Reflective Statement and Individual Audit

Tweet

Concepts and Practice of Peacemaking 2009
Reflective Statement and Individual Audit by Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Contents
Attendance 2
Word Count 2
Reflective Statement 3
Defining moment and the group process 4
Justice and/or to get peace? 11
Education and Oppression 16
Conclusion 22
Individual Audit 24
Biblography 25

Attendance

I attended all sessions apart from the final “evaluation” which was recorded and I have commented on the audio recording of this session in my diaries.

Word Count
Reflective Statement 5 021
Individual Audit

Reflective Statement
In this reflective statement I want to consider a few things. Although the course is extensive and the literature is equally as large I have chosen three points to focus on. Throughout the essays, I try and link in some of my critical thinking of our education system and also consider how the process of the course effected our learning.
I will explore the education techniques used and the process that we went through. I want to be critical of the education that we receive in the every day life but also I want to asses how it is possible to develop a critical pedagogy in a formal institution. I will also refer not only to my diary this year (which show pretty much a constant but in different areas of thinking) but also reference notes and diaries that I have kept when sitting the second year the introduction to conflict resolution took place and also the third year of the same course. This course although different (being compulsory for the whole cohort and aimed at a level one) provides an insight to my thinking on education practice and theory during that part of the course. In the final chapter of the reflective statement I will concentrate of the educational process and also a gender critique of the course and conflict resolution.
I also consider the process of group building and that is why the first chapter contains a greater look and focus on turning points and the process of building a group within our process. This leads on to a short debate about justice something that I wrote about in week 5.
Finally I hope to look at some of the learning that I evaluated in one of the simulations as well as thinking about my approaches to learning and facilitating CR11 session.
Defining moment and the group process
“This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do let us re-order this world around us” (A. Blair, 2001)
This has become one of the most famous sound bites of the Blair years, but the idea that a particular point can change the direction of a negotiation is important. This point rather than part of a flow from the Greek “Chornos” is part of “Kairos”, this is that there is a special moment when everything can change.
In conflict this often comes about at a point or is part of producing the point of de-escalation when there is hurting stalemate (Zartman ed., 1995, p18) or it can be the spark for the conflict itself as an “eruptions” (Brahm ed., 2003). The example used by Brahm (op cit) in Northern Ireland during the non-violent civil rights campaign in 1968 when the police reacted violently towards the campaigners and turned a blind eye to attackes by protestant vigilantes sparking a re-arming and re-activisation of the Irish Republican Army leading to continued hostilities until the Belfast Agreement (or the Good Friday Agreement) in 1998. In this example the eruption is part of something that brings a latent conflict to the fore. It may seem that latent conflicts don’t exist because they haven’t yet emerged, particularly to the more-privileged party, while the less privileged party may know but be suppressed to such a level as that conflict never emerges (Brahm, op cit). These moments can be defined globally as November 1989 when the Berlin wall came down, bringing down an entire system, a moment which once done could never be reversed but also for that moment almost anything was possible. This is what Blair was saying in 2001, that for that moment a few days after 9/11 everything was in the air, the pieces wouldn’t fall back in to the same place and this was the time to make the changes as after this moment there would be no going back. This can be harnessed both positively (in conflict resolution) and negatively (in conflict escalation as described above). To help our learning, and to move towards a peace settlement, transformative moments are important and often most commonly a series of “moments” where rapid shifts take place followed and proceeded by stalemate. (Ramsbothem et al, 2005, p171). In the education setting these points of changes are also noted by Featherstone and Kelly (2007, p10) where during the first Introduction to Conflict Resolution course conduced with transformative methods many students experienced some sort of change or transformation at the same time during week 4, at this point their learning was opened up and their resistance to the course was lessened and their learning “clicked” (op cit, p16)
In our process Giovanni Scotto in CR11 says that he identifies a single episode as a defining moment. He gives the example of the Ninja game which was played in CR2. The game was described as something to be avoided at all costs. It is recognised as a learning experience and something that the group was able to reflect on. Was the group able to reflect on this as a whole group and who is this speaking for? Was this a pivotal moment for all, or was the expression by some of dislike of the game the moment of change in the course? The expression of dislike took place away from others by a self-selecting group. How did this affect the wider team and group building we are trying to cultivate? Much of this group dynamics is outlined by Moore (2003). Moore also outlines the obstacles to that trust as
“1) Strong emotions
2) Misperceptions or stereotypes held by one or more parties of each other or about issues in dispute
3) Legitimacy problems
4) Lack of trust
5) Poor communications”
Moore (2003 p166)
We therefore should consider whether this turning point increased or decreased any of these points to help build an effective group process or not.
In my diaries I note in CR10:
“While others were trying to create an environment that they felt comfortable with… …this process exclud[ed a] group that they had already labelled and discarded.”
My note here is a comment to the original revelation in week 10 that there had been a group of students (described as “at times about half the class”) who had been meeting and directing the course to “keep themselves engaged” in the process.
This is revelation for those of us who were in the “excluded” group. Not knowing about the parallel process that was going on was mixed (and on further reflection still engenders a conflicting feeling in myself). How did this help our and my learning in the course? What were the parallel processes and its ensuing “revelation” effect on the atmosphere in the group? The group that is cultivated as a whole, through the process and the method and alienation the group becomes divided and the revelations confirm that. It makes clear that one party is “forced” into a particular group by another group and left out of part of the process.
The grouping although innocent could, and I feel did, have a few external impacts other than just “trying to keep all parties engaged”. Moore (2003, p193) describes the importance of trust between parties, he outlines how trust can be built including through honesty. I question how the formation of an in-group, with the exclusion of the rest, helps build trust.
Although Brewer (2003, p41) notes that the formation of an in-group isn’t necessarily in reaction to or hostilities to the existence of any identifiable out-group she goes on to say:
“…preferential treatment of those who are in the in-group produces biases and discrimination without any negation prejudices against the out-group.”
The reaction of creating an “in-group” has clear effects on the wider group. Every action has a re-action and the very action of meeting to resolve a problem that other either didn’t see or even may have wanted to participation causes hostilities. Speaking to members of the class after the session CR10 I note:
“we felt a strange feeling of being let down, the things that we thought were part of the process suddenly were indistinguishable from what has been part of the influence of a group that had excluded us.”
Not only that but this very action meant that some of us questioned our very contribution and its effectiveness:
“…the question posed by a number of us was to “speak out” and create a greater inter-group paradigm or to keep quite and internalise any issue that we may have had.”
It was, in this instance another class member that spoke up with his feelings followed by others. What is clear from the reactions from the in-group, was that they hadn’t thought of the issues of not involving everyone would bring to the group dynamic. They also were, and still are convinced, that the course was dramatically changed due to their intervention, rather than seeing it as just part of a discourse involving everyone to shape the course. The possibility that the course still followed a planned structure of group building leading to simulation and utilisation of tools followed by theory and reflection was not vocalised by any of the in-group. The process of learning that the course took through planning or intervention followed Furlong’s (2005, p11) view that the course should be constructed not only of theory and practice but theory as practice through particular and worked out tools.
The question has to then be asked, was the course changed through intervention or was the intervention part of the general dialogue process? If we assume either we still have to consider the effect on the group dynamic and my focus on how this “revelation” not only changed but also disturbed the group building process and trust in the group.
While the wider “excluded” out-group had not been given time to build our group while a smaller group had formed, this inadvertent formation of a group still could be constituted as an in and out group. Influencing the process of the sessions there was a group that had been labelled “sympathetic to the process” and left out. In my diary CR5 I note:
“there are a number of people who I find it hard to work with, although their concerns are legitimate they seems unwilling or unable to express them and when they do the criticism is always about the process rather than one’s own capability… …is this a lack of self reflection or a real desire to reform the education method with the knowledge of what that will really entail? A return to Banking (Freire, 1970) education as students demand the kind of education that they are used to.”
Whereas this may still be a lack of self-reflection it could also be what Brewer (2003, p51) describes as distrust to the out-group. If by this stage I had been grouped apart from the “reformers” was I to be trusted?. Alternatively my speaking out in support of the education methods may have, in CR5, created that divide which would remain unknown to me until CR10.
Through group processes relationships are built up. If we consider some of the most prolific theories such as Tuckman’s phases of group building (Tuckman, 2001, p69) group building takes place over a number of stages. Rather than resolving the storming phase all together through our group work and cultivating group relations a, small sub-group “resolved” their concerns individually, bringing them back to the group when “resolved” in week 10 as a fait accompli, the question here is were group relations ever built so as we were able to “perform” as a group rather than a one defined group and one non-group?
As a turning point making me aware that another process had been taking place I struggled to then understand what was meant to be in the course. Were we meant to follow what Furlong (2005 p11) outlined, or build group dynamics in a way that many writers including Moore (2005), Lederach (1999) or Boal (1979) all separately outline but are clear that need to be built?
The question I am left with is: did the learners who just “didn’t get it” (Fetherston & Kelly, 2007) end up directing the course so they did “get it”, while those who “got it” were left out in the cold? Or was it just part of the process that those who “didn’t get it” needed to take the learning in their own hands, self organise and engage? While taking it upon themselves may have had no effect on the over all process it provided them with a shallow transformative process at the least.
Justice and/or to get peace?
In the essays I have written, and in my diaries I have recorded my thoughts and feelings, about justice and peace. I don’t want to say that these two concepts are opposed to each other, they are clearly very important to each other.
“Genuine peace can only be built by overcoming fear and mistrust, re-establishing justice, and confronting the mutual excluding “truths” of the war time.” (Wils, 2004, p4)
To have genuine peace we must have some sort of justice. In my week 5 diary I explore an ongoing conflict within the Woodcraft Folk (for which I am chairman), in exploring the conflict I say:
“Justice and peace need to meet but can they be the same? How do we get everyone engaged whilst pursuing a justice that will inevitably be used to dis-empower one of the parties more than the other?”
The banner is often flown that we cannot have “Peace without Justice”, but is it equally not possible to have justice without peace?
The example that I gave in my reflective diary was reflecting on the process in the Woodcraft Folk where we have been working towards a negotiated settlement, but reconciliation has been hard. While some people have been clear they want justice and in some cases retribution, others have wanted to move on for a “common good”. I ask the question what kind of “amnesia” (Digby 2001, p2, in Ramsbothem et al, 2005, p237) do we need in the reconciliation process and how do we get truth but also justice recognized, without paralyzing the process?
The Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in South Africa are example of the balance or trade off between peace or justice. With the advent of the International Criminal Court (ICC) blank amnesties are unlikely, and some would argue have always been unhelpful in long term peace building. Baker (1996, p 564 in Ramsbothem et al, 2005, p236) describes these tensions as so:
“Should peace be sought at any price to end the bloodshed, even if power-sharing arrangements fail to uphold basic human rights and democratic principles? Or should the objective be a democratic peace that respects human rights, a goal that might prolong the fighting and risk more atrocities in the time it takes to reach a negotiated solution” (Baker 1996, p 564 in Ramsbothem et al, 2005, p236)
The idea of a balance is strong in human rights literature when considering what to do about gross violations of humans rights. Although the International Criminal Court (ICC) has not been established, this has not been the most successful in delivering actual justice and peace on the ground. While in Sierra Leone it took action, the very actions it took in tracking down rebel leaders meant that the negations and ceasefire with LRA and the government collapsed causing more killing. The push for “justice” was unachieved immediately and through the courts justice still remains elusive.
So when Baker (1996, p 564 in Ramsbothem et al, 2005, p236) and my own personal reflections say that justice is need, we are talking about long term peace and long term closure or “positive peace” which must on the journey include some sorts of “justice” (Ramsbothem et al, 2005, p236).
When “Physiological Closure” (Moore 2005, p332) can be reached then a positive peace can start to be built. Moore describes this closure, Acknowledgment, Ownership, Affirmation and Apologies, (Shniederm 2000 in Moore 2005 p 335) so that parties can start to heal. This is part of a much boarder concept of reconciliation that Moore later goes onto describe as what is need to close the conflict. Using Lederach’s understanding of reconciliation (1997, p28-31 and Moore, 2005, p344) we see justice and peace as part of the matrix that Ledderach develops in understanding reconciliation.

(Taken from Lederach, 1997, p30)
So justice is part of a greater reconciliation, focusing on justice Zartman and Berman (1982 in Moore, 2005, p 317) outline the need to establish that common understanding and outline five types of justice:
“substantive, procedural, equitable, compensatory, and subtractive” (Moore, 2005, p317)
While these five justices can be enacted together they can also be problematic when different parties are looking for a different “type” of justice. When we took part in simulations different elements of justice had to come in to play. When considering the case study in the Philippines and Mindanao I commented in CR11:
“what would make the parties happy, it seemed to us each individually that we were “pushing” for different justice. The focuses, depending on how you viewed the issues, were starkly different…”
With our team in the simulation some of us focused on Procedural Justice (making sure that the process is fair) while others had a view on Equitable Justice. If we accept that these different justices exist, for long-term peace we will need to enact some if not all of them to make sure parties are happy.
Lederech (1997, p31) goes on to talk about paradoxes, and this is what people often confuse as balancing. He argues that the three paradoxes:
1) Past and Future
2) Truth and Mercy
3) Peace and Justice
are “creative tensions” that often need be reconciled within themselves, often providing a spaces for these paradoxes to meet embracing both “sources of energy” to provide a way forward. While this paradox may provide a “crippling impasse when only one source is embraced the expense of the other” (ibid). So when Baker describes these contradictions she is talking about paradoxes which need to be harnessed.
Ramsbothem et at (2005, p36) consider this “contradiction” to be less “monathlic [than] it is made out to be” which considering what Lederach is saying would seem to ring true. Ramsbothem et al, explicitly say that Justice is part of the process to long term peace and implore people to see it as part of the transition.
If it is as Ramsbothem et al. and Lederach say, then how do we apply this energy, tension or what ever analogy one wishes to put in there? Truth Commissions have become popular in balancing and working with that process. Although “official amnesia” (Ramsbothem et at, 2005, p237) has been used such as in Cambodia and Spain, it doesn’t use the energy of both peace and justice or actually create a longer term positive peace. As Ramsbothem et al. show, with a new generation new questions are being asked. With the truth commissions such as in South Africa truth in itself can be a form of justice when it is acknowledge by all parties.
“One of the most contested issues in these negotiations was whether or not the past government should be granted amnesty for crimes committed during the apartheid era. The NP [the ruling National Party] insisted that there should be a general amnesty. The ANC [African National Congress] pushed for accountability for all past crimes. Ultimately it was agreed that there should be amnesty for politically motivated offenses. “
(From http://www.truthcommission.org/, accessed 13 April 2008 at 17:11)
The TRCs have become more widely used as the “third way between Nuremberg and national amnesia” (Tutu, 1999 in Ramsbotherm et al 2005 p238).
Linking this back to Woodcraft Folk process it’s important not to see justice and peace as a trade off. As has been explained here, we need to harness the energy of both. It is hard if people are unwilling to accept their mistakes as well as be able to forgive and move on. Something that was important was the idea of a common future or a common goal. through understanding this and creating common values we could reach a negotiated settlement.
Education and Oppression

The course uses alternative techniques in education and tries to pioneer the methods core to some of Culre’s original thinking in the course. Originally under the headship of Adam Curle the department was radically different from say a “traditional” course at a standard University. The department as it was based at Bradford University, an old institute of technology embodied applied education at its most radical. The course for undergraduates followed a four-year programme with a year in the “field” and tried to balance academia and an applied education with practitioners. This “balance” was reflected by the staff appointments in the first few years (Davis, U & Middleton L, 1982, p5). This kind of education embodied the idea of the applied (practical) and the theoretical. This is something that the Conflict Resolution at Bradford course now tries to re-create within the constraints of a modern university system.
In one of my reflective statements from 2008 I say:
“ My feelings are [of]… …excitement, anticipation and just wanting to get on with it.”
These feeling with this course are the same although I have become more confident with my feeling and the educational methods. In 2007 and then in 2008 I questioned the use of different pedagogies with middle class (or university graduates, who are by the very action of being at University predominantly middle class) (Kent, 1977, p37). One of the central concerns and questions that I come back to in 2006/7 and then in 2007/8 is:
“Can the education process work with a co-educational mix group” (Conflict Resolution 1 : Reflective Statement 2008, p 28).
In some of my reflections later on in this course I have equally become to question what kind of participants a voluntary conflict resolution course attracts and its usefulness. I come to this thinking whilst considering the gender perspective of the course and conflict resolution and widen my thoughts out to oppressed groups in wider society and inter society where education is conduced mixed.
I have talked already about students desire for something that they are used to both from Freire (1970, p55) and (Fetherston & Kelly, 2007), these desire and the outcome of return to Banking methods of education is something that we have to be caution about and I outlined the dangers above in terms of both group dynamics and the educational process. It is not just students but the system that can often confuse teaching with learning (Illich, 1971, p7), this confusion leads to students demanding education without really understanding what they want or need. Illich (1971) and Goodman (1962, p11) talk about this process of education systems operating for themselves rather than for the learners. This creation of an “education-industrialised complex” of a sort that has been developed by the military self serving machine as described by Eisenhower in his leaving address in 1961 has meant that the educational process became about banking knowledge that the system regarded as useful rather than skills and ability that would allow people to develop.
To look at oppression in conflict resolution though gender provides an interesting chance to consider the issues of wider discrimination. Gender although culturally based it also a cross cutting level of discrimination, as gender differences exist in all societies, therefore it can be part of multiple discrimination (discrimination based on more than one factor). On the end of term reflection in CR12 a question about how gender has impacted on the course and conflict resolution. A couple of the members said statements such as:
“bringing gender in to this kind of module doesn’t make sense to me.”
To me some of these statements are worrying. In 2006/7 I wrote with some of my other colleges at length about gender not only in this course but also in conflict resolution. Since then the introduction of the Gender Day (introduced in the department in 2008/09) should have address some of the questions of gender understanding.
In her introduction to gender day in 2009 Dr Fiona Macaulay said”
“I see gender as one of the paradigms that we must be aware of during conflict… there are other paradigms of oppression, race etc that we could focus on, but I have chosen gender…”
This day, described to “increase the conciseness” of gender issues includes simulations, discussions and lectures on numerous topics relating to gender. Without getting in too much details about the day itself, or the issues of gender, which could quite equally take up the whole of this paper, it shocked me that students who took part in the day (during its first year in 2008) would still feel that “gender wasn’t an issue”.
As other students point out and I reflect in CR12:
“gender has to be one of the cross cutting issues that is most pertinent to conflict resolution and permanent peace in today’s world.”
Gender is an important area to consider as in the past conflict resolution has been described as “conflict blind” (Reubmann 1999; 2002 in Ramsbothem et al, 2005, p265). This is something that not only needs to be challenged but when working with grassroots leaders or third level actors (Lederech 1997 and Ramsbothem et al 2005, p24) to be highly considered.
Women not only experience particular kinds of gender violence specific in war, of which there is a great deal of literature (Perrigo S., 1991, in Ramsbothem et al 2005 p265) but gender is part of an imbedded social system which must be considered to resolve any conflict. We didn’t really focus on much of this more broadly in the course and brining it in on the last day meant that some students still failed to make the links (despite the gender days described above.)
It is hard to reflect directly to gender the in the course, without us considering what the boarder society constraints and points of action are concerning gender.
What was interesting is in the evaluation session who some of the conversation turned to talking about personal space and contact. Something that I had commented on before to class mates and that links interestingly. The class talked about the use of physical contact within the teaching environment. The class point out that one action towards men would be treated as mail boding as with women it would be assault.
This differentiation to how people treat different sexes and genders opens many questions. Why does society accept the differential between how it is acceptable to treat the sexes? How does this manifest itselfe and how do we have to then consider gender nd sexuality in a corss cutting way though education.
There is a clear discrimination but education can also be effected by why Giovanni Scotto describes as an “Eros” in education. This can be dangerous when relationships are developed between trainers and participants. The “Eros” manifests itself in other ways however, and the physical relationship primarily between men and women is a manifestation of this.
Focualt says that we continue to,
“avoid contact with other bodies” and “we supported a Victorian regime and continue to be dominated by it today” (Focualt, 1976, p3)
he outlines why this has come about but also notes that there have been and continue to be “deviants” who do not play in the norms. Through his workings Butler argues that we need to stop connecting sexuality and gender with how we were raised or born but that we should address the action.
If we were to address the action rather than the gender then physical contact would just not be acceptable or would be regardless of the gender role that the individual may take on.
Working regardless of gender, however, is already a problem as I have described above. Working without regard for gender has caused some of the problems that Conflict Resolution has found itself in the past. I therefore am still unclear how we embrace gender while not fofusing on gender itself. It would seem to me that the only way to “smash” a gender and sex differences it to take on two fold approach. One to be aware of gender, talking statements to re-dress already existing injustices and secondly we need to explore ourselves, our own action and feelings around different genders and the effect that this has on peace building.
Conclusion
In this collection of thoughts and reflections I aimed to cover key areas. Though talking about Critical moments in our process and in the wider world I wanted to show that the moments can be varied but are important. Though looking more critically at one moment in our group I tried to focus on the development of the group work using Brewer and Tuckman as group development theories.
Showing how group work is important and understanding their relationship between that and the way groups resolve conflict. This process can and is made harder when parties don’t seen justice and peace as the same thing. Using examples as well as Ramsbotherm et al. Moore and Lederech, I tried to show that justice and peace are critically linked, but that if the creative tensions are not managed within situation then conflict can and will not be resolved as retribution as well as hearting will continue.
Finally I have looked at some of our educational theories how we understand this course and the department it comes from. With the course being introduced during the headship of Betts Featherstone as Undergraduate Director it was also important to look at the gender dynamic of the course. In this area using some of the educational writings of Freire and Illich I also focused on gender in the situations of education and conflict considering Foucault and what others in Ramsbothem et al have said. Through the diary I have tried to demonstrate the links and disconnections between different ideas while routing it our work and my reflections throughout the course.

Individual Audit
For this individual audit, I have written about two task, one was taking on the simulation based in south Africa, with this refection I focus on why oppression in the situation exists and also what tactics I should have and did use to resolve them.
In the second part using Lederech et al. (2007) reflective peace building I look at a workshop that I helped lead by using evaluation and reflection that Lederach et al.

Biblography
Blair, A. 2001, Speech to Labour Party Conference, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/oct/02/labourconference.labour7 Accessed 20/12/2009 12:18 AM, Brighton.
Boal, A., 1979, “Theatre of the Oppressed”, Pluto Press, London
Brahm, Eric, 2003 “Beyond Intractability”, Conflict research Consortium, Eds Burgess and Burgess, University of Colorado, Boulder
Brewer, M., 2003, “Intergroup Relations”, Open University Press, Buckingham
Butler, J., 1990, “Gender Trouble : Feminism and the Subversion of Identity”, Routledge, New York
CDR Associates, 2007, “Conflict Resolution : for Manager and Leaders”, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Cheldelin, S., Druckman, D. & Fast, L., 2003 “Conflict-From Analysis to Intervention”, Continuum, London.
Cheldelin, S., Druckman, D. & Fast, L., 2003, “Conflict”, Continuum, London
Clark, H. ed., 2009, “People Power : Unarmed Resistance and Global Solidarity”, Pluto Press, London
Davis, U & Middleton, L 1982 “A Learning Community?, The School of Peace Studies, A Critical Documentary History” Fourth Idea Bookshop, Bradford.
Eisenhower, 1961, “Farewell Address to Nation” http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm, accessed 20/12/2009 12:30 AM
Fetherson, B. & Kelly, R., 2007, Journal of Transformative Education, “Conflict Resolution and Transformative Pedagogy : A Grounded Theory Research Project on Learning in Higher Education” pp. 262-85.
Foucault, M. 1976, “The History of Sexuality 1 : The Will to Knowledge”, Random House, New York
Foucault, M., 1965, “Madness and Civilization”, Random House, New York
Freire, P., 1970, “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”, Penguin Books, London
Furlong, G., 2005, “The Conflict Resolution Toolbox”, Wiley, Mississauga, Ontario
Goffman, Erving 1959 “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life”, University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre.
Goodman, P., 1962 “Compulsory Miseducation”, Penguin Books, London
Illich, I., 1971 “Deschooling Society”, Penguin Books, London
Jeong, H., 2000 “Peace and Conflict Studies-An Introduction”, Ashgate Publishing Company, England.
Johnsom, D., & Johnson, R., 2006, Journal of Peace Education, “Peace Education for Consensual Peace : The essential role of conflict resolution” Vol3, No3, pp.147-174, Routledge, New York
Johnson, D. & Johnson F., 1997 “Joining Together: Group theory and Group skills”, (6th Ed) Allyn & Bacon
Kent, G., 1977, Peace and Change, “Peace Education: Pedagogy of the Middle Class”, , vol. IV no.3 p37 – 42
Kraybill, R, 2000, “Facilitation Skills for Interpersonal Transformation”, Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Conflict Management, Berlin
Lederach, J., 1997, “Building Peace : Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies”, United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington, D.C.
Lederach, J., Neufelt, R. & Culbertson, H., 2007, “Reflective Peace Building : A planning , monitoring and learning toolkit”, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
Miller, D., 2003, “Political Philosophy : A Very Short Introduction”, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Moore, C., 2005, “The Mediation Process”, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Olson, T. & Shivers, L., 1970, “Training for Non-violent Action” Friends Peace and International Relations Committee, London and War Resisters’ International, London
Ramsbothem, O., Woodhouse, T. & Miall, H., 2005, “Contemporary Conflict Resolution”, Polity Press, Cambridge
Robinson, D. 2004, “Unconditional Leadership”, Community Links, London
Smithers, A. & Robinson, P. 2006, “The Paradox Of Single-Sex and Co-Educational Schooling” Carmichael Press, Buckingham.
Tuckman, B.W., 2001, “Developmental sequence in small groups”, Group Facilitation, Issue 3, (Spring), pp. 66-81.
Ware, H. ed., 2006, “The No-Nonsense Guide to : Conflict and Peace”, New Internationalist, Oxford
West, M., 1994, “Effective Teamwork”, The British Psychology Society, London