Peace Education in a Post-Conflict Society: The Case Study of Sierra Leone

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading this article. It is very well written and clear in its analysis. I am sympathetic to the importance of the topic. However, I believe it requires a lot of work before it is publishable.

1. It is not well contextualised in wider literature. How does this article differ from or advance previous studies on peace education in Sierra Leone? The literature review on peace education is very short and does not represent the vast literature on peace education. The article must justify itself better, especially because it is so high level in its analysis, examining a whole country over an extended period.
2. The article would benefit from a stronger political analysis of the causes of conflict and the nature of the peace settlement: what is the context in which peace education is being conducted? What kind of peace is it?
3. Are the long tables of actors/institutions needed? They are descriptive and take up a lot of space, and they are not (in my view) what is normally seen in a scholarly article.
4. The primary research is very limited: twelve interviews conducted online. Who are the interviewees? How were they chosen? We need more detail on the methodology.
5. The style of referencing the interviewees as ‘data generated on…’ is unusual to me. I would say it is more normal to write: ‘Interview with Participant A on [date]…’
6. The sub/headings are confusing. I suggest a heading of ‘Findings’ and then several themes labelled with subheadings below. There are two ‘Discussion Ones’. The ‘negative or positive’ peace heading does not really fit.
7. The findings do not closely engage with the interviewees’ data. We see relatively little of the data.
8. The claims about the success and failures of peace education are not well-evidenced. Can twelve interviews really give a robust evaluation of the impact of a range of programmes across an entire country? Some of the claims need refined. On p. 13 it says that peace education helped reduce educational inequalities and on p. 14 the article says that peace education helped to achieve negative peace, but what is the evidence of all this? The article also says that there are still structural inequalities – yet peace education is not capable of addressing structural inequalities.
9. p. 14 also says that the article gives a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between the pre-war education system and the outbreak of war, but I do not think that it does.
10. How do these findings - which are interesting and worthwhile – relate to what we already know about the challenges and opportunities of peace education?

Author Response

I enjoyed reading this article. It is very well written and clear in its analysis. I am sympathetic to the importance of the topic. However, I believe it requires a lot of work before it is publishable.

1. It is not well contextualised in wider literature. How does this article differ from or advance previous studies on peace education in Sierra Leone? The literature review on peace education is very short and does not represent the vast literature on peace education. The article must justify itself better, especially because it is so high level in its analysis, examining a whole country over an extended period.

 

Respond:

Thank you for pointing this out, we agree with this comment so that we have revised Section 1.2, renaming it “The Role of Peace Education in Post-Conflict Reconstruction”, to situate peace education more clearly within the context of post-conflict reconstruction. The section now provides a comprehensive overview of its theoretical foundations, historical development, and practical implementation, highlighting its contribution to both the structural and relational pillars of peacebuilding. We also critically engage with the Sierra Leone literature, identifying limitations of previous studies and demonstrating how our research addresses the gap by examining peace education at a national level over an extended period. This revision strengthens the justification for the study and clearly links it to both theory and prior empirical work. Please find it on page 3 to page 4, line 95 to line 156.

 

1.2 The Role of Peace Education in Post-Conflict Reconstruction

 

     Peace education is a multifaceted and context-sensitive approach aimed at promoting sustainable peace by developing the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values necessary to prevent conflict and resolve disputes non-violently [22, 23]. It includes both formal schooling and non-formal curricula, delivered by governments, schools, and external organisations, and varies according to ideology, objectives, curricula, and social context [23, 24]. Conceptually, peace education addresses both the presence of positive peace, such as cooperation, justice, and social cohesion, as well as the absence of violence (negative peace) [25].

Historically, peace education has evolved alongside societal needs and conflicts. Early 20th-century initiatives, such as Jane Addams’ advocacy for immigrant education and Montessori’s student-centred pedagogy, emphasised personal development and democratic citizenship as foundations for peace [26, 27]. Following the world wars, peace education expanded to include “Education for World Citizenship,” conflict resolution skills, and global awareness [28, 29]. In the latter 20th century, peace education diversified further to address nuclear threats, ethnic and religious conflicts, and domestic violence, adopting approaches such as multicultural education, human rights education, and development education [24, 30, 31]. Across socio-political contexts, peace education may target micro-level interpersonal skills, such as conflict resolution, or macro-level societal change, including altering collective narratives, breaking down stereotypes, and promoting human rights [24, 31–34].

In post-conflict contexts, such as Sierra Leone, peace education has been widely recognised as a critical component of reconstruction [35, 36]. The relationship between peace education and peacebuilding thus can be understood through the dual pillars of sustainable peace: the structural pillar, emphasising the reform and strengthening of governmental institutions, and the relational pillar, focusing on interpersonal relationships, social cohesion, and community resilience [37]. Peace education contributes to the relational pillar by developing values, skills, and knowledge for peaceful coexistence, complementing structural peacebuilding efforts. The evolution of international peacebuilding in the post-Cold War period reflects a shift from a Westphalian approach, emphasising strict sovereignty, to a post-Westphalian framework that allows multi-actor engagement, including external interventions [38, 39]. Liberal peacebuilding, which has guided much of post-conflict reconstruction over the past four decades, seeks to transform dysfunctional states by promoting democracy, free-market economies, human rights, and cooperative governance [40–43]. Within this framework, peace education functions as a long-term human security programme that nurtures the capacities of individuals and communities to support sustainable peace [44–46]. Peace education initiatives, promoted since the 20th century, emphasise context-sensitive, localised approaches to address societal needs [47–50]. They include multiple formats and objectives, targeting cognitive understanding, emotional development, conflict sensitivity, and social cohesion. By providing educational opportunities to populations affected by war, peace education contributes to individual empowerment, social reconciliation, and broader peacebuilding goals.

Previous studies have examined various aspects of peace education in Sierra Leone, but their scope has often been limited. Bretherton, Weston, and Zbar [35, 51] analysed the integration of peace education into the national curriculum, highlighting challenges and strategies at the school level. Kapuwa [36] emphasised the importance of peace education in preventing relapse into conflict by addressing underlying causes of war, while critiquing its marginalisation within broader peacebuilding efforts. UNICEF and ECDP [52] underscored the role of education in promoting social cohesion, pointing out the need for conflict-sensitive educational planning and the reduction of educational inequalities. Yu and Wyness [53] further demonstrated that generic development programmes often neglect the specific needs of subpopulations, limiting the effectiveness of peace education initiatives in post-war Sierra Leone. While these studies provide valuable insights, they are largely localised, short-term, or programme-specific, leaving a gap in understanding how peace education operates at a national level over an extended period. This study addresses this gap by examining the implementation and impact of peace education across Sierra Leone in the aftermath of civil conflict, taking into account both policy-level interventions and broader societal outcomes. By situating its analysis within the context of these foundational works and grounding it in the theoretical principles of peace education, this research provides a country-wide perspective, essential for understanding the long-term effectiveness and challenges of peace education in post-conflict settings.

 

 2. The article would benefit from a stronger political analysis of the causes of conflict and the nature of the peace settlement: what is the context in which peace education is being conducted? What kind of peace is it?

 

Respond:

 

• A stronger political analysis of the causes of the conflict: This part has been incorporated in the rewritten Section 1.1, where we critically examine the factors that led to the Sierra Leonean civil war. This analysis considers both pre- and post-war political, economic, and educational dynamics to provide a comprehensive understanding of the conflict’s root causes. Please find it on page 1 to page 2, line 26 to line 89.

 

Upon gaining independence from the British in April 1961, Sierra Leone possessed the formal elements of a functioning state, including a democratically elected parliament through universal suffrage, an executive led by a prime minister and cabinet drawn from the ruling party, an independent judiciary, and a relatively efficient civil service [1, 2]. Its economy showed promise, relying on export-oriented mining—primarily iron ore, rutile, and alluvial diamonds—as well as agricultural commodities such as coffee and cocoa. Educational institutions such as Fourah Bay College, established in 1827 and affiliated with the University of Durham until 1996, alongside reputable primary and secondary schools, existed; however, education remained largely elitist and inaccessible to the majority, particularly in the hinterland, resulting in low literacy rates and reinforcing social inequalities [3].

 

Despite these formal structures, Sierra Leone’s prospects for nation-building were undermined by a fragile constitutional framework, ethnic divisions, and socio-economic disparities [4]. Within six years of independence, contested elections between the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) and the opposition All People’s Congress (APC) led to military intervention, effectively ending the country’s democratic experiment and setting Sierra Leone on a troubled political and economic path characterised by political violence, thuggery, and pervasive corruption [5–7]. By the outbreak of the civil war in early 1991, the state had collapsed, with dysfunctional institutions, growing inequalities, and a weakened economy [4]. The civil war emerged from a combination of historical, political, economic, and educational inequalities. Colonial policies entrenched structural disparities between Freetown, the hinterland, and other regions, privileging urban elites while marginalising rural populations [9, 10]. Economic infrastructure, including railways, primarily served urban centres and southern regions, while the north remained neglected [9, 10]. Indirect colonial rule through Paramount Chiefs reinforced local hierarchies and abuses of power, generating resentment among young, disenfranchised males [10].

 

Meanwhile, education, characterised by historically elitist and British-centred functioned as both a symbol and instrument of inequality [11–13]. In particular, urban and elite populations had access to secondary and tertiary education, whereas rural youth were largely excluded [14, 11]. This produced a ‘crisis of youth’, in which young people, frustrated by the mismatch between educational attainment and employment opportunities, became vulnerable to mobilisation by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and other rebel groups [2, 15, 10]. Both radical students and uneducated youth, including the ‘lumpen youth’ and ‘sansan boys’, became key actors, illustrating how educational and economic marginalisation intersected with political grievances.

 

The civil war in this case was driven by both grievance and greed. Specifically, the grievances arose from structural inequalities in political power, economic opportunity, and education, while greed, in turn, motivated involvement in diamond mining and looting [16, 10]. Moreover, weak state institutions, centralised patronage, and the deliberate neglect of public goods, including education, rendered the government incapable of managing societal grievances or providing pathways for social mobility [17–19]. Consequently, the interplay of historical inequalities, authoritarian governance, elite patronage, economic collapse, and educational exclusion collectively created the structural and political conditions that not only precipitated but also sustained the civil war in Sierra Leone."

 

Post-independence politics once again perpetuated these inequalities, with ethnic and regional divisions shaping competition between the APC and SLPP [10]. Under Stevens’ presidency, centralisation of political and economic power, the creation of a collapse state, and the deployment of violent youth groups for political control intensified social and economic exclusion [20, 10]. Economic decline during the 1970s and 1980s, compounded by structural adjustment programmes and currency devaluation, exacerbated poverty and unemployment, leaving rural youth particularly marginalised [10, 21].

 

The decade-long civil war, which officially ended in 2002 following interventions by the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and regional African forces, provides the backdrop for this study. This paper situates Sierra Leone’s civil war as the historical backdrop for examining the role of peace education in post-conflict governance, stability, and development. Unlike broader studies on the war and its aftermath, it focuses on the application and effectiveness of peace education in fostering peacebuilding and transformation [8]. The discussion defines peace education, reviews its implementation through state and international initiatives, and outlines the methodology. Drawing on available evidence, the paper distils lessons and concludes with recommendations to strengthen peace education in post-conflict reconstruction

 

 

• The nature of the peace settlement: what is the context in which peace education is being conducted? What kind of peace is it? We appreciate your comments, and the issue was addressed by situating peace education within Sierra Leone’s post-conflict context, following a decade-long civil war (1991–2002) that left the country with fragile state institutions, high youth unemployment, and enduring socio-economic and regional inequalities. The peace settlement primarily reflects negative peace, marked by the cessation of large-scale violence and the restoration of formal governance, while positive peace—encompassing social justice, reconciliation, and equitable access to resources—remains largely unrealised. Within this fragile and uneven environment, peace education seeks to influence attitudes, behaviours, and social grievances, though its effectiveness is limited by historical inequalities, institutional weaknesses, and structural barriers. To fully address this point, we have reorganised the whole section, please find it on page 14 to page 15, line 585 to line 620.

 

Since the end of its civil war in 2002, Sierra Leone has largely moved away from major violence, creating a context in which peace education can be implemented as part of broader post-conflict reconstruction. However, the country still faces structural and historical challenges that shape this context. The Ebola outbreak of 2014–2016 exposed longstanding weaknesses in Sierra Leone’s health infrastructure, particularly the uneven distribution of medical resources heavily favouring urban centres. Rural populations suffered disproportionately, highlighting persistent regional inequalities not only in healthcare but also in education [95]. Protests and refusals to seek treatment during the epidemic further revealed deep-seated distrust towards social services and state institutions [107].

Within this environment of uneven development and lingering distrust, peace education initiatives have emerged as a targeted strategy to address one of the key drivers of the civil war—educational inequality. Interview data from this research indicate that peace education has positively influenced attitudes and behaviours, reducing mistrust and dissatisfaction with authority. It has contributed to transforming the education system, promoting non-violence, and fostering social cohesion within communities [8]. However, the broader context of structural inequality—including disparities in access to education, poor transportation infrastructure, and the concentration of services in more accessible regions—limits the ability of peace education alone to achieve positive peace.

Economically, Sierra Leone experienced growth from 2002 to 2014, with GDP rising from approximately US$1.25 billion to US$5 billion. The Ebola epidemic, however, caused a significant downturn, reducing GDP to US$4.2 billion in 2015 and further to US$3.7 billion as donor support declined [108]. Scholars such as Newman [109] argue that this growth remains externally driven and has not yet generated self-sustaining development. Politically, the country has conducted four peaceful democratic elections since the end of the civil war, reflecting progress towards stable governance. Combined improvements in democratic practice, economic recovery, declining illiteracy rates, and the cessation of large-scale violence suggest that conditions for positive peace are beginning to emerge, albeit unevenly [110].

In summary, peace education in Sierra Leone is being conducted in a post-conflict context defined by fragile state institutions, historical inequalities, regional disparities, and periods of socio-economic vulnerability. While it has contributed significantly to achieving negative peace by curbing major violence and fostering social cohesion, the persistence of structural inequalities—including limited access to resources and economic opportunity—presents an ongoing challenge to achieving lasting positive peace.

 

3. Are the long tables of actors/institutions needed? They are descriptive and take up a lot of space, and they are not (in my view) what is normally seen in a scholarly article.

 

Respond:

 

Thank your for your suggestions, Table 4 and 5 has been removed to improve overall readability.

 

4. The primary research is very limited: twelve interviews conducted online. Who are the interviewees? How were they chosen? We need more detail on the methodology.

 

Respond:

 

Agree, accordingly a detailed description of the participant selection criteria has been incorporated into the Methodology section. We had revised the methodology to clarify that the documentary analysis had served as the foundation for the interviews with key informants, and we had explained how participants had been selected.  In summary, we used snowball sampling to recruit participations, and these 12 participants are divided into three categories, (1) Policymakers; (2) External Practitioners; (3) Curriculum experts. Please find it on page 4 to page 5, line 167 to line 203.

 

The documentary review served as a basis for the interviews with key informants.

In terms of the interview, a total of twelve informants with expertise in peace education, curriculum development, and education policy participated in virtual interviews, necessitated by COVID-19 restrictions. To recruit participants, snowball sampling was employed, in which an initial group of informants recommends others within their networks who meet the study’s criteria [56, p.817]. The interviews aimed to gather rich qualitative data on national perspectives, experiences, and the perceived impact of peace education initiatives.

Participants were divided into three categories:

1. Policymakers:National-level officials provided insights on pre-war education, post-war reforms, and the integration of peace education into formal systems. Key informants included the Permanent Representative to the UN, an ambassador, a former senior MOEST official, and current ministry officers, including the Minister of Primary Education.
2. External practitioners:Experts from the UN, World Bank, and NGOs offered perspectives on externally driven peace education initiatives, programme design, implementation challenges, and their contribution to peaceful coexistence. Many had experience in human rights and peacebuilding in Sierra Leone.
3. Curriculum experts:Educators directly involved in peace education, including those managing peace-focused schools before and after the war, provided practical insights into curriculum effectiveness and the role of peace education in sustaining peace.

 

5. The style of referencing the interviewees as ‘data generated on…’ is unusual to me. I would say it is more normal to write: ‘Interview with Participant A on [date]…’

 

Respond:

 

Thank you for pointing this out. The referencing style for interviewees has been revised for clarity and convention. All interviews are now cited in the format: “Interview with Participant [Officer/Educator/Practitioner] on [date]…”, aligning with standard academic practice. Please see it on footnote on page 11, page 12 and page 14.

 

1. Interview with an officer on 20^th Jan 2021
2. Interview with an officer on 25^th Feb 2021
3. Interview with a practitioner on 5^th May 2021
4. Interview with an educator on 16^th Mar 2021
5. Interview with an educator on 4^th March 2021
6. Interview with a practitioner separately on on 19^th April and 5^th May 2021
7. Interview with an educator on on 3^rdMar 2021
8. Interview with an educator on 15^th Mar 2021, and a practitioner on 22^nd Mar 2021
9. Interview with a practitioner separately on on 19^th April and 5^th May 2021
10. Interview with an educator on 3^rd Mar 2021
11. Interview with an educator on 15^th Mar 2021, and a practitioner on 22^nd Mar 2021

 

6. The sub/headings are confusing. I suggest a heading of ‘Findings’ and then several themes labelled with subheadings below. There are two ‘Discussion Ones’. The ‘negative or positive’ peace heading does not really fit.

 

Respond:

 

Thanks for your suggestions, in order to enhance the overall clarity, rather than rename the section from “Results” to “Findings”, we further renamed it as “3. The analysis of peace education in Sierra Leone (page 5, line 216)” to improve clarity. Subheadings have been revised to present themes systematically:

 

 

3.1 Evaluation of Peace Education Programmes in Sierra Leone (page 6, line 253)

                      3.2 Analysis of Formal Peace Education Programmes (page 8, line 319)

3.3 Analysis of Non-Formal Peace Education Programmes (page 9, line 369)

 

The discussion section has been retitled as: “4. Discussing the Role and Impact of Peace Education from the Perspectives of Informants (page 10, line 408-409).” Subheadings have been revised to:

 

4.1 The Limitations of Peace Education in Sierra Leone (page 10, line 410)

4.2 The contributions of Peace Education in Sierra Leone (page 13, line 522)

4.3 Negative Peace and the Challenges of Achieving Positive Peace in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone (page 14, line 587)

This reorganisation ensures a logical flow from programme evaluation, actors involved, lessons learned, limitations, contributions, and broader peace outcomes, addressing the reviewer’s concern about confusing subheadings and duplicate “Discussion” section.

 

7. The findings do not closely engage with the interviewees’ data. We see relatively little of the data.

 

Respond:

 

Apart from sections 3.1 to 3.3, the findings are drawn directly from interview data. The twelve informants—policymakers, curriculum experts, and practitioners—provided detailed insights into the implementation, impact, and limitations of peace education, ensuring the study reflects the perspectives of those directly engaged in these initiatives. For example, we have stated that “Informants noted that logistical challenges, such as inadequate transport networks and the high costs of reaching rural schools, made it difficult to extend these initiatives to remote areas. One former official emphasised the strain on facilitators attempting to deliver in-person training in hard-to-reach communities, citing the extensive travel time and effort required as key barriers^[1]. These constraints not only limited the geographic reach of peace education efforts but also exacerbated existing inequalities in teacher preparedness and instructional quality across the country [95, 96].” This can be found from page 10 to page 11, line 424-430. For other discussions, please see in the original work from page 10-page 19, line408 to line 586.

 

8. The claims about the success and failures of peace education are not well-evidenced. Can twelve interviews really give a robust evaluation of the impact of a range of programmes across an entire country? Some of the claims need refined. On p. 13 it says that peace education helped reduce educational inequalities and on p. 14 the article says that peace education helped to achieve negative peace, but what is the evidence of all this? The article also says that there are still structural inequalities – yet peace education is not capable of addressing structural inequalities.

 

Respond:

 

This study is qualitative, adopting a social constructionist approach. It emphasises on participants’ perceptions and experiences, providing an in-depth analysis rather than providing a quantitative evaluation of all peace education programmes in Sierra Leone. The informants shared insights based on the evidence and perspectives they gathered during their involvement in peace education practices. The advantage of a qualitative study is that it captures detailed insights into underlying reasons of inequalities which may be caused by the implementation of peace education. Quantitative research methodology is not as well designed to present an in-depth perspective of peace education perceived on the grassroots level.

 

For example, the officer cited on page 13 observed that distributing peace education to remote areas helped reintegrate children marginalised by the war back into school, which he interpreted as contributing to a reduction in educational inequalities. Similarly, on page 14, informants noted that the absence of violent conflict—even during the two waves of the Ebola and COVID-19 pandemics—suggested that peace education can influence attitudes and behaviours in times of difficulty.

 

At the same time, structural inequalities, such as limited transportation infrastructure, constrained the reach of peace education initiatives, highlighting that while education can foster behavioural and attitudinal change, it cannot fully address broader systemic inequalities on its own. Please find it on page 14, line 598-606.

9. p. 14 also says that the article gives a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between the pre-war education system and the outbreak of war, but I do not think that it does.

 

Respond:

 

Thank you, I agree with your comment. This part of analysis has been briefly discussed in introduction on page 1 to page 2, from line 26 to line 89. Meanwhile, the word ‘comprehensive’ has been removed.

 

Upon gaining independence from the British in April 1961, Sierra Leone possessed the formal elements of a functioning state, including a democratically elected parliament through universal suffrage, an executive led by a prime minister and cabinet drawn from the ruling party, an independent judiciary, and a relatively efficient civil service [1, 2]. Its economy showed promise, relying on export-oriented mining—primarily iron ore, rutile, and alluvial diamonds—as well as agricultural commodities such as coffee and cocoa. Educational institutions such as Fourah Bay College, established in 1827 and affiliated with the University of Durham until 1996, alongside reputable primary and secondary schools, existed; however, education remained largely elitist and inaccessible to the majority, particularly in the hinterland, resulting in low literacy rates and reinforcing social inequalities [3].

Despite these formal structures, Sierra Leone’s prospects for nation-building were undermined by a fragile constitutional framework, ethnic divisions, and socio-economic disparities [4]. Within six years of independence, contested elections between the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) and the opposition All People’s Congress (APC) led to military intervention, effectively ending the country’s democratic experiment and setting Sierra Leone on a troubled political and economic path characterised by political violence, thuggery, and pervasive corruption [5–7]. By the outbreak of the civil war in early 1991, the state had collapsed, with dysfunctional institutions, growing inequalities, and a weakened economy [4]. The civil war emerged from a combination of historical, political, economic, and educational inequalities. Colonial policies entrenched structural disparities between Freetown, the hinterland, and other regions, privileging urban elites while marginalising rural populations [9, 10]. Economic infrastructure, including railways, primarily served urban centres and southern regions, while the north remained neglected [9, 10]. Indirect colonial rule through Paramount Chiefs reinforced local hierarchies and abuses of power, generating resentment among young, disenfranchised males [10].

Meanwhile, education, characterised by historically elitist and British-centred functioned as both a symbol and instrument of inequality [11–13]. In particular, urban and elite populations had access to secondary and tertiary education, whereas rural youth were largely excluded [14, 11]. This produced a ‘crisis of youth’, in which young people, frustrated by the mismatch between educational attainment and employment opportunities, became vulnerable to mobilisation by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and other rebel groups [2, 15, 10]. Both radical students and uneducated youth, including the ‘lumpen youth’ and ‘sansan boys’, became key actors, illustrating how educational and economic marginalisation intersected with political grievances.

The civil war in this case was driven by both grievance and greed. Specifically, the grievances arose from structural inequalities in political power, economic opportunity, and education, while greed, in turn, motivated involvement in diamond mining and looting [16, 10]. Moreover, weak state institutions, centralised patronage, and the deliberate neglect of public goods, including education, rendered the government incapable of managing societal grievances or providing pathways for social mobility [17–19]. Consequently, the interplay of historical inequalities, authoritarian governance, elite patronage, economic collapse, and educational exclusion collectively created the structural and political conditions that not only precipitated but also sustained the civil war in Sierra Leone."

Post-independence politics once again perpetuated these inequalities, with ethnic and regional divisions shaping competition between the APC and SLPP [10]. Under Stevens’ presidency, centralisation of political and economic power, the creation of a collapse state, and the deployment of violent youth groups for political control intensified social and economic exclusion [20, 10]. Economic decline during the 1970s and 1980s, compounded by structural adjustment programmes and currency devaluation, exacerbated poverty and unemployment, leaving rural youth particularly marginalised [10, 21].

The decade-long civil war, which officially ended in 2002 following interventions by the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and regional African forces, provides the backdrop for this study. This paper situates Sierra Leone’s civil war as the historical backdrop for examining the role of peace education in post-conflict governance, stability, and development. Unlike broader studies on the war and its aftermath, it focuses on the application and effectiveness of peace education in fostering peacebuilding and transformation [8]. The discussion defines peace education, reviews its implementation through state and international initiatives, and outlines the methodology. Drawing on available evidence, the paper distils lessons and concludes with recommendations to strengthen peace education in post-conflict reconstruction

 

 

10. How do these findings - which are interesting and worthwhile – relate to what we already know about the challenges and opportunities of peace education?

 

Respond:

 

This study situates peace education in Sierra Leone’s post-conflict context, demonstrating both its contributions and limitations, and connects these findings to broader insights from the peace education literature. Interviews with twelve key informants—including policymakers, curriculum experts, and practitioners from international and local organisations—highlighted that peace education has positively influenced attitudes and behaviours, contributing to negative peace by reducing violence and promoting social cohesion. Initiatives such as the Emerging Issues programme, the Peace Education Kit, and community-based media like Atunda Ayenda and Talking Drums Studio helped reintegrate children affected by war, promote student-centred learning, foster critical thinking, encourage non-violent conflict resolution, and advance gender inclusivity. Schools functioned as safe spaces providing psychosocial support, while non-formal programmes extended learning opportunities to out-of-school youth, consistent with the literature emphasising the role of education in promoting reconciliation and community resilience (UNESCO, 2011; Freire, 1993).

 

At the same time, the study confirms widely recognised challenges in peace education. Informants highlighted structural constraints—including unequal distribution of resources, limited transportation and ICT infrastructure, and the persistence of corporal punishment—which restrict the reach and effectiveness of programmes, particularly in rural and underserved areas. These findings align with prior research showing that peace education, while effective in shaping attitudes and behaviours, cannot on its own overcome deep-rooted socio-economic, historical, and infrastructural inequalities (Higgins, 2020; Najjuma, 2011).

 

Based on these insights, the study proposes recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of peace education. Thus, this study demonstrates that peace education in Sierra Leone has successfully promoted non-violence, social cohesion, and psychosocial support, reflecting opportunities recognised in the global literature. However, its ability to achieve positive peace—characterised by equity, justice, and structural transformation—is constrained by historical and infrastructural inequalities. By linking empirical findings to broader knowledge on peace education, this research underscores the need to complement attitudinal and behavioural interventions with systemic reforms to realise sustainable peace in Sierra Leone and other post-conflict settings. To more effectively address your concerns, we have revised the conclusion, which can now be found on page 15 to page 16, from line 623 to line 670.

 

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

This study has examined the role of peace education in Sierra Leone’s post-conflict context, highlighting both its contributions and limitations. Interviews with twelve key informants—including policymakers, curriculum experts, and practitioners from international and local organisations—provided insights into how peace education has been implemented, its impact on attitudes and behaviours, and the structural constraints that limit its reach.

Peace education has contributed to negative peace by reducing violence and promoting social cohesion. Initiatives such as the Emerging Issues programme, the Peace Education Kit, and community-based media like Atunda Ayenda and Talking Drums Studio helped reintegrate children affected by war, promote student-centred learning, and encourage critical thinking, non-violent conflict resolution, and gender inclusivity. Schools served as safe spaces providing psychosocial support, while non-formal programmes extended learning opportunities to out-of-school youth. Interviewees emphasised that these interventions helped restore hope, change behaviours, and foster reconciliation at the community level.

However, according to the informants of this study, structural limitations remain, exemplified by unequal distribution of resources, poor transportation infrastructure, underdeveloped ICT networks, and the continued use of corporal punishment in schools undermine the full potential of peace education. Informants also highlighted that remote and rural areas often remain underserved, limiting equitable access and perpetuating educational disparities. While peace education can influence attitudes and behaviours, it cannot, on its own, address these deeper structural and systemic inequalities.

 

Based on these findings, the following recommendations are proposed:

Teacher Training: Provide regular, sustained professional development, particularly for rural teachers, to ensure consistent delivery of quality peace education as most of teachers in remoted areas have limited opportunities.

Community Engagement: Strengthen the involvement of local civil society, traditional institutions, and youth organisations to enhance the reach, relevance, and effectiveness of both formal and non-formal peace education programmes.

Infrastructure Improvement: Invest in transport and digital infrastructure to facilitate equitable distribution of teaching materials, access to training, and participation in educational programmes in remote areas.

Policy and Practice Alignment: Address entrenched disciplinary practices such as corporal punishment through both legal reform and teacher education to align school practices with peace education principles.

In conclusion, this study provides an overview of peace education’s role in Sierra Leone’s post-conflict recovery. Peace education has made significant strides in promoting non-violence, psychosocial support, and social cohesion, contributing to the reduction of violence and fostering reconciliation. However, its impact on achieving positive peace—characterised by equity, justice, and structural transformation—remains limited due to persistent historical, social, and infrastructural inequalities. Understanding both the achievements and limitations of peace education is essential for informing future initiatives aimed at enhancing its long-term effectiveness and supporting sustainable peace in Sierra Leone and other post-conflict contexts, such as South Sudan.

 

References:

Freire, P. (1993). The pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Higgins, S. (2020), Beyond peace education: Rethinking the pedagogical contributions of teachers to positive peace in conflict-affected Sierra Leone, Available at: https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/52757506/Thesis.pdf, (Accessed on: 21^st May 2025).

Najjuma, R. (2011). Peace education in the context of post-conflict formal schooling: the effectiveness of the revitalising education participation and learning in conflict-affected areas-peace education programme in Northern Uganda, Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

UNESCO. (2011). The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education. EFA global monitoring report 2011. Paris, France: UNESCO.

[1] Interview with an officer on 20^th Jan 2021

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposal is interesting, and the results of the author’s research certainly deserve to be made public. In my opinion, however, the text requires some significant revisions before a decision on publication can be made.
The main concern is what exactly is being studied. According to the author’s statement in section 2, “Methodology”, this is a study of “the characteristics and constraints of peace education within the framework of educational practices and reforms in Sierra Leone, encompassing both formal and informal settings, during the ten years following the conclusion of the civil war in 2000”. The author declares that, first, a document analysis was conducted, and second, interviews were carried out with 12 respondents.
However, the article does not contain any actual document analysis. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 contain very general statements in the form of tables. Sections 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6, entitled ‘Discussion’ (section 3.5 is incorrectly named – it should be Discussion 2/two), are devoted to interviews with respondents.
 The discussion should concern the previously obtained and presented research results. If the author assumed that he was examining both documents and respondents’ opinions, the results of this research should be separated from the discussion. It is also difficult to understand the division of the discussion into three sections within section 3, “Results”.
 I suggest that the scope of the study be clearly defined.
 In my opinion, considering the materials collected by the author, it would be best and simplest to limit the research to the opinions of the reviewers. After presenting the peace education programmes in Sierra Leone as an introductory part, the research part could focus on how selected respondents evaluate these programmes. A discussion of the results obtained should follow this. If, on the other hand, the author wishes to examine both the programmes and the respondents’ opinions, then, first of all, the analysis of the programmes should be presented in more detail (a tabular form is not sufficient, as it only highlights important issues) and the analysis of the respondents’ opinions should be included. The section devoted to the ‘Discussion’ of the results should be rewritten.

Author Response

The proposal is interesting, and the results of the author’s research certainly deserve to be made public. In my opinion, however, the text requires some significant revisions before a decision on publication can be made. The main concern is what exactly is being studied. According to the author’s statement in section 2, “Methodology”, this is a study of “the characteristics and constraints of peace education within the framework of educational practices and reforms in Sierra Leone, encompassing both formal and informal settings, during the ten years following the conclusion of the civil war in 2000”. The author declares that, first, a document analysis was conducted, and second, interviews were carried out with 12 respondents. However, the article does not contain any actual document analysis. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 contain very general statements in the form of tables. Sections 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6, entitled ‘Discussion’ (section 3.5 is incorrectly named – it should be Discussion 2/two), are devoted to interviews with respondents.

The discussion should concern the previously obtained and presented research results. If the author assumed that he was examining both documents and respondents’ opinions, the results of this research should be separated from the discussion. It is also difficult to understand the division of the discussion into three sections within section 3, “Results”.

I suggest that the scope of the study be clearly defined.

In my opinion, considering the materials collected by the author, it would be best and simplest to limit the research to the opinions of the reviewers. After presenting the peace education programmes in Sierra Leone as an introductory part, the research part could focus on how selected respondents evaluate these programmes. A discussion of the results obtained should follow this. If, on the other hand, the author wishes to examine both the programmes and the respondents’ opinions, then, first of all, the analysis of the programmes should be presented in more detail (a tabular form is not sufficient, as it only highlights important issues) and the analysis of the respondents’ opinions should be included. The section devoted to the ‘Discussion’ of the results should be rewritten.

 

Thank you for your comments and for your dedication to this project. Before presenting my detailed response, I would like to summarise the main points of your review:

• Clarify the research focus: Decide whether the study concentrates solely on respondents’ opinions or on both programme documents and respondents’ perspectives.

We appreciated this observation and had agreed with your suggestion. Accordingly, we had decided to include both documents and respondents’ opinions in the revised version of the paper. To address this, we had strengthened the document analysis by moving beyond tabular presentation and providing narrative explanation and interpretation.

As a first step, we had revised the methodology to clarify that the documentary analysis had served as the foundation for the interviews with key informants, and we had explained how participants had been selected.  In summary, we used snowball sampling to recruit participations, and these 12 participants are divided into three categories, (1) Policymakers; (2) External Practitioners; (3) Curriculum experts. This information had been included on page 4 to page 5, lines 167–203. Following this section, we have reorganised the finding section, section 3 and divided into two sections:

Section 3: The analysis of peace education in Sierra Leone (page 5-page 10, line 216-line 406)

Section 4: Discussing the Role and Impact of Peace Education from the Perspectives of Informants (page 10-page 15, line 408-622).”

The documentary review served as a basis for the interviews with key informants.

In terms of the interview, a total of twelve informants with expertise in peace education, curriculum development, and education policy participated in virtual interviews, necessitated by COVID-19 restrictions. To recruit participants, snowball sampling was employed, in which an initial group of informants recommends others within their networks who meet the study’s criteria [56, p.817]. The interviews aimed to gather rich qualitative data on national perspectives, experiences, and the perceived impact of peace education initiatives.

Participants were divided into three categories:

(1) Policymakers: National-level officials provided insights on pre-war education, post-war reforms, and the integration of peace education into formal systems. Key informants included the Permanent Representative to the UN, an ambassador, a former senior MOEST official, and current ministry officers, including the Minister of Primary Education.

(2) External practitioners: Experts from the UN, World Bank, and NGOs offered perspectives on externally driven peace education initiatives, programme design, implementation challenges, and their contribution to peaceful coexistence. Many had experience in human rights and peacebuilding in Sierra Leone.

(3) Curriculum experts: Educators directly involved in peace education, including those managing peace-focused schools before and after the war, provided practical insights into curriculum effectiveness and the role of peace education in sustaining peace.

In short, the preliminary review of documents, especially those evaluating the structure and effectiveness of peace education programmes, informed the development of interview questions [55]. This iterative design allowed for a deeper understanding of how peace education operates, its intended outcomes, and the factors that either support or hinder its success. By analysing both documentary and interview data under thematic categories, the study was able to assess which elements are conducive—or obstructive—to achieving the goals of peace education in post-conflict Sierra Leone.

Drawing on documentary analysis, Section 3 presents an overview of the components of peace education in Sierra Leone and highlights critiques of its effectiveness and limitations. Section 4 then discusses the role of peace education based on insights gathered from interviews.

3. The analysis of peace education in Sierra Leone

Following the end of Sierra Leone’s civil war in 2002, peace education became a central tool for reconciliation and long-term stability. Both local and international stakeholders—including UNESCO, the World Bank, USAID, NGOs such as Fambul Tok, and the Sierra Leone Ministry of Education—collaborated to implement programmes across formal and non-formal settings. Peace education initiatives combined human rights education, conflict resolution, education in emergencies, and development education, aiming to address the root causes of conflict and promote social transformation.

Prior to the implementation of peace educational initiatives, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) launched “truth-telling” initiatives in 2003, but limited participation, fear of reprisals, and weak government follow-up reduced its impact. As an alternative, community-based programmes such as Fambul Tok conducted in 2008 and Wi Na Wan Fambul conducted in 2011 drew on local traditions to foster reconciliation and prevent election-related violence. These grassroots initiatives laid the groundwork for peace education by encouraging forgiveness, dialogue, and communal healing.

In the aftermath of the civil war, Sierra Leone prioritised rebuilding its education sector as a foundation for peacebuilding. Reforms began with the introduction of free primary education in 2000, followed by the creation of polytechnics and the enactment of the Tertiary Education Act in 2001, alongside the establishment of the National Council for Technical and Vocational Awards, together, these measures expanded access to education and gave legal recognition to non-formal learning, strengthening vocational training and adult education as tools for social and economic recovery.

Building on these reforms, peace education was formally incorporated into the 2010 National Education Policy, which placed strong emphasis on human rights, democratic values, and social justice. The policy aimed to embed peace education across all school curricula, encourage good governance and peaceful behaviour, and reward institutions and students who demonstrated discipline and civic responsibility. Importantly, it combined formal approaches such as curriculum integration, teacher training, and vocational education with non-formal community-based initiatives. In this way, the policy not only expanded the reach of education but also sought to foster solidarity, reduce discrimination, promote gender equality, and address the deeper structural causes of conflict (Opotow et al., 2005).

Following this, we have analysed the practice of peace education since its emergence in the immediate post-ceasefire period, examining the related policies as well as the evaluation of both formal and non-formal practices.  This answers your second question, which involves an actual document analysis, this part can be found on page 5 to page 8, line 216 to line 317.

The analysis of peace education in Sierra Leone

Following the end of Sierra Leone’s civil war in 2002, peace education became a central tool for reconciliation and long-term stability. Both local and international stakeholders—including UNESCO, the World Bank, USAID, NGOs such as Fambul Tok, and the Sierra Leone Ministry of Education—collaborated to implement programmes across formal and non-formal settings. Peace education initiatives combined human rights education, conflict resolution, education in emergencies, and development education, aiming to address the root causes of conflict and promote social transformation.

 

Prior to the implementation of peace educational initiatives, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) launched “truth-telling” initiatives in 2003, but limited participation, fear of reprisals, and weak government follow-up reduced its impact. As an alternative, community-based programmes such as Fambul Tok (2008) and Wi Na Wan Fambul (2011) drew on local traditions to foster reconciliation and prevent election-related violence. These grassroots initiatives laid the groundwork for peace education by encouraging forgiveness, dialogue, and communal healing.

 

In the aftermath of the civil war, Sierra Leone prioritised rebuilding its education sector as a foundation for peacebuilding. Reforms began with the introduction of free primary education in 2000, followed by the creation of polytechnics and the enactment of the Tertiary Education Act in 2001, alongside the establishment of the National Council for Technical and Vocational Awards, together, these measures expanded access to education and gave legal recognition to non-formal learning, strengthening vocational training and adult education as tools for social and economic recovery.

 

Building on these reforms, peace education was formally incorporated into the 2010 National Education Policy, which placed strong emphasis on human rights, democratic values, and social justice. The policy aimed to embed peace education across all school curricula, encourage good governance and peaceful behaviour, and reward institutions and students who demonstrated discipline and civic responsibility. Importantly, it combined formal approaches such as curriculum integration, teacher training, and vocational education with non-formal community-based initiatives. In this way, the policy not only expanded the reach of education but also sought to foster solidarity, reduce discrimination, promote gender equality, and address the deeper structural causes of conflict [57].

The analysis and discussion of the limitations and contributions of peace education, based on the documentary analysis, had been presented from page 8 to page 10, covering lines 319 to 406.

3.3 Analysis of Formal Peace Education Programmes

After providing an overview of the nature of peace education in Sierra Leone, this section provides an in-depth analysis of several major formal peace education programmes that were developed in Sierra Leone following the civil war. Collectively, they illustrate both the potential and the limitations of formal approaches to building peace through the education sector.

 

One of the most prominent interventions was the Peace Education Kit, a nationwide framework that combined curriculum content with innovative pedagogy to promote conflict management, human rights awareness, and trauma healing. The kit was designed to equip teachers with practical tools to address the psychosocial and social dimensions of post-war recovery. Evaluations consistently highlighted short-term positive outcomes, including improvements in teaching practices, more interactive classroom methods, and observable behavioural changes among students (Bretherton, Weston and Zbar, 2003; Bretherton, Weston and Zbar, 2010; Samura, 2013). However, the programme was hindered by serious limitations in scale. Demand for the kit far exceeded supply, leaving many schools without access and thereby reinforcing unequal coverage across regions. This imbalance raised important questions about sustainability and long-term impact.

 

Building on curriculum-based reforms, iEARN Sierra Leone sought to harness ICT to connect students with their peers globally. The initiative exposed young people to international dialogue and cross-cultural learning, offering an innovative tool for peace education. Yet, while iEARN demonstrated the transformative potential of ICT, it also revealed the depth of Sierra Leone’s digital divide. Urban schools with relatively better infrastructure were able to benefit, but rural schools remained largely excluded due to poor electricity and internet access. Consequently, the programme risked exacerbating structural inequalities rather than reducing them. Moreover, the long-term outcomes of iEARN remain uncertain, as systematic evaluations have been limited (iEARN, 2009; Greene, 2006; UNESCO, 2016; Porter et al., 2016; World Bank, 2012; UIS, 2015).

 

In contrast to the technology-driven approach of iEARN, PSI concentrated on reshaping school culture by embedding a “culture of peace” within a small number of member schools. While this approach succeeded in some contexts, its effectiveness proved highly dependent on the motivation and capacity of individual teachers. Without structured training and standardised materials, results varied significantly across participating schools, limiting its potential for broader, system-wide impact (PSI, 2021a; PSI, 2021b; Peace Signs, 2021).

Similarly, emergency “catch-up” initiatives such as the RREP and the CREPS were introduced to reintegrate out-of-school children and ex-combatants into the education system. These programmes were vital in addressing immediate post-war needs and offered an important pathway back to education for vulnerable populations. Nevertheless, they encountered substantial challenges, including teacher shortages, competition with formal schools, and concerns that rapid expansion without adequate quality control might reproduce the same educational grievances that had fuelled pre-war tensions (Ellison, 2012; Baxter and Bethke, 2009; INEE, 2010; Johannesen, 2005).

Finally, the EI curriculum represented a flagship UNICEF-led teacher training initiative. This programme covered civics, gender, health, and human rights, while positioning teachers as “agents of change.” It was widely recognised for promoting gender equality and inclusive classroom practices, marking an important step toward embedding social justice within education (Higgins and Novelli, 2018; Novelli, 2011; Baxter, 2012; UNICEF, 2008a). However, critics argue that the EI curriculum was largely a recontextualisation of an earlier UNHCR manual, raising doubts about its local relevance and specificity (UNESCO, UNHCR and INEE, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). Thus, while it strengthened professional identity among teachers, its ability to address the deeper cultural and structural drivers of conflict remained limited.

 

3.4 Analysis of Non-Formal Peace Education Programmes

Alongside formal initiatives, Sierra Leone also implemented a range of non-formal peace education programmes, many of which proved highly innovative in their use of community-based and media-driven approaches. These programmes often complemented formal education by reaching broader audiences and engaging with sensitive issues in creative ways.

One of the most successful examples was spearheaded by Search for Common Ground, which produced the television drama The Team and radio programmes such as Golden Kids News and Sisi Aminata. By embedding messages of reconciliation, governance, and sexual health within popular entertainment formats—including soap operas, youth-led news, and community dramas—these programmes achieved widespread appeal. They not only reached diverse audiences across both urban and rural areas but also stimulated public discussion, creating safe spaces for communities to reflect on issues of peace and social cohesion (Search for Common Ground, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d; UNESCO, 2016; The Entertainment-Education Network – Africa, 2021; Abdalla, Shepler and Hussein, 2002).

Complementing these media-based strategies, the YRTEP initiative targeted ex-combatants and marginalised youth. Its distinctive approach combined football and traditional confession rituals with literacy and vocational training, thus blending cultural traditions with modern educational practices. Evaluations reported that YRTEP was highly successful in reducing violence, building trust, and providing participants with employable skills (World Vision International, 2005; Lea-Howarth, 2006; USAID, 2001). Importantly, YRTEP demonstrated the effectiveness of holistic interventions that engage both the psychosocial and economic dimensions of reintegration.

In addition, vocational and adult education programmes were widely implemented to tackle the structural drivers of conflict, particularly widespread illiteracy and economic marginalisation. Many of these programmes focused specifically on women, aiming to empower them through literacy and livelihood training. Although they were crucial in advancing gender equality and addressing poverty, these initiatives were often short-term, fragmented, and of uneven quality (Matsumoto, 2018; UNESCO, 2008; Ekundayo-Thompson, Lamin, Turay, and Musa, 2006). As a result, their long-term impact on peacebuilding remained inconsistent.

Taken together, this section demonstrates that peace education in Sierra Leone was highly fragmented and diverse, implemented through a series of uncoordinated projects rather than under a unified national strategy (Kanyako, 2016). These findings are drawn primarily from documentary analysis, which revealed that although the initiatives collectively contributed to post-conflict recovery, their uneven coverage and lack of long-term planning highlighted several critical shortcomings. Building on this, the following discussion of contributions and limitations is informed by interview data collected from twelve key informants, offering deeper insights into how these programmes were experienced in practice.

We had also presented the interview results in a separate section

The discussion section has been retitled as: “4. Discussing the Role and Impact of Peace Education from the Perspectives of Informants (page 10-page 15, line 408-622).” Subheadings have been revised to:

 

4.1 The Limitations of Peace Education in Sierra Leone (page 15, line 582)

4.2 The contributions of Peace Education in Sierra Leone (page 18, line 695)

4.3 Negative Peace and the Challenges of Achieving Positive Peace in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone (page 19, line 760)

 

• Technical revisions: Correct section headings (e.g., properly rename “Discussion 2”), and ensure that results and discussion are clearly distinguished and logically organised.

The discussion section has been retitled as: “4. Discussing the Role and Impact of Peace Education from the Perspectives of Informants (page 10-page 15, line 408-622).” Subheadings have been revised to:

 

4.1 The Limitations of Peace Education in Sierra Leone (page 15, line 582)

4.2 The contributions of Peace Education in Sierra Leone (page 18, line 695)

4.3 Negative Peace and the Challenges of Achieving Positive Peace in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone (page 19, line 760)

 

So that the originally title has been replaced.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am pleased that the authors have conducted far reaching revisions in response to the original review and now am happy to recommend publication.

A very minor thing I spotted is that the abbreviation APC is not in the abbreviations list.   

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the necessary corrections. The proposal may be accepted for publication.