Tejendra Pherali on Education and Conflict
Consider some of the conflicts bubbling or boiling in the world today, and then plot where education – both schooling and less formal means of learning – fits in. Is it a victim, suffering from the conflict or perhaps a target of violence or repression? Maybe you see it as complicit in the violence, a perpetrator, so to speak. Or perhaps you see it as a liberator, offering a way out of a system that is unjust in your opinion. Or just maybe, its role is as a peacebuilder.
Those scenarios are the framework in which Tejendra Pherali, a professor of education, conflict and peace at University College London, researches the intersection of education and conflict. In this Social Science Bites podcast, Pherali discusses the various roles education takes in a world of violence.
“We tend to think about education as teaching and learning in mathematics and so forth,” he tells interviewer David Edmonds. “But numeracy and literacy are always about something, so when we talk about the content, then we begin to talk about power, who decides what content is relevant and important, and for what purpose?”
Pherali walks us through various cases outlining the above from locales as varied as Gaza, Northern Ireland and his native Nepal, and while seeing education as a perpetrator might seem a sad job, his overall work endorses the value and need for education in peace and in war.
He closes with a nod to the real heroes of education in these scenarios.
“No matter where you go to, teachers are the most inspirational actors in educational systems. Yet, when we talk about education in conflict and crisis, teachers are not prioritized. Their issues, their lack of incentives, their lack of career progression, their stability in their lives, all of those issues do not feature as the important priorities in these programs. This is my conviction that if we really want to mitigate the adverse effects of conflict and crisis on education of millions of children, we need to invest in teachers.”
A fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences and of the Higher Education Academy, he is a co-research director of Education Research in Conflict and Crisis and chair of the British Association for International and Comparative Education.
To download an MP3 of this podcast, right-click this link and save. The transcript of the conversation appears below.
David Edmonds: A large-scale research program is currently underway examining the connection between two things, education and conflict. Tejendra Pherali teaches at University College London, and is co-director of ERICC, Education Research in Conflict and Crisis. Tejendra Pherali, welcome to Social Science Bites.
Tejendra Pherali: Thank you very much for having me, David.
Edmonds: Today’s focus is on the link between education and conflict. They’re not obvious bedfellows. How did you get interested in the connection between the two?
Pherali: I think there are two responses to your question. The first one is more personal and the second one is more academic, I think. The personal response to that is that I originally come from Nepal, which was hugely affected by violent conflict and Maoist insurgency in the late 1990s and until 2006. Having lived in a conflict-affected context and having seen the violence and clashes between the military and rebels affecting school education, and schools were directly targeted for violent attacks and students were kidnapped for political indoctrination by the rebels. But also teachers were detained and tortured and taken away and forcefully recruited in insurgencies, as well as the state also persecuted teachers who were suspected of collaborating with the rebels. So having seen that, I was quite interested in trying to understand the impact of violent conflict on education. So that was kind of a personal motivation.
More academic motivation was that in 2000, when the global declaration on universal access to primary education was convened, a lot of international organizations came together in Dakar in Senegal, to launch the education for all goals. Quite a lot of these organizations working in conflict-affected contexts, realize that violent conflicts were one of the major barriers to enabling universal access to primary education and therefore, governments, international agencies needed to develop a different kind of more tailored approach mechanism and funding strategies in order to mitigate those barriers to education in those contexts. And therefore, Interagency Network for Education in Emergencies was set up. Clearly, people who are trained in education, trained well about teaching methods, curriculum development, education, financing, and policies, found themselves suddenly in extremely violent situations where schools were being attacked by militants, or children were being kidnapped or killed on the way to and from school. Textbooks were burned or teachers were taken away while they were teaching in the classrooms. So there was a lot more in there to understand for educationists, which actually justified the advent of the subfield of education and conflict.
Edmonds: I want to come back to the actual impact on education of conflict. But before we get there, can education predict conflict? Are there education patterns or factors that you can identify which lead one to suspect that conflict might be around the corner?
Pherali: I think yes. One of the crucial issues relating to the potential of education to predict violent conflict is a distribution of education and the political motives that underpin the educational processes, whether it is education policies, pedagogies, the educational workforce, or access to education more broadly. These kinds of processes can create educational inequalities, which predict inequalities in social, political, and economic outcomes in the society. That leads to forms of grievances for those who can’t actually benefit from education and other domains.
Edmonds: You mean one group having much better resourced schools than another group, for example.
Pherali: So that’s one of those. For example, certain social and cultural groups have better levels of access to education, and therefore outcomes. I can actually think about an example from my own native Nepal, where high-cost Hill-based ethnic groups had better access to education. The whole processes of nation building historically, have been monopolized by privileged social and ethnic groups. And educational processes have been influenced by those characteristics and aspirations of those groups in a very ethnically diverse society, where there are different kinds of ethnic groups, Indigenous populations, different linguistic groups and cultural groups. They were very much excluded, and were not able to benefit from the opportunity of education as much as the people who actually represented the groups that education actually was characterized by. So that led to unequal participation in political structures, economic inequalities, a whole range of discriminations in social spaces, which actually fueled the insurgency that we saw.
Edmonds: In some places, it might not be a question of resources. Different groups might choose to send their offspring to different schools or universities for, let’s say, religious reasons, or maybe the function of housing segregation. One example would be Northern Ireland, where even to this day, many Protestants and many Catholics go to schools that are predominantly populated by people of their own denomination. Does that kind of segregation in education predict conflict as well?
Pherali: I think it does. There are several colleagues based in Queen’s University, Belfast and the University of Ulster, who’ve done quite a lot of work actually on how divided schooling can reproduce social and political divisions in Northern Ireland. And I think that’s probably because of that very divided social environment. Government schools and Catholic schools exist, and they thrive in their own communities and that’s why, I suppose, little appetite for integrated education, which tends to bring communities from across dividing lines together.
There’s also another factor that the political groups or political parties in many contexts tend to get support from their divided communities. It is in the interest of the political groups to keep the social segregation so that their political base is intact. What that does is basically [it] educates different religious groups or cultural groups differently and it actually reduces their chance of coming together in order to engage in dialogue and understand the problems in their society and so forth. So as a result, divided schooling contributes to reproduction of the existing divisions, sometimes actually even exacerbates those divisions through unequal distribution of the outcomes in people’s lives.
Edmonds: And do teaching materials play a part in this? I imagine that in Gaza, and in Tel Aviv, kids were exposed to very different textbooks. Intuitively, that feels like that may be predictive of future conflict as well.
Pherali: Oh, absolutely. I think that’s where education is hugely political. We tend to think about education as teaching and learning in mathematics and so forth. But numeracy and literacy are always about something, so when we talk about the content, then we begin to talk about power, who decides what content is relevant and important, and for what purpose? Education contributes to promote a particular kind of national identity and aspirations and obviously, in contexts where populations are trying to reclaim their identity, or national identity it could be, education plays an important role. So unsurprisingly, in Palestinian educational provisions, being proud of the Palestinian history, aspiration to establish independent or free Palestine, is vital, and equally in Israel, education is designed in such a way that it glorifies Israeli history and its aspirations.
When you have opposing communities living next to each other that are educating their populations to promote self-glorification, and sometimes also to promote hatred against the other, then I think education there directly plays the role as a perpetrator of violence rather than as a peace builder.
Edmonds: You touched on schools in conflict earlier. When education is disrupted during conflict, does that tend to be as a result of collateral damage, conflict going on around the school, around the area? Or is it the case that schools and universities often directly targeted?
Pherali: I think it’s both. But increasingly, what we’ve seen is educational infrastructure, and educational actors are directly targeted for violence.
Edmonds: Give us an example.
Pherali: So for example, in northern Nigeria, Boko Haram, which is a militant group, disagrees with the approach to education that is being promoted by the Nigerian government. So teaching about science, English, and mathematics, and more kind of global dimensions, are seen as a threat to their societal security for Islamic communities that the Boko Haram claims to represent. Education is seen as a process of cultural repression, and therefore, these educational infrastructure and institutions are directly attacked by the Boko Haram militant groups. So that’s an example. Another example could be from Afghanistan, and in many other places where schools are also the places of resistance to authorities, and therefore, state security forces directly attack schools in order to eliminate that kind of political opposition that is being bred in those spaces.
Edmonds: Is this a growing phenomenon? The attack on educational establishments for ideological reasons? Or is that always been with us during conflict?
Pherali: I think it has always been with us, but perhaps it is increasingly so. For example, in Myanmar, there are several ethnic regions where ethnic armed organizations protect their provisions of education. Because these are culturally, historically, and linguistically different societies, where the central government is trying to assimilate these diverse identities through centralized educational policies, these parallel education provisions resist the dominance of the central education. So when they try to do that, the central authority tends to directly attack these educational institutions.
Edmonds: If it is a growing global phenomenon, do you have an explanation for why that might be the case?
Pherali: That goes back to the question of how education is part of the political ambitions in almost all societies.
Edmonds: But that’s always been the case. Why would this phenomenon of education being a direct target of attack? Why would that be increasing?
Pherali: I think that’s an interesting question and I think it relates to this issue of how the nature of violent conflict after 1990s has changed. For example, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the majority of violent conflicts across the world are intra-state civil wars. They take place within the national boundaries, often between the state security forces and the rebel forces, even though there are, you know, some examples of international conflicts, like Ukraine and Russia being one, but mostly these conflicts are within the national boundaries, and they are hugely political. Most of them are due driven by disagreements around the kind of societies that they want to create, and that diversity not being recognized and different cultural social groups being repressed, and basically, inequalities play an important role. And educational processes are influenced heavily by these political and economic policies which do not recognize the significance of identities, freedom, rights, and, and so forth. So, education is directly implicated in the global, political, and economic landscapes. That might be the reason why education becomes a direct target for violence.
Edmonds: Let’s talk a bit about the impact of this. This is perhaps a stupid question. Obviously, if you disrupt the education of kids, it’s going to have a detrimental effect. But tell me a bit about the most harmful effects of education being disrupted.
Pherali: I think education is pretty much the only hope for people who have been displaced, and many of them who’ve been living in refugee settings. Lack of access to education means their ability to cope with the impact of violence, their ability to imagine a future that they value, and their ability to develop social-emotional skills are at risk. I think education is incredibly important in enabling these very important livelihood skills. Education is significant in enabling the sense of hope, a sense of confidence, and also ability to appreciate the social, economic, and cultural conditions where people live in and to create possibilities to change those difficulties that they’re living in. An absence of those abilities because of the war is going to enormously impact adversely, obviously, on these populations.
Edmonds: That sounds obviously common-sensical. Is there a way of empirically getting at this?
Pherali: I think there’s growing evidence around how education can create better outcomes. But I think you’re right, that there’s been a lack of investment in research around how education can create value specifically for the populations who have been affected by violent conflict. How can we actually deliver access quality and continuity of education in conflict in crisis? So FCDO, Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, has invested in education research, and the program is called Education Research in Conflict and Protracted Crisis, which I co-direct, is an ambitious program that is being implemented in seven different countries: Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Nigeria, Bangladesh, particularly looking at the context of Rohingya refugees, Myanmar, South Sudan. The objective of this large research program is to generate evidence that is directly relevant for policies and programming in these contexts. So I think there is that opportunity for our field to demonstrate empirically how education can save lives, but also how it can mitigate these adverse structural conditions in which people live in.
Edmonds: How are you going to do that? How are you going to be able to identify that education is a crucial part of the causal chain rather than displacement or malnourishment or any of a dozen other factors that could be explaining various bad outcomes?
Pherali: I think that’s an important methodological question. We have the opportunity to carry out individual case studies specifically looking at the research questions which have been prioritized and developed by the local stakeholders, but also we would be collecting large-scale data sets at a global level across these countries, which would enable us to capture the empirical evidence of the positive outcomes that education can produce. And we hope that there would be positive outcomes of education. But we will see.
Edmonds: Are you conducting randomized control trials and introducing various pilot programs in different places?
Pherali: So randomized control trial hasn’t started yet. But obviously from the policymakers and funders, there is an aspiration to, to see randomized, controlled trial to demonstrate the evidence. But I think educational research cannot be entirely relied on randomized control trial. A randomized control trial, RCT’s have values, but they have a lot of limitations as well. But I think a lot of surveys and also exploratory studies, and also analysis of the effects of educational programs. So that’s the kind of evidence that we are trying to generate, which can inform policies.
Edmonds: Are you also looking at the impact on disparate groups? I’m wondering whether girls might be perhaps more affected in conflict situations than boys? I’m wondering whether the well-off find ways of educating their kids in a way that less well-off people can’t. Is that something you might look at as well?
Pherali: Yes I think that’s a very interesting question and our interest is around that. So we are finalizing our global research agenda for the field of education in conflict and crisis. There are a number of research themes that we have identified through rigorous analysis, and consultation with education and conflict specialists globally, that we hope to implement, as research projects moving on. I think it’s much bigger than what our program can achieve, but the idea is that we set out the research agenda for our fields so that other agencies and scholars and organizations can all pick up those research agenda and carry out research.
Edmonds: We’ve talked about education as a cause of conflict. We’ve talked a bit about education during conflict. Let me ask you about education post-conflict. What is the role of education in sustaining peace if a peace deal can be agreed between the warring parties and keeping the cap on a fragile situation? How can education help?
Pherali: So when I was talking about how education can be complicit in reproducing or even exacerbating conditions of conflict. So one of the opportunities for post-war reconstruction is how education can be transformed from being a perpetrator of violence to a peace builder. I have developed a very simple framework of analysis, which I call a VPLP framework, which is, education is a victim: how education can be a victim during conflict and crisis. Then also education is a perpetrator, how education, for example, promoting biased history, lack of critical reflection, and indoctrination through educational processes. And for example, now, there are reports around Russian military occupation and those areas, children, as many as 200,000 in Ukraine have been put into reeducation camps where there is a rigorous ideological indoctrination happening. So how education is being forced to serve as a reproducer of forms of divisions and violence.
So that’s the idea of how education can become a perpetrator. But also we know that education can create critical consciousness awareness about inequalities, injustices, understanding the causes of social divisions, and and so forth, and enabling populations and learning communities to be able to address some of those root causes. So in that process, education plays a role as a liberator. And finally, I think education is a peacebuilder, which is the question that you’re asking me now. We need to look at not just what happens within schools or learning institutions, but we need to look at how education is influenced by broader political structures in the society. Yes, education can help bring people from across dividing lines together through peace education, through multicultural education, and imagining a better future — all of that can happen within the curriculum. But if access, quality, and right to education, these are not guaranteed at a political level, that might not be possible.
Edmonds: Can you point me to a positive case study where education has played a role in sustaining peace or reducing conflict?
Pherali: I think there’s a lot of evidence around more non-formal educational initiatives, rather than in formal education initiatives. So for example, in South America, we conducted a research project on social movements in Colombia, where what we observed in local communities is local peasants, Indigenous, populations and Black communities, were actually coming together to develop their own understanding of the problems and solutions that are required to tackle the challenges that they were facing in their communities — whether it is about their land being grabbed by multinational companies, or neoliberal policies impacting on their farming and local trade, or various armed groups attacking their communities. So these communities were coming together to promote human rights, life with dignity, reclaiming Indigenous knowledge to survive and sustain their epistemic traditions, and so forth. So there was this very powerful community-based educational process. But in formal education, this is more challenging, because formal education is controlled by the political authority that has particular kinds of interest. So it doesn’t necessarily liberate learners from political control. So the examples can be found in more non-formal settings and social movements, because we need to understand education not only as what happens in schools.
Edmonds: You’ve obviously traveled a great deal with your research. When you go to all these different places are you more struck by the particular individual cases that you come across, the factors that seem unique to this place? Or are you more struck by the universalizable themes that emerge? Do you think, ah, “I’ve seen something in Sudan, that is equally the case in Bangladesh, or Nepal?”
Pherali: I think I am actually more struck by one particular issue, which is related to teachers. No matter where you go to, teachers are the most inspirational actors in educational systems. Yet, when we talk about education in conflict and crisis, teachers are not prioritized. Their issues, their lack of incentives, their lack of career progression, their stability in their lives, all of those issues do not feature as the important priorities in these programs. This is my conviction that if we really want to mitigate the adverse effects of conflict and crisis on education of millions of children, we need to invest in teachers and I think that’s what is the most striking thing that comes across which I think all stakeholders including national governments and international agencies should prioritize on.
Edmonds: Tejendra Pherali, thank you very much indeed.
Pherali: Thank you very much for having me and talking to me about education and conflict.
