Educational Action Research

ISSN: 0965-0792 (Print) 1747-5074 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Human rights education and the research process:

action research as a tool for reflection and change

Celma Tavares

To cite this article: Celma Tavares (2016) Human rights education and the research process:
action research as a tool for reflection and change, Educational Action Research, 24:4, 617-634,
DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2015.1124045

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1124045

Published online: 29 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 323

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20
Educational Action Research, 2016
VOL. 24, NO. 4, 617–634
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1124045

Human rights education and the research process: action

research as a tool for reflection and change
Celma Tavares
Center for Research and Education on Human Rights, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife-PE, Brazil

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Human rights education (HRE) aims to achieve a change of mindsets Received 15 December 2014
and social attitudes that entails the construction of a culture of respect Accepted 3 November 2015
towards those values it teaches. Although HRE is a recent field of study, KEYWORDS
its consolidation in Latin America is a fact. During the latest decades Human rights education;
several authors have carried out research related to HRE that has participatory action research;
made it easier to understand the process of inclusion of HRE in public Latin America
policies as well as reflection about research processes as a whole.
They favour a discussion about the most frequently used strategies
and tools, how the latter contribute to strengthen the production of
knowledge in HRE, and to what extent there is an actual interrelation
between theory and practice. This research article intends to show the
state of these questions in HRE, building on the research and studies
carried out in Latin America during the last 10 years. At the same
time, the article aims to discuss the importance of action research for
HRE, understanding its potential as a tool for reflection and change.
In general terms, this research article concludes that the studies on
HRE rely more on field research and experience report than on action
research methodology. The article is concluded noting an important
and current challenge for HRE: a more frequent use of participatory
action research in human rights-related work, so the knowing-
understanding and applying fields can be constructed.

Introduction
Human rights education (HRE) has become established in Latin America during the last two
decades. Initially, it started showing in non-formal education. From there, it spread to fields
belonging to formal education, achieving a relevant position owing to a set of laws and
regulations developed at an international and inter-American level, as well as the inclusion
of human rights in the public policies of different Latin American countries. Besides this,
as a result of its acknowledgement by the international community as part of the right to
education, HRE became a right in itself, essential for the population to obtain the rest of their
rights. (Organization of American States [OAS] 2007, 2013).

CONTACT  Celma Tavares  cftav@uol.com.br 

© 2016 Educational Action Research
618    C. Tavares

The fulfilment and development of a rights culture at the core of society is the main
­objective of HRE. This implies, among other things, the formation of a subject of law that
relates the dimensions of knowledge, values, and the capabilities needed to act. In this
regard, important aspects will be analysed in detail throughout the text, particularly those
related to the concept of human rights, teacher training, educational practice, and the meth-
odologies applied. Several authors from different countries have analysed these aspects,
and at the same time have carried out studies and research projects which have contributed
significantly to the development of HRE in the region, noting the advances achieved and
the current challenges in this field.
The actual presence of HRE in the Latin American reality began in 1980, according to
Magendzo (1999, 4). From that moment, it became a foundation of redemocratisation pro-
cesses. During those years, the leading role was assumed by non-governmental organi-
sations, but at the turn of the decade into the 1990s – always according to Magendzo’s
approach – remarkable changes took place: greater interest by governments, implemen-
tation of training and reinforcement in human rights as part of teacher training, the legal
inclusion of HRE as part of the formal education curriculum, as well as the development of
important actions to promote HRE in universities.
Besides this, it is important to underline that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(United Nations [UN] 1948) already pointed at education as a key factor in the observance of
human rights. Later on, other resources that included regulations related to HRE were devel-
oped by the UN. HRE thus gradually achieved a relevant position in international summits,
particularly in the UN World Conference on Human Rights held in 1993. Its final consolida-
tion was brought about by the celebration of the UN Decade for Human Rights Education
between 1995 and 2004 (UN, 1994), as well as by the design of the World Programme for
Human Rights Education (UN 2004), whose development spanned from 2004 to 2014. With
regard to the Inter-American system, the Protocol of San Salvador (OAS 1988) and the Inter-
American Pact for the Education of Human Rights (OAS 2010) are worth mentioning.
In general terms, these documents and resources shaped HRE ‘as education, training and
information aimed at building a universal culture of human rights’ (UN 2006, 1). Besides
this, they included the three main axes of HRE: knowledge and skills; values, attitudes, and
behaviour; and action (UN 2006, 12).
Despite the relevance achieved both at a normative level and at a social level, there are still
several challenges that HRE is facing nowadays: its inconsistent institutionalisation, the deficien-
cies in the specific training of professionals, or the scarcity of suitable materials are significant
deficiencies that hinder a better understanding of the value of HRE by members of the public.
From this perspective, the intention of this research article is to discuss the state of the
question in the research on HRE developed in Latin America during the last decade, empha-
sising the importance of the action research projects1 as well as the field research2 with the
objective of shedding light on the scope and potential of each research tool. Besides this, the
article also aims at discussing the importance of action research in the field of HRE, trying
to apprehend its value as tool for reflection and change in the realities in which it is applied.

HRE and participatory action research: their processes and common aspects
HRE is a systematic and multidimensional process that is used in the education of the
right-bearing subject (Brasil. Ministério da Educação 2006). HRE thus aims at promoting both
 Educational Action Research   619

critic and active educational processes that are consciousness-awakening and stimulate the
sense of responsibility of the people in accordance with an actual experience of human rights
(Tavares 2007). Its development, as already stated, began in Latin America in the 1980s and
it has covered different stages that have led to its inclusion in formal education ever since.
Participatory action research (PAR) is a methodology that shows plenty of varied options,
and its characteristics set PAR apart from other qualitative research methods. Its objective
is to ‘improve and/or transform the social and/or educational praxes, assemble research,
action, and training permanently; get closer to reality linking transformation and knowledge’
(Latorre 2007, 289).3 The development of PAR is attributed to Kurt Lewis, although there are
different hypotheses in that regard.4 In Latin America, the term PAR was mentioned for the
first time in 1960 by two authors: Paulo Freire and Orlando Fals Borda (Kastanis, Vargas, and
Suárez 2009).
In general terms, action research is carried out through three paradigms related to three
different types of rationality: empirical-analytical, which focuses on technique; historical-her-
meneutical, which focuses on practice; and social-critical, which focuses on emancipation
(Colmenares 2012; Franco 2005). Apart from these paradigms, there is Lewin’s spiral-cyclical
model, which is based on planning, action, and reflection, and which shows a potential for
continuous development. This model is mentioned by Barbier (2002) as an essential element
at all stages.
From this point of view and taking into account the conceptions already described,
the points of convergence between the HRE and PAR processes can already be envisaged.
Among them, the most remarkable are involvement, dialogue, reflection, analysis, and the
willingness to change reality. Involvement is the key element of two of the foundations of
both HRE and PAR: the collective construction of knowledge and inclusion. It is not possible
to develop educational action such as HRE without the people involved in it partaking in
the process and cultivating their own autonomy. PAR cannot be understood as such if the
agents of the reality under research are not protagonists of the aforementioned research
and educational action. Simultaneously, a dialogue must exist throughout the whole partic-
ipatory process. The importance of dialogue for HRE and PAR is noted by Freire (1968) when
he asserts that communication, the action of communicating, is one of the characteristics
that give human beings their humanity. So critical thinking can only be developed through
dialogue, since without it ‘there is no communication, and without it there will not be true
education’ (Freire 1968, 96).5
Reflection and critique are therefore complementary practices. HRE and PAR are processes
that foster a deeper observation of reality, generating collective learning situations through
a cooperative approach to problems. For Freire (2009, 47), the human being, a rational being,
is ‘not in the world, but with the world’,6 assimilated in its context and aware of its prob-
lems. It is only through this that human beings can become aware of their own reality and
change it. The realisation of both HRE and PAR must therefore start from an analysis of the
individuals’ reality and, from that point, transform it so that old conducts may be replaced
by new social practices.
The transformation of reality is another of the usual aspects of HRE and PAR practice, as
well as the ultimate goal of the aforementioned elements. That is, HRE and PAR processes
seek to promote the self-acknowledgement of the individuals – both at an individual level
and a collective level – as agents of the transformation of negative realities in their envi-
ronment, adding to their actions social and political liability. The most interesting aspect
620    C. Tavares

of this approach is that the aforementioned search is imbued by the educational process
carried out during the development of HRE and PAR. Thus, taking into account that ‘every
understanding results, sooner or later, in an action’ (Freire 2009, 114),7 ‘these two fields do
not restrict themselves to researching and producing knowledge; they go beyond, fostering
transformational actions, i.e. their assembling with the actual activity of the active citizens’
(Benevides 1991).8
So what conclusions can be drawn from the common aspects that exist between HRE and
PAR? To answer this question it becomes necessary to introduce the research done in the
HRE field in Latin America during the last decade, paying special attention to the research
and studies that adopted PAR as their work methodology.

Approaches to HRE in research

The approach to the conceptions generated in Latin America as a result of research and
studies in HRE was made through a selection of a range of publications – namely books and
articles – as well as relevant journals and congress lectures. Since this study is qualitative
research, it was not intended to cover the materials published about HRE in their entirety, but
to collect a qualitatively representative sample of all of the HRE-related materials published,
paying special attention to the field of action research. By virtue of this selection, it was pos-
sible to analyse in depth the chosen materials, an analysis that would have been impossible
otherwise. However, it is undeniable that the selection entailed a failure to consider some
remarkable studies and research.
The methodology applied made use of the desk research available from a qualitative
approach (Ghedin and Franco 2008; Gil 1994; Lüdke and André 1986), and the assessment
of the materials gathered was done through a process of content analysis (Bardin 1977)
since it was considered that the latter is composed of a series of techniques suitable for the
analysis and assessment of the materials gathered.
The methodological stages were therefore the following: document selection; definition
of the key elements in the analysis in order to be able to construct a classification matrix
to analyse the information; reading; analysis of the materials; and systematisation of data,
observing in this particular regard the rules homogeneity, objectivity, and adequacy (Bardin
1977). The analysing matrix incorporated two main elements: on the one hand, concept and
objective; and on the other, contents and processes. The objective of the first element was to
identify the concepts used in the research as well as the objectives propounded. The objec-
tive of the second element was getting closer to the methodologies and strategies adopted,
the actions carried out, the prioritised contents, and the objectives achieved. All of this was
done with the goal of understanding the potential of PAR in the process of HRE research.
The selection of the publications was made according to three criteria: their circulation
during the last 10 years, their representativeness of the whole Latin American sub-continent,
and their links to universities, research institutions, and organisations related to the defence
of human rights. With regard to congress articles, this research was focused on the papers
of the last three editions9 of the Inter-American Colloquium about Education in Human
Rights. The reason for choosing this colloquium was that the last three editions gathered
researchers from all over the continent and this could be deemed as an environment suitable
for obtaining information about education and human rights.
 Educational Action Research   621

Considering the elements discussed above, a total of 60 articles, whose ideas deal directly
or indirectly with HRE (education for democracy or education for citizenship), were extracted
from journals.10 Additionally, 100 articles were extracted from the papers of the colloquium,
all of them related to HRE.
The search and identification of the published books relied on the mentioned criteria, but
also on the suggestions given by the most relevant HRE authors, such as Candau, Magendzo,
Mujica, Ramírez, or Rodino, among others.11
In general terms, field research – including the documents analysed and the carrying
out of interviews and questionnaires – predominate in the materials analysed, as well as
experience reports as a tool for education in human rights. On the other hand, the presence
of action research is less representative, and it only constitutes one-tenth of the materials
studied, in spite of the fact that it is one of the most effective tools when it comes to analys-
ing, evaluating, and modifying the reality under study; that is, when it comes to assembling
both research and intervention.12
The lower number of studies related to action research readily shows one of the current
challenges of HRE: fostering the research that combines scientific research and practical
action, so as to make possible knowledge construction processes that contribute to trans-
forming the reality under study. A possible reason for such a low figure lies in the ideas of
Kastanis, Vargas, and Suárez (2009), which are related to research in the field of education.
For these authors, the quantity of papers related to PAR in education that were published
in Latin American journals contrasts with the actual number of projects that were finally
developed owing to the division of what they defined as ‘social’ and ‘academic’ experiences.
According to this division, they insist, the groups related to the former show difficulties to
explain and systematise their results in terms of knowledge production. With regard to the
groups related to the ‘academic’ experiences, they fail to include the genuine involvement
of the community agents. This way, a lack of dialogue and exchange between the social
and the academic world eventually ensues, so experiences deemed as ‘unacademic’ do not
achieve enough impact because of theoretical and methodological feebleness.

What field research reveals

In field research, the research studies developed by the Inter-American Institute of Human
Rights (IIDH) since 2002 stand out. They are focused on the advances in HRE achieved in
Latin America, which were gauged during two monitoring periods.13
The analysis by Rodino (2010, 2012) about the first monitoring period, which comprised
the years from 1990 to 2000, showed significant progress in terms of rules and regulations in
almost all countries, although it also pointed out remarkable deficiencies related to curricu-
lums, material, and contents about human rights, as well as some lack in teacher training and
educational planning. Despite the fact that during that decade there were several initiatives
which aimed to improve this situation, most of them were left unfinished, with the exception
of those implemented in Brazil. According to Rodino (2010, 2012), during the second mon-
itoring period, which covered the years from 2000 to 2010, the role played by HRE in Latin
American countries as a whole continued to be remarkable. Besides this, basic ­knowledge
about human rights was introduced in curriculums and textbooks. However, several obvi-
ous and severe deficiencies still persisted in different areas, such as the depth to which the
contents were dealt with, or the resolution of actual situations of human rights violation.
622    C. Tavares

The most recent IIDH research was published in a report titled El Derecho a la Educación
en Derechos Humanos en las Américas 2000–2013 (The Right to Human Rights Education in Las
Américas 2000–2013) (IIDH 2013). This was elaborated from the Inter-American Enquiry on
HRE and its main objective was delving and updating the existing contents and data within
the framework of the previous Inter-American reports. The report underlined a series of
weaknesses in the right to education and HRE to which the different governments should
pay attention. With regard to the right to HRE, the report highlighted, among other concerns:
the need for a suitable coordination of the different laws that deal with the inclusion of HRE;
the consolidation of student associations; the advances in HRE curriculum development; the
correspondence between what is reflected on official documents and educational practice;
the consolidation of HRE as a public policy; and the monitoring and evaluation of the existing
HRE programmes (IIDH 2013, 45–47).
According to the characteristics and results of these studies, it can be inferred that they
are primarily descriptive-explicative, and their main contribution is the production of knowl-
edge related to HRE. Also, in some cases they additionally develop and propound specific
measures. They do not explain, therefore, actions that transform the reality under study,
owing to the fact that their aim is exclusively researching. On the contrary, PAR combines
research with the implementation of immediate action, as will be shown in the following.

Findings of participatory action research in HRE

Considering the analysed materials, it can be concluded that the majority of PAR14 samples
can be found in formal education, both in primary and in higher education. However, it is
also possible to find several works about PAR carried out in non-formal education contexts.
In the following, some of the most relevant works on PAR – in both formal and non-formal
education contexts – will be discussed to sketch the actual outlook of PAR in Latin America.
In general terms, these research studies aim to understand specific situations and special
conceptions of particular individuals in combination with the development of discussion,
reflection, and collective production actions. Using the data drawn as a basis, several actions
that can contribute to solve a particular problem are proposed.
This was the approach to PAR used at a secondary school in Costa Rica which sought
to improve student–teacher relations through the betterment of the interpersonal rela-
tions within the classroom (Rojas 2011). The relations among the students and between the
students and the teacher had deteriorated, and conflicts, injustices, and even assault and
quarrel incidents took place. The research sought to understand, interpret, and transform
that educational context, taking the interest of the students as a starting point. The students,
on the other hand, expressed their interest in the educational reality and questioned one
another about ways to solve the existing problems and conflicts.
In this case, it is possible to see how, in an educational context related to an education in
rights, the adoption of PAR meant that problem understanding improved and the decon-
struction of power play was fostered. Dialogue and joint participation of all agents guided the
process, opinions were shared, and possible solutions were developed. Through the process
the following ideas and concepts were discussed: teenage power play and resistance inside
the classroom; spaces for reflection and transformation in the educational field; participatory
democracy in the classroom; education for diversity in schools; and HRE.
 Educational Action Research   623

Among other issues, discussions pointed at the following malfunctions: the education
of the students for decision-making and not only for replication was not satisfactory; the
perception of experiences inside the classroom was different for students and teachers;
and abuse of power was perceptible, although uncommon. Within the framework of action
research, the school community devised an action plan for the school. This plan described
the aforementioned malfunctions as well as the strategies and activities aimed at favouring
the creation of the democratic mindset that is a key element in the creation of horizontal,
respectful relationships.
The experience of this process allowed the participants to apply their reflection skills,
problem-solving and conflict-solving skills, and situation analysis skills at a group level. The
learning achieved from these resources, typical of PAR when it is combined with HRE, made
the following achievements possible: the transformation of the individuals involved –turning
them into agents of change of their own realities; the establishment of democratic relation-
ships within the school context; the promotion of participatory and decision-making skills;
and the presence of topics like diversity inside schools or the promotion and the exercise
of human rights inside the classroom.
Another relevant instance of effective PAR in the same context as that of the previous one
was carried out in several Chilean schools (Prieto 2003). The proposal sought to study the
perception and experience of democracy on the side of the students. At the same time, a
joint intervention programme was to be designed in order to be implemented in the afore-
mentioned schools. It was developed this way because, although one of the main functions
of a school is educating for democracy, this objective was far from being achieved in schools.
The development of PAR was realised through three periods of self-reflection based
upon the emancipation paradigm. This implied understanding of the reality experienced
in the school by its agents and protagonists. The involvement of both teachers and students
allowed for understanding of the different conceptions of democracy and, using them as
a starting point, they constructed collectively an educational programme which was to
be implemented in schools. During the analysis of the reality, data revealed that students
ignored the meaning and implications of exercising democracy in their classroom. The data
also pointed to the absence of democracy in the educational processes. Besides this, the
needs of giving new meanings to the school and creating a participatory and communal
atmosphere were identified.
The programme devised sought to recover and value the contributions of the students,
as well as strengthen their individual skills and autonomy through the construction of a par-
ticipative, dialogic, and democratic atmosphere. The activities developed gave prominence
to the students, promoting their value as individuals, and fostering cooperative work, as well
as the respect for diversity and autonomy. Thus, it was made possible that the participants
constructed ‘their own visions, held their own stances, and showed coherence between their
actions and what they thought’ (Prieto 2003, 4).15
The changes produced by the collectively experienced action–reflection process were per-
ceived in the field of behaviour, with the active involvement in activities, the systematic exer-
cise of creative and analytical skills, the development of problem-solving competences, and
the reinforcement of the autonomy in decision-making being particularly remarkable. This
strengthened the construction of democratic, less hierarchical, relationships inside the class-
room, and the fact that each and every protagonist acquired their own voice which would
be later assembled in the collective project. Ultimately, the creation of a real experience of
624    C. Tavares

an HRE process was achieved, since rights and responsibilities became a part of school life
and, outside the school, a part of the students’ and teachers’ own lives.
Also in the context of primary education, a PAR is being developed in several primary
schools of Pernambuco in north-east Brazil (Tavares 2015), a state that has incorporated HRE
as part of education public policies since 2007. This research is part of a study that began in
201216 (Tavares 2013) in which the concerns and difficulties that teachers face when it comes
to teaching HRE are made obvious, and the necessity to reconsider pedagogical practices is
highlighted. This way, the aforementioned PAR set as one of its objectives the investigation of
the pedagogical practices through their monitoring, analysis, and discussion in conjunction
with the teachers. Besides this, also established as an objective was the joint development of
an action plan to favour the overcoming of weaknesses and consolidate the progress in HRE
processes. Preliminary results showed a lack of adequacy between the existing pedagogical
practices in these schools and HRE. This fact has been acknowledged by the teachers, who
have discussed these lacks as well as their possible solutions or changes.
Through this process, the work potentiality of each school was assessed in terms of devel-
oping their own activities, holding exceptional events or school celebrations, or developing
planned, long-term actions, such as interdisciplinary projects or the introduction of subjects
about human rights to the school curriculum. With regard to the weaknesses, the most
remarkable are related to the school atmosphere and the cohabitation inside the classroom,
such as the seldom use of the school space as a medium to make human rights patent, the
insufficient HRE actions, and the lack of specific HRE training that enables individuals to
develop methodologies based on HRE.
The assessment of these potentialities and weaknesses entailed a coordinated dialogue
and reflection movement among all of the teachers, managerial staff, and students of
all schools with the objective of strengthening the positive aspects, and lessen the lacks
observed. Through involvement, dialogue, reflection, and critical analysis – typical resources
of PAR and basic for HRE – the agents involved developed an educational strategy in which
research and action were combined.
As a result of this process, each school developed an action plan defined by one of two
fields: ‘civic responsibility, values, and human rights’ and ‘gender and human rights’. The
activities of each plan included, among other actions, the assimilation of the typical human
rights contents as cross-curricular topics in all subjects and as the central concept of a polit-
ical–pedagogical project for the schools, lifelong learning, and the promotion of the prom-
inence of the youngsters.
Currently, the development of PAR is in the implementation stage in each of the schools,
always following the plan–reflection–action pattern. However, changes in pedagogical prac-
tices and in the behaviour of the involved agents are already perceptible. With regard to
pedagogical practices, actual classroom interaction is being fostered, and the context and the
starting out background of each student are being considered. With regard to the attitudes,
it can be perceived concern for some of the key elements of HRE, such as respect for diversity
and difference or interest in the reduction of the number of discriminatory occurrences.
One more example of PAR in formal education, this time in the context of a university, it
is being developed in Fortaleza, another important city in north-east Brazil, with law under-
graduates (Pimentel 2013). The research proposal consisted of coordinating three aspects
that, at first, are different: the production of knowledge about education and human rights,
the formation of law undergraduates, and the reality of the dispossessed. Through a series
 Educational Action Research   625

of reflection–action activities, the research lead to a political–educational intervention that

could improve the knowledge and the understanding of the people at risk of social exclu-
sion and, at the same time, promote the humanisation of their work life. That is, the research
sought to encourage the persons involved to adopt a critical and humanist view in combina-
tion with the active exercise of civic responsibility through the combination of PAR and HRE,
using the resources they have in common, namely critical skills, involvement, and dialogue.
The research was therefore not restricted to producing knowledge related to social exclu-
sion, vulnerability, and human rights. It also broadened its own viewpoint through genuine
praxis, with the objective of changing the perception that the students enrolled in the law
degree had about homeless people so they could make more human their professional and
social activity. The preliminary results of the experience mark that a better understanding
of social matters by the persons implied was fomented, as well as a strengthening of their
autonomy, their professional performance, and communication among persons of differ-
ent social background. Among the immediate changes in the participants it was recorded
that the ‘participatory experience had an impact in their education and in their perception
of social exclusion and human rights’ (Pimentel 2013, 4),17 replacing the lack of awareness
about the reality of homeless people with a genuine interest in finding and using the legal
resources needed to help the aforementioned part of the population. This research thus
provided an educational experience through PAR that had the promotion of human rights as
its central concept, and in which, beyond the theoretical contents learned, typical concepts
of HRE such as dialogue, empathy, and humanisation were put into practice.
In the context of non-formal education, two interesting examples of PAR have been iden-
tified. On the one hand, in Argentina, a PAR about the educational experiences of the human
rights bodies has been being developed using the opinions of their members as a starting
point (Arcuschin et al. 2011). Among their objectives were the creation of environments for
the exchange of knowledge and the creation of resources that contributed to reflection and
the transformation of educational actions, as well as the assessment of the links between
PAR and HRE.
To attain these goals, reflection about the agents’ own educational experiences was car-
ried out, seeking to intertwine data collection, coding, analysis, and interpretation of the
information throughout the process. Subsequently, three groups of preliminary categories
were created: the first related to the operation of the organism; the second dealt with the
contents which covered the relations with other institutions and with the state; and the
last was related to the pedagogical concepts insofar as they are elements that allow for the
identification of strains, conflicts, and educational debates (Arcuschin et al. 2011).
Since this work intended to provide clarity about the participatory resources so that the
advances in this field could be shared and discussed, the preliminary analysis of the data and
the reflection showed a continuous learning process experienced by the persons involved,
the encouragement of their capabilities to exercise their basic rights, the diversity of the
educational experiences, and potentialities of the educational practices related to the human
rights. It was in the latter that the links HRE and PAR were found, particularly with regard to
pedagogical assumptions and methodological issues.
Although the aforementioned PAR is still being carried out, it has already achieved its
target individuals changing some of their theoretical and practical conceptions, broadening
their capabilities. Evidence of those changes was found in the identification of common
problems in non-formal educational contexts, in the usage of contents related to human
626    C. Tavares

rights, and in the inclusion of typical HRE methodologies. In the near future, the introduction
of these changes will have a greater impact on the transformation of educational practices,
lessening the deficiencies still present.
In Mexico, on the other hand, a set of both action research and community intervention
activities was developed (Ortega 2005) with the help of the farmers involved in the Urban
Popular Movement. Their objective was developing research about the social representative-
ness of human rights in order to understand what they provided to the lives of the tenant
farmers, how they perceived the incorporation of human rights in education, and what the
characteristics of their collective actions were. This process of knowledge creation used
as a starting point everyday life experiences, as well as collective reflections and opinions
about the topic.
This research enabled the participants to perceive the positive aspects of exercising these
rights and express the difficulties they found for their actual accomplishment. Through the
celebration of workshops about human rights and community-related aspects, the skills for
collective involvement and the promotion of a defence and respect culture were strength-
ened. Concurrently, a self-managed proposal about the difficulties related to the inclusion
of human rights in the community was developed. As the project developed it eventually
become a space for reflection about concepts related to human rights, which pointed to lines
of action and alternative practices. According to Ortega (2005, 129), the participation in the
intervention process was significant for the group, since it defined a reflection–action space
‘from a comprehensive viewpoint of human rights that was constructed by themselves’.18
Among the results achieved, the most remarkable are the empowerment of the participants,
the fostering of an essential rights culture, and the reorientation of the activity of the Human
Rights Commission of Urban Popular Movement.
PAR therefore allowed the persons involved in the Urban Popular Movement understand
the limitations of their work, defining it through critical analysis that starts from a process
of active learning about human rights. It also promoted the creation of new intervention
strategies due to a comprehensive view of human rights and, therefore, a constant assem-
bling of the theoretical–practical training and participatory action.
In short, taking into account the experiences explained, it can be concluded that action
research in the field of HRE tends to focus on the educational practices and the interrelations
established in the environments in which those practices are implemented. With regard to
the results, in general terms an inadequacy of the educational practices applied in many
educational environments can be identified when it comes to providing a comprehensive
education, in opposition to the logic of liquidity that prevails in contemporary values and
social relations (Bauman 2010). Moreover, this also results in the need to rethink these educa-
tional environments and the actions undertaken in them, focusing on learning as a dialogic,
participatory, and interactive process. The proposals of intervention usually focus on the
necessities of each context and its related social actors, questioning training, and practice
humanisation, in order to promote reflection, involvement, autonomy, and transformation
of the reality. At this point, two aspects of the intervention work stand out: on the one hand,
the establishment of a community of reflection organised on the basis of dialogue from
different perspectives; and on the other, the active incorporation of all actors as a trigger for
the transformation of the actual actors themselves, shifting in this way from a participant
level to that of learning process holder.
 Educational Action Research   627

In this sense, the necessity of an education that integrates and coordinates the three axes
which form HRE – knowledge, values, and capability to act (UN 2006) – and that is based
on the processes of knowing/understanding and observing in order to take into account
the actual demands of the different learning experiences becomes clear. Likewise, it is also
necessary to open environments for both the men and women involved in the process,
for the collective production of knowledge, and for a change in reality. This is so primarily
because what the work in HRE seeks is, as Candau (2000, 6) explains, ‘transforming attitudes,
mentalities, behaviours, organisation dynamics, and ordinary practices of the different social
actors and educational institutions’.19
Therefore, according to the conclusions that can be inferred from the analysed expe-
riences, PAR was chosen as a study method in all cases because it presents as a ‘research
methodology and a social intervention process’ at the same time as it:
poses the analysis of the reality as a way of understanding and increasing the sensitivity of the
population itself, which becomes, through this process, both active part and protagonist of a
project of development and transformation of its most immediate environment and reality.
(Rodríguez, Martín, and Álvarez 2001, 9)20
This way, it contributes to the principles of the process of HRE, and more specifically to the
interdisciplinary view of learning, the acknowledging of the dimension of historicity, the
priority of the dialogic proposals, an approach opposed to exclusion, and ethic commitment
as a role for society (Ramírez 2004, 11–12).

The potential of action research in HRE

The experiences related to action research carried out in the field of HRE in Latin America
that are treated in this article as well as their contributions to the communities where they
were developed highlight the common aspects and the intertwining between the action
and research practices and the education in human rights. The results of the aforementioned
experiences reveal that HRE-related research studies that adopt PAR as their methodology
increase greatly the potential of the research process itself, insofar as it does not just seek
to know but also to understand and change.
As can be seen, HRE aims at building critical and active educational processes that make
a change in mentalities and attitudes possible through the involvement and experience of
human rights, provoking the attainment of changes in society. This task requires an inte-
gration of theory and practice, as well as a practice that develops on the basis of a reflec-
tion–practice–reflection process, so that it can contribute to a consciousness-raising about
reality (Freire 1968, 1997).
Additionally, there are a series of idées-forces, explained by Magendzo (2010), which must
guide the efforts in this area: HRE is, essentially, a political education; it must be an ethical
and moral education; it must be contextualised; its conception has to change from nor-
mative-legal to a holistic, educational, and comprehensive one; it has to contribute to the
consolidation of peace and democracy; and it must contribute to construct the subject of law.
All of this demands researching and reflecting actions that allow the human resources
educator to rethink his labour and develop constantly. From this viewpoint, the methodol-
ogy with the greatest potential is action research, because of its proposal, objectives, and
methods and, particularly, because of the educational–methodological foundations it has
in common with HRE.
628    C. Tavares

Díaz (2002, 42 and 26) supports this approach, asserting that HRE ‘cannot be understood
but as an exercise participant research, of critical and transforming action research’ and that,
therefore, it must reflect on and research its own practice. Hence, he continues, ‘critically
oriented action research is a useful tool to improve the diagnosis and the transformation of
the educational reality itself’.21
Besides this, a work that aims to make changes in the education field needs to be sup-
ported by methodological criteria similar to those posed by PAR. No wonder the starting point
is practice itself: through its understanding, PAR can be improved, promote the participation
of the persons involved, and achieve an actual collective action (Carr and Kemmis 1988).
All this became self-evident in a collection of research studies analysed in the previous
section. These research studies, carried out both in formal and non-formal education, allowed
for the incorporation of key resources and learnings such as reflection, collective construc-
tion, and production, and the carrying out of actions that seek to transform the reality. Costa
Rican and Chilean schools, for instance, were able to overcome deficiencies related to the
lack of democratic practices and a collective work atmosphere was achieved through the
typical work process of HRE in combination with PAR. Through this process, questions such
as participation, dialogue, critical analysis, and action were made a reality.
A deepening of the interconnection between HRE and PAR shows how the former intends
to support the empowerment of both men and women, their autonomy, and their critical
thinking through humanising, democratic, and dialogic practices; fostering social changes.
The latter, besides contemplating all these aspects, is a way of democratising knowledge
due to the fact that, through its use, it is possible ‘to study dynamically problems, decisions,
actions, negotiations, conflicts, and awareness-raising that take place among the agents
during the process of transformation of the situation’22 (Thiollent 2011, 25). PAR thus focuses
on the subject–subject relationship, and takes as a starting point the needs of the people
involved, giving them prominence during the process at the same time as action research
work becomes a tool for mobilisation and emancipation, turning into a dynamic experience
that transforms the cultural and social context.
From this point of view, it is possible to continue identifying the key points that they
have in common and show to what extent PAR is important in the HRE process itself. These
key points are coherence between theory and practice, collective knowledge production,
the transforming potential of the subject, the thrust for change, the favouring of the col-
lective and individual empowerment process,23 and the promotion of the participative and
democratic social relations. In other words, from the formative-emancipatory character of
PAR it is possible to rethink the educational practice in HRE, whose aspirations are: knowing
one’s human rights; stimulation of a balanced self-esteem; fostering discussion skills; and
promotion of an active and participative citizenship (Candau et al. 2013).
Precisely because it is a collective research and learning method, based on the partaking
of persons involved in the reality studied and in a critical analysis of that reality, PAR can per-
form a reflective examination of HRE itself. The main contribution of this methodology to HRE
derives from its three core elements: ’a) being a methodology for change; b) promoting the
involvement and self-determination of the persons who use it; and c) being the expression
of the dialectical relation between knowledge and action’24 (Falabella 2002, 10). Because of
this, in its application to education, PAR permits one to understand teaching as a process
of research, making possible the development of educational and self-managed activities.
Besides this, taking into account that training about democratic practices and human
rights respect which teachers receive demands ‘distributing knowledge equitably, respect
 Educational Action Research   629

differences, and solve conflicts in a collaborative way’25 (Magendzo 1994, 142), the adoption
of PAR in the context of HRE is also justified by the following reasons:
Being a research that integrates, at a training level, researchers and participants; being a kind of
study that induce, motivate, and strengthen the cognitive and affective mechanisms of individ-
uals; being a research that works on the dialectical complexity of the educational process; being
a research that permits teachers to learn how to converse with themselves, with the teaching
practice, and with the contexts of their practice.26 (Franco 2012, 2)
All this makes the human rights educators need PAR to develop their work in a way in which
they constantly reconsider the HRE process so that they can improve it and overcome the
challenges arising from its practice. Likewise, PAR provides the conditions for both reflection
and intervention in situations linked to HRE in broader contexts, such as communities. Either
in a classroom, in a school, or in a non-formal educational environment or communities,
the HRE process – whose wish is the education of the subject of law – aided by PAR, will be
able to delve into a pedagogical work that combines the emancipatory and transforming
dimensions of education.

Conclusion: future challenges

HRE acts in the holistic education of individuals, contributing to their development as sub-
jects of law. Because of this, HRE must be the central concept of the educational process in
any society that desires to live in accordance with the democratic principles.
In all Latin American countries HRE has recently achieved remarkable advances. Since
its appearance in non-formal education HRE spread to formal education and, from there, it
eventually became part of public policies. Changes have taken place slowly, and there still
exist significant challenges that become evident when the existing deficiencies and tensions
in the development of HRE are identified. However, the prospects of improvement are still
clear. In fact, the process developed in the region shows that ‘in Latin America, HRE consti-
tutes a far reaching project, that fortunately manages to overcome traditional view that
reduce them to the legal and theological spheres to become part of the current compelling
social, political and economic context’27 (Ramírez 2004, 9–10).
Several authors from different countries have undertaken studies about HRE in recent
years. Their contributions show the achievements in HRE and the challenges it currently
faces, at the same time as they keep open the debate about the research process, as well as
its findings and limitations.
From the works written in the last decade, it can be concluded that, in general terms, the
studies about HRE rely to a large extent on field research and experience reports, and that
action research has not yet become widespread. This in itself is a clear challenge when it
comes to education in human rights. This challenge is also spreading the use of PAR, so that
the areas of knowing-understanding and acting can be combined more suitably, since this
methodology provides a wider and more effective scope of possibilities for the analysis and
rethinking of the studied reality, contributing in this way to its transformation.
The potential of PAR and HRE has been made evident in the analysed studies. These
studies, generally focused on educational practices and the environments in which they
develop, made possible the identification of the lack of adequacy of educational practices
applied in many educational environments, as well as the necessity to redesign those envi-
ronments and the actions applied in them. Likewise, the interventions made by the research
team and their individual members made possible the creation of a reflection community,
630    C. Tavares

the active participation of all the actors implied, their appropriation of the process, and the
transformation of both the individuals and the reality addressed.
In this sense, the importance – within the process of HRE – of research and reflection
actions that are based in constant training and the construction of an education ’for social
and political responsibility’ (Freire 2009) becomes evident. Equally obvious and important
are the ‘active strategies that promote the projects were theory, practice, cognitive and
affective factors, and specific social practices collaborate’ (Candau 2000, 6). PAR therefore
becomes a resource for the construction of knowledge and for social intervention that
crystallises through dialogue, involvement, critical analysis, and both group and individual
transformations.
In other words, the presence of PAR in HRE processes favours a constant assessment of the
whole process, its improvement, and its relation with the challenges that arise in its practice.
It also makes possible the improvement of a teaching practice in which the emancipatory
and transforming dimensions of education are combined.
In short, the consolidation of a democratic and egalitarian culture that is respectful of
human rights demands to continue moving in this direction, favouring the combination of
HRE and PAR and broadening gradually its scope of action.

Notes
 1. Action research is characterised by constructing the research of a particular reality by making
a proposal of change to modify the aforementioned reality; that is, constructing the knowing
and acting process, involving the subject population in them.
 2. Field research is understood as a research that involves the collecting, processing, analysing,
and presentation of data based on the direct analysis of the studied context.
 3. Author’s own translation.
 4. Tripp (2003) mentions a work found in Germany in 1913. Alternatively, he also states that,
according to other accounts, action research was used for the first time by John Collier during
World War II. Finally, he points out that the germ of concepts such as ‘reflection’ or ‘action
research’ can be recognised in the work of John Dewey.
 5. Author’s own translation.
 6. Author’s own translation.
 7. Author’s own translation.
 8. Author’s own translation.
 9. The third colloquium was held in Argentina in 2011, the fourth colloquium in Chile in 2012,
and the fifth colloquium in Brazil in 2013.
10. These articles were taken from the following institutions, bodies, or repositories: Latin
American, Caribbean, and Spain  and Portugal's scientific  journals’  network; Inter-American
Institute of Human Rights (Revista IIHR); OEI (Revista Iberoamericana de Educación); OAS
(Revisa Inter-Americana de Educación para la Democracia); National University of Costa Rica
(Revista Latinoamericana de Derechos Humanos); National Autonomous University of Mexico
(Revista Latinoamericana de Derecho Social); Mexican Council of Educational Research (Revista
Mexicana de Investigación Educativa); Simón Bolívar Andean University, Ecuador (Revista Aportes
Andinos); University of Buenos Aires (Academia – Revista sobre Enseñanza del Derecho); Pontifical
Catholic University of Chile (Pensamiento Educativo – Revista de Investigación Educacional
Latinoamericana); São Paulo State University, Brazil (Revista Interdisciplinar de Direitos Humanos);
São Paulo State University (Revista Educação e Pesquisa); and National Association of Policy
and Educational Administration (Revista Brasileira de Política e Administração da Educação). Most
of the articles related to HRE were found in IIHR and in Revista Inter-Americana de Educación
para la Democracia. The only journal that did not include articles related to the topic of this
research is Revista Latinoamericana de Derecho Social.
 Educational Action Research   631

11. Details about the materials used can be found in the Bibliography.

12. The debate about the effectivity of action research in HRE will be dealt with in the third section,
‘The potential of action research in HRE’.
13. The reports developed by the IIDH are available online: www.iidh.edu.cr.
14. All of the studies analysed in this section made use of the PAR methodology. Pestaña and Alcazar
(2009, 1), citing Merino and Raya, make clear that action research implies the ‘application of
the scientific method to a problem with a praxeological intention and with the intervention
of the persons affected to a certain extent’, where PAR incorporates ‘the assumptions of critical
epistemology, organises the analysis and the intervention as a constructive pedagogy and make
the disappearance of the privileges of the research process the starting point of a social change
of indeterminable significance’. Additionally, it is ‘characterised by its collective character, and
by yielding results which are used and managed by the implied persons themselves’.
15.  Author’s own translation.
16. The study started in 2012 was organised into four sections. The first, developed from 2012 to
2013, was dedicated to the study of the inclusion of HRE in the public schools of the Recife
Metropolitan Area (capital city of Pernambuco). The second section, developed between 2013
and 2014, was devoted to the study of the same subject in the schools of the inner part of
Pernambuco. The third and current stage, which is to develop between 2014 and 2015, is
devoted to carry out an action research in the whole state. In the next stage, which will cover
2015 and 2016, there will be monitoring of an intervention plan in the aforementioned schools
that has been being constructed collectively through 2014. This study is being carried out with
the support of the Foundation of Science and Technology Support of the State of Pernambuco.
17. Author’s own translation.
18. Author’s own translation.
19. Author’s own translation.
20. Author’s own translation.
21. Author’s own translation.
22. Author’s own translation.
23. Being a non-linear process, this empowerment is perceived as a ‘complex, multidimensional,
personal, genuine, and participatory process that happens through experience’ (Méndez 2006,
93). From this point of view, ‘the process of challenging the existing power relations as well as
gaining more control over power sources can be called empowerment’ (Batliwala 1997, 193;
original emphasis).
24.  Author’s own translation.
25.  Author’s own translation.
26.  Author’s own translation.
27.  Author’s own translation.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Arcuschin, Lara, et al. 2011. “Investigación acción participativa y educación en derechos humanos: un
estudio sobre las experiencias de organismos de DDHH.” [Participatory action research and human
Rights education: an study on the experiencies of HR] In Coloquio Interamericano Educación y
Derechos Humanos, edited by I. I. I. del Actas, 234–248. Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
Barbier, Rener. 2002. A pesquisa-ação. [An action research] Brasília DF: Plano.
Bardin, Laurence. 1977. Análise de conteúdo. [Content Analysis] Lisboa: Edições 70.
Batliwala, Srilatha. 1997. “El significado del empoderamiento de las mujeres: nuevos conceptos desde
la acción.” [The meaning of the empowerment of the women: new concepts from the action] In
Poder y empoderamiento de las mujeres, edited by Magdalena León, 187–211. Santa Fe de Bogotá:
T/M Editores.
632    C. Tavares

Bauman, Zygmunt. 2010. Capitalismo parasitário. [Parasitic capitalism] Rio de Janeiro: Zahar.
Benevides, Maria Victoria. 1991. A Cidadania Ativa. [An active citizenship] São Paulo: Ática.
Brasil. Ministério da Educação. 2006. Plano Nacional de Educação em Direitos Humanos. [Human rights
national action plan] Brasília: MEC/SEDH.
Candau, Vera. 2000. “Direitos Humanos na Formação de Professores/a.” [Human rights in the formation
of teachers] In X ENDIPE –Ensinar e aprender: sujeitos, saberes, espaços e tempos [X ENDIPE Teaching
and learning: subjects, knowledges, times and places], 1–13. Rio de Janeiro: Endipe.
Candau, Vera, et al. 2013. Educação em direitos humanos e formação de professores(as). [Human rights
education and the formation of teachers] São Paulo: Cortez.
Carr, Wilfred, and Sthepen Kemmis. 1988. Teoría crítica de la enseñanza. [Critical theory of education]
La investigación-acción en la formación del profesorado. [The action research in the formation of
teachers] Barcelona: Martínez Roca.
Colmenares, Mercedes. 2012. “Investigación-acción participativa: una metodología integradora del
conocimiento y la acción.” [Participatory action research: an integrate methodology of knowledge
and action] Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación [Voices and silences: Latin America
review of education], 3 (1): 102–115.
Díaz, José Rafael. 2002. La investigación-acción y la educación en derechos humanos. [Action research
and human rights education] México: Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Distrito Federal.
Falabella, Gonzalo. 2002. “Investigación participativa: nacimiento y relevancia de un nuevo encuentro
ciencia-sociedad.” [Participatory research: origin and relevance of a new science-society meeting]
In Experiencias y metodología de la investigación participativa [Participatory action experiences and
methodology], edited by John Durston and Francisca Miranda, 19–32. Santiago de Chile: Cepal.
Franco, Maria Amélia. 2005. “Pedagogia da pesquisa-ação.” [Action research pedagogy] In Educação e
Pesquisa [Education and investigation], 483–502. São Paulo, v. 31, n. 3, set./dez.
Franco, Maria Amélia. 2012. “Práticas colaborativas na escola: as possibilidades da pesquisa-ação
pedagógica.” [Collaborative practices in schools: the potential of the action research pedagogy] Anais
do XVI ENDIPE - Encontro Nacional de Didática e Práticas de Ensino Campinas [XVI ENDIPE. National
meeting on education didactis and practices], 1–14. Campina: UNICAMP.
Freire, Paulo. 1968. Pedagogia do oprimido. [Pedagogy of the oppressed] Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Freire, Paulo. 1997. Pedagogia da autonomia: saberes necessários à prática educativa. [Pedagogy of
autonomy: knowledge necessary and educational practice] Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Freire, Paulo. 2009. Educação como prática da liberdade. [Education for critical consciousness] Rio de
Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Ghedin, Evandro, and Maria Amélia Franco. 2008. Questões de método na construção da pesquisa em
educação. [Methodological issues on the education research] São Paulo: Cortez.
Gil, Antonio Carlos. 1994. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. [Methods and techniques of social
research] São Paulo: Atlas.
IIDH. 2013. El Derecho a la Educación en Derechos Humanos en las Américas 2000–2013. [The right to
human right education in Las Américas 2000-2013] San José, Costa Rica: IIDH.
Kastanis, Eduardo, Juny Vargas and Daniel Suárez. 2009. “Investigación-acción participativa en la
educación latinoamericana.” [Participatory action research in the Latin America education] Revista
Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 14 (40): 289–308.
Latorre, Antonio. 2007. La investigación-acción. Conocer y cambiar la práctica educativa. [The action
research. Knowing and changing the education] Barcelona, España: Grao.
Lüdke, Menga, and Marli André. 1986. Pesquisa em educação: abordagens qualitativas. [Research in
education: a qualitative approach] São Paulo: EPU.
Magendzo, Abraham. 1994. “Formación de profesores para una educación para la vida democrática y
el respeto a los Derechos Humanos.” [Training of teacher to a democratic education and the respect
to human rights] In Magendzo, Abraham. Educación en derechos humanos: apuntes para una nueva
práctica [Human rights education: notes to a new practice], 139–146. Santiago: CNRR-PIIE.
Magendzo, Abraham. 1999. La educación en derechos humanos en América Latina: una mirada de fin de
siglo. [Human right education in Latin America: a glance to the end of the century] Costa Rica: IIDH.
Magendzo, Abraham. 2010. Pensamiento e ideas-fuerza de la educación en derechos humanos en
Iberoamérica. [Thinking and core idea to the human rights education in Iberoamerica] Santiago,
Chile: OIE/Orealc/Unesco.
 Educational Action Research   633

Méndez, Irene. 2006. “Más allá del desarrollo: la estrategia del empoderamiento.” [Beyond the
development: the empowerment strategies] In Carballo de la riva, M. Género y Desarrollo: el camino
hacia la equidad [Gender and development: the path to equality], 87–111. Madrid: Catarata.
OAS. 1988. Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights. “Protocol of San Salvador”. General Assembly of OAS. El Salvador.
OAS. 2007. “Panama Act” on Human Right Education, adopted by the “I Encuentro Interamericano de
Ministros de Educación sobre Educación en Derechos Humanos”. Panamá.
OAS. 2010. Interamerican Pact on Human Right Education, adopted by the “4 plenary sessión of the
40 General Assembly of OAS”. Lima.
OAS. 2013. “Guatemala Act” on Human Right Education, adopted by “II Encuentro Interamericano de
Ministros de Educación sobre Educación en Derechos Humanos”. Guatemala.
Ortega, José Joel Vázquez. 2005. “Investigación-acción en derechos humanos: su representación social
en el Movimiento Urbano Popular.” [The action research in human rigths: its social representation in
the Popular Urban Movement] In Polis: Investigación y Análisis Sociopolítico y Psicosocial [Sociopolitic
and psychosocial research and analysis], 101–134, vol. 1, núm. 2. México: Universidad Autónoma
Metropolitana.
Pestaña, José L. Moreno and Mª Ángeles Álcazar, s/f. 2009. “Investigación-acción participativa.”
[Participatory action research] Edited by Román Reyes. Diccionario Crítico de Ciencias Sociales. [Critical
dictionary of social sciences]. Accessed 2014, October 15. www.ucm.es/info/eurotheo/diccionario/I/
invest_accionparticipativa.htm.
Pimentel, Lidia. 2013. Direitos humanos, exclusão e vulnerabilidade da população em situação de rua
de Fortaleza - Pesquisa-ação como contribuição para educação em Direitos Humanos na FFB [Human
rights, exclusion and vulnerability in the homeless population in Fortaleza-Action research to
education in human rights in FFB] – Fortaleza/CE, in Anais do V Colóquio Interamericano de Educação
em Direitos Humanos. [Acts of the 5th Interamerican meeting of human rights education] Goiás:
Universidade Federal de Goiás.
Prieto, Marcia. 2003. “Educación para la democracia en las escuelas: un desafío pendiente.” [Education
to democratic schools: a pending challenge] in Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, Sesión
Investigaciones y Estudios. Edited by Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos para la Educación,
la Ciencia y la Cultura.
Ramírez, Gloria. 2004. Se acata pero no se cumple: la educación en derechos humanos desde la perspectiva
latinoamericana ante las exigencias de la democracia: balance, retos y utopías. [Accept but don't
comply: human rights education in Latin America and the democratic demands: assessments,
challenges and utopias] Barcelona, España: Institut de Drets Humans de Catalunya. (Curs Drets
Humans, 22).
Rodino, Ana María. 2010. “Progresos de la educación en derechos humanos en América Latina: balance
de dos décadas (1990–2010).” [Human rights education improvements in Latin America: story of two
decades] In en Derechos Humanos: la Educación en Derechos Humanos [Human rights: human rights
education] 28, edited by Curso Interdisciplinario, 10–20. San José, Costa Rica: IIDH.
Rodino, Ana María. 2012. “¿Qué revelan las investigaciones sobre las actuales prácticas pedagógicas
y didácticas de educación en derechos humanos en América Latina?” [The researchs on the latest
pedagogical practices in human rights in Latin America. What do they reveal?] In XVI ENDIPE -
Encontro Nacional de Didática e Práticas de Ensino. [XVI ENDIPE. National meeting on education
didactis and practices] Campinas: UNICAMP.
Rodríguez, Manuel Basagoiti, and Paloma Bru Martín and Concha Lorenzana Álvarez. 2001. Investigación-
acción Participativa. [Participatory action research] Madrid: Acsur-Las Segovias.
Rojas, Aida Chavarría. 2011. “La investigación-acción participativa como vivencia para el mejoramiento
de las relaciones interpersonales en el aula, el caso de un octavo año en un colegio herediano.”
[The participatory action research as a tool to improve the relationship in the classroom: the case
of a herediano school] In Coloquio Interamericano Educación y Derechos Humanos [Latin America
meeting of education and human rights], edited by I. I. I. del Actas, 1–8. Argentina: Universidad
Nacional de Quilmes.
Tavares, Celma. 2007. “Educar em direitos humanos: o desafio da formação dos educadores numa
perspectiva interdisciplinar.” [Human rights education: the challenge of the training of educator from
a interdisciplinary perspective] In Educação em direitos humanos: fundamentos teórico-metodológicos
634    C. Tavares

[Human rights education: theoretical and methodological fundaments], edited by Rosa Maria Godoy
et al, 487–503. João Pessoa: Ed. UFPB.
Tavares, Celma. 2013. Educação em direitos humanos no ensino formal: reflexões sobre sua inserção nas
escolas públicas da Região Metropolitana do Recife [Human rights education in the formal education:
thoughts on the public schools in Metropolitan Recife]. In Anais do V Colóquio Interamericano de
Educação em Direitos Humanos. [Acts of the 5th Interamerican meeting of human rights education]
Goiás: Universidade Federal de Goiás.
Tavares, Celma. 2015. Educação em Direitos Humanos no Ensino Formal em Pernambuco: uma análise
da prática pedagógica. Relatório de pesquisa 2014–2015. [Human rights education in the formal
education in Pernambuco: an analysis of the pedagogical action. A research 2014–2015] Recife:
Facepe-UFPE.
Thiollent, Michel. 2011. Metodologia da pesquisa-ação. [The methodology of the action research] São
Paulo: Cortez.
Tripp, David. 2003. “Pesquisa-ação: uma introdução metodológica.” [Research-action: a methodological
introduction] In Educação e Pesquisa [Education and Research], 443–466. São Paulo, v. 31, n.3.
United Nations. 1948, December 10. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Resolution 217A (III).
Paris: United Nations.
United Nations. 2004. World Programme for Human Rights Education. Resolution 59/113. Geneva:
United Nations.
United Nations. 2006. Plan of Action for the first phase (2005–2007) of the World Programme for Human
Rights Education. Resolution 58/113 B.
United Nations. 1994. United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995–2004). Resolution nº
49/184.

Bibliography
Bittar, Eduardo. 2008. Educação e metodologia para os direitos humanos. São Paulo: Quartier Latin.
Candau, Vera, and Suzana Sacavino. 2008. Educação em Direitos Humanos. Rio de Janeiro: Novamérica.
Contreras, JuanCarlos Gutiérrez. 2006. Educación en Derechos Humanos. México: UNAM.
Godoy, Rosa, et al. 2007. Educação em Direitos Humanos: fundamentos teóricos-metodológicos. João
Pessoa: Editora da UFPB.
Magendzo, Abraham. 2006. Educación en derechos humanos: un desafío para los docentes de hoy.
Santiago de Chile: LOM Ediciones.
Magendzo, Abraham. 2008. La escuela y los derechos humanos. México: Cay y Arena.
Mujica, Rosa María. 2002. La metodología de la educación en derechos humanos. San José de Costa
Rica: IIDH.
Ramírez, Gloria. 2005. La educación ciudadana ante los retos de la democracia en México. México: Unesco
Office.
Rodino, Ana María. 2003. La educación en valores entendida como educación en derechos humanos: sus
desafíos contemporáneos en América Latina. Costa Rica: IIDH.
Sacavino, Suzana. 2013. Educação em Direitos Humanos - Pedagogias desde o Sul. Rio de Janeiro:
Novamérica.
Salvioli, Fabián. 2009. La universidad y la educación en el siglo XXI: los derechos humanos como pilares de
la nueva reforma universitaria. San José de Costa Rica: IIDH.
UNESCO. 2003. La Educación Superior en Derechos Humanos en América Latina y el Caribe. México: Unesco
Office.
UNESCO, IIDH. 2008. Educación para la paz, la convivencia democrática y los derechos humanos. San José
de Costa Rica: Unesco, IIDH, Costa Rica.