The choice between whether to work top-down (global) or bottom-up (local) when offering peace education has long challenged practitioners in the field. A new study tackles this dilemma by examining when conflict resolution should be taught using prescriptive approaches, where outside experts deliver standardized content, or elicitive methods that draw from local knowledge and practices.
Through studying 118 experienced peace educators and conducting in-depth interviews with experts, the researchers uncovered nuanced findings about when each approach works best. While elicitive approaches were generally more effective and culturally sensitive, prescriptive methods were typically more efficient.
However, success with either approach depended on five crucial factors: the instructor’s comfort level with ambiguity, how well the instructor’s values aligned with local groups, the community’s priorities regarding efficiency versus sustainability, how functional existing local conflict resolution processes were, and how strict or flexible the local culture was about conflict approaches.
Perhaps most importantly, the research revealed that the most successful educators found ways to combine both approaches adaptively. For example, one trainer in Nepal started with a prescriptive model but then invited local mediators to test and refine it based on their community knowledge — creating an effective hybrid approach. The study also uncovered significant tensions that educators had to navigate, including whether to prioritize scientific evidence or local experiential knowledge, how to balance universal human rights with local cultural values, and when to focus on feasible short-term outcomes versus ideal sustainable solutions.
One particularly compelling insight came from John Paul Lederach’s reflection that the approach isn’t just about teaching methods — it’s about “how we choose to be with others in the face of extraordinary cultural and contextual complexity.” The most effective educators developed what he called a “quality of presence” that demonstrated deep respect and openness to different ways of knowing.
The researchers emphasized that success requires moving beyond seeing cultural differences as obstacles to be overcome. Instead, they advocate for viewing local cultural knowledge as foundational to the educational process while still finding appropriate ways to share relevant outside expertise. For peace educators, the key takeaway seems to be developing the ability to read situations accurately and adapt approaches accordingly, while maintaining genuine curiosity and respect for local wisdom. As one expert noted, the goal should be creating “a relationship of interaction, rather than transfer of knowledge.”
Peter T. Coleman, Lan H. Phan, Anupriya Kukreja, John Paul Lederach; Teaching Peace Top-down, Bottom-up, or Both? Navigating Basic Dilemmas in Cross-Cultural Conflict Resolution Education. Negotiation Journal 2024; 40 (3–4): 129–155. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/ngtn_a_00008