democratic process. In order to promote a culture of peace at UPEACE,
community members need to be empowered to be able to make decisions and
take action to promote a culture of peace, and one way that this could happen
is through increased participation in democratic decision-making.
As noted above, students come to UPEACE with a wealth of experience
and knowledge. UPEACE as an institution and community should not miss the
opportunity to take full advantage of each student’s talents, interest, and
desire to give back to the community.
A number of issues that arose were directly related to lack of
communication between the administration with students and transparency.

94
For example, a number of students want to know what happens to the
recycling, how tuition money is spent, how financial aid is determined, and
what the SFS role is. These could all be clarified through improved
communication and transparency.
With respect to how to assess the culture of peace, this research project
was one step in this assessment. Through this research, it became clear that in
order to further understand the culture of peace, additional research should be
taken, which will be explored in Chapter 12.
The UPEACE community is progressing on the path of a culture of peace.
This research highlights the areas where this culture is already strong, and the
areas that can improve to move farther along this path. The UPEACE
Community Culture of Peace Action Plan in Chapter 12 outlines some steps that
the community can take in order to continue improving. I hope that this
research will be used to take action towards strengthening the UPEACE
community culture of peace in a holistic, integrated way.

12. UPEACE Community Culture of Peace Action Plan

From the exploration of the culture of peace at UPEACE, this research
offers the following recommendations in the form of a UPEACE Community
Culture of Peace Action Plan to be considered by the UPEACE administration,
staff, faculty and community. Ideally, this is the first such action plan, but this
exercise and action plan development should be performed on an annual basis
to ensure continuity and assess progress. This plan of action includes some of
the recommendations made by participants, as well as recommendations that
I, the researcher, feel would be valuable contributions to the community’s
culture of peace, in light of the research findings. The action plan is divided into
three categories: policy, research, and education and trainings.
The primary recommendation is for continued culture of peace
assessment, and for the university to develop an integrated, holistic approach
to developing a community culture of peace. The following recommendations
are initial steps on the path of culture of peace assessment.
While the community was involved in developing this action plan through
the ideas they contributed to the survey, working group and feedback session,
in future years, ideally there would be a community working group (or series of
groups) to develop the action plan.
 12.1 Policy
While some policies were reviewed for the current research, a detailed,
thorough policy analysis was beyond its scope. In order to make more thorough
policy recommendations, further research on the universities policies in regards
to a culture of peace is needed. However, some recommendations can be
offered from the research findings.
• Participation evaluation standards: Clear standards for
participation would strengthen the culture of peace by clarifying
the educational evaluation process. Such factors could be based on
attendance, and include respect for different forms of participation,
such as active listening.
• Environmental policy: Mainstreaming environmental
sustainability in policy and practice would strengthen the
university’s overall culture of peace by creating greater harmony
with the environment. These policies could be articulated in the
Student Handbook, and a session given at orientation explaining
the policy so that all community members would be aware. Greater
awareness is needed of the campus recycling policy. As different
items are recyclable in different countries, recycling education
would lead to greater clarity, and could be given at orientation, and
through ongoing campaigns (such as through posters, well-marked
bins) to improve recycling efforts. These policies should include
efforts for decreased consumption, recycling, energy conservation,
and green building.
• Role of SFS: Clarifying the role of SFS would lead to greater
understanding in regards to this form of community democracy.
This year, a committee was working on a mission statement, and
this effort should be completed. This effort will help to contribute to
clarifying the democratic decision making process, and hopefully
increase democratic participation on campus.
• Intra-community communications committee: In order to
improve the free flow of information, a committee could be formed
to determine how to best improve communications between the

96
 administration and students, to ensure that students receive
important information in a timely manner. This committee could
also work on issues of transparency, such as with financial aid and
other issues that require clarification.
• Establishment of the Office of Diversity and Equality:
Establishing the Office of Diversity and Equality would lead to
improved protection and responsibility of human rights, and
increased understanding and tolerance. According to the Student
Handbook (University for Peace, 2009), the Office of Diversity and
Equality is responsible for handling issues of discrimination and
other issues surrounding equality, diversity, and multiculturalism.
As of now, this office only exists on paper. I recommend the
establishment of this office, in particular due to the findings in this
research on discrimination. Upon its establishment, this office could
work on issues such as disability mainstreaming and linguistic
rights.
• Ombudsperson: Establishing an office of an Ombudsperson would
contribute to a culture of peace by improving campus conflict
resolution. Many universities have an ombudsperson who handles
the myriad of conflicts that may occur in the university setting.
Alcover (2009) notes that “since institutions of higher education are
as prone to conflicts as all other human organizations, it is
imperative that university practice what it purports to teach in the
area of conflict resolution” (275). This is particularly relevant for an
institution specializing in international peace. Alcover presents a
contingent model of mediation interventions within the scope of the
University Ombudsperson based on three dimensions:
“the level of balance or symmetry of power characterizing
the relationships between the parties involved; the
foreseeable temporal perspective of the relationship (short-
term vs. medium- and long-term); and the level of
formalization of the mediation process (establishing a
continuum between formal and informal mediations)” (2009:
276).
 Such a model could be used by UPEACE to implement an office of
an Ombudsperson, which would serve as a conflict resolution
mechanism for the community.
· Community Liaison Office: A community liaison office could
contribute to the culture of peace by increasing local peace and
security through stronger ties with local communities. This is a
response that combines some students’ observations that the
university could have greater involvement with local communities,
and some students’ request for more field work. Appendix B
outlines a proposal for a Community Liaison Office, that would
coordinate projects in the local communities with UPEACE students
and community members.

12.2 Further research

The current research elucidated several areas where further research is
needed.
· Culture of peace policy analysis: A deeper analysis of the
university’s formal policies with respect to culture of peace areas
would complement this research.
· Culture of peace survey: Completing this survey in subsequent
years would create a better understanding of the culture of peace,
and allow the community to track its progress. In addition, all
community members should be included, and the survey adapted
according to relevance and needs of different populations (for
example, for faculty, staff, etc.).
· Culture of peace benchmarking: As discussed in Chapter 9, it
would be beneficial to examine initiatives and protocols at other
universities that are working towards a culture of peace.
· Systematic programme content analysis: Similar to the policy
analysis, a systematic programme content analysis would examine
the integration of all areas of a culture of peace, using the
framework in this study.

98
 Culture of peace analysis of other communities: A similar analysis to the
one conducted through this project could be carried out at other institutions or
in other communities.

12.3 Education and trainings

Additional trainings were suggested by student feedback, including cross-
cultural, nonviolent communication, environmental, and democratic skill-
building workshops.
• Cultural training and discussion groups: A number of
participants in the survey emphasized the need for promoting
understanding. I propose having some cross-cultural training as a
part of orientation and foundation course. Then, I propose the
formation of small groups – perhaps 5 students per group – from
different regions, that would meet on a weekly basis to have cross-
cultural dialogue. Another peace education student, Dawn
Warmbrand, is currently carrying out her research on
interculturalism at UPEACE, and will be making recommendations
for increased understanding. Please see her independent research
project for further details.
• Nonviolent communication training and groups: A number of
students who participated in the survey requested nonviolent
communication training, and previous classes also expressed
interest in such training in research by Wichmann (2009) and Rizzi
Carlson (2009). In a similar pattern to the intercultural training, I
suggest some nonviolent communication training during orientation
and foundation course, followed by study groups that would meet
periodically, perhaps once a week, to continue practicing
nonviolent communication. Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent
Communication (2003) is one method, but other methods should
also be presented. A companion workbook exists for Rosenberg’s
book that could be used to guide the study groups.
• Culture of peace workshop series: In order to advance the
culture of peace at UPEACE, and turn academic theory into daily
practice, I propose a 12-week Culture of Peace workshop series.
Each week, one workshop would be offered on the week’s featured
 programme area. The workshop series would be carried out once a
semester, with different emphases in the second semester. The
workshops would be skills-oriented and reflective. These workshops
are specifically to address the gaps that remain in skill
development and application in daily life. The sequence of the
workshops is from inner to outer peace, from the individual to the
international. Each workshop would be 1.5 hours long.
These workshops would be intended for all community members. Each
workshop would be offered once in the morning and once in the afternoon to
accommodate everyone’s schedules.
The following is a sample format and list of topics. Ideally, different sessions
would be run by one community member who would ensure continuity and
coherence throughout the program. When appropriate, guest speakers from
within or outside the community would be invited to share their expertise or
relevant experience. As with other culture of peace practices, best practices
from other communities could be integrated. Many educational workshops on
these topics have been developed by other institutions. The sample list
includes workshop ideas from the Bonner Foundation (2010), an organization
that works with college communities in promoting education for social change.
As with the benchmarking, a similar research could be carried out to compile
different curricula on these topics.

Week 1: Culture of Peace – Overview

Key questions: What is a culture of peace? How do I already apply these
principles to my life? How can we promote a culture of peace at UPEACE?
Objectives: After this workshop, participants will be able to:
• Define a culture of peace
• Envision a culture of peace at UPEACE
This session would provide an overview of the culture of peace framework, and
ask participants to start thinking about how to apply the concepts in their daily
lives, using the Manifesto 2000 guidelines. Ideally, this session would take
place during orientation or foundation week.

100
Exercises: Participants brainstorm about culture of peace. The culture of peace
framework is presented. Participants break into small groups and create a
vision of a culture of peace at UPEACE – What would a culture of peace at
UPEACE look like? What practices and behaviours do we as community
members need to exhibit and integrate in order to manifest a culture of peace
on campus?
Resources: Culture of Peace Framework, Manifesto 2000

Week 2: Inner peace

Key questions: What is inner peace to me? What are different practices
for inner peace?
Objectives: After this workshop, students will
• Understand different techniques for cultivating inner peace
• Understand the importance of inner peace in a culture of peace
This session will examine different practices that participants can use to
cultivate inner peace. Different non-religious techniques for cultivating inner
peace will be explored. Students will be asked to share any techniques that
they use that help them to develop inner peace. Sample activities include
brainstorming on inner peace, a mindful eating exercise and compassion
meditation.

Week 3: Environmental Sustainability

Key questions: How does my lifestyle impact the environment? What can
I do to live sustainably at UPEACE?
Objectives: After this workshop, participants will be able to
• Assess their personal environmental impact
• Understand ways that they can personally reduce their
impact
• Learn ways to create a more sustainable community,
collectively
This session will ask participants to reflect on their lifestyles in terms of
environmental sustainability. Participants will use a tool (such as an ecological
footprint questionnaire) to evaluate their personal environmental impact in
order to reflect on ways they can improve their relationship with the
environment. Participants will also examine the UPEACE community to think of
collective initiatives that could be taken to increase the sustainability of the
community.

Week 4: Participatory Communication and the Free Flow of

Information – a nonviolent communication primer*
*Note: if the nonviolent communication training has already occurred as a part
of training or orientation, then this session can be a review, or take a different
focus, such as focusing on active listening, etc.
Key questions: What does it mean to communicate nonviolently? How can
I be peaceful in my speech?
Objectives: After this workshop, participants will be able to
• Use nonviolent communication techniques to connect
observations, feelings, needs and requests
• Use active listening
• Explore other ways of communicating peacefully
This session will introduce key concepts in nonviolent communication, such as:
• Differentiating between observations and evaluation
• Differentiating feeling from thinking
• Connecting universal needs/values to feelings
• Making clear requests for what you want
• Active listening

Week 5: Education: Creating a peaceful classroom environment

Key questions: What does education for peace/peace education mean?
What does it mean to have a peaceful learning environment? How can we
create peaceful learning environments here at UPEACE, without avoiding
conflict?
Objectives: After this session, participants will
• Define what attributes are part of a peaceful classroom
• Be able to integrate these attributes as students or teachers.
In this session, participants will explore the ideas of creating a balanced
learning environment, where students feel safe and are free to express

102
themselves, while diving deeply into issues that could potentially cause
conflict. Ideas discussed will include classroom guidelines, dialogue dynamics,
and handling classroom conflicts.

Week 6: Advancing Understanding, Tolerance and Solidarity

Key questions: What tools do I need to understand others? What
assumptions do I bring from my worldview/culture? How can I heighten my
awareness to be respectful of others?
Objectives: After this session, participants will
• Have skills for cross-cultural understanding
• Be able to reflect on their own identities and ethnocentricities
This session will focus on cultural understanding in order to help students to
take full advantage of the multicultural environment at UPEACE. Students will
also explore ideas of ethnocentrism.
Resources: “Communicating Across Cultures” http://www.culture-at-
work.com/ex1xcincidents.html
http://bonnernetwork.pbworks.com/f/BonCurIdentityCircles.pdf
http://bonnernetwork.pbworks.com/f/EthnocentrismTraining.pdf

Week 7: Gender equality

Key questions: What is my understanding of gender? How do gender
roles play out in my life? How can I integrate gender principles into my
work?
Objectives: After this session, participants will be able to
• Define gender
• Understand how gender roles are present in their lives
• Begin the process of integrating gender sensitivity into their
work
This session will focus on gender equality and personal identification with
gender. Through personal reflection, participants will gain a deeper
understanding in the role that gender plays in their lives, and begin to think of
ways that they can mainstream gender equality in their work.
Resource:
http://www.bonner.org/resources/modules/modules_pdf/BonCurGender2Deepen
ing.pdf
Week 8: Local peace and security – Conflict Resolution
Key questions: How can I solve daily conflicts in a nonviolent way?
Objectives: After this workshop, participants will
• Understand basic mediation techniques
• Be equipped to handle interpersonal conflicts
Ideally this session would be co-taught by community members who have
mediation experience, as generally there are several members of the
community who have mediation backgrounds.
Resource: http://bonnernetwork.pbworks.com/f/BonCurConflictResolution.pdf

Week 9: Human Rights: Exploring Discrimination

Key questions: What is discrimination? How do I discriminate?
Objective: After this workshop, participants will
• Understand different kinds of discrimination
• Understand how to take action if they have experienced
discrimination at UPEACE
This session will explore issues of discrimination in daily life. Participants will
explore ways in which they may have personally experienced discrimination or
have discriminated against others. Participants will become familiar with ways
to deal with discrimination at UPEACE.
Resource: http://bonnernetwork.pbworks.com/f/BonCurRacism.pdf

Week 10: Democratic Participation

Key questions: How does democratic decision-making happen in daily
life? What are different ways to participate democratically? How can we
promote democratic participation at UPEACE?
Objective: After this workshop, participants will
• Understand different ways to participate democratically
• Have an action plan for how they can participate democratically at
UPEACE
This session will focus on how to apply principles of democratic participation to
daily life, at home and at UPEACE.

104
Resource: http://bonnernetwork.pbworks.com/f/BonCurCitizenshipRts.pdf - this
would need to be adapted for the UPEACE context, but provides ideas for
exploring the idea of democratic citizenship.

Week 11: International Peace and security

Key questions: How can we contribute to the global culture of peace?
What would international security look like in a culture of peace?
Objectives: After this workshop, participants will
• Be able to apply culture of peace concepts in their home regions
• Understand different ideas of international security and how to
achieve it
In this session participants will look globally, with a discussion on how they can
contribute to cultures of peace in their home regions, and how this can be
integrated towards a global culture of peace. Ideas of alternative international
security will be examined.

Week 12: Integrating practices: Reflecting on the semester, Action

plan for next semester
Key questions: What are related topics that we’d like to explore next
semester? What does the culture of peace look like so far in the semester? How
should we move forward?
Objectives: After this session, participants will
• evaluate the UPEACE culture of peace up to this point in their
experience
• leave with concrete actions to take to strengthen the culture of
peace
This session will integrate the knowledge and work of the past 11 sessions.
Participants will reflect on their experience at UPEACE so far, assess the culture
of peace, and develop a vision for the next semester. Participants will
brainstorm ways in which the community can strengthen the culture of peace.
This session should also include an evaluation of this 12-week workshop series.
Resource: http://bonnernetwork.pbworks.com/f/BonCurSharedVision.pdf
14. References
Adams, D., et. al. (1986). The Seville Statement on Violence. Retrieved on June
12, 201

from:http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.phpURL_ID=3247&URL_DO=DO_
TOPIC
&URL_SECTION=201.html

Adams, D. (1995). UNESCO and a Culture of Peace: Promoting a Global

Movement. Original
edition out of print. Available at: http://www.culture-of-
peace.info/monograph/page1.html

Adams, D. (2009). World Peace through the Town Hall: A Strategy for the global
movement for a
culture of peace. Self-published. Available at: http://www.culture-of-
peace.info/books/worldpeace.html

Alcover, C. (2009). Ombudsing in Higher Education: A Contingent Model for

Mediation in
University Dispute Resolution Processes. Spanish Journal of Psychology
12(1), 275-287.
Retrieved on June 23, 2010 from:

http://147.96.1.15/BUCM/revistas/psi/11387416/articulos/SJOP0909120275A.PD
F

Avruch, K. (1998). Culture and conflict resolution. Washington DC: United

States Institute of
Peace, pp. 5-21.

Brenes-Castro, A. (2004). An Integral Model of Peace Education. In Educating

for a Culture
106
 of Social and Ecological Peace, Wenden, A. L., (ed.) Albany: State
University of New
York Press. pp. 77-98.

Carter, C. (2005). Standards for Peace Education. Handout.

Cawagas, V. (2007). Pedagogical principles in educating for a culture of peace.

In Toh, S.H., & V.
Cawagas (Eds.) Cultivating Wisdom, Harvesting Peace. Brisbane,
Queensland: Multi-Faith
Centre, Griffith University.

Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design. London: Sage. pp. 3-21.

Culture of Peace Foundation. (2005). World Report on the Culture of Peace: Civil
Society report at
midpoint of the Culture of Peace Decade. Barcelona. Available at:
http://www.decade-culture-of-peace.org/2005report.html

de Rivera, J. H. (2004) A template for assessing cultures of peace. Peace and

Conflict, 10(2). pp.
125-146.

de Rivera, J. H. (2005). Opinion: Assessing the Culture of Peace. UN Chronicle

Online Edition,
issue 2. Retrieved on December 4, 2009 from:
http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2005/issue2/0205p53.html

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.

Groff, L. & Smoker, P. (1996) Creating global/local cultures of peace. In UNESCO

(Ed.) From a
culture of violence to a culture of peace. Paris: UNESCO. pp. 103-127.
International Congress on Peace in the Minds of Men. (1989) The Yamoussoukro
Declaration on
Peace in the Minds of Men. Yamoussoukro, Côte D'Ivoire.

Merriam-Webster. (2010).Online Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Nhat Hanh, T. (2003). Creating true peace. London: Rider. Pp. 182-208.

Ortiz, C. (2010). University for Peace Department of Academic Administration.

Personal
Communication via email. June 29.

Presidential Commission for the University for Peace (1981). University for
Peace:
Basic Documents. San José, Costa Rica.

Reardon, B. & Diallo, D. (1980). Creation of a Pedagogic Institute for Peace.

International Seminar
on Education and Communications for Peace: Provisional Report.
In University for Peace:
Basic Documents. pp. 195-197.

Renner, M. (2005). Security redefined. In M. Renner, H. French, & E.

Assadourian (Project
Directors). State of the World. Pp. 3-19. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Rizzi Carlson, O. (2009). The Peacebuilding Center @ UPEACE. Master’s thesis.

University for
Peace.

Rosenberg, M. (2003). Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life.

Encinitas: Puddledancer
Press.

108
Shiman, D. & Rudelius-Palmer, K. (1999). Taking the Human Rights
Temperature of Your School.
In Economic and Social Justice: A Human Rights Perspective. Minneapolis:
Human Rights Resource Center, University of Minnesota. Retrieved on
June 24, 2010 from:
http://www.hrusa.org/hrmaterials/temperature/temperature.shtm

Stewart, R. (2007). Correlates of Peace Culture: Towards Culture of Peace

Indicators.
Master’s thesis. University for Peace.

Stewart, R. (2008). Culture of Peace Assessment Tools/Report Card. Retrieved

on December
9, 2009 from
http://www.cultureofpeace.ca/culture_of_peace_assessment_tool.htm

Synott, J. (2004). Global and international studies. Transdisciplinary

perspectives. Southbank,
VIC: Social Science Press (since acquired by Thomson Learning Australia),
Chapter 12:
Ethics, Rights and Subordinated People. pp. 300-334.

The Bonner Foundation. (2010). Accessed on June 30, 2010 at:

http://www.bonner.org.

The Earth Charter. (1997). Retrieved on December 9, 2009 from:

http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/uk/uk_sum_cp.htm.

Toh, S.H. & Cawagas, V.F. (1987). Peace education: A framework for the
Philippines. Quezon
City: Phoenix Publishing House, pp. 57-76.

Toh, S.H. & Cawagas, V.F. (2002). A Holistic Understanding of a Culture of

Peace. Presented at
the APCEIU Expert Consultation on EIU, Fiji.
Toh, S.H. (2006). Education for sustainable development and the weaving of a
culture of peace:
Complementaries and synergies. Paper presented at the UNESCO Expert
Meeting on
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): Reorienting Education to
Address
Sustainability, 1-3 May 2006, Kanchanaburi, Thailand.

Toh, S. H. (2007). Pathways to the building of a culture of peace. Presented at

the Peace Education
Workshop in Uganda, 10-13 July 2007, organized by the Ugandan
National Commission for
UNESCO and the Korean National Commission for UNESCO. pp. 1-14.

UN General Assembly. (26 June 1945). Charter of the United Nations. Retrieved
on June 12, 2010
from: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml

UN General Assembly (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved

on June 23, 2010
from: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

UN General Assembly (17 December 1980). A/RES/35/55: Resolution on the

Establishment of the
University for Peace.

UN General Assembly (15 January 1998). A/RES/53/13: A Culture of

Peace. Retrieved on
December 16, 2009 from http://daccess-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N98/760/15/PDF/N9876015.pdf?OpenElement.

UN General Assembly (15 January 1998). A/RES/53/15: Proclamation of the year

2000 as the

110
 International Year for a Culture of Peace. Retrieved on June 12, 2010
from:
http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-52-15.pdf

UN General Assembly (2 September 1998). A/RES/53/370: Consolidated report

containing a draft
declaration and programme of action on a culture of peace. Retrieved on
June 12, 2010
from: http://www.culture-of-peace.info/annexes/resA-53-
370/coverpage.html

UN General Assembly (19 November 1998). A/RES/53/25: International Decade

for a Culture of
Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, 2001-
2010. Retrieved on December
16, 2009 from http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/uk/uk_sum_refdoc.htm

UN General Assembly (6 October 1999). A/RES/53/243: Declaration and

Programme of Action on
a Culture of Peace. Retrieved on December 9, 2009 from
http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/uk/uk_sum_cp.htm.

UN General Assembly (25 February 2005). A/RES/59/143: International Decade

for a Culture of
Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, 2001-
2010. Retrieved on December
10, 2009 from http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/kits/Resolutions
%20UN/A_RES_59143e.pdf.

UN General Assembly (19 August 2005). A/60/279: Midterm global review of

the International
Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the
World, 2001-2010.
Retrieved on June 12. 2010 from:
http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/Report/A%2060%20279%20ENG.pdf
UN General Assembly (13 December 2006). Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities.
Retrieved on June 23, 2010 from:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/disabilities-
convention.htm

UNESCO. (1945). Constitution of the United Nations Education, Scientific, and

Cultural
Organization. Retrieved on June 23, 2010 from:
http://www.icomos.org/unesco/unesco_constitution.html

UNESCO. (1995). Declaration of Principles on Tolerance. Retrieved on June 16,

2010 from:
http://www.unesco.org/webworld/peace_library/UNESCO/HRIGHTS/124-
129.HTM

UNESCO. (1999). Manifesto 2000. Retrieved on June 12, 2010 from:

http://www3.unesco.org/manifesto2000/uk/uk_manifeste.htm

UNESCO. (2002). Mainstreaming the culture of peace. Retrieved on June 7,

2010
from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001263/126398e.pdf

UNESCO. (2001). Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2010). Culture of peace: what is it? Retrieved on June 16, 2010 from:
http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/uk/uk_sum_cp.htm

University for Peace. (2005). Contribution of the University for Peace to the Mid-
Term Report of
the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the Implementation of
United Nations General Assembly resolutions on the International Decade
for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World,

112
 2001-2010. Retrieved on June 6, 2010 from:
http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/Report/UPEACE.pdf

University for Peace. (2008). Annual Report: 2007-2008. Retrieved on June 12,
2010 from:
http://www.upeace.org/PDF/UPEACE%20anuual%20report%2007-08.pdf

University for Peace. (2009). Student Handbook. Department of Academic

Administration.

Vaughn Chaverri, C. (2007). Peace through Health Initiatives toward a Culture

of Peace: A New
Perspective to Incorporate at the University for Peace? Master’s thesis.
University for
Peace.

Wenden, A. Introduction. In A. Wenden (Ed.) Educating for a Culture of Social

and Ecological
Peace. Albany: SUNY Press.

Wessels, M. (1994). The Role of Peace Education in a Culture of Peace: A Social-

Psychological
Analysis. Peace Education Miniprints No. 65. Malmo, Sweden: School of
Education.
Appendix A: Summary of UPEACE contributions to UN Decade Reports
2001-2005*

2002
Programme 2001 2003 2004
(A/57/186/Add.
Area (A/56/349) (A/58/182) (A/59/223)
1)

114
 · Repetitio
· Training n of
program newly
mes and establish
internatio ed
nal peace masters
· Priority studies program
to · Students mes(GPB,
develop graduate IPS, PE,
peace d from ESP)
studies NRSD, · Missions
courses HRS, and in 10
to build ILSD countries
capacity · Capacity- for
in building educatio
developi in peace n for
ng world educatio peace in
· Consultati · Short n and Africa
ons courses conflict · 3
· Advisory in preventio curriculu
meetings Central n m
Culture of · Memoran Asia, · Courses develop
Peace dums of Latin in ment
Through understan America, Budapest workshop
Education ding Africa and s
(MOUs) · UPEACE Bangkok conducte
with foundatio · Multicult d in
UNESCO n course ural Africa
& UNU · Peace courses · Short
educatio on key courses
n peace- for mid-
masters related career
and issues professio
internatio (and nals
nal dissemin · Formal
consultat ation to partnersh
ion on partner ip with
the universiti UNESCO
program es) & UNDP
me · Foundati on
on Foundati
course in ons for
internatio Africa's
nal peace future
studies leadershi
p
2001 2002 2003 2004

116
 · Continuat
ion of
NRSD
program
me
· Launchin
g
Environm
ental
Peace
and
Security
(ESP)
· Short program
courses me
· The Earth
in natural · Research
Council
resources · Short on
partnersh
and courses "Conflict
ip
conflict · Continua and
· Short
preventio tion of collabora
courses in
n AU NRSD tion in
natural
· 2nd year program natural
resources
of AU me resources
and
dual · LEAD manage
conflict
master’s Internatio ment in
Sustainable preventio
program nal Latin
Economic and n and
me in partnersh America
Social socio-
Natural ip and the
Development economic
Resource · New Caribbea
developm
s and master’s n"
ent and
Sustaina program · Curriculu
peace
ble me in m
· American
Develop Environm develop
University
ment ent, ment on
(AU) dual
(NRSD) Security the
master’s
· partnersh and relations
program
ip with Peace hip
me being
LEAD between
planned
Internatio youth,
nal employm
ent/econ
omic
opportuni
ties, and
the
preventio
n of
violence
· Continue
d support
to Earth
 2001 2002 2003 2004

· ILSD &
Internatio
nal Law
· New
and
Masters
Human
program
Rights
mes in
(formerly
· Expert Human
HRS)
seminar Rights
· 2nd year · Preparati
on Studies
Respect for of HRS on of
Human (HRS)
all human and ILSD human
Rights and
rights program rights
and Internatio
mes educatio
Peace in nal Law
n
Geneva and
material
Settleme
to
nt of
dissemin
Disputes
ate in
(ILSD)
developin
g
countries

118
 · New
course in
gender
· 2nd and
internatio peacebuil
nal ding
training · Speicialis
· Internatio
on ed
nal
gender courses
training
and on
on
peace- gender
gender
· Masters building and
and
in gender · Gender peacebuil
peace-
being master’s ding
building
prepared program · African
for UN
Equality · Short me to be women
staff
between men course on launched peacema
· Internatio
and women gender in 2003 kers
nal
and · Consultat program
meeting
conflict ion me for
for
being between training
develop
launched UPEACE and
ment of
& support
gender
UNESCO · One-
master’s
to week
program
address advanced
me
gender intensive
issues in course on
Latin gender
America focus in
peace
processe
s

2001 2002 2003 2004

 · All 7
masters
program
mes deal
with
· Continue democrat
· MOU with d ic
Internatio collabora participat
nal tion with · Continue ion
Institute Internatio d · Short
Democratic for nal IDEA collabora courses
participation Democrac on tion with on
y and bilateral Internatio democrat
Electoral and nal IDEA ic
Assistanc multilater participat
e (IDEA) al ion
projects · Consultat
ions in
Argentina
, Brazil,
and
Uruguay

120
 · Summer
course on
human
rights
and
religion
· Specializ
· Follow-up
ed course
work with
in
Seminar
"practise
on
s in
· Internatio Disability
conflict
nal · Further
· Project to manage
Seminar projects
launch ment and
on with
Understandin peace peacebuil
Disability Inclusion
g, education ding" for
· Develop Internatio
tolerance and wide
ment on nal
and solidarity research dissemin
courses · Civil-
in central ation
for civil- military
Asia · Brazil -
military course
assisting
relations being
governm
develope
ent with
d in Asia
Peace in
and Latin
the cities
America
and
peace in
the
countrysi
de"
program
me

2001 2002 2003 2004

 · Centre
for
Educatio
n and
· Institute Informati
for on
Media, Technolo
Peace gy at
and UPEACE -
Security to
to be develop
located infrastruc
· Internatio in ture to
nal Geneva make
· Establishe conferen · Research UPEACE
Participatory d media ce on the on media materials
communicati and Lessons and available
on peace of the peace globally
and the free institute Tajik being and
flow of (3-yr. Peace initiated maintain
information developm Process in Latin UPEACE
ent plan) for America web site
Afghanist and · Institute
an Africa for
· Module Media,
being Peace
develope and
d for Security
UPEACE launched
masters 4 new
program courses
mes · Revampi
ng Africa
program
me's web
site

122
 · Partnersh
ip with
the
· 2 books
Internatio
on
nal
security
Institute
published
for
in
Applied
· 2 Spanish
Systems
internatio · High-
Analysis
nal level
· Agreeme
seminars trainings
nt for the
on aimed at
establish
internatio senior
ment of a
nal officials,
· Agreeme subsidiar
security teachers
nt with y office
· In and
Royal of the
contact scholars
Thai army Internatio
with ICA in Central
to nal Court
about America
develop of
establishi · Peace
education Arbitratio
ng court educatio
and n at the
International on main n and
training main
Peace and campus human
programs campus
security · Working rights
· Initiative · Promisin
with curriculu
w/Colomb g
various m for
ian contacts
agencies military
governme with
in the services
nt to est. UNiLAC
Americas in Sierra
conflict · Seminars
on Leone
resolution on drug
courses · Creation
institute abuse
on of Latin
and
control of America
firearms
illicit Centre
· Official
small for
launch of
arms dispute
World
trade settleme
Center
· WCRTCR nt
for
· Course
Research
on illicit
and
traffickin
Training
g of small
in CR
arms
(WCRTCR
) in
Bogota
*While UPEACE contributed to the 2005 mid-term report (A/60/279), the
report was an overall summary of 2001-2004 efforts, emphasizing the
development of new master's academic programmes, 5-year revitalisation plan
adopted by the UPEACE council, and the dissemination of worldwide teaching
materials.

124
Appendix B: Proposal for UPEACE Community Liaison

Proposal for University for Peace Community Liaison Office

(Submitted as part of Peace Education: Strategies for Life, Final Paper,
Stephanie Knox)
Introduction
In the course Peace Education: Strategies for Life, we had the opportunity
to conduct field research in El Rodeo and Ciudad Colon, the two communities
most directly connected with the University for Peace. Even though we live and
spend a lot of time in these communities, for many of us it was the first time
we visited a school or other community institutions. In speaking with
community members, we realized the strong desire for greater involvement
from the University, and at times an even negative perception of the University
for its lack of involvement in the communities thus far. At the same time,
UPEACE students would like to develop greater connection with the
communities, and would also gain practical experience in their related fields.
The local communities are potential "live learning labs" for the students to turn
theory into practice, which are currently being underutilized. Furthermore, it
provides the opportunity for service learning, allowing students to make
meaningful contributions to their host communities. Although in our field work
we worked specifically with the education sector, opportunities exist for
students in all programs who would like to gain experience and give back to
the community.
A constraint on maintaining consistent community relations is that there
is no permanent structure at UPEACE dedicated to these efforts. While different
efforts have been made from year to year, by different individuals and different
programs, there is a lack of continuity in these efforts that is detrimental to
sustainability, partially due to the fact that students are only at the university
for one year. In order to build lasting ties, and to build programs that meet
community needs, there needs to be a permanent structure established at the
University to promote community partnerships and outreach. Thus I am
proposing the establishment of a Community Outreach Program at the
University for Peace, headed by the Community Liaison Officer.
 The Community Outreach Program would help students to begin projects
within the community soon after their arrival, matching them based on their
interests and skills, and to develop projects and relationships throughout the
year. The Community Liaison Officer would be responsible for maintaining ties
within the community, for seeking out new partnerships, and for assisting
students with project development and implementation. The Outreach
Coordinator would also be responsible for maintaining institutional memory of
the outreach projects from year to year.

Background: Past to Future

While the University for Peace has been in existence for 30 years, it is really
only within the past several years that it has hosted a significant student
population. The increase in student population has had a significant impact on
the local communities of El Rodeo and Ciudad Colon. The University is located
in El Rodeo, a small farming community of 37 families. Some students live in el
Rodeo, while most live in Ciudad Colon, a larger city of 21,000 inhabitants
located 7 kilometers from the university. As the university population has
increased, there has been an increase in the number of local businesses, local
taxis, and many local residents can earn money by providing student housing.
However, at this time, this relationship is largely economic, and has the
potential much stronger and deeper, and transformative for all parties
involved. The University has plans for further expansion, increasing the number
of programs offered and the number of students. With this plan for expansion,
it has the possibility of having greater impact, and it is important to develop
good relations with the communities now, so that all can be mutually involved
in this growth process. Furthermore, if this growth is going to affect the local
communities, which it inevitably will, it would be advisable for these
stakeholders to be consulted in the planning process.

From the global to the local

The University for Peace's mission is "to provide humanity with an international
institution of higher education for peace and with the aim of promoting among

126
all human beings the spirit of understanding, tolerance and peaceful
coexistence, to stimulate cooperation among peoples and to help lessen
obstacles and threats to world peace and progress, in keeping with the noble
aspirations proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations " UN General
Assembly, 1980). While the mission is global, the university should begin its
aims at the local level, by sharing knowledge, skills and resources with the
local communities, and promoting "understanding, tolerance, and peaceful
coexistence, (and) cooperation" within the immediate communities.

Structures and Partnerships

This project will be a joint effort between the University and the communities of
El Rodeo and Ciudad Colon, thus involving multiple structures. To begin, I
propose the following partnerships:
1. UPEACE and El Rodeo elementary school
2. UPEACE and Casa de la Cultura in Ciudad Colón
3. UPEACE and the Ciudad Colon elementary school

In the future, the University could expand its efforts, but for the first year,
I would suggest these partnerships, beginning with the first two, and if time
and resources allow, including the third.
As UPEACE is a formal educational institution, I propose the creation of a
new structure (of the Community Liaison Office) within the present larger
university structure. The Community Outreach Program would operate within
UPEACE and in conjunction with the structures of the formal Costa Rican
educational system and the nonformal Casa de la Cultura community education
center.
Considerations in planning will have to take into account the structures of
UPEACE and the Costa Rican formal educational system, of which the el Rodeo
school is a part. For example, within UPEACE, programs could be offered as an
extracurricular activity, for credit, or as internships. Programs would thus have
to meet the requirements for credits or internships, whereas the extracurricular
activities would have greater flexibility. UPEACE will also have to consider any
formalities that should be taken in order to formally establish the partnership
with the school. It will be the job of the Outreach Coordinator to understand
these structures, and help inform students accordingly.
 The Casa de la Cultura, as a nonformal educational structure, most likely
has greater flexibility than the formal school system. Again, the Outreach
Coordinator should meet with the appropriate individuals (such as the
president of ADHERAC, Minor Perez) in order to better understand the structure.

Form
This endeavor should be between the UPEACE community and the El Rodeo
and Ciudad Colon community members. The UPEACE students should work in
collaboration with community members to develop project that meet
community needs as well as the needs and skills of the UPEACE students. The
relationship should be equal and horizontal, and based on mutual learning and
dialogue. The entire process should be participatory and democratic. To foster
cultural respect and strengthen communication, UPEACE students should make
a best effort to learn and communicate in Spanish (unless they are teaching a
language class, which could be a part of cultural exchange efforts with the
Casa de la Cultura).
The main role of the Community Outreach Coordinator would be the
liaison between students and the communities, rather than to design projects
his/herself. Maintaining healthy community relations will be an integral part of
this position. All projects should involve peace education pedagogies, such as
dialogue, creativity, reflection, and critical inquiry.

Sample Content: Art for Peace Project

The content of projects will again vary depending on community and UPEACE
student needs, the possibilities for which are unlimited. As both of our field
trips involved interviews with community members, some community needs
have already been established.

The El Rodeo school is highly interested in developing peace education

programs for the school. Two projects that could begin immediately are:
1. Peace Education teacher training for El Rodeo teachers
2. Art for Peace class for students

128
 For this report I would like to focus on the Art for Peace Project, which
could be done in conjunction with the El Rodeo school, Casa de la Cultura, and
possibly the Ciudad Colón elementary school.
At this time, there is no art class offered at the El Rodeo school, and art
has a significant role in peacebuilding. In our interview we asked the children to
draw pictures in response to the question, "What is peace?" It was evident that
they really enjoyed drawing, and that this could be offered on a more regular
basis. Furthermore, and Art for Peace class could be carried out by UPEACE
students with limited Spanish language abilities (in comparison with a teacher
training, which would require Spanish fluency). The school is also lacking any
decorations, and thus art projects could be used to beautify the school, and
give the children a source of pride in their work on display.
The Art for Peace program would be a one hour weekly class conducted
by UPEACE students according to the schedule of the school. To get supplies,
UPEACE students could solicit donations through a bake sale and/or concert,
both of which have proven to be successful mechanisms for fundraising in the
past at UPEACE. This project could potentially be carried out at the Ciudad
Colon school as well, perhaps with an art show at the Casa de la Cultura, thus
incorporating 3 institutions and strengthening partnerships.

Here is a sample lesson for the Art for Peace class:

Lesson 1: Peace Dove

Objective: To talk about symbols and meanings of peace
Materials: If possible, teachers should cut out dove bodies beforehand
(otherwise, would require scissors for all the children).
Thick paper for doves' bodies, thin paper for wings, scissors for cutting,
colored pencils or markers, string
Warm-up: Ask children "What symbols remind you of peace?” Invite students
who answer to come to the whiteboard and draw their image.
Perhaps by this point someone will have already mentioned a dove. Ask
students, "Why is the dove a symbol of peace?" (Answer: from the Noah's Ark
story in the Bible).
Activity: Making Peace Doves
 Please see http://www.sites4teachers.com/links/redirect.php?
url=http://www.enchantedlearning.com/crafts/newyear/dove/ for diagrams and
instructions for how to make the doves.
First have the children color the doves' bodies and wings. Then have children
assemble the doves. Finally, as a class hang the doves together (inside the
classroom, or on a tree. One option would be to bring a big branch to class, put
it in a box, and have the students hang them on the branch. That way it can
serve as a classroom decoration and will not contribute to outside litter).
Wrap-up: Ask children for reflections on the activity. Suggested questions:
· How do you feel when you make art?
· What did you learn during this class?
· What other kinds of art would you like to try?

A lack of community involvement from UPEACE is not only a lost opportunity; it

has the potential to negatively impact the university's reputation and
perception within the local communities. It is an ideal time for UPEACE to
develop a community outreach and service program, which will benefit UPEACE
students and local community members alike, and contribute to cultivating a
culture of peace at the local level.

130