辨别风险承担者和逃避者:在印度尼西亚安汶,哪些老师更可能支持关于暴力过去的教学?

IF 0.7 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
A. Fatah, L. Kuppens, Arnim Langer
{"title":"辨别风险承担者和逃避者:在印度尼西亚安汶,哪些老师更可能支持关于暴力过去的教学?","authors":"A. Fatah, L. Kuppens, Arnim Langer","doi":"10.1177/17461979231179142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2005, Kitson and McCully introduced the ‘risk-taking’ continuum, representing the multiple ways in which teachers in post-conflict societies deal with the history of conflict in the classroom. ‘Avoiders’, at one extreme, refrain from teaching the violent past, while at the other extreme ‘risk-takers’ analyse multiple perspectives on what happened and why. Since their seminal study, scholars have increasingly studied the challenges and opportunities related to teaching the violent past. Yet, so far no study has empirically tested and applied the continuum. Drawing on a survey of 558 secondary school teachers in post-conflict Ambon, Indonesia, we analyse the proportion and characteristics of ‘risk-takers’ as compared to ‘avoiders’. Our results show that ‘risk-takers’ represent a slim majority. While ‘risk-taking’ is associated with political interest and higher levels of education, teachers who suffered much harm during the conflict, whose students belong to a religious group other than theirs and/or those who think conflict causes have been addressed are less supportive of conflict history teaching.","PeriodicalId":45472,"journal":{"name":"Education Citizenship and Social Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discerning risk-takers from avoiders: Which teachers are more likely to support teaching about the violent past in Ambon, Indonesia?\",\"authors\":\"A. Fatah, L. Kuppens, Arnim Langer\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17461979231179142\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 2005, Kitson and McCully introduced the ‘risk-taking’ continuum, representing the multiple ways in which teachers in post-conflict societies deal with the history of conflict in the classroom. ‘Avoiders’, at one extreme, refrain from teaching the violent past, while at the other extreme ‘risk-takers’ analyse multiple perspectives on what happened and why. Since their seminal study, scholars have increasingly studied the challenges and opportunities related to teaching the violent past. Yet, so far no study has empirically tested and applied the continuum. Drawing on a survey of 558 secondary school teachers in post-conflict Ambon, Indonesia, we analyse the proportion and characteristics of ‘risk-takers’ as compared to ‘avoiders’. Our results show that ‘risk-takers’ represent a slim majority. While ‘risk-taking’ is associated with political interest and higher levels of education, teachers who suffered much harm during the conflict, whose students belong to a religious group other than theirs and/or those who think conflict causes have been addressed are less supportive of conflict history teaching.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Education Citizenship and Social Justice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Education Citizenship and Social Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17461979231179142\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education Citizenship and Social Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17461979231179142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2005年,Kitson和McCully引入了“冒险”连续体,代表了冲突后社会教师在课堂上处理冲突历史的多种方式在一个极端,回避者避免教授暴力的过去,而在另一个极端的“冒险者”则从多个角度分析发生了什么以及为什么。自他们开创性的研究以来,学者们越来越多地研究与教授暴力过去有关的挑战和机遇。然而,到目前为止,还没有任何研究对连续体进行实证检验和应用。根据对印尼冲突后安汶558名中学教师的调查,我们分析了“冒险者”与“回避者”的比例和特征。我们的研究结果表明,“冒险者”只占微弱多数。虽然“冒险”与政治利益和更高的教育水平有关,但在冲突中受到严重伤害的教师、学生属于自己以外的宗教团体的教师和/或认为冲突原因已经得到解决的教师不太支持冲突历史教学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discerning risk-takers from avoiders: Which teachers are more likely to support teaching about the violent past in Ambon, Indonesia?
In 2005, Kitson and McCully introduced the ‘risk-taking’ continuum, representing the multiple ways in which teachers in post-conflict societies deal with the history of conflict in the classroom. ‘Avoiders’, at one extreme, refrain from teaching the violent past, while at the other extreme ‘risk-takers’ analyse multiple perspectives on what happened and why. Since their seminal study, scholars have increasingly studied the challenges and opportunities related to teaching the violent past. Yet, so far no study has empirically tested and applied the continuum. Drawing on a survey of 558 secondary school teachers in post-conflict Ambon, Indonesia, we analyse the proportion and characteristics of ‘risk-takers’ as compared to ‘avoiders’. Our results show that ‘risk-takers’ represent a slim majority. While ‘risk-taking’ is associated with political interest and higher levels of education, teachers who suffered much harm during the conflict, whose students belong to a religious group other than theirs and/or those who think conflict causes have been addressed are less supportive of conflict history teaching.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Education Citizenship and Social Justice
Education Citizenship and Social Justice EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
16.70%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信