Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 14 2009, 4:18 AM EST | mikicesari | 318 words added |
| Jan 14 2009, 1:30 AM EST | mikicesari |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
How can we support and enhance the learning processes of people in conflict so that they respond more effectively to conflict and then generate change?
We want our peace building efforts to be effective, especially training. In training, we try to package appropriate knowledge and use processes that elicit experience and participation. When we ask participants to evaluate our trainings, often we receive positive feedback; but when we look at the results in terms of real change in the communities in which we work, the results often indicate something very different from the results of an evaluation conducted on the final day of training. Agencies invest an increasing amount of resources on programs that deal – directly or indirectly - with conflict. We spend more money, package higher quality contents, use better trainers, hire skilled consultants, devote more time to training and train more people. Yet, looking at the results of peace building training in terms of effective change generated can be frustrating and painful. We ask: “What has changed after our training?”.
Similarly, the same questions can be asked for peace building initiatives other than training. In the worst cases we face the prospect that our initiatives produces little, inconsistent, undesired or irrelevant change. Frequently we are satisfied with believing that we are “planting seeds” that will grow with time, or that we are “sending a sign”. Is this really all we can hope for?
Not really. Here we argue that we can be more effective peace builders. For that, we need to focus on learning: learning is the aim and the measure of training. Which prompts us to ask three fundamental questions:
We want our peace building efforts to be effective, especially training. In training, we try to package appropriate knowledge and use processes that elicit experience and participation. When we ask participants to evaluate our trainings, often we receive positive feedback; but when we look at the results in terms of real change in the communities in which we work, the results often indicate something very different from the results of an evaluation conducted on the final day of training. Agencies invest an increasing amount of resources on programs that deal – directly or indirectly - with conflict. We spend more money, package higher quality contents, use better trainers, hire skilled consultants, devote more time to training and train more people. Yet, looking at the results of peace building training in terms of effective change generated can be frustrating and painful. We ask: “What has changed after our training?”.
Similarly, the same questions can be asked for peace building initiatives other than training. In the worst cases we face the prospect that our initiatives produces little, inconsistent, undesired or irrelevant change. Frequently we are satisfied with believing that we are “planting seeds” that will grow with time, or that we are “sending a sign”. Is this really all we can hope for?
Not really. Here we argue that we can be more effective peace builders. For that, we need to focus on learning: learning is the aim and the measure of training. Which prompts us to ask three fundamental questions:
- What do we mean by “learning” in peace building?
- What kind of conceptual frameworks are available to help us reflect on the learning process in peace building?
- How are these conceptual frameworks relevant for peace building?
