Play for Peace as a Violence Prevention Model

Abstract

Violence prevention is a key focus for many intervention programs, yet little is known about how or why certain programs are able to successfully produce effective prevention efforts. The purpose of this study was to identify the essential elements of the Play for Peace (PFP) program, how it creates change in participants, and how it is successfully implemented in communities. Using an intrinsic case study research design, data were collected from participant observation and interviews and systematically sorted and triangulated to identify patterns and generalizations. Based on these findings, a multi-level experiential learning model emerged. This model focused on empowering individuals to be actively contributing and civically responsible citizens, striving with a strong will to achieve and maintain the peaceful coexistence of a nonviolent community (i.e., a culture of voluntad y convivencia). Recommendations on how to expand the positive effects of the PFP program are discussed.

Keywords

peace education violence prevention experiential adventure learning

As a perpetrating entity, no other human experience harbors more destructive levels of social interaction than violence. Whether expressed through school bullying, rape, or ethnic cleansing, violence creates deep wounds and leaves irreparable scars across societal entities. Although often linked to disintegrating social and economic factors, violence is a complex phenomenon often difficult to reduce or eliminate from a communal structure once it has infiltrated its boundaries. According to the World Health Organization (WHO; 2016), violence (especially youth violence)

has a serious, often lifelong, impact on a person’s psychological and social functioning . . . that greatly increases the costs of health, welfare, and criminal justice services; reduces productivity; decreases the value of property; and generally undermines the fabric of society. (p. 1)

A prime example of such widespread violence, income disparities, and social disintegration is in the country of Guatemala. As part of the Northern Triangle in Central America, it is considered one of the most dangerous areas in the world (Dudley & Muggah, 2013). In its annual report, the Human Rights Watch Organization (2016) identified multiple expressions of violence in Guatemala, including (a) illegally armed groups, criminal gangs, and well-organized youth gangs all contributing to escalating violence; (b) Mexican drug cartels adding to the violence, often making some regions of the country ungovernable; (c) a justice system often incapable of curbing violence containing criminal gangs; (d) the lack of freedom and ability for labor groups to organize and bargain collectively; (e) high rates (>16%) of child labor abuses in unsafe conditions; (f) gender-based violence against women; (g) limited palliative care for many patients living in extreme pain; and (h) focused attacks and threats against human rights defenders. In this region, youth are seen as both victims and perpetrators of violence with gang life a daily reality for the civilian population. The effect this violence has on the population is overwhelming, so much that the WHO declared youth violence as a global health problem and recommended the need for effective prevention programs (WHO, 2016).

One program in Guatemala experiencing emerging success in counteracting the spread of violence in communities is the Play for Peace (PFP) program. PFP is a not-for-profit organization headquartered in the United States with programming in Guatemala since 1998. PFP is part of a national violence prevention effort seeking to make Guatemala a safer place by training youth to be peace-builders and role models for children and adults in their community. The four goals of PFP are to (a) promote positive relationships among the people of societies in conflict, (b) foster leaders for peace around the world, (c) build self-sustaining learning communities where all regions work interdependently to build a more peaceful world, and (d) create a non-threatening environment, free from fear, where people of all ages can experience the joy of play. PFP is an experiential program sharing many of the same qualities of other peace education, conflict resolution, and violence prevention programs for youth (Hettler & Johnson, 2009).

Although multiple efforts have been made to address issues of violence with children and youth through such programs, the results have been mixed. One of the major confounding factors in the creation of intervention programs for youth violence has been a lack of knowledge on what factors are effective and how positive outcomes can be achieved. The inability to truly understand the pertinent elements of a constructive program has often been labeled as the “black box phenomena” (Baldwin, Persing, & Magnuson, 2004; Parchem, 1975; Priest & Gass, 2005). Understanding the appropriate factors, and offering the correct combination at the proper level of intervention, often holds the key to unlocking the creation and replication of effective violence prevention programs with youth and communities.

Method

Given the purposes of this study and permission granted from the lead author’s institutional review board (IRB), the methodology selected for use was an intrinsic case study research design with a direct interpretation approach to attain an understanding of the PFP program (Stake, 1995; Yazan, 2015). This type of case study research centers its focus on one particular program, seeking to identify cause and effect relationships and determine how events occurred as well as which ones may influence particular outcomes (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011). The study also simultaneously used data collection and data analyses processes to increase the validity of the study. Specific and clear triangulation processes were also a key factor in validating the data.

PFP Program

A self-sustaining PFP learning community (or Step No. 4 in the PFP “Pathway to Peace” program) is one where a group of concerned citizens, led by diverse youth leaders as part of the PFP Club program, actively participate in the development of their community. The youth and their local mentors receive the PFP Training Curriculum, Level 1 to 3 (i.e., the Joy of Play, Facilitation Skills, and Community Action Skills) from a PFP Certified Trainer. PFP youth facilitators lead Practice Peace Sessions using a wide range of cooperative play activities with younger children or volunteer community service projects. Practice Peace Sessions teach and role model PFP core values of cooperation, inclusion, caring, and fun bringing children, youth, and adults from divided societies together through the joy of play. They also participate in Level 4 training, or “on-going learning,” of relevant topics and connecting with other PFP Clubs around the world.

PFP youth meet weekly to plan and practice their peace education activities, conducting Practice Peace Sessions (2 hr of cooperative play activities with a learning component) with children on a weekly or monthly basis. This allows youth to be leaders in a safe and supportive environment. The nature of work makes the community (teachers and parents of children) take notice of the youth leadership. The affection and appreciation received by the youth creates a shift in their confidence. As they develop a positive frame of mind about themselves, they look forward to their life, want to become successful, and begin valuing peace as a necessary condition for that to happen. The process works on many fronts as it helps young people acquire and enhance their life skills, deepening their awareness of themselves, their community, and the world. Their participation in PFP encourages critical thinking and moving beyond knowledge and understanding to analysis, synthesis, and creation. PFP youth build skills and deep understanding in areas of leadership, communication, problem solving, collaborative decision making, compassion, and peace. From even the most humble beginnings, youth facilitators make powerful and lasting contributions to their communities. They become agents for change and leaders of peace.

Setting

The town of Palencia has a population of approximately 50,000 people. It is a rural town of modest development despite being so close to the capital city (45-min drive). It has a semi tropical climate with two seasons (rainy and dry) and temperatures that fall between 50 °F and 90 °F. It is hilly with primarily cement block buildings painted with advertisements. Motos, cars, and old U.S. school buses make light traffic. Kids in school uniforms and street dogs are what are most commonly seen. Violence tends to come in waves, and mugging is very common despite active community life. Most inhabitants live on low middle-class incomes and work in Guatemala City as security guards or in factories. Spanish is the main language for primarily a Ladino population. Pace of life is slower, and agricultural farms surround the city.

Data Collection

Participant observation

The first source of data came from a half-day program conducted by PFP facilitators and observed by the researchers. This particular program, a Practice Peace Session, was an activity facilitated by a PFP member. Practice Peace Sessions create a safe environment for kids, youth, and adults to connect, learn, and grow as a community. Practice Peace Sessions can take many forms, but always use cooperative play and range from 20 min to half a day long. Trained youth facilitators, aged 12 through 21 years old, lead the Practice Peace Sessions.

The Practice Peace Session was held in Pueblo Nuevo, a township next to the larger town of Palencia. The experiences of this particular day focused on teaching and practicing cooperation. The youth facilitators were somewhat apprehensive as it was the first time they were responsible for inviting other children to participate. They also had the responsibilities of securing permission to use the private park and setting the agenda of activities without their mentor directly involved in the process. More than 100 children arrived at different times throughout the Session, many new to PFP activities, and were invited to join one of the three play circles. The researchers rotated their observations of the various PFP experiences occurring in each play circle. Information obtained from observations focused on collecting information on the research question. This “lens of observation” became the guide for researchers’ observations. This experience was conducted in this manner to maximize the usefulness of the data (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011). This guided process created multiple field notes that represented observers’ insights and perspectives. These notes were generated from observations and interviews to help guide the intersection of knowledge generated by participants, researchers, and the literature in the field of violence prevention and peace education programs.

Interviews

The second data source came from two different yet supporting interview processes with youth facilitators. For the first interview process, random participants representing a wide range of experience with the PFP program were selected for the interview process. A total of 17 interviews were conducted. Interview protocols were proactively established with open-ended questions. Participants were interviewed in settings where distractions did not occur. The interview process could be described as semi-structured in approach, inviting interviewees to (a) express themselves, (b) symbolically project learning from the PFP experiences on to resolving issues of community violence, and (c) define the reality of the PFP program from their own perspective.

Following these interviews, a second interview was used to further the data collection process. This process, referred to as the Sticky Note exercise (American Association of University Women, 2014), was originally designed for use in organizational strategic planning. The major advantage of this data collection methodology is that it accesses input from multiple sources of information all at once, taking advantage of the systemic elements of the experience as well as the individual elements found in individual interviews. This was done individually and interactively in a large group by answering the question of “What makes PFP work?” In responding to this question, each participant was asked to write one response on a single Sticky Note. Participants could write as many responses as they wanted, but only one response on each Sticky Note. Each individual did this separately, and participants are asked not to withhold or filter any of their ideas. Once they completed writing their responses, they were asked to go place their sticky notes on a blank wall in the room. Group members were asked to read all the responses silently and add additional responses that came to mind from this reading process. The only verbal dialogue permitted between participants was questions that clarified written responses. This process generated 179 individual Concept notes just from the 36 youth facilitators.

Data Analyses

One of the most important features of data collection and analysis is the concept of triangulating information from multiple sources of evidence. The two types of triangulation used in the study were data triangulation and investigator triangulation (Yazan, 2015). The convergence of evidence that occurred from data triangulation came from direct observations of programming, participant observations, field notes, and semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions. Regarding investigator triangulation, each of these sources provided unique perspectives: (a) 36 youth facilitators, (b) a cultural specialist, (c) a pedagogical specialist, (d) three adventure facilitator specialists, and (e) a program administrator.

The focus of the data analyses followed a direct interpretation of evolving patterns and generalizations. The search for consistent patterns, called “correspondence” by Stake (1995), guided the analysis process in the search for understanding the behaviors, issues, and context of the PFP program. As the data were interpreted, it was sorted into categories to establish generalizations.

There were two major steps in the correspondence process of the study used to organize, categorize, and analyze the data. The first was done immediately following the data collection process of the Sticky note exercise. Here the research team facilitated the development of categories by youth facilitators based on the 179 Sticky notes. This was done in 2 hr in a consensus-building process. Once this was completed, a second data analysis occurred that brought together triangulated data from the participant observation process, the interviews that were conducted with PFP staff and clients, and the Sticky note exercise completed with the youth facilitators. All of these sources generated 1,054 discrete pieces of data. These data were sorted over a 3-day period into patterns and generalizations by the two lead researchers of this study. The results of the researchers’ data analyses were shared with the two other co-authors of the research project, as well as youth facilitators, to further validate the findings of the study.

Results

The five categories of patterns of the PFP that arose from the data analyses were as follows: (a) establish appropriate norms for participation, (b) utilize group processes for change, (c) community building, (d) focused experiential adventure learning, and (e) implement systemic and replicable elements of peace in the program curriculum. Data representing these categories are presented here.

Establish Appropriate Norms for Participation

The category most often identified as essential to the PFP experience was the establishment of specific norms directly related to the peaceful coexistence of community members in the town of Palencia, Guatemala. These norms consistently served as the basis for every PFP interaction. The following four norms were mentioned most often: (a) respect (e.g., not using swear words, paying attention when others are speaking, not making fun of others), (b) responsibility (e.g., showing up for the Practice Peace Sessions prepared with an agenda, props, and t-shirts), (c) demonstrated commitment through acts of community altruism (e.g., not only the amount of time dedicated to PFP, but also that their commitment was not out of self-interest), and (d) solidarity (e.g., clear group expectations that each member provided support for other group members).

Use of norms provided a guide for acceptable behaviors not only during group interactions, but also when PFP leaders facilitated program elements. All participants knew what to expect in PFP as well as how they would be treated. They also saw PFP as a place to practice these norms as a change agent, and this created a deep impact in their lives. As stated by one participant,

Play for Peace gives you the opportunity to be responsible, collaborative, united, and—most importantly—strengthened us to become more confident of ourselves . . . The commitment to give back to the community is satisfying and very nice to know that everything we teach will bear fruit in the community. To teach the children . . . the values that they learned are necessary for their life and when they grow up they have the knowledge and hope they can change our community and our country. The reason I was born was to be in PFP. (Youth facilitator, age 17)

Facilitators believed that teaching these norms created positive changes within themselves as well as the community. These types of outcomes were motivating factors for the youth facilitators because they believed their work had a positive impact.

Many of the youth facilitators shared a deep concern and level of caring for the participating children. It was clear to the youth leaders that their work with the children would lead to a more peaceful community.

I like Play for Peace because the resulting changes make us more responsible and respectful. And when we share things that we know and we are learning it is because of our own commitment to come and learn to take this knowledge to others. At first we didn’t know each other, but afterwards because of the values were taught we got know each other in the play sessions. What I liked was that we could teach what we learned and we taught games that helped us reflect on our actions and statements. I liked was that in the end we all got along and we felt that we helped each other and worked as a team for a community without violence. (Youth facilitator, age 16)

Utilize Group Processes for Change

The social dynamics of being a group member were prominent throughout the model. Being a member of the PFP group established identities that produced high levels of self-efficacy and self-competence. As stated in the following passage by one youth facilitator,

Teamwork with our group happened and was apparent in the play sessions. We showed caring, respect, shared ideas, and also got to know children with different talents that are incredible people . . . I think this group is strengthened by all of the facilitators, and the benefits that this brings the community are incredible because we are changing Palencia. Several times, and by different facilitators, I was repeatedly asked, “What do you do for your community?” And this was a question that everyone was asked and expected to answer. Our group is committed to the decision to help our community achieve peace and the benefits that this will provide. (Youth facilitator, age 17)

The group bonds that were formed were so strong and valued that the term companionship was used numerous times by several youth facilitators during their interviews. Companionship was probably best defined operationally by the following youth facilitator:

(In our PFP group) there is a strong level of companionship and group friendship. You make new friends, share learning with others, help each other, and trust other people. This creates important learning like partnership and companionship throughout the whole group. (Youth facilitator, age 14)

The cultural and pedagogical experts noted the vibrant characteristics of group affinity in the PFP. Both experts found this strikingly evident when one newcomer to the group failed at a task and withdrew himself because of this failure. Several other facilitators immediately went to him and encouraged him to come back into the group activity. They told him that he was important to the group, and they believed failure was not part of being a member of the PFP experience.

The PFP experience seemed to produce benefits commonly associated with positive small group development. Such dynamics point to the need for creating productive and effective interdependent peer groups who have a common objective. The four healthy and productive group dynamics found in the PFP group were (a) unity in purpose, (b) conflict resolution, (c) group strength, and (d) reciprocity benefits.

Target Community Building

Group dynamics also presented itself differently in the category of targeting community building. The building of the PFP group became a model microcosm of how to construct the ideals, norms, and dreams of the larger community. The elements of change and productive behavior found in the PFP group were replicated multiple times in efforts to bring about positive change against violence in the Palencia community.

As used by the youth participants, the concept of “community” was more than just the physical coexistence of individuals in close living situations. It represented a committed community member who possessed an ownership, deep pride, and responsibility to contribute to this social entity. It represented civic responsibility at the highest level, where there was a social expectation and duty to instill a strong state of beliefs, feelings, and ultimate state of peaceful coexistence in the Palencia community.

Interestingly, the concept of community had several different yet connected meanings in the study. Besides referring to the town of Palencia, it also referred to the bonding level of trust the participants had in one another. As stated by one participant, “The most important in teamwork is the way you build community, the process of creating convivencia (peaceful coexistence)” (youth participant, age 14).

Another participant used the term community to represent progressive series of steps in establishing peace in the town of Palencia. This participant clearly saw a series of three sequential steps for peace development. The first step began at the individual level, then extended to the group level, and finally was integrated through work and growth at the community level. As stated by one participant,

In the beginning of Play for Peace the majority of participants that are now facilitators didn’t know each other and everyone was indifferent to each other. Now we have a clear example of a group that is unified, filled with solidarity and good communication. To achieve this project has given us growth as a person, group, and then the community. Personal Growth happened when each one of us learned how to connect with our new companions that shared the same goal of contributing to peace.

Group growth then occurred when we started to teach what we had learned in the training. Here we had to adjust and work together to the so that every child we brought to play sessions understood what we were teaching was actually possible.

Community Growth started to happen when we introduced ourselves as committed community citizens through the play sessions. These were an important part of ourselves because we succeeded in transmitting the message of peace. When we did this well we achieved what we had hoped. Children involved in the games who initially were rivals became friends and let go of conflict in order to have peace in the community. (Youth facilitator, age 15)

Focused Experiential Adventure Learning

One of the main differentiating features of PFP from other violence prevention programs is the experiential adventure component of the process. Experiential learning can be defined as “learning by doing with appropriate facilitated processes directed toward intended outcomes.” (Priest & Gass, 2005, p. 17). Although all change processes have some form of experience as a basis for its origin, experiential learning places the participant directly in experiences to increase the value of the transmission of knowledge.

Another concept of experiential learning is that participants are asked not only to “talk the talk” but also to “walk the talk.” This combination of action and reflection draws participants to a state of fuller engagement, presence, and investment in their learning experience. Experiential learning is an active rather than passive process, requiring participants to be motivated and responsible for their learning. As stated by one participant, “Through the games we learned things that we never had imagined. They made the children get interested in learning games. The games left us a lot of learning. Peace is something that every human being likes” (youth leader, age 14). Key to the experiential process is the adventure aspect of the experience. Purposefully sequenced in a tailored manner for the specific needs of the group, PFP experiences are unique and challenging in a highly enjoyable manner. Framed around the concepts of peace education, adventure experiences are critical for PFP experiences because they place participants in an equal status of participation. Challenge in a positive manner provides participants with motivating behaviors and a catalyst to participate in an activity. Reflective learning associated with adventure experiences centers on solution-oriented and appreciative inquiry processes. It also takes advantage of holistic learning patterns of cognitive, social/emotional, and physical growth. The learning from PFP experiences are meant to relate to participants’ life experiences, where successful resolution of the adventure experiences are meant to provide rich insights and resources for participants to resolve life issues (Priest & Gass, 2005). As stated by another participant,

In my community we did PFP violence prevention activities in different schools with children from our community. At first it was a little bit difficult getting used to the different ways of thinking and acting of the kids. But in the end it was successful because the kids interacted with each other and over time they learned to work together. They were an example of how to work together as a community . . . PFP came to change the lives of many people in our community. (Youth facilitator, age 18)

Implement Systemic and Replicable Elements of Peace in the Program Curriculum

Although the youth facilitators identified individual change as a benefit of PFP, they also consistently defined peace as achieving peaceful coexistence with others. As stated by one youth facilitator,

I saw growing peaceful coexistence, at first some children didn’t get along but then ended up becoming good friends through the games that we taught them with my co-facilitators . . . the children help each other out more and in that way we are reducing the violence in our community a little. (Youth facilitator, age 19)

The cultural expert perceived feelings of urgency in the youth to create a peaceful environment where they can live and grow into adulthood. At a developmental stage where social identification is high, he feels that Palencia is marked by a culture of fear and isolation. Palencia is considered a “sleeper town” where many parents and older siblings work in Guatemala City and return to Palencia only at night. Prior to the PFP program, youth did not interact with individuals from the other neighborhoods or schools and were not respected by community leaders. This fostered further distrust and weakened community connections, creating an ideal situation for the growth of violence, fear, and abuse.

The youth strongly identified with the importance of creating peaceful coexistence (convivencia) as a social network. As stated by one youth facilitator,

During the PFP program in my community I was able to observe the change in some kids that for some reasons lived in conflict. Play is the best tool to achieve peace and love in people that for different reasons are always in conflict. Through play we achieve that two children from different cultures and different religions achieve and generate trust and peaceful coexistence. We also allow teamwork to convince them and that way bring more children to keep cultivating laughter, compassion and peace for the future of our community. (Youth facilitator, age 16)

Creating communities of peaceful coexistence is a powerful motivator for youth commitment to the PFP program. It was immediately obvious to the cultural expert that the activities the youth were leading with the children were not

just a game, to play a game but that these games had a higher purpose including; to teach, to try to make a change in how the kids interact with each other, and to carry that new way of interacting into the community.

I think that peace is something very important in Play for Peace because it is what inspires me to keep going in the project . . . peace is something that every human being likes. In the beginning of the project there were youth that didn’t get along and we saw a change in ourselves as well as the children that we were training even more so in our community. Peace is something that we have achieved little by little throughout the project. (Youth facilitator, age 14)

PFP Model in Guatemala

Each of these five categories plays a critical, invaluable, and irreplaceable role in the PFP model. As defined by the triangulating aspects of the research, the ultimate objective is to empower each individual to be a responsible and contributing citizen of Palencia, striving to achieve and maintain a peaceful coexistence within a nonviolent community (i.e., the concept of convivencia volundad). The concepts of peace and community combine together to achieve the program’s objective. The concept of norms pervades throughout the entire program model to ensure changes are beneficial and congruent with the moral integrity of peace and nonviolence. Experiential adventure learning provides change mechanisms and competence-building experiences that are active, motivating, and unique for participants. Group learning is the internal mechanism of the model as it trains youth to be active citizens who are able to competently work as a community leader for peace.

Based on these five core concepts identified by the data analysis processes of the PFP organization, the PFP program model consists of three levels of expanding influence guided by linear and nonlinear aspects of the experiential learning cycle. This structure matches well with the PFP Training Curriculum, Level 1 to 3 (i.e., the Joy of Play = first cycle, Facilitation Skills = second cycle, and Community Action Skills = third cycle). Each of these three experiential learning cycles tends to move in an expanding fashion with four elements: (a) experiential adventure learning activity done with established behavioral norms regarding peace (e.g., Full Value contracts, Challenge by Choice, conflict resolution skills), (b) reflection on these experiences, (c) integration of new learning resulting in behavioral change and increased competence while maintaining the integrity of group norms, and (d) the continuation or expansion of the goal of peaceful coexistence in the community.

Each of these cycles builds on the competence and successes of the previous level. These levels are not separate entities, nor should they be viewed in a hierarchical belief system. The interface of competence and content between all three levels should not be overlooked to maintain the true richness and reinforcing elements of the model. It is important to note that this is only one of the many pathways individuals can follow. For example, reflection may occur both before and after an experience to enhance learning through such processes as frontloading or framing (Priest & Gass, 2005). Utilizing the experiential cycle theory in this manner avoids the problematic issues outlined by Seaman (2008; e.g., failure to account for social and cultural differences, limiting perspectives to linear ways of perceiving the model). Each of the three experiential learning cycles utilizes highly engaging adventure experiences to empower youth at their particular stage of development. Participants begin the process as individuals, taught the norms of PFP through their immersion in adventure experiences. Once they have gone through the experiential cycle described above, they continue on at this level until they achieve a broadening competence to become a PFP facilitator. Through the process of learning, reflecting, and integrating, they move on to the group level and second experiential cycle to refine their skills and reach appropriate mastery of the group norms taught through the adventure experiences. As with the first experiential cycle, once they have reached an appropriate state of mastery, they move to the third experiential cycle of community interaction and responsibility. Once again, adventure-based experiences are used as a medium to transmit the values toward achieving the goal of peaceful coexistence as a community. Note once a participant leaves a particular level, they continue to maintain a strong connection to the values and change mechanisms of all levels (e.g., even participants operating at the community level are still involved in their individual growth through adventure experiences; see Figure 1 for an illustration of this process). This dynamic represents one of the nonlinear aspects of the experiential learning cycle identified earlier.

Figure 1.

The PFP violence prevention model.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to identify the essential elements of the PFP program, how it creates change in participants, and how it is successfully implemented in communities. It was hoped that achieving such results with meaningful interpretation would assist in the enrichment of other peace education programs for youth as well as for the continued development of the PFP program in Palencia and other program locations around the world. The five core concepts identified by the data analysis for the PFP program were community, experiential adventure learning, group learning, norms, and peace. Identifying these core concepts and examining how they interacted together led to the creation of the PFP model at work in this program. From the results, it was easy to see that the ultimate objective of the theory was to empower each individual to be an actively contributing and civic responsible citizen of Palencia, striving with a strong will to achieve and maintain the peaceful coexistence of a nonviolent community (i.e., the concept of convivencia volundad).

In case study research methodology, related literature is sought out to confirm as well as differentiate the findings from one study when compared with others. Such steps can add to the extension, validation, and refining efforts of the model. Upon initial investigation, the three-stage PFP model of individual, group, and community leadership also seemed strikingly similar to Scouller’s (2011) three levels of model of personal, private, and public leadership styles as well as Joplin’s (1981) model of recurring experiential learning cycles. Upon further review, it appears that Scouller’s model focused more on individual leadership styles and the PFP model possessed a requisite focus on consensus group leadership styles. And Joplin’s model fails to represent the differentiated levels found in the PFP model. Nevertheless, it is recommended that organizations replicating the PFP model be aware of these models, particularly in the areas of how the models combine multiple theories of leadership and integrate authentic and servant leadership models (e.g., Greenleaf, 1998).

By using case study research methodology, the researchers were able to take a strong step toward identifying the factors creating such a strong sense of positive change from this particular peace education program. Such findings are positive additions toward demystifying the black box phenomena that exist in the violence prevention and peace education field. More research in this area needs to be done to find out whether the characteristics that occurred in this study are similar or different from programming for other populations (e.g., peace education programming in schools).

This study also offers a platform for further investigation on peace education in the world today. Particularly fruitful future studies that measure attributes involving PFP programs should also measure attributes associated with peace education. Likely studies of this particular approach to peace education include quantitative studies around civic engagement, conflict resolution skills, and other variables associated with peace education. Certainly comparing studies of other peace education approaches using grounded theory techniques would prove fruitful and enriching. Identifying the core elements and theories of successful program approaches would answer many of the treatment fidelity issues that have plagued many programs’ replication processes (Tucker & Rheingold, 2011).

Another area of future investigation would be to examine how PFP overcame areas of extreme challenge and external pressure (e.g., trauma from bullying, abuse, witnessing violent acts). Other studies examining the longitudinal nature of change with the PFP experiences could also produce rich and interpretive results that would inform funding agencies as well as PFP facilitators.

In her article addressing the past, present, and future of peace education, Lum (2013) offered several suggestions for successful future peace education initiatives. Some of these included creating “cultures of peace,” empowering children to become actors—not spectators—in the development of peace in their cultures, and the need to answer questions on what kinds of peace curriculum and teaching methods are appropriate for teaching peace. In many ways, this article adds to the answering of these questions. Through the descriptive case study research process, what makes the PFP program successful in creating a culture of peace is clearly established. It also presents key factors for replication in other peace education programs. The PFP model certainly seeks to empower children to become actors of their own destiny and future. This presentation is combined with engaging teaching methodologies for creating lasting peace structures in various cultures. Finally, the curriculum offered by the PFP model is structured in such a way that its elements can be highly replicable in different situations while still maintaining a high degree of effectiveness. Combined with suggestions for organizational structures that support peace education initiatives, it is hoped that such findings are helpful for similar types of peace education programs.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Michael Gass, PhD, LMFT, is a professor and the director of the Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Center () in the College of Health and Human Services at the University of New Hampshire.

Sarah Gough, MSW, is Play for Peace’s director enjoying over 20 years field work with youth in diverse settings. Involved with Play for Peace since 2001, Sarah co-authored “Peacecircles” (2013) and has facilitated training and workshops in experiential peace education around the world. Through Sarah’s leadership Play for Peace has grown to include thousands of children, youth and adults in over 20 countries.

Andres Armas is a Play for Peace trainer and a 20+ year member of PFP in Guatemala. He is a life long resident of Palencia, Guatemala.

Cristina Dolcino, MS, is a first grade teacher in Madbury, New Hampshire. She is a founding member of the Oyster River Cooperative School District’s Sustainability Committee.

References

American Association of University Women. (2014). A tried and true, virtually painless strategic planning process. Retrieved from http://www.aauw-nys.org/attached%20files/President/Strategic%20Planning%20Exercise.pdf

Baldwin

Persing

Magnuson

(2004). The role of theory, research, and evaluation in adventure education. Journal of Experiential Education, 25, 167-183.

Dudley

Muggah

(2013, August 28). The most dangerous city in the world is not where you think it is. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/the-most-dangerous-city-in-the-world-is-not-where-you-think-it-is/278963/

Greenleaf

(2002). The power of servant leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Hancock

D. R.

Algozzine

(2011). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hettler

Johnston

L. M.

(2009). Living peace: An exploration of experiential peace education, conflict resolution and violence prevention programs for youth. Journal of Peace Education, 6, 101-118. doi:10.1080/17400200802658340

Human Rights Watch Organization. (2016). Guatemala. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/guatemala?page=1

Joplin

(1981). On defining experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 4(1), 17-20.

Lum

(2013). Peace education: Past, present, and future. Journal of Peace Education, 10, 215-229. doi:10.1080/17400201.2013.863824

10.

Parchem

(1975, October). Notes on the evaluation of outdoor experience program. Paper presented at The National Conference on Outdoor and Experiential Education, Mankato, MN.

11.

Priest

Gass

M. A.

(2005). Effective leadership in adventure programming (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

12.

Scouller

(2011). The three levels of leadership: How to develop your leadership presence, knowhow and skill. Cirencester, UK: Management Books.

13.

Seaman

(2008). Experience, reflect, critique: The end of the “Learning Cycles” era. Journal of Experiential Education, 31, 3-18.

14.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Tucker

Rheingold

(2011). Enhancing fidelity in adventure education and adventure therapy. Journal of Experiential Education, 33, 258-273.

16.

World Health Organization. (2011). Youth violence—Fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs356/en/

17.

Yazan

(2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20, 134-152. Retrieved from http://nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR20/2/yazan1.pdf