Next Article in Journal
The Polarization Paradox: Social Media, Young Voters, and the Challenges to the Open Society
Previous Article in Journal
From Bystander Silence to Burnout: Serial Mediation Mechanisms in Workplace Bullying
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/socsci14090541
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

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

by
Yi Yu
1,2,* and
Michael Wyness
1
1
Centre of Education Studies, The University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
2
Department of Education, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2025, 14(9), 541; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14090541
Submission received: 21 July 2025 / Revised: 28 August 2025 / Accepted: 4 September 2025 / Published: 8 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section International Politics and Relations)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

The end of the conflict in Sierra Leone between 1991 and 2002 provided an important context for exploring the role of peace education in restoring governance, rebuilding institutions, and promoting socio-economic development. Following the civil war, a variety of externally designed peace education programmes were introduced across the country. These included formal programmes integrated into the school curriculum and non-formal initiatives led by stakeholders. This study evaluated these programmes by examining their goals, implementation approaches, and effectiveness in fostering sustainable peace alongside development. The evaluation employed a social constructionist framework, recognising that understandings of peace and education are shaped by historical, social, and cultural factors. Data were gathered through the analysis of documentary sources and semi-structured online interviews with 12 key informants involved in peace education. The findings reveal important insights regarding both the potential of peace education as a developmental tool and its limitations in achieving lasting peace. Key lessons emphasise the critical role of local ownership, cultural relevance, and ongoing support for post-conflict educational interventions. These insights offer valuable guidance for enhancing future peacebuilding and reconstruction efforts in Sierra Leone and other similar post-conflict settings.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background to the Sierra Leone Civil War

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 (Abdullah 1997; Richards 1996). 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 (Peters and Richards 1998).
Despite these formal structures, Sierra Leone’s prospects for nation-building were undermined by a fragile constitutional framework, ethnic divisions, and socio-economic disparities (Mammone 2023). 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 (Collier et al. 2003; Zack-Williams 1999; Kandeh 1999). By the outbreak of the civil war in early 1991, the state had collapsed, with dysfunctional institutions, growing inequalities, and a weakened economy (Mammone 2023). Therefore, 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 (Riddell 1970; Keen 2005) Economic infrastructure, including railways, primarily served urban centres and southern regions, while the north remained neglected (Keen 2005). Indirect colonial rule through Paramount Chiefs reinforced local hierarchies and abuses of power, generating resentment among young, disenfranchised males (Keen 2005).
Meanwhile, education, characterised by historical elitism and Anglo-centrism functioned as both a symbol and instrument of inequality (Sumner 1963; Banya 1991; Shepler 1998). In particular, urban and elite populations had access to secondary and tertiary education, whereas rural youth were largely excluded (Sumner 1963; Corby 1990). 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 (Richards 1996; Keen 2005; Rashid 2004). 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 (Collier and Hoeffler 2000). 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 (Bates 2008; Reno 2002; DFID 2005). 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 (Keen 2005). 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 (Keen 2005; Reno 1995). Economic decline during the 1970s and 1980s, compounded by structural adjustment programmes and currency devaluation, exacerbated poverty and unemployment, leaving rural youth particularly marginalised (Vallings and Moreno-Torres 2005).
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 (Olonisakin 2008). 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.
To assist readers, a list of abbreviations and acronyms used throughout the paper is provided in Table 1 below.

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 (Galtung 1969; Danesh 2008). 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 (Danesh 2008; Salomon 2002). 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) (Galtung 1973).
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 (Addams 1907; Montessori [1946] 1974). Following the world wars, peace education expanded to include “Education for World Citizenship,” conflict resolution skills, and global awareness (Reardon 1982; Harris and Morrison 2003). 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 (Iram 2006; Hall 1999). 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 (Rouhana and Bar-Tal 1998; Hall 1999; Cairns and Roe 2003; Bar-Tal 1998).
In post-conflict contexts, such as Sierra Leone, peace education has been widely recognised as a critical component of reconstruction (Bretherton et al. 2003; Kapuwa 2021). 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 (Bollaert 2019). 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 (Newman 2009; Richmond 2020). 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 (Paris 2004; Richmond 2005; Mac Ginty 2006). 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 (Bush and Saltarelli 2000; Danesh 2006). In short, peace education initiatives, promoted since the 20th century, emphasise context-sensitive, localised approaches to address societal needs (UNICEF 2011; Zembylas and Bekerman 2013; Salomon 2002). 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 (Harris 2008; Danesh 2006).
Previous studies have examined various aspects of peace education in Sierra Leone, but their scope has often been limited. Bretherton et al. (2003, 2010) analysed the integration of peace education into the national curriculum, highlighting challenges and strategies at the school level. Kapuwa (2021) 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 (2025) underscored the role of education in promoting social cohesion, pointing out the need for conflict-sensitive educational planning and the reduction in educational inequalities. Yu and Wyness (2023) 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. Methodology

This study adopted a social constructionist perspective to explore 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. Social constructionism, as articulated by Slater (2017), posits that knowledge is not an inherent truth dictated by natural order but rather a product of social interaction and interpretation. The approach aims to illuminate how individuals construct meaning from their lived experiences, perceptions of reality, and understandings of knowledge (Slater 2017). In this research, the social constructionist framework is used to investigate how peace education has both advanced and constrained the peacebuilding process, drawing upon interview data and a broad review of relevant literature and documentation. By situating peace education within this theoretical lens, the study seeks to enrich our conceptual grasp of its role in post-conflict reconstruction efforts.
To gather data, the study employed two primary methods: documentary analysis and online interviews with selected twelve key informants, including educators, peacebuilding practitioners, and policy actors. A diverse collection of documents—ranging from government reports (e.g., Ministry of Education), United Nations publications, NGO materials, and academic studies—served as foundational sources to map the trajectory of educational initiatives before and after the civil war. These documents were instrumental in identifying various peace education programmes, their formats (formal or non-formal), the stakeholders involved, and their respective target populations (Punch 2014). In this study, 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 (Morgan 2008, 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 (Punch 2014). 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 (Bretherton et al. 2010; Ellison 2014; UNESCO 2016).
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 (Opotow et al. 2005; Duffield 2001).
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).

3.1. Evaluation of Peace Education Programmes in Sierra Leone

Within this socio-political landscape, peace education emerged as a complementary tool in post-conflict recovery. A total of 12 major peace education initiatives were implemented throughout the 2000s, targeting both children and adults, and spanning formal schooling systems and non-formal, community-based interventions.
Formal Peace Initiatives: Formal peace education programmes were primarily led by the Ministry of Education, in partnership with international agencies such as UNESCO, UNICEF, the World Bank, and various NGOs. These programmes aimed to promote reconciliation, reintroduce out-of-school children to structured learning, rebuild the educational infrastructure, and instil peaceful values through curriculum reform and teacher training (Please see Table 2 below).

3.1.1. An Overview of Formal Peace Education Initiatives in Sierra Leone

  • Peace Education Kit: Developed post-conflict, this community-focused toolkit aimed to address reconciliation and support vulnerable groups often neglected in broader peacebuilding efforts (Bretherton et al. 2010)
  • iEARN Sierra Leone: This initiative worked with national education authorities to embed peace education into the school system, offering war-affected children tools to rebuild their lives and reshape behaviours (UNESCO 2016; iEARN 2009)
  • Peaceful Schools International (PSI): PSI supported schools in fostering peaceful environments through safety, future-oriented life skills, and cultivating a culture of peace (UNESCO 2016; PSI 2021a, 2021b).
  • Rapid Response Education Programme (RREP): Active from 1999 to 2002, RREP targeted displaced youth and former combatants aged 10–14, offering emergency education to recover lost learning (Ellison 2014).
  • SABABU Education Project: Launched in 2002, SABABU focused on rebuilding educational infrastructure and services as a pathway to stabilise and normalise post-war society (Bu-Buakei Jabbi 2007)
  • Complementary Rapid Education for Primary Schools (CREPS): Operating from 2001 to 2007, CREPS delivered accelerated learning to out-of-school youth, integrating peace content to equip them with basic skills and conflict resolution strategies (Ellison 2014; Johannesen 2005).
  • Emerging Issues Curriculum (EI): Designed between 2007 and 2008, this teacher training programme aimed to integrate peace education into pedagogy, emphasising professional development and behavioural change (Higgins and Novelli 2018; Novelli 2011)
Non-Formal Practices: Non-formal education programmes were instrumental in reaching war-affected youth, ex-combatants, and remote communities. Implemented primarily through media, vocational training, and community engagement, these programmes leveraged storytelling, radio, television, and sports to promote peace, tolerance, and national unity (Please see Table 3 below).

3.1.2. An Overview of Non-Formal Peace Education Initiatives in Sierra Leone

  • The Team: Produced locally, The Team used a football club storyline to address national unity, gender equality, reconciliation, and social cohesion through popular media (UNESCO 2016)
  • Golden Kids News: A collection of child- and community-focused programmes, including (UNESCO 2016)
    • Golden Kids News: News for children by children.
    • Common Ground Feature: Interviews promoting dialogue and peace.
    • Home Sweet Home and Luk Wi Pipul: Support for returnees and refugees.
    • Atunda Ayenda: Serialised dramas covering disarmament and reintegration.
    • Wi Yone Salone and Salone Uman: Focus on civic issues and women’s rights.
    • Leh Wi Mek Salone: Evolved from disarmament messaging to wider civic education.
  • Sisi Aminata: A youth-focused show educating on sexual and reproductive health, contributing to broader peace and awareness efforts (UNESCO 2016).
  • Youth Reintegration and Education for Peace (YRTEP): Implemented by World Vision, this programme used sports and non-formal learning to help over 40,000 war-affected youth—many of them ex-combatants—reintegrate into society (UNESCO 2016).
  • Vocational and Literacy Training: Post-war education reforms expanded adult-focused, peace-integrated training. Over 580 community-based vocational programmes were launched to improve literacy, conflict resolution, and life skills (Thompson et al. 2006)

3.2. Analysis of Formal Peace Education Programmes

This section provides an 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 (Samura 2013; Bretherton et al. 2003, 2010). However, the programme was hindered by serious limitations in scale. Particularly, 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 2012; Greene 2006; UNESCO 2016; Porter et al. 2016; World Bank 2012).
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, 2021b). 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 (Smith 2005; Baxter and Bethke 2009; INEE 2010).
Finally, the EI 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; UNICEF 2008). However, critics argue that the EI was largely a recontextualisation of an earlier UNHCR manual, raising doubts about its local relevance and specificity (UNESCO et al. 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.

3.3. 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 (Search for Common Ground 2021a, 2021d).
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; Obura 2003).
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). 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.

4. Discussing the Role and Impact of Peace Education from the Perspectives of Informants

4.1. The Limitations of Peace Education in Sierra Leone

4.1.1. Unequal Distribution of Educational Resources in Sierra Leone

The delivery of peace education across Sierra Leone was significantly constrained by widespread resource disparities—encompassing financial, human, and infrastructural elements, including digital connectivity (Mayuto et al. 2017). Both documentary evidence and interviews with key informants consistently pointed to the absence of a standardised national peace education textbook, as well as an uneven allocation of educational opportunities that disproportionately favoured urban and more developed regions. As a result, the benefits of peace education were limited in scope, as many rural or under-resourced areas lacked the foundational inputs required for effective implementation. Teacher training was a particular point of concern: programmes such as Emerging Issues (Higgins and Novelli 2018) and the Peace Education Kit (Bretherton et al. 2003, 2010) offered valuable professional development, but access was often restricted to educators based in more accessible locations.
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 barriers1. 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 (Higgins 2020; Brock-Utne 1996). Additionally, the large volume of printed materials included in the kit posed a significant challenge in a country with limited economic resources.2 Moreover, underdeveloped transport infrastructure hindered the distribution of teaching materials to underserved communities, exacerbating disparities in educational quality between rural and urban areas (Mayuto et al. 2017). This concern was echoed by key informants in the study, with one practitioner noting that the poor state of transportation made it extremely challenging to implement peace education initiatives in remote rural region3. Although transport infrastructure was included in peacebuilding plans, its poor condition hindered the distribution of educational resources, widening inequality. Sierra Leone dismantled its railway system in the 1970s and shifted focus to road development, which suffered severe neglect during the civil war. Many areas remain inaccessible by all-weather roads, especially during the rainy season. Additionally, weak internet infrastructure further limited the reach and effectiveness of peace education efforts.
In addition, the data4 of this study identified limited incorporation of peace-related content into local youth organisations, cultural spaces, and community theatres. These venues had the potential to involve out-of-school youth and broaden the influence of peace education. Additionally, non-formal programmes often failed to engage grassroots networks and traditional institutions, reducing their reach and local relevance. Consequently, there were few customised initiatives for young adults in isolated or disadvantaged regions. Peace education activities remained largely focused on Freetown and major provincial cities, resulting in restricted access for rural communities.

4.1.2. The Persistence of a Culture of Violence and Corporal Punishment

Participants in this study highlighted the persistence of corporal punishment in schools as a contributor to a broader culture of violence within the education system. While many educators acknowledged the need to eliminate such punitive practices, they also noted its continued use as a disciplinary method. Several informants expressed concern that physical punishment contradicts the core principles of peace education, reinforcing aggression rather than promoting non-violent conflict resolution and mutual respect.
“When we had been explaining the importance of school rules in a positive language and asked them to obey these rules, rather than applying corporal punishment in class, students will deal their dispute with positive conversations rather than physical violence.”5
Experts also claimed that peace education played a role in restoring normalcy for children by healing and reducing acts of violence. Schools and institutions that provided students teaching activities signified a specific symbolic importance for children and their parents. As illustrated by one of the experts:
“Peace education told them the importance of peace for self-development and restored them in the hope of future. The attendance of class and peace club, allow them to forgive their peers who have attended in war as combatants, the rate of physical violence reduced, and aggression had gradually disappeared.”6
Yet, practitioners offered a different perspective by claiming that the culture of violence used to manifest itself by corporal punishment.
“Corporal punishment activities were hard to ban as it is accepted and legitimated culturally and morally. Some of the teachers even believe that it is a good way to push children to learn to behave better. But the adoption of corporal punishment to some extent communicated the reasonability of the adoption of violence in other areas.”7
This informant clearly pointed out that when children internalised corporal punishment, they could possibly generalise the use of violence to solve problems in other domains of their life.
Another informant expressed that
“It is hard to describe whether there was any direct linkage between the use of corporal punishment and the existence of violence in society, but the use of it certainly contradicts with non-violence norms. To solve this problem, we told teachers those punishments may limit students’ willingness for expressing and further lower their learning capacity. We also told teachers to spread the idea of not using corporal punishment to their parents, because we believe that children tend to become involved in violence if they experienced them normally.”8
During the interview, this informant shared his experiences when he visited a primary school in Freetown.
“During a peace education class, the teacher asked a boy about his dream for the future and a 10-year-old boy replied that he wished he could be a terrorist. The teacher started to beat this little boy and responded with threatening words. This was an example whereby teachers pretend to use violent behaviour to stop the involvement of violence in the future.”9
The persistence of corporal punishment in Sierra Leonean schools reveals deep-rooted social and historical challenges that undermine efforts to foster non-violence and peace. Despite widespread promotion of peaceful and non-violent approaches across peace education programmes, interview data expose a troubling reality: corporal punishment remains a common disciplinary method. Rather than addressing students’ behaviour through dialogue and understanding, teachers frequently resort to physical punishment, such as caning or isolating students. Although this study did not include testimonies from those punished in childhood, research from similar contexts like Kenya illustrates the damaging psychological impact of such violence, with affected children expressing intense anger and a propensity toward aggression (Najjuma 2011). This evidence strongly suggests that corporal punishment cultivates resentment and hostility, perpetuating cycles of violence within schools rather than mitigating them (Gershoff et al. 2010).
In many African settings, corporal punishment is normalised as an acceptable means of enforcing discipline, rooted in cultural norms that emphasise hierarchical authority of teachers. This cultural acceptance often clashes with Western-origin peace education models, creating a disconnect that hinders behavioural change (Najjuma 2011). The intertwining of corporal punishment with broader societal violence means that young people often internalise violence as a legitimate response to conflict or dissatisfaction. Despite legal reforms and peace education initiatives aimed at eradicating corporal punishment, the practice remains entrenched, highlighting a significant gap between policy and actual practice. This failure to effectively address corporal punishment not only contradicts the core goals of peace education but also risks perpetuating the very violence such programmes seek to eliminate.

4.2. The Contributions of Peace Education in Sierra Leone

4.2.1. Promoting Education for All and Providing Psychosocial Support in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone

According to UNESCO (2011), war-induced displacement, trauma, poverty, and low enrolment severely hindered weak countries from achieving Education for All (EFA) goals. This section examines how peace education responded to these challenges in Sierra Leone after the civil war, addressing educational inequalities and low educational capacity. It also highlights schools’ critical role in offering safety and psychosocial support for children affected by war-related trauma.
Modern conflicts increasingly target schools and children (Smith 2010). Schools serve as vital safe spaces where mental health and hygiene support can be provided. Therefore, rebuilding school infrastructure has been prioritised as a foundational step in peace education initiatives. The Rehabilitation of Basic Education Project (SABABU), involving local government and international partners, aimed to reconstruct schools, restore education services, and link peacebuilding with infrastructure development (Ellison 2014; Olonisakin 2008) Evaluations reveal challenges such as corruption, poor construction quality, and public distrust (Bu-Buakei Jabbi 2007; Mason et al. 2018). However, perspectives varied between external actors and local educators: while international experts emphasised shortcomings, local stakeholders focused on the tangible improvements, especially the provision of secure classrooms that helped children return to normalcy.
Despite persistent gender inequalities, peace education also worked to enhance female educational opportunities. Interviews highlighted formal programmes like EI, which aimed to strengthen teachers’ skills, and non-formal vocational training designed for women, promoting gender inclusivity.

4.2.2. Promotion of Student-Centred Classrooms

Traditional teaching in Sierra Leone often relied on rote memorisation and teacher-led instruction. Peace education sought to transform this by encouraging student participation and critical thinking, promoting democratic values within classrooms (Freire 1993). Informants noted that while the Peace Education Kit (Bretherton et al. 2003, 2010) was not widely distributed, its accessible language helped teachers with limited training promote peace values interactively.
With about 50% of teachers undertrained and nearly half of children out of school, the kit targeted both formal schools and informal learning centres. Additionally, initiatives like the International Education and Resource Network provided children access to ICT tools to communicate globally, while media programmes like Sisi Aminata encouraged public engagement through letters and emails.
The EI programme, designed to improve teacher performance and attitudes, incorporated topics such as human rights, gender equality, citizenship, and peacebuilding through a student-centred approach (Alexander 2008). Despite implementation challenges, these efforts have gradually shifted pedagogy from authoritarian, rote learning towards interactive methods that foster critical thinking and empower students to resolve conflicts peacefully.

4.2.3. Drama and Radio Programmes in Peace Promotion

Non-formal peace education emphasised reconciliation but faced difficulties due to the complex meaning of “reconciliation” and language barriers, especially among illiterate populations (Fithen and Richards 2005). Policymakers stressed the need for simplified materials in local languages. Programmes like Atunda Ayenda (“Lost and Found” in Krio) used relatable storytelling to teach peace norms, gaining popularity among students and families (Lahai and Ware 2013).
Community-based media promoted ownership and reflected daily realities, strengthening local engagement and facilitating peaceful conflict resolution, including land disputes. Importantly, non-formal programmes provided students and adults with flexible learning opportunities when the programmes have been recorded. Another programme called Talking Drums Studio (UNESCO 2016). These activities have succeeded in promoting individuals’ behaviours and attitudes to peace. An expert who runs a peace education school claimed that:
“In practice, I found that it was very important to combine formal and non-formal practices together, real stories provided my students with an idea why peace is connected to our daily life.”10
Educators and practitioners believed that these dramas contained many comedy scenes when dealing with conflict, teaching both children and adults, especially those who were accustomed to dealing with conflict in a violent way, to resolve their real-life disputes in a peaceful manner11, and this argument has been reinforced by Lahai and Ware (2013).

4.3. Negative Peace and the Challenges of Achieving Positive Peace in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone

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 (Higgins 2020). Protests and refusals to seek treatment during the epidemic further revealed deep-seated distrust towards social services and state institutions (Amman 2014).
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 (Olonisakin 2008). 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 USD 1.25 billion to USD 5 billion. The Ebola epidemic, however, caused a significant downturn, reducing GDP to USD 4.2 billion in 2015 and further to USD 3.7 billion as donor support declined (World Bank 2019). Scholars such as Newman (2011) 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 (World Bank 2021).
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.

5. Conclusions 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 in 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.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, Y.Y. and M.W.; Methodology, Y.Y. and M.W.; Software, Y.Y.; Validation, Y.Y. and M.W.; Formal Analysis, Y.Y.; Investigation, Y.Y.; Resources, Y.Y. and M.W.; Data Curation, Y.Y.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, Y.Y.; Writing—Review and Editing, Y.Y. and M.W.; Visualisation, Y.Y.; Supervision, M.W.; Project Administration, Y.Y. and M.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the British Educational Research Association (BERA) and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Centre for Education at the University of Warwick.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting this study are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions. The interview data were collected from practitioners, educators, and officers in post-conflict Sierra Leone, and therefore cannot be made publicly accessible. Data may, however, be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notes

1
Interview with an officer on 20 January 2021.
2
Interview with an officer on 25 February 2021.
3
Interview with a practitioner on 5 May 2021.
4
Interview with an educator on 16 March 2021.
5
Interview with an educator on 4 March 2021.
6
Interview with an educator on 15 March 2021.
7
Interview with a practitioner on 22 March 2021.
8
See notes 3 above.
9
See notes 7 above.
10
Interview with an educator on 3 March 2021.
11
Interview with an educator on 15 March 2021, and a practitioner on 22 March 2021.

References

  1. Abdullah, Ibrahim. 1997. Bush Path to Destruction: The Origin and Character of the Revolutionary United Front Sierra Leone. The Journal of Modern African Studies 36: 203–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Addams, Jane. 1907. Newer Ideals of Peace. New York: Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexander, Robin. 2008. Essays on Pedagogy. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  4. Amman, Theresa. 2014. The Complexity of Ebola and Its Mismanagement in the West. Available online: https://matsutas.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/the-complexity-of-ebola-its-misrepresentation-in-the-west-by-theresa-ammann/ (accessed on 28 May 2025).
  5. Banya, Kingsley. 1991. Economic Decline and the Education System: The Case of Sierra Leone. Compare 21: 127–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bar-Tal, Daniel. 1998. Societal Beliefs in Times of Intractable Conflict: The Israeli Case. International Journal of Conflict Management 9: 22–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bates, Robert H. 2008. When Things Fell Apart: State Failure in Late-Century Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Baxter, Pamela, and Lynne Bethke. 2009. Alternative Education: Filling the Gap in Emergency and Post-Conflict Situations. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bollaert, Cathy, ed. 2019. Anchoring Concepts: Sustainable Peace, Identity, Culture and Worldview. In Reconciliation and Building a Sustainable Peace. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 47–81. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bretherton, Diane, Jane Weston, and Vincent Zbar. 2003. Sierra Leone Peace Education Kit. Sydney: Curriculum Corporation. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bretherton, Diane, Jane Weston, and Vincent Zbar. 2010. School-Based Peace Building in Sierra Leone. Theory into Practice 44: 355–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Brock-Utne, Birgit. 1996. The Challenges for Peace Educators at the End of the Millennium. International Journal of Peace Studies 1: 37–55. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bu-Buakei Jabbi, M. 2007. The SABABU Education Project—A Negative Study of Post War Reconstruction. Freetown: National Accountability Group, Tiri. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bush, Kenneth D., and Diana Saltarelli. 2000. The Two Faces of Education in Ethnic Conflict: Towards a Peacebuilding Education for Children. Florence: UNICEF Innocent Research Centre. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cairns, Ed, and Michael D. Roe, eds. 2003. The Role of Memory in Ethnic Conflict. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  16. Collier, Paul, and Anke Hoeffler. 2000. Greed and Grievance in Civil War. Washington, DC: World Bank. [Google Scholar]
  17. Collier, Paul, V. L. Elliott, Håvard Hegre, Anke Hoeffler, Marta Reynal-Querol, and Nicholas Sambanis. 2003. Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Corby, Richard A. 1990. Educating Africans for Inferiority under British Rule: Bo School in Sierra Leone. Comparative Education Review 34: 314–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Danesh, H. B. 2006. Towards an Integrative Theory of Peace Education. Journal of Peace Education 3: 55–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Danesh, H. B. 2008. The Education for Peace Integrative Curriculum: Concepts, Contents and Efficacy. Journal of Peace Education 5: 157–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. DFID Department for International Development. 2005. Why We Need to Work More Effectively in Fragile States. London: DFID. [Google Scholar]
  22. Duffield, Mark. 2001. Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security. London: Zed Books. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ellison, Christine Smith. 2014. The Role of Education in Peacebuilding: An Analysis of Five Change Theories in Sierra Leone. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 44: 186–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fithen, Chris, and Paul Richards. 2005. Making War, Crafting Peace: Militia Solidarities and Demobilisation in Sierra Leone. In No War, No Peace: An Anthropology of Contemporary Armed Conflict. Edited by Paul Richards. Oxford: James Currey, pp. 117–136. [Google Scholar]
  25. Freire, Paulo. 1993. The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. [Google Scholar]
  26. Galtung, Johan. 1969. Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research 6: 167–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Galtung, Johan. 1973. Peace: Research, Education, Action. Copenhagen: Ejlers. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gershoff, Elizabeth T., Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, Jennifer E. Lansford, Lei Chang, Arnold Zelli, Kirby Deater-Deckard, and Kenneth A. Dodge. 2010. Parent Discipline Practices in an International Sample: Associations with Child Behaviours and Moderation by Perceived Normativeness. Child Development 81: 487–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Greene, Andrew. 2006. iEARN’s Child Soldier Project. Available online: https://www.comminit.com/early-child/content/iearns-child-soldier-project (accessed on 29 January 2021).
  30. Hall, Robin. 1999. Learning Conflict Management through Peer Mediation. In How Children Understand War and Peace: A Call for International Peace Education. Edited by Amiram Raviv, Louis Oppenheimer and Daniel Bar-Tal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 281–98. [Google Scholar]
  31. Harris, Ian. 2008. History of Peace Education. In Encyclopedia of Peace Education. Edited by Monisha Bajaj. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, pp. 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  32. Harris, Ian, and Mary Lee Morrison. 2003. Peace Education, 2nd ed. Jefferson: McFarland & Co. [Google Scholar]
  33. Higgins, S. 2020. Beyond Peace Education: Rethinking the Pedagogical Contributions of Teachers to Positive Peace in Conflict-Affected Sierra Leone. Available online: https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/52757506/Thesis.pdf (accessed on 21 May 2025).
  34. Higgins, Sean, and Mario Novelli. 2018. The Potential and Pitfalls of Peace Education: A Cultural Political Economy Analysis of the Emerging Issues Teacher Education Curriculum in Sierra Leone. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding 6: 29–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. iEARN (International Education and Resource Network). 2009. iEARN Partnerships by Member Countries. Available online: https://www.iearn.org/about/partners (accessed on 30 January 2025).
  36. iEARN (International Education and Resource Network). 2012. iEARN-Sierra Leone. Available online: https://iearn.org/country/iearn-sierra-leone (accessed on 24 December 2024).
  37. INEE (Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies). 2010. Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response and Recovery. New York: INEE. [Google Scholar]
  38. Iram, Yaacov. 2006. Culture of Peace: Definition, Scope, and Application. In Educating toward a Culture of Peace. Edited by Hillel Wahrman and Zehavit Gross. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing, pp. 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  39. Johannesen, Eva Marion. 2005. Fast Track to Completion: The Complementary Rapid Education for Primary Schools (CREPS) and the Distance Education Programme (DEP) in Sierra Leone. Oslo: Educare, Norwegian Refugee Council. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kandeh, Jimmy. 1999. Ransoming the State: Elite Origins of Subaltern Terror in Sierra Leone. Review of African Political Economy 26: 349–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kanyako, Vandy. 2016. Civil Society and Democratized Peace in Post-war Sierra Leone. In Democratization and Human Security in Post-war Sierra Leone. Edited by Marda Mustapha and Joseph J. Bangura. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kapuwa, Brima. 2021. Peace Education in Nation-Building: Towards a Better Understanding of Post-war Sierra Leone. Social Sciences Open Journal 9: 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Keen, David. 2005. Conflict & Collusion in Sierra Leone. Oxford: James Currey. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lahai, John, and Helen Ware. 2013. Educating for Peace: The Sociocultural Dimensions of Grassroots Peace Education as a Tool for National Reconciliation and Social Forgetting in Sierra Leone. African Conflict and Peacebuilding Review 3: 69–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lea-Howarth, Jonathan. 2006. Sport and Conflict: Is Football an Appropriate Tool to Utilize in Conflict Resolution, Reconciliation, or Reconstruction? Sussex: University of Sussex. [Google Scholar]
  46. Mac Ginty, Roger. 2006. No War, No Peace: The Rejuvenation of Stalled Peace Processes and Peace Accords. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  47. Mammone, Christina. 2023. Youth, Empowerment and Long-Term Peace Consolidation: The Case of Sierra Leone. Social Alternatives 42: 15–21. [Google Scholar]
  48. Mason, Miriam, David Galloway, and Andrew Joyce-Gibbons. 2018. Closing the Attainment Gap: Collaboration between Schools in Sierra Leone. Educational and Child Psychology 35: 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Matsumoto, Mitsuko. 2018. Technical and Vocational Education and Training and Marginalised Youths in Post-conflict Sierra Leone: Trainees’ Experiences and Capacity to Aspire. Research in Comparative and International Education 13: 534–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mayuto, Radjabu, Sègbédji Parfait Aïhounhin, Alexis Abodohoui, and Elie Chrysostome. 2017. Physical Internet, Africa’s Transport Infrastructure and Capacity Building. Journal of Comparative International Management 20: 1–42. [Google Scholar]
  51. Montessori, Maria. 1974. Education for a New World. Thiruvanmiyur: Kalakshetra Press. First published 1946. [Google Scholar]
  52. Morgan, David L. 2008. Snowball Sampling. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Edited by Lisa M. Given. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, pp. 816–17. [Google Scholar]
  53. Najjuma, Rovincer. 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. [Google Scholar]
  54. Newman, Edward. 2009. Liberal Peacebuilding Debates. In New Perspectives on Liberal Peacebuilding. Edited by Edward Newman, Roland Paris and Oliver P. Richmond. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp. 26–53. [Google Scholar]
  55. Newman, Edward. 2011. A Human Security Peace-Building Agenda. Third World Quarterly 32: 1737–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Novelli, Mario. 2011. The Role of Education in Peacebuilding: Case Study—Sierra Leone. New York: UNICEF. [Google Scholar]
  57. Obura, Anna. 2003. Never Again: Educational Reconstruction in Rwanda. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning. [Google Scholar]
  58. Olonisakin, Funmi. 2008. Peacekeeping in Sierra Leone: The Story of UNAMSIL. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. [Google Scholar]
  59. Opotow, Susan, Janet Gerson, and Sarah Woodside. 2005. From Moral Exclusion to Moral Inclusion: Theory for Teaching Peace. Theory into Practice 44: 303–18. [Google Scholar]
  60. Paris, Roland. 2004. At War’s End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  61. Peters, Krijn, and Paul Richards. 1998. ‘Why We Fight’: Voices of Youth Combatants in Sierra Leone. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 68: 183–210. [Google Scholar]
  62. Porter, Gina, Kate Hampshire, James Milner, Alister Munthali, Elsbeth Robson, Ariane de Lannoy, Andisiwe Bango, Nwabisa Gunguluza, Mac Mashiri, Augustine Tanle, and et al. 2016. Mobile Phones and Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: From Youth Practice to Public Policy. Journal of International Development 28: 22–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. PSI (Peaceful Schools International). 2021a. Peaceful School International. Available online: http://peacefulschoolsinternational.org/our-work (accessed on 14 January 2025).
  64. PSI (Peaceful Schools International). 2021b. Peaceful School International Resources. Available online: http://peacefulschoolsinternational.org/psi-resources (accessed on 14 January 2025).
  65. Punch, Keith. 2014. Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative & Qualitative Approaches, 3rd ed. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  66. Rashid, Ismail. 2004. Student Radicals, Lumpen Youth, and the Origins of Revolutionary Groups in Sierra Leone, 1977–1996. In Between Democracy and Terror: The Sierra Leonean Civil War. Edited by Ibrahim Abdullah. Dakar: CODESRIA, pp. 66–89. [Google Scholar]
  67. Reardon, Betty. 1982. Militarism, Security and Peace Education: A Guide for Concerned Citizens. Valley Forge: United Ministries in Education. [Google Scholar]
  68. Reno, William. 1995. Corruption and State Politics in Sierra Leone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  69. Reno, William. 2002. The Politics of Insurgency in Collapsing States. Oxford: Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  70. Richards, Paul. 1996. Fighting for the Rain Forest: War, Youth & Resources in Sierra Leone. Oxford: James Currey. [Google Scholar]
  71. Richmond, Oliver P. 2005. The Transformation of Peace. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  72. Richmond, Oliver P. 2020. Peace in International Relations, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  73. Riddell, J. Barry. 1970. The Spatial Dynamics of Modernisation in Sierra Leone: Structure, Diffusion, and Response. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. [Google Scholar]
  74. Rouhana, Nadim N., and Daniel Bar-Tal. 1998. Psychological Dynamics of Intractable Ethnonational Conflicts: The Israeli–Palestinian Case. American Psychologist 53: 761–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Salomon, Gavriel. 2002. The Nature of Peace Education: Not All Programs Are Created Equal. In Peace Education: The Concept, Principles, and Practices Around the World. Edited by Gavriel Salomon and Baruch Nevo. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  76. Samura, F. 2013. Peace Education for Reconstruction and Peacebuilding in Post-war African Societies. African Conflict & Peacebuilding Review 3: 24–46. [Google Scholar]
  77. Search for Common Ground. 2021a. Talking Drum Studio Sierra Leone. Available online: https://www.sfcg.org/sierra-leone/ (accessed on 6 January 2021).
  78. Search for Common Ground. 2021b. Talking Drum Studio—Sierra Leone Radio Programs. Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20080512202145/http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/sierra/sierra_talking.html (accessed on 6 January 2021).
  79. Search for Common Ground. 2021c. The Team. Available online: https://www.sfcg.org/the-team/ (accessed on 6 January 2025).
  80. Search for Common Ground. 2021d. The Team Sierra Leone. Available online: https://www.sfcg.org/programmes/cgp/the-team-sierra-leone.html (accessed on 5 January 2025).
  81. Shepler, Susan. 1998. Education as a Site for Political Struggle in Sierra Leone. Antropológicas 2: 3–14. [Google Scholar]
  82. Slater, James, ed. 2017. Social Constructionism. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, pp. 1624–28. [Google Scholar]
  83. Smith, Alan. 2005. Education in the Twenty-First Century: Conflict, Reconstruction and Reconciliation. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 35: 373–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Smith, Alan. 2010. The Influence of Education on Conflict and Peacebuilding. Background paper prepared for Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2011. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar]
  85. Sumner, Doyles Leonard. 1963. Education in Sierra Leone. Norwich: Jarrold & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  86. Thompson, Ekundayo J. D., Mohammed B. Lamin, Edward D.A. Turay, and Olive B. Musa. 2006. Literacy in Post-Conflict Situations: Lessons from Sierra Leone. Freetown: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. [Google Scholar]
  87. UNESCO. 2008. Sierra Leone Status Report on Youth and Adult Education Issues, Trends, Challenges. Prepared at the Conference VI African Preparatory Conference, Nairobi, Kenya, November 5–7; Available online: https://uil.unesco.org/fileadmin/multimedia/uil/confintea/pdf/National_Reports/Africa/Africa/Sierra_Leone.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2025).
  88. UNESCO. 2011. The Hidden Crisis: Armed Conflict and Education. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2011. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar]
  89. UNESCO. 2016. Promoting a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence in Africa through Education for Peace and Conflict Prevention: Mapping—Final Report. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar]
  90. UNESCO, UNHCR and INEE. 2005a. Inter-Agency Peace Education Programme: Skills for Constructive Living Teacher Training Manual 1. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar]
  91. UNESCO, UNHCR and INEE. 2005b. Inter-Agency Peace Education Programme: Skills for Constructive Living Teacher Training Manual 2. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar]
  92. UNESCO, UNHCR and INEE. 2005c. Inter-Agency Peace Education Programme: Skills for Constructive Living Background Notes for Facilitators. Paris: UNESCO. [Google Scholar]
  93. UNICEF. 2008. Emerging Issues Resource Book Distance Education First Year Modules 1 & 2. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund. [Google Scholar]
  94. UNICEF. 2011. The Role of Education in Peacebuilding: Literature Review. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund. [Google Scholar]
  95. UNICEF. 2025. Peacebuilding and Social Cohesion. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/emergencies/peacebuilding-social-cohesion (accessed on 3 July 2025).
  96. USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2001. Impact Evaluation Youth Reintegration Training and Education for Peace (YRTEP) Program. Washington, DC: USAID. [Google Scholar]
  97. Vallings, Claire, and Magui Moreno-Torres. 2005. Drivers of Fragility: What Makes States Fragile? London: DFID. [Google Scholar]
  98. World Bank. 2012. ICTs for Education in Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/19018/882310WP0Box380dIntegration0summary.pdf (accessed on 4 July 2025).
  99. World Bank. 2019. The World Bank in Sierra Leone: Overview. Washington, DC: World Bank. [Google Scholar]
  100. World Bank. 2021. Sierra Leone. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/country/sierra-leone (accessed on 25 May 2025).
  101. World Vision International. 2005. Grassroots Efforts: To Prevent and Resolve Violence. New York: United Nations. [Google Scholar]
  102. Yu, Yi, and Michael Wyness. 2023. Sierra Leone and Peace Education: A Case Study of Transportation Poverty in the Aftermath of Civil War. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 19: 61–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Zack-Williams, Alfred Babatunde. 1999. Sierra Leone: The Political Economy of Civil War, 1991–1998. Third World Quarterly 20: 143–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zembylas, Michalinos, and Zvi Bekerman. 2013. Peace Education in the Present: Dismantling and Reconstructing Some Fundamental Theoretical Premises. Journal of Peace Education 10: 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. List of abbreviations and acronyms.
Table 1. List of abbreviations and acronyms.
AbbreviationFull Name
CREPSComplementary Rapid Education for Primary School
iEARN SLInternational Education and Resource Network of Sierra Leone
IFIsInternational financial institutions
IGOsIntergovernmental Organisations
IMFThe International Monetary Fund
IOsInternational Organisations
MOESTMinistry of Education, Science and Technology
NGOsNon-Governmental Organisations
PSIPeaceful Schools International
RREPRapid Response Education Programme
RUFRevolutionary United Front
SLASierra Leone Army
SLPPSierra Leone People’s Party
TRCTruth and Reconciliation Commission
UNUnited Nations
UNDPUnited Nations Development Programme
UNESCOUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
UNHCRUnited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNICEFUnited Nations Children’s Fund
USAIDUnited States Agency for International Development
USIPUnited States Institute of Peace
YRETPWorld Vision International’s Reintegration Training and Education for Peace Project
Table 2. Formal peace education programmes in Sierra Leone.
Table 2. Formal peace education programmes in Sierra Leone.
Programme NameKey StakeholdersFocus Area
Peace Education KitWorld Bank; Ministry of EducationGrassroots reconciliation through community-based education.
iEARN Sierra LeoneiEARN SL; MOEST; USAID; U.S. State DeptIntegration of peace content into schools; trauma-informed pedagogy.
Peaceful Schools InternationalPSI; UNESCOCreation of peaceful and inclusive school environments.
Rapid Response Education Programme MOEST; UNICEF; Norwegian Refugee CouncilEmergency learning for displaced children and ex-combatants.
SABABUGoSL; World Bank; African Development BankEducation infrastructure and systems rebuilding
CREPSUNICEF; MOEST; NRCAccelerated learning for war-affected youth.
Emerging Issues UNICEF; Teacher Training Colleges; MOESTTeacher training, curriculum development, and peacebuilding pedagogy.
Table 3. Summary of non-formal peace education programmes.
Table 3. Summary of non-formal peace education programmes.
Programme NameKey StakeholdersFocus Area
The Team Search for Common Ground; USAID; EU; USIPPromoting tolerance and unity via drama series centred on a football team in Freetown
Golden Kids News Search for Common Ground; CARE; UNICEF; MOESTPromoting tolerance and unity via drama series
Sisi AminataSearch for Common Ground; MOESTChild-led news, conflict interviews, gender awareness, refugee information, and peace narratives.
Youth Reintegration Training and Education for Peace World Vision; USAID; MSIReconciliation and reintegration of over 40,000 youth using football and non-formal education.
Vocational Literacy and Training ProgrammesMOEST; UNESCO; NGOsAdult literacy, community-based learning, and peace-oriented skills development.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yu, Y.; Wyness, M. Peace Education in a Post-Conflict Society: The Case Study of Sierra Leone. Soc. Sci. 2025, 14, 541. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14090541

AMA Style

Yu Y, Wyness M. Peace Education in a Post-Conflict Society: The Case Study of Sierra Leone. Social Sciences. 2025; 14(9):541. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14090541

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yu, Yi, and Michael Wyness. 2025. "Peace Education in a Post-Conflict Society: The Case Study of Sierra Leone" Social Sciences 14, no. 9: 541. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14090541

APA Style

Yu, Y., & Wyness, M. (2025). Peace Education in a Post-Conflict Society: The Case Study of Sierra Leone. Social Sciences, 14(9), 541. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14090541

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop