Fostering peace leadership learning and practice: a pilot study analysis of the peace leadership development curriculum

The PLDC, while unique in several ways, as will be described below, is one among other peace education and training programs that occur both online and in person. Peace education and training programs are those that promote the “knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values needed to bring about behavior changes … to prevent conflict and violence …. and resolve conflicts peacefully” (Fountain, 1999, p. 1) at the individual, social, and professional level (Scotto and Rivers, n.d.). These programs should be supportive with engaged contact, egalitarian, include cultural awareness, and have space for dialogue (Kester, 2012). Peace education programs should also be context-specific, utilize real-world learning, include diverse stakeholders, be flexible, and engage in program evaluation (Mihalik et al., n.d.). They should consider inequitable social relations, issues of power, and marginalized voices (Bajaj, 2019) and maintain community ownership and sustained involvement (Jenkins, 2007).

The PLDC was designed to be an online tool, and therefore, it is important to consider some best practices in online education. These include learner involvement in structured tasks, such as active learning, and the importance of participant control over the structure and pace of the experience for a diverse set of learners (Coomey and Stephenson, 2018; Fiock, 2020). Program duration is also an important factor, as the literature indicates that the longer students are involved in peace education programs, the more their attitudes change (Ohanyan and Lewis, 2005), as conflict transformation has longer timescales that need to be reflected in educational programs (Novelli and Smith, 2011). Also, the longer the program, the more relationships can develop (Javid, 2018).

There is a broad expanse of academic programs, particularly in peace studies, nested in degree programs at universities around the world. These tend to be multi-year endeavors for the deepest levels of understanding. This review does not consider such programs, as it is, instead, focused on programs that are not degree-awarding. Therefore, based on a review of the literature, there are several programs that align with the PLDC. For example, an Alternative to Violence Program project conducted both in-person and online, focuses on self-reflection, community building, conflict management, and the transformation of power (Stuart and Moonbeams, 2021). Also, Finnish university programs serve to bridge the gap between theory and practice by teaching nonviolent communication and mediation skills through applied drama (Hietamäki and Tucci, 2022). As another example, a Kashmir university program focused on peace, understanding, dignity, and hope (Kashmir Observer, 2021).

What sets the PLDC apart is its design to teach skills and practices related to the integral peace leadership framework. At the time of its implementation, it was the only such program. Since 2020, however, Euphrates Institute has also begun to utilize integral peace leadership as a framework for its Peace Practice Alliance (PPA) program, a six-month online program for peace leaders around the world. Whereas the PPA is an intensive program with curriculum and regular meetings, the PLDC was designed as a stand-alone curriculum that could be implemented with or without group interactions.

As an emergent subfield in leadership studies, peace leadership began from a question posed by Jean Lipman-Blumen (Mexiner, 2006): Leadership for what, if not for peace? Scholars set out to answer the call of leadership for peace by pairing the work of leadership studies with conflict transformation, peace studies, and peace psychology. Building from Galtung’s (1996) seminal work, McIntyre Miller (2016) defined peace leadership as “the intersection of individual and collective capacity to challenge issues of violence and aggression and build positive, inclusive social systems and structures” (p. 223). Since McIntyre Miller’s (2016) work, multiple scholars have aimed to propose a variety of ideas about peace leadership; however, this is not yet still a common, agreed-upon definition and principles of peace leadership (Amaladas, 2018; Chinn and Falk-Rafael, 2018; Dinan, 2018; Ledbetter, 2016; Schellhammer, 2016, 2018). The work of the PLDC, as aforementioned, is built upon one of these notions of peace leadership, the framework of integral peace leadership, which will be described in detail below.

Integral peace leadership is a proactive, intentional approach to individual and collective action built through the interconnected development of skills and practices in order to challenge violence and aggression and create positive, just change (McIntyre Miller and Alomair, 2022; McIntyre Miller, 2022; McIntyre Miller and Green, 2015). The integral peace leadership framework is organized around four overlapping and dynamic areas: Innerwork, the space for individual readiness for peace and leadership; Community, a collective and collaborative space for action toward peace leadership; Knowledge, the understanding and implementation of theories, processes, and skills that inform peace leadership; and Environment, the surrounding landscape, or societal systems and structures, of issues addressed in peace leadership (McIntyre Miller and Alomair, 2022; McIntyre Miller, 2022; McIntyre Miller and Green, 2015). The framework argues that for sustainable change to occur, peace leadership efforts must be operating and utilizing skills and practices within all of the four areas collectively. There is no formula for engaging in the work of peace leadership, as it is often context-specific, but if there is growth and effort in each of the areas, peace leadership can occur. Therefore, integral peace leadership is at the intersection of each of these areas, as demonstrated in Figure 1 (McIntyre Miller, 2022).

The challenge set out in the PLDC was to find a way to teach the principles and practices of integral peace leadership, as previously discussed, so that it could be learned and utilized by individuals in various fields, such as nonprofit organizations, community and government work, education, and even for-profit organizations. Therefore, the PLDC was designed as a practical, applied learning space for those interested in leadership for peaceful change. The authors utilized the concepts and ideas presented within integral peace leadership and designed an online, self-paced, and exploratory curriculum that provides a space for sharing strategies and practices for peaceful change.

The PLDC introduced participants to integral peace leadership and to each of the four areas (Innerwork, Community, Knowledge, and Environment) through an overview of each area and key learning objectives. Each area contained a series of sub-topics developed by integral peace leadership scholars through a thorough review of the literature that has influenced the emergent field. Each sub-topic included: (1) an overview that provided a description of the topic and an explanation of how it contributed to peace leadership; (2) learning objectives to inform participants of the goals related to each topic; (3) related expert video(s) to enhance learners’ understanding of the topic and its relevance to peace leadership; (4) several practical examples that provide learners with diverse forms of exercises and practices to engage in and increase their ability to be more self-reflective of their own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors; and (5) links to additional resources for advanced learning. In total, the PLDC contained materials for 36 sub-topics (listed in Table 1) and included 73 videos, 120 practical applications, and 292 references and resources.

The PLDC was designed so that participants could choose to engage with the provided material at their own pace and based on their own interests and existing areas of expertise. The goals of the PLDC were to both increase the knowledge of the skills and practices of peace leadership and also give participants the tools to lead peaceful change in their own groups, communities, and organizations. The curriculum was originally created and piloted with the support of an American Psychological Association Division 48 Grant. The evaluation of the curriculum is detailed in the sections below.

This study was conducted to investigate the following research question.

1. In what ways does the Peace Leadership Development Curriculum inform participants’ understanding of peace leadership topics, impact the frequency in which they utilize peace leadership skills and practices, and their perceptions of the importance of each to peace leadership?

   • What aspects of the PLDC are the most effective in these areas?

   • What aspects of the PLDC are the least effective?

   • What aspects of the PLDC can be modified to increase the overall efficacy of the program?

The PLDC evaluation utilized a concurrent mixed methods design (Creswell, 2014). Mixed methods research designs are appropriate for studies that aim to explain, describe, or evaluate, utilizing qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods together (Leavy, 2017). Therefore, this design was chosen to receive a wide variety of feedback from participants, including both quantitative data and qualitative data, for a more in-depth understanding and to best answer the research question. The quantitative portion consisted of a 5-point Likert-scale pre- and post-test survey for each area of study (Innerwork, Community, Knowledge, and Environment). These questions gauged the participants’ understanding of the topics, frequency of use of the topics, and assessment of the importance of the topics to peace leadership. Also included in the post-surveys were open-ended response questions (Kumar, 2011), which provided space for the participants to discuss, in-depth, their learning experiences. The study received Institutional Board Review approval from the authors’ university.

As part of this evaluation study, the PLDC was delivered to three different groups using three aligned delivery modes over the course of one year. The first delivery was in a community-based setting where eight adult professional participants associated with social justice work in a local community agreed to participate in the PLDC. Participants were solicited by a recruitment flyer posted in a local community space they frequented. This space was also utilized for the post-survey discussions. The participants utilized the online PLDC curriculum, including the pre- and post-surveys and also met five times over the course of 10 weeks to discuss and share their learning with each other. These discussions occurred after the participants completed both the pre- and post-surveys for each curriculum area.

The second and third delivery of the curriculum were offered simultaneously. The second group consisted of adult professional peace leadership experts who engaged with the online curriculum. The peace leadership expert participants were a group made up of six peace leadership scholars and practitioners who were familiar to the research team through a peace leadership professional organization. These individuals participated in all curriculum elements and the surveys in a self-paced and self-directed learning format within a set span of time. Finally, the third delivery was a group of graduate-level students. There were 14 adult student participants who engaged with the curriculum as part of a master’s course in leadership. These students engaged in the self-paced online curriculum and took the pre- and post-surveys in a set timeline in accordance with the course syllabus and prior to any group discussion. Therefore, each of the pilot groups engaged in the curriculum online and took the pre- and post-surveys on their own prior to engaging in any group discussion.

Taken collectively, 19 participants self-identified as women and nine as men. In terms of race and ethnicity, six participants self-identified as Hispanic or Mexican, 13 self-identified as white, five self-identified as Asian, two self-identified as African or African American, one self-identified as Native American, and one declined to state. Participants ages ranged in the following way: five participants were between the ages of 18–24, eight between 25–34, three between 35–44, five between 45–54, five between 55–64, and one between 65–74. In terms of education, one participant had some college education, nine had a college degree, eight had some post-graduate work, and 10 had achieved a post-graduate degree.

Analysis of the study data was conducted in two phases. First, the quantitative pre- and post-test surveys were analyzed utilizing the SPSS software and are presented in Tables 2–5. Given the small sample size, 28 total participants, and the nature of the project as a pilot study, results were analyzed descriptively, with effect sizes calculated to describe the differences between respondents’ initial responses to those provided after completing the curriculum.

Second, the open-ended questions in the post-test surveys were analyzed utilizing a deductive qualitative analysis coding lens (Gilgun, 2015). Open-ended answers were organized by question in Excel and coded using hypothesis coding (Saldaña, 2013) to identify the PLDC sub-topic they addressed. These responses were then aligned into broader categories to present the recommendations of the participants in terms of what they found most and least useful, how they engaged in practicing the skills learned, and their perceived confidence in each area.

The outcomes presented here are organized by curriculum area (Innerwork, Knowledge, Community, and Environment). Participant’s responses to the Likert survey questions are shared first and provide the insights gleaned into their understanding of the topics, frequent use of the topics, and assessment of the importance of the topics to peace leadership. Then the analysis of the responses to the open-ended questions are shared to provide insight into what was useful to the participants, what and how they practiced these skills, and how confident they felt in each area.

Each of the ten subtopics of Innerwork (i.e. Stress and Anger, Human Dignity, Mindfulness, Meditation, Worldview, Forgiveness, Listening Skills, Authenticity, Love, and Tolerance for Ambiguity) were explored and pre- and post-participation mean scores, standard deviations, and effect sizes are presented in Table 2. When responding to items about the understanding of the concept, participants noted little to no change in understanding after participation in the program for four of the subtopics (i.e. Human Dignity, Meditation, Forgiveness, and Listening Skills). In contrast, responses for each of the other subtopics of Innerwork (i.e. Stress and Anger, Mindfulness, Worldview, Authenticity, Love, and Tolerance for Ambiguity) increased after participation in the curriculum, with small effect sizes ranging from 0.21 to 0.36.

When asked about the frequency of use of the subtopics of Innerwork, participants mostly did not indicate that their behaviors had changed after participation in the curriculum. However, a few subtopics did stand out in terms of changes in the frequency of use, notably Worldview, where the average score increased from 3.12 to 3.72 (medium effect size), and Love, where the average score increased from 3.79 to 4.21 (medium effect size).

When asked about the importance to peace leadership, several subtopics of Innerwork stood out as clearly important to participants who had completed the curriculum. For example, scores on the Stress and Anger subscale increased from 3.89 to 4.59 after completing the curriculum (large effect size). Similarly, participants’ scores for Human Dignity, Forgiveness, and Tolerance for Ambiguity all increased after completing the curriculum with small effect sizes ranging from 0.32 to 0.38.

When sharing their opinions of the curriculum through open response, participants shared that Forgiveness was often mentioned as the most useful skill in Innerwork. One participant stated: “I believe understanding Forgiveness is key to living a stress-free and authentic life … it has given me peace to learn to forgive.” For another, “I learned how interconnected the act of Forgiveness is to so many other subtopics that are also listed, such as love, mindfulness, and empathy.” Human Dignity also was considered useful, as one participant described it as “the compass for leadership.” Even though these items had a small effect size, some participants deemed them important enough to discuss in the qualitative portion of the survey.

Many participants felt that each of the components of Innerwork was important to their learning, with all but one offering comments on what was most useful to them. Of the 28 participants, however, 11 felt Meditation was less useful than others, with not enough practical examples or unsuccessful efforts in the past clouding their current experience. Another area mentioned by several participants was Tolerance of Ambiguity, with some participants wanting a more in-depth understanding.

Participants were asked how they put their Innerwork skills into practice. Several participants shared their experiences around engaging empathy, with one stating, “I am currently trying to be more empathetic than sympathetic … Instead [of trying] to affirm their feelings by making a connection with a similar one I’ve experienced, I try to focus more on listening and acknowledging their feelings with affirming words.” Another participant mentioned practicing open-mindedness in order to “take a step back, consider the other person’s perspective [and] be comfortable in the uncomfortable.” Several participants practiced their listening skills, and one participant shared: “How many times do we hear people talking but we aren’t listening? Listening has helped me build trust and show people that I care.”

Meditation and Mindfulness were practiced through walks, creating space for stillness, morning Meditations, and even being mindful of saying hello and goodbye. Others appreciated practicing Forgiveness and loving yourself and one another for the “opportunities for introspection and important lessons in my interactions with others.” For others, Tolerance of Ambiguity was important because it “taps into a level of discomfort that [one] oftentimes avoids to see the positive sides to embracing the unknown.”

Participants, based on their past experiences around peace leadership, perceived themselves as having varying levels of competence in the practice of Innerwork. Of the 28 participants, 17 expressed that they felt very confident in each of the Innerwork practices. Others felt that they had some competence in some practices but not in others. Those who felt less competent commented that they believed their competence would increase with additional practice and more time spent engaging with the material. Some suggested that feedback on their practice could help improve their competence and would increase opportunities for additional practice.

Each of the ten subtopics of Community (i.e. Relationship Building, Coalition Building, Building Social and Human Capital, Trust Building, Adaptive Leadership, Fostering Diversity, Leadership Spirit, and Compassion) were explored, and participants’ pre- and post-participation mean scores, standard deviations, and effect sizes are presented in Table 3. When responding to items about understanding the concept, participants noted gains after participation in the program for all subtopics of Community, with effect sizes ranging from 0.29 to 0.59.

When asked about the frequency of use of the subtopics of Community, participants primarily indicated that their behaviors had changed after participation in the curriculum, with effect sizes ranging from 0.20 to 0.80. Participants indicated the greatest gains in the subtopic of Coalition Building, with the average score increasing from 2.82 to 3.72 (large effect size). Participants did not indicate a change in the subtopic of Relationship Building with regard to frequency of use. However, when looking at the responses, it appears that the majority of participants already indicated “strongly agree” to the items in this subscale, leaving little room for change or improvement upon participation in the curriculum program.

When asked about the importance to peace leadership, several subtopics of Community stood out as clearly important to participants who had completed the curriculum. For example, scores on the Coalition Building subscale increased from 4.42 to 4.80 after completing the curriculum (medium effect size). Similarly, participants’ scores for Relationship Building, Building Social and Human Capital, Fostering Diversity, and Leadership Spirit all increased after completing the curriculum with small effect sizes ranging from 0.23 to 0.48.

Through open-ended responses, participants shared that Coalition Building was often mentioned as most useful in the Community learning area. For one participant, “It made me realize that 'no man is an island' when it comes to advocacy and change. We must be willing to get involved with others and collaborate towards a common goal.” Participants understood from the module that Coalition Building requires feedback and community and partnership building. They also learned that Allies can be found in unlikely places, and as one participant put it, you “can and ought to move beyond the like-minded communities to create common ground.”

Participants described Trust Building as useful as the key to leadership and to creating and maintaining relationships in both personal and professional lives. Building Social and Human Capital was also useful for one participant as “it reminded me just how important social networks are when working toward a goal. The magnitude of what can be accomplished is further amplified when people have a local network of people they can trust and rely on.” Finally, the ideas of Compassion, Leadership Spirit, and Adaptive Leadership were also mentioned as most useful for participants.

Several participants did not find any subtopic as least useful. For others, those subtopics mentioned as least useful were found most useful by other participants, such as Leadership Spirit, Building Social and Human Capital, Diversity, and Coalition Building. One participant felt that Adaptive Leadership was least useful because “peace leadership requires a commitment to the core value of peace, and this often necessitates integrity over adaptation.” This comment, in connection to the learning, will be discussed further in the following section.

All participants, save one, stressed the importance of practice in the Community section. According to one participant, “I think this section highlighted the value in using the power inherent in any community of people and how to pool those resources when needed.” Seven participants emphasized this point in discussing their practice of Building Social and Human Capital in their communities, bringing in Diverse representation in their current and future groups and being more understanding and compassionate in terms of others’ experiences. Five participants tried their hand at Trust Building in the coalitions they were growing, and six discussed working on Relationship Building among their colleagues.

Three participants shared that they needed additional time to practice the skills they learned in the Community setting and were looking for additional exercises to reinforce their learning. Another participant was hoping to find spaces to practice the skills in lower-stakes environments. Thirteen of the participants felt somewhat to very confident in their competence of Community skills. According to one participant, “I felt somewhat competent in trying these practices, but I also think I will feel more confident with more practice. I will continue to seek out opportunities to apply what I’ve learned.”

Each of the ten subtopics of Knowledge (i.e. Negotiation, Conflict Resolution, Reconciliation, Restorative Justice, Mediation, Nonviolence, Communication Skills, Understanding Aggression and Violence, Dialogue, and Peacebuilding) were explored and participants’ pre- and post-participation mean scores, standard deviations, and effect sizes are presented in Table 4. When responding to items about the understanding of the concepts, participants noted gains after participation in the program for the subtopics of Conflict Resolution, Reconciliation, Restorative Justice, Mediation, Communication Skills, and Peacebuilding, with effect sizes ranging from 0.23 to 0.60. In the subtopic of Negotiation, participants’ scores decreased after participation in the program.

When asked about the frequency of use of the subtopics of Knowledge work, participants indicated that their behaviors in four subtopics (i.e. Conflict Resolution, Restorative Justice, Mediation, and Dialogue) had changed after participation in the curriculum, with effect sizes ranging from 0.37 to 0.52. When asked about the importance to peace leadership, Mediation, and Peacebuilding stood out as important to participants who had completed the curriculum (medium and small effect sizes, respectively). In contrast, participants’ ratings of the subtopic of Nonviolence with regard to the importance to peace leadership decreased after participation in the program (small effect size).

Communication skills were seen by 11 of the 28 participants as being the most useful learning in the Knowledge section. As one participant stated, “It appeared to me that the essential component in Understanding Aggression and Violence, Conflict Resolution, Negotiation, Mediation, Peacebuilding, and Reconciliation requires the ability to Communicate in a manner that promotes empathy, understanding, and resolution.” Through learning these skills, participants felt better prepared as a speaker, had a better sense of how to express themselves in a conflict situation, were more understanding of the role of culture in Communication, and saw the applicability of these skills in both their personal and professional lives.

Nine participants found value in the lessons around Conflict Resolution and five for Reconciliation, which provided an opportunity to learn about “a mutual agreement of moving forward.” For others, Mediation (four participants), Negotiation (two participants), Peacebuilding (seven participants), Restorative Justice (one participant), Nonviolence (one participant), and Dialogue (two participants) were mentioned as important. Three participants also found the learning around Understanding Aggression and Violence helpful because often there is a focus on Nonviolence and peace, but “we leave out discussions that require us to address why people are using violence or aggression and what sorts of trauma/healing need to be addressed in order for violence/aggression to be obsolete or a non-necessity.” As one participant stated, “The Knowledge section really enlightened my understanding.”

Eight participants identified the least useful areas as those that do not directly translate to their current work, such as Peacebuilding (three participants), Nonviolence (two participants), Reconciliation (three participants), Negotiation (two participants), Restorative Justice (seven participants), and Mediation (six participants). For six others, it was Understanding Aggression and Violence because it was interesting to learn but did not translate much to their experiences or views of the world. For another, they wished the lessons of Creativity were more directly connected to leadership.

Nineteen of the participants practiced several areas of Community work. One participant stated the importance of Conflict Resolution practice because “The most difficult part of peace leadership, for me, would be creating boundaries and struggling through adversity. It’s maintaining peace when conflict arises that is most challenging.” Another appreciated the lessons on Restorative Justice, which inspired them to look into the concept more deeply and build practices into their work.

Another participant shared that they are working on their Communication style and strategies as a result of this section and that they are “hoping to improve these skills [to] better negotiate and create an open dialogue with people that I need to have a difficult conversation with.” Dialogue was an essential skill for four of the participants. Two participants shared that this took the form of becoming a better listener who is “open to finding a common ground” and “taking time to analyze a situation before commenting on it.” Other areas in which participants stated they employed the practices they learned were Peacebuilding (two participants), Mediation (one participant), Reconciliation (three participants), and Creativity (one participant).

Participants had varying degrees of confidence in their Knowledge competence. While five indicated that they would need additional practice to feel comfortable with these skills, nineteen felt that they were competent or on their way to competence. As one participant stated,

Each of the ten subtopics of Environment (i.e. Systems Thinking, Nonviolence Social Movements, Network and Distributive Organization Models, Advocacy and Activism, Complexity and Chaos, and Eco-Leadership) were explored and participants’ pre- and post-participation mean scores, standard deviations, and effect sizes are presented in Table 5. When responding to items about understanding of each concept, participants noted gains after participation in the program for all subtopics of Environment, with effect sizes ranging from 0.49 to 0.92 (medium to large effects).

When asked about the frequency of use of the subtopics of Environment, participants similarly indicated that their behaviors had changed after participation in the curriculum in all subtopics, with effect sizes ranging from 0.33 to 0.98. Participants indicated the greatest gains in the subtopic of Eco-Leadership for both understanding and frequency of use, with effect sizes of 0.92 and 0.98, respectively. When asked about the importance to peace leadership, all areas of Environment were important to participants who had completed the curriculum, with effect sizes ranging from 0.20 (small effect size) to 0.68 (large effect size). The largest gains for importance to leadership were found in the subtopic of Systems Thinking, with scores increasing from 4.19 to 4.88, resulting in a 0.68, or large, effect size.

All participants shared at least one element of the Environment section as being important to their learning, with seven paying particular attention paid to Systems Thinking. One participant called it foundational for all other areas, and another shared that it is “an essential mindset and understanding [for] peace leadership … Linear cause and effect are not sufficient enough to really, truly, know the environment. Systems Thinking involves looking at all aspects, zooming out, and seeing influences of a broader system.” Participants also appreciated the learning around Eco- Leadership (four participants) and Networked and Distributive organizational models (three participants) as ways to “collectively work as a whole change, rather than separate entities.”

For others, learning about Nonviolent Social Movements (three participants) and Advocacy and Activism (six participants) was important, as it was essential to their work. One participant stated that “The nature of modern social and economic conflicts requires well-trained advocates and activists who are prepared to meet diverse challenges. The materials provided are a useful primer for change agents who want sustainable solutions.” Others found value in learning about Complexity and Chaos (eight participants), as one connected to the notion “that chaos is natural when it comes to leadership … it is important to understand how leaders may contribute in a positive manner; not to ignore the chaos but to find successful ways to operate within it.”

While nine participants mentioned that all of the content areas in this section were useful to them either for the work in which they are currently engaged or the work that they intend to take up, 15 participants mentioned some least useful practices. The most common response, six participants, to the least useful practices was those related to Eco-Leadership, with some participants feeling they either already had a command of the content or, conversely, that they were still not clear enough to utilize the material. Other participants mentioned that System Thinking (three participants), Networked and Distributive models (two participants), Nonviolent Social Movements (three participants), Advocacy and Activism (two participants), and Complexity and Chaos (two participants) as the least useful, mainly because they were not applicable to their current work.

Three participants stated that they engaged in practices around Systems Thinking. For one participant, they worked on reframing and rethinking things from a multitude of perspectives. For others, it helped them to process the bigger picture. Another participant shared that they were thinking through how to embed Eco-Leadership principles into their organization so that “operations would have a better flow, [there would be] more communication, [and] establish a collective goal.” Advocacy and Activism were also practiced by two individuals who reflected on their current work and thought through ways to better work with their teams. Three others reviewed their organizational structures with an eye for Distribution to determine what changes would be beneficial to the help of the overall mission.

Thirteen participants felt they were mostly to fully competent in the area of Environment. Those who were only mostly confident felt that their abilities would increase upon further practice of the sections. Even those who felt fully competent in the practices of Environment wanted to engage in continual learning and practice. Eleven participants felt that consistency and practice were the keys to competence.

This study was conducted to evaluate the research question and sub-questions related to the curriculum of peace leadership skills as well as the efficacy of the PLDC in particular. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from participants before and after the completion of the PLDC to provide insight into these questions. The discussion below reveals important elements of the research question, including the most effective aspects of the PLDC, the elements least effective in PLDC, and suggestions for improvement.

Participants demonstrated and described growth in all the various aspects (understanding, frequency of use, and importance to peace leadership) for all four major topic areas covered by the PLDC (i.e. Innerwork, Community, Knowledge, Environment). However, more significant gains across each aspect were found for the topics of Community, Knowledge, and Environment Work. For each of these areas, participant comments regarding practice utilization and perceived competence supported the conclusion from the survey data that participants had built and were utilizing skills in these areas. Specific comments from when participants were asked about the most useful aspect of each section of the PLDC showed that individual participants were able to identify subtopics within each section that were more important to them but did not reveal any strong trends regarding particular subtopics when analyzed with the results of the quantitative items. An exception to this was that more subtopics were listed as most useful from the Community, Knowledge, and Environment sections, which follows the trends found regarding greatest areas of quantitative growth. These findings aligned with the literature demonstrating the importance of learning for behavior changes and working with diverse stakeholders and marginalized voices (Bajaj, 2019; Kester, 2012; Scotto and Rivers, n.d.).

Further analysis of comments regarding the most useful aspects of the PLDC revealed that many participants listed several subtopics within each area, with some participants listing how they learned that skills are interrelated. For example, a comment from the Innerwork domain described that they learned how Forgiveness was related to many of the other areas of Innerwork. Similarly, participants’ comments described the interrelated constructs within the Knowledge domain that collectively work toward effective Communication.

In comparison to the other areas, participants indicated the least overall growth in the area of Innerwork. Although gains were made in several of the subtopics of Innerwork in either understanding, frequency of use, or importance to peace leadership, when analyzing the results as a whole, fewer subtopics showed medium or large effect size impacts when compared to the other overall areas, and fewer subtopics showed growth across each area as they did for other overall areas. There may be many explanations for this, including the depth and difficulty of providing educational opportunities for these topics (e.g. Mindfulness, Empathy) within the limitations of a curriculum such as the PLDC.

Qualitative data also asked about participants’ perspectives on the least useful aspect for each topic. In some circumstances, these comments were difficult to interpret as the same topics that some participants had listed as most useful were also identified by others as the least useful. Some comments, such as one provided regarding Adaptive Leadership under the area of Community, may represent the participant’s lack of understanding of the topic material as presented. Other comments provided some insight into lower ratings or lack of growth for some subtopic areas based on past experiences (e.g. past negative experiences with a practice such as Mindfulness). Additionally, many aspects that were listed as least useful were those that did not connect to the participant’s current roles, jobs, or experiences. Another challenge could be the speed of the program, as research has found longer periods of study yield more effective change (Comey and Stephenson, 2018; Fiock, 2020; Novelli and Smith, 2011; Ohanyan and Lewis, 2005).

Collectively, the quantitative and qualitative feedback of participants in the PLDC provided the researchers with some suggestions for modifications to the curriculum. First, several comments across topic areas mentioned the need for further practice with topics to build confidence and familiarity with how concepts can or will be applied. Lengthening the program and adding more interactive components to allow for this practice is suggested, as this is also reflected in the literature (Comey and Stephenson, 2018; Fiock, 2020; Novelli and Smith, 2011; Ohanyan and Lewis, 2005). More time in completing the curriculum will allow participants both more time to process each topic and also the chance to engage more with the material before moving on to new topics. Second, data collection should include follow-up intervals months after completion of the PLDC in order to capture the actual application of skills and knowledge in peace leadership work, as well as assess the retention of information learned through the curriculum.

Third, in processing the data, another suggestion that arose was to build in some autonomy in participants’ own learning process as they progress through PLDC. As several comments indicated perceptions of subtopics as less valuable than others because they do not apply to their current work or positions, it may be helpful to have participants select a few subtopics within each area to focus on. This would allow participants to dive deeper into the skills they know they currently need or utilize and/or select some skills with intentionality that they may not currently need but know would be helpful for their future work. This is reflective of Mihalik et al.’s (n.d.) argument for flexibility in peace education programs.

Finally, although this pilot phase of the PLDC was conducted via multiple modalities, it is recommended that the next phase of implementation analyze data according to the mode of application to examine if there are different outcomes or perspectives from participants who completed the program online or in-person. This study, in turn, provides an opportunity for the framework of integral peace leadership to be reviewed and adapted. As a new and emergent area of understanding, studies like this provide real-time data for scholars to refine and further develop existing theory. Therefore, as the principles and practices that are found most useful, utilized, and impactful are identified, these can be further prioritized in a peace leadership model and can be further tested for additional salience.

As inherent to all research, there are several limitations to the present study. First, the sample size of the participation groups was relatively small. As the curriculum implementation grows and continues to develop, data may be available with larger sample sizes to allow for robust analyses to determine program efficacy, including the ability to look at participants’ experiences with the PLDC based on background knowledge and current experience with peace leadership, among others. Second, there were no active measures of program fidelity during the implementation of the PLDC, which means we are unable to determine if the program’s implementation was equal or equally assessed by the program participants, particularly across modalities. Future research on the PLDC should include fidelity checks to establish that all administrations, instructors, and modalities are implementing the curriculum in consistent ways.

Overall, this pilot study demonstrated that the PLDC did provide opportunities for participants to grow their understanding of peace leadership topics, increase the frequency of use of these related skills, and find value in these skills and practices for peace leadership. When implementing the PLDC for future groups, it would be important to keep in mind the time participants may want or need in order to practice their learning. It would also be important to ensure there is a focus on subtopics important to participants’ current and future work. Further analysis of the PLDC would provide additional insight into the effectiveness of Innerwork on peace leadership learning and practice and provide an opportunity to augment this section so that greater learning is possible. It would also be beneficial to consider a longitudinal study with participants to assess whether their PLDC learning has made a long-term impact on their lives and work.

As it stands, the PLDC is one way that those interested in teaching peace leadership might go about helping students and community members learn and utilize these skills. For those interested in challenging the trend toward violence and civil unrest set forth at the top of this paper, the PLDC provides one tool to do so. Whether as a stand-alone curriculum or used in conjunction with a class or discussion groups, the PLDC provides opportunities for professionals and students to learn about peace leadership skills and practices and encourages them to put these into practice. Therefore, this study has implications for the peace leadership development, learning, and education field while also helping augment the empirical scholarship in the area of peace leadership.

Funding: The outcomes presented here are organized by curriculum area (Innerwork, Community, Knowledge, and Environment).