This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 12 November 2014, At: 15:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Compare: A Journal of Comparativeand International EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20

‘It is like putting fire in the children’shands’: a comparative case study ofpre-service teachers’ knowledge of andbeliefs about education for democracyin an established and emerging post-conflict democracyBrian K. Lanahana & Michele S. Phillipsa

a Department of Teacher Education, College of Charleston,Charleston, USA.Published online: 05 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Brian K. Lanahan & Michele S. Phillips (2014) ‘It is like putting firein the children’s hands’: a comparative case study of pre-service teachers’ knowledge ofand beliefs about education for democracy in an established and emerging post-conflictdemocracy, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 44:3, 394-415, DOI:10.1080/03057925.2012.721583

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2012.721583

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

‘It is like putting fire in the children’s hands’: a comparative casestudy of pre-service teachers’ knowledge of and beliefs abouteducation for democracy in an established and emergingpost-conflict democracy

Brian K. Lanahan* and Michele S. Phillips

Department of Teacher Education, College of Charleston, Charleston, USA

This report documents and compares two cases of pre-service elementaryteachers’ beliefs about democracy and education for democracy in theUSA and Bosnia and Herzegovina along with contextual factors influ-encing the similarities and differences among these beliefs. Findings sug-gest that US pre-service elementary teachers have a self-proclaimed lackof knowledge about democracy and primarily view citizenship educationas a means to teach children how to get along. Conversely, Bosnian pre-service teachers hold more nuanced views of democracy and educationfor democracy, formed while their country transitioned from socialismtowards democracy following a devastating civil war. Consequently, theyfocus on teaching children the skills and dispositions necessary for suc-cessful democratic citizenship to preserve their country. These divergentunderstandings of democracy within the two cases may hold potentialbenefits to teachers in both emergent and established democracies. Impli-cations of these and other findings are discussed, as well as potentialfuture research.

Keywords: Bosnia and Herzegovina; post-conflict democracies;elementary; United States; democracy; teacher beliefs

Background

Given the exploding number of post-conflict emerging democracies world-wide, examining how teachers in these countries learn how to educate pupilsas democratic citizens has become critical. This study examines pre-serviceteachers’ beliefs about democracy and education for democracy – in theUSA and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) – to fill a void in the literature.‘More studies are needed of students’ and teachers’ understandings of civic-political concepts in different cultural and national contexts’ (Hahn 2010,17) as no research on pre-service teachers’ beliefs in a post-conflictemerging democracy has examined democracy and education for democracy.

*Corresponding author. Email: lanahanb@cofc.edu

Compare, 2014Vol. 44, No. 3, 394–415, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2012.721583

� 2012 British Association for International and Comparative Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s current status as a post-conflict and post-com-munist country makes it an appropriate juxtaposition to the USA’s status asan established democracy.

Literature review

This study draws from literature related to democracy, education for democ-racy, training teachers in a democracy, pre-service teacher beliefs aboutdemocracy and education for democracy and education in post-conflictdemocracies.

Democracy

Democracy is government by the consent of the people, organised aroundcivic ideals and utilising policies agreed upon via debate and deliberation(Cummins 2000), it must also safeguard minority and civil rights of all citi-zens (Beane 2005). Democracies are based on justice, freedom and equality(Parker 1996) and focus on inclusion, legitimacy and public decision mak-ing for the common good (Barton and Levstik 2004). They invite opendebate, require accountability and are ruled by a representative government(Hay 2006). Democracies value:

the celebration of social and political diversity; mutual respect between indi-viduals and groups; regarding all people as having equal social and politicalrights as human beings; respect for evidence in forming opinions and respect-ing the opinions of others based on evidence; to be open to changing one’smind in the light of new evidence; and possessing a critical and analyticalstance towards information. (Chikoko et al. 2011, 6)

In democracies, citizens participate in their communities through member-ship in civic, cultural, political and religious groups. They act based on civicand moral ideals, care about the welfare of others and exhibit acceptanceand respect for their fellow citizens (Carnegie Corporation 2003). Educationis central to the success of any state (Wiseman et al. 2011), particularlydemocracies (Chikoko et al. 2011), and is often seen as key to the successof an emerging democracy (Mansfield and Snyder 2005).

Education for democracy

Participants’ beliefs about education will be analysed utilising the ‘educationfor democracy’ concept (Lanahan and McDermott 2012), which consists ofcivics education and democratic teaching. Civics education develops ‘stu-dents’ knowledge of government, law, and politics as those have evolvedthrough history and presently operate in our society’ (Hoge 2002, 105).Civics education has three components: (1) a curriculum covering the formand function of government and citizens’ roles and responsibilities (Dewey

Compare 395

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

1916), (2) exposure to simplified social situations where pupils worktogether democratically to solve problems via discussion and critical think-ing (Dewey 1916) and (3) the requirement to participate in service projectsto improve their schools and communities (Gibson and Levine 2003).

Meanwhile, democratic teaching practices are pupil-centred and collabo-rative, while allowing pupils to participate actively during instruction (Beane2005). Democratic teaching includes instruction valuing majority-rule withrespect for individual rights (Apple 2004). Successful democratic practicesrequire teachers to work collaboratively with other teachers and step outof the traditional model of teachers working alone and autonomously(Dworkin, Saha, and Hill 2003).

Training teachers in a democracy

Teachers must be dedicated to providing democratic education if a countryaims to build and/or maintain a democratic society (Goodlad 1996). How-ever, preparing democratic teachers is difficult as there is no agreed-uponpedagogy (Barton and Levstik 2004). Pre-service teachers often lack theopportunity to observe democratic teaching due to the marginalisation of thesubject in the USA (Sunal and Sunal 2008) or because some classroomteachers lack a fundamental understanding of democracy in BiH(McDermott and Lanahan 2012). Moreover, the majority of US pre-serviceteachers rarely have experience as K–12 pupils to develop democratic skillsand dispositions (Dinkelman 1999). However, courses that emphasise anddemonstrate democratic practice create pre-service teachers with greaterknowledge and skills related to democratic practice (Pryor and Pryor, 2005).

Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about democracy and education fordemocracy

Researchers from the USA have studied pre-service teachers’ beliefs aboutdemocracy and education for democracy. Ross and Yeager (1999) examinedpre-service elementary teachers’ understandings of democracy by analysingstudents’ writing in a curriculum development graduate-level course toassess knowledge about democracy and education for democracy. Theresearchers categorised the papers as ‘high’ (sees democracy as ‘an ongoingprocess’ and ‘a way of living with others’ [258]), ‘moderate’ (‘emphasisplaced on skills for life success rather than those necessary to fulfil roles ascitizens in a democracy’ and ‘outlines good educational goals but is not spe-cific about how these are related to democracy’ [259]) and ‘low’ (‘stressesrule following, appreciate behaviour, establishment of order’ and ‘provides afunctional analysis; emphasis on skills that make one a good employee’[260]). Among the 29 papers Ross and Yeager rated, only 3 were rated as‘high’, 8 were rated ‘moderate’ and 18 were rated ‘low’.

396 B.K. Lanahan and M.S. Phillips

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Szymanski Sunal, Kelley and Sunal (2009, 33) analysed themes thatemerged when they asked 109 elementary teacher candidates to photographand caption examples of ‘democratic citizenship education’ occurring intheir field classroom. The themes were numerous, but ‘involving students inmaking choices’ was the most prevalent (35%), followed by ‘involving stu-dents in voting’ and ‘involving students in cooperative group activities’(both at 18%) and, finally, ‘involving students in saying/learning about thePledge of Allegiance’ accounted for 16% of the responses (43).

In his study ‘Making “good citizens”: The social and political attitudesof PGCE students’, Wilkins (1999) surveyed British pre-service teachers andfound that most felt disengaged from their democracy: ‘The most strikingfinding of this study is the high degree of political disengagement and cyni-cism amongst these students’ (218). Students also questioned their ability toteach civics; ‘I don’t really know what the subject is, and, I certainlywouldn’t know what to teach’ (227). Not surprisingly, given the level ofpolitical disengagement and lack of confidence in teaching civics, one stu-dent stated, ‘I think primary schools should concentrate on getting kids read-ing and writing’ (228). Commenting on these findings, Wilkins concludedthat, ‘Student teachers, already confused about their own sense of what itmeans to be “a citizen”, are unlikely to become critical pedagogues’ (229).

Education in post-conflict emerging democracies

In her review of comparative civics education, Carol Hahn (2010) succinctlycaptured the situation facing post-conflict democracies, stating that ‘implant-ing civic education in divided and post-conflict societies poses particularchallenges’ (15). Like many post-colonial and post-communist countries,BiH is an emerging post-conflict democracy. Such democracies often adoptWestern-style government structures, but lack knowledge regarding howthese structures work (Mansfield and Snyder 2005). Moreover, instruction inmany post-colonial and post-communist countries, historically based on a‘teacher-expert approach’ rather than the ‘pupil-centred approach’, is notexemplary of democratic teaching (de la Sabionniere, Taylor, and Sadykova2009; Freedman et al. 2008). Most post-conflict countries still have highlevels of ethnic and/or political tension and students from different ethnic/religious groups attend segregated schools (Freedman et al. 2008; Niens andChastenay 2008; Pasilic-Kreso 2002; Russo 2001). Bosnia and Herzegovinahas relied on aid from the international community and NGOs, particularlythe USA, UNESCO, the Soros Foundation and the European Union (EU), tostrengthen and promote understanding of democracy and education fordemocracy. Despite this influx of assistance, the success of education fordemocracy has been uneven (Lanahan and McDermott 2012).

Despite these challenges in many post-conflict democracies, education is‘considered an important means to reduce conflict and promote peace …’

Compare 397

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(Niens and Chastenay 2008, 524). Indeed, ‘in divided societies, educationthat addresses multiple identities and conflict resolution competencies …might be the best way to promote the development of loyalties beyond his-torical divisions’ (520). The aim of this education is to promote:

[a] theoretical transition from a traditional conceptualization of citizenshipcentered on the appropriation of a predefined set of rights and duties of citi-zens of a given nation (as found, for example, in former civic education clas-ses) to a vision of active citizenship built on a model of participatorydemocracy in which rights and duties are debated and challenged. (Niens andChastenay, 2008, 520)

Research context: US historical and educational contexts

A nation at risk (Department of Education National Commission on Excel-lence in Education 1983) marked the beginning of the modern standardsmovement and developed five recommendations for improving the state ofeducation: content, standards and expectations, time, teaching and leadershipand fiscal support. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush and the governorsof each state participated in the National Education Summit, using these fiverecommendations to find solutions for the failing school system (Phelan2003). The summit emphasised the need for measurable standards but unfor-tunately social studies scholars were unable to agree on a set of standards.This lack of official national standards and exclusion from high-stakes testinghas severely damaged civics in US schools. In 1998, the National Assess-ment of Educational Progress found that 75% of high school seniors werenot proficient in civics or history. Research at both the national (NationalCenter for Education Statistics 2007) and international (Torney-Purta et al.2001) level indicate that students have demonstrated a general – but not in-depth – knowledge of democratic concepts and institution.

Research context: BiH’s historical and educational contexts

The 1980 death of dictator Josip Broz Tito left Yugoslavia without a unify-ing leader (Glenny 1996). The 1989 fall of communism in Eastern Europecreated a power vacuum and aroused nationalistic and ethnic identitiesamong Yugoslavia’s peoples. Unlike other communist countries, which hada dominant ethnic identity, Yugoslavia was cobbled together from differentethnic groups after World War I, each with their own republics and prov-inces. In the early-1990s, politicians capitalised upon these divisions andstoked nationalist tensions to rise to power, causing the breakup of the Serb-dominated Yugoslavia. Upon declaring independence in 1992, BiH eruptedinto a civil war among the Muslim Bosniaks, Catholic Croats and Ortho-dox-Christian Serbs. In 1995, after a series of bloody attacks on civilians,the USA forcefully intervened and the war was brought to an end with the

398 B.K. Lanahan and M.S. Phillips

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

signing of the Dayton Accords. Post-war BiH has received tremendous sup-port from the international community, especially the EU, the USA and theUnited Nations, yet relations among ethnic groups have remained hostileand the country perpetually teeters on the brink of disintegration (Bilfesky2008).

Education in BiH since the end of the war has mirrored the political situ-ation: contentious and divided. In her comprehensive 2008 article entitled‘The war and post-war impact on the educational system of Bosnia andHerzegovina’, Pašalić-Kreso (2008) discussed the challenges facing educa-tion in BiH, including its highly politicised and polarised nature, excessiveregulations, lack of funding and standards, curriculum that fails to conformto EU standards, lack of teachers with education and training, poor initialteacher training and high pupil-teacher ratio.

Methods

The current study examines the beliefs and understandings of pre-serviceteachers in the USA and BiH regarding democracy and education fordemocracy. Qualitative research methods are used to answer the followingresearch questions:

(1) What beliefs about democracy and education for democracy do pre-service elementary teachers in the USA hold?

(2) What beliefs about democracy and education for democracy do pre-service elementary teachers in BiH hold?

(3) What contextual factors influence the similarities and differences inthese beliefs?

Rationale for the choice of a qualitative design

The choice of a qualitative design is based on Patton’s (1990) assertion thatthe intent of qualitative research is to ‘provide perspective rather than truth,empirical assessment of local decision makers’ theories of action rather thangeneration and verification of universal theories, and context-bound explora-tions rather than generalizations’ (491). As the current study is exploratory,a qualitative design was selected to allow for a flexible yet rigorous inquiry(Lincoln and Guba 1985). Finally, a qualitative approach accounts for thecontext in which the studied phenomenon takes place (Lincoln and Guba1985).

Participants and sampling rationale

When selecting participants, ‘The first issue to address in undertakingcomparative research is selection of the countries that are appropriate for

Compare 399

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

studying one’s research questions’ (Hahn 2006, 144). The current study aimsto compare the beliefs of pre-service teachers from a post-conflict emergingdemocracy and a mature democracy, thus, BiH and the USA were selected.In addition, the researchers utilised criterion sampling (Patton 1990), requir-ing each participant to have completed a social studies or civics methodscourse as part of their teacher education programme, be currently enrolled inan elementary education programme (teacher education for working with5–10-year-olds) and be accessible to the researchers and available forinterviews. A local informant helped the researcher in Sarajevo identifyparticipants fitting these criteria to avoid the limitation of ‘samples of conve-nience’ (Hahn 2006, 150). Each participant signed an informed consent formand was given a pseudonym to ensure confidentiality.

‘Qualitative researchers usually work with small samples of peoplenested in their context and studied in depth’ (Miles and Huberman 1994,27). Thus, five pre-service elementary teachers from a small public collegein the south-eastern USA and five elementary teachers from a large publicuniversity in BiH participated. Due to the exploratory nature of the study(e.g. Mathews and Dilworth 2008), the researchers chose to limit participa-tion to 10 participants to maintain a reasonable data set, using in-depthinterviews to enhance the validity of the inquiry (Crouch and McKenzie2009). The interviews yielded more than 80 pages of raw data.

The US participants were all Caucasian females in their early-20s and stu-dents in the same cohort at a college serving 12,000 students. The cohort hadno male students at the time of data collection, which is typical (Hickey andLanahan 2012). The students’ programme was comprised of four semestersof study, focusing on methods, pedagogy, diversity and student development.Each participant had completed the second semester of the education pro-gramme, which focuses on methods in the four core subject areas, includinga course on social studies methods. Participants were asked to describe them-selves at the beginning of each interview and, interestingly, they all usedtheir family and hometown to define themselves in this context.

Katie is a 20-year-old Caucasian female from South Carolina. One of herparents attended college and is a teacher. Katie lived in the same town untilshe graduated high school and attended college. Kim is a 21-year-oldCaucasian female who is also from South Carolina. Neither of her parentsattended college. Kim was raised fewer than 25 miles away from the collegeand chose the college based on its proximity to her family. Lucie is a20-year-old Caucasian female from South Carolina. Both of her parentsattended college and are teachers. Lucie was raised in the north-east andmoved to South Carolina when her parents changed careers. Lindsey is a20-year-old Caucasian female from Washington, DC. Both of her parentsattended college. One parent is a teacher and the other is an attorney.Finally, Stacy is a 21-year-old Caucasian female from South Carolina. Bothof her parents attended college and are accountants.

400 B.K. Lanahan and M.S. Phillips

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The five participants from BiH were also all female, although their heri-tages and ages were slightly more diverse. The BiH participants were alsostudents in the same cohort in an elementary education programme, howeverthis programme was part of a large public university serving 50,000students. Again, no male students were in the cohort at the time of datacollection. The programme comprises six semesters of study resulting in afive-year master’s degree. Each participant had completed the fourth semes-ter of the programme. Access to the participants was provided via a profes-sor at the university who served as a host for one of the researchers duringhis academic year in Sarajevo. The informant was asked to provide a diverserepresentation of BiH’s ethnic diversity. When participants were asked todescribe themselves, each participant used religion as a defining personalcharacteristic.

Adna is a 20-year-old female Bosnian of Croat heritage from Mostar.She is a devout Catholic and supporter of the ‘War Orphans’ movement – agroup of 15–25-year-olds who lost a parent during the war. The ‘WarOrphans’ have called for the end of ethnic/religious tensions and for astrong central government. Adema is a 20-year-old Bosnian of Bosniak heri-tage from Sarajevo. She refers to herself as ‘Muslim and modern’. Esma isa 22-year-old Bosnian of mixed heritage from Sarajevo. Her father is Serband her mother is Bosniak. She actively organised students to protest againstabrupt changes to graduation requirements that added a year to her academicprogramme. Lamija is a 24-year-old Bosnian of Bosniak heritage fromSarajevo. She wears a headscarf at all times in public. Her father, uncle andtwo cousins died protecting Sarajevo during the war. Finally, Mersada is a20-year-old Bosnian of mixed heritage from Sarajevo. Her father is Alba-nian, her mother is Roma and was the first person in her family to evergraduate high school and attend university.

Case study methodology

The study comprised two bounded cases (Merriam 1998), Both participantgroups served as a case (Merriam 1998). This organisation exemplifiesMiles and Huberman’s (1994) definition of a case as ‘a phenomenon ofsome sort occurring in a bounded context’ (25). Much of the analysed dataherein were generated during 60–90-minute interviews with individualparticipants based on Patton’s (1990) assertion that ‘[d]irect quotations arethe basic source of raw data in qualitative inquiry’ (24). According toMarshall and Rossman (1999), ‘there is no such thing as a perfectlydesigned study’ (42). Case studies are no exception – they focus on oneinstance of a ‘single bounded system or an instance’ and are thus notrepresentative of a certain population (Merriam 1998, 153). They rely ondescriptive information provided by researchers and participants, leavingroom for the loss of important details and differing perceptions. Moreover,

Compare 401

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the participant groups constituting the two cases within their institutions areinfluenced by the wider sociopolitical and national contexts. The cases arenot singularly representative of national contexts themselves and interpreta-tions should remain restricted to the cases.

Data collection

Interviews ‘provide a way of generating empirical data about the socialworld by asking people to talk about their lives’ (Holstein and Gubrium2003, 2). As there is no substitution for the spoken words of the participant(i.e., the raw data), interviews are vital to a study focusing on teachers’beliefs, practices and pedagogical decision-making (Patton 1990). Usingknowledge of the relevant literature, the two researchers initially developedinterview questions independently by brainstorming items believed to bepertinent to research questions, the two lists were subsequently combinedand reduced (Appendix A). Interview questions were asked about partici-pants’ beliefs about democracy and education for democracy in order tomake both within-case and cross-case comparisons. Questions were inten-tionally open-ended and focused on concepts and questions easily under-stood by all participants.

Semi-structured interviews (Appendix A) were conducted using interviewguides provided to the participants prior to the interviews. Interviews withUS participants were conducted on 5 May 2009 and interviews with BiHparticipants were conducted on 13 May 2009. Interviews were conducted onthe participants’ own time and in the researchers’ office or classroom. Eachinterview was recorded on a digital voice recorder and subsequently tran-scribed. Transcripts were provided to the participants to ensure accuracy andfor member-checking purposes.

Data analysis

The study used two forms of data analysis to conduct within-case and cross-case analyses. Inductive analysis was used to analyse the data collectedwithin each country. Each interview was coded three times to help supportthe validity of the codes and subsequent findings. To better understand theinfluence of contextual factors on pre-service teachers’ beliefs, a cross-caseinductive data analysis was also applied to the data. The researchers ana-lysed the data to identify themes and generalise ideas across themes to findconnections within the data (Hatch 2002). These themes were subsequentlyaligned with the research questions. After the themes were refined andchecked for relevance, the researchers returned to the raw data coded in theprevious steps to identify meaningful excerpts to support the domains in thefinal report.

402 B.K. Lanahan and M.S. Phillips

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Limitations

Given the exploratory nature of this study and the inherently subjective nat-ure of qualitative research (Miles and Huberman 1994), the following find-ings are not generalisable: ‘[S]cholars and policymakers need to keep inmind that findings from one national or cultural context are not generalisableto other contexts; the findings may, however, serve as hypotheses to betested elsewhere’ (Hahn 2010, 6). Wider conclusions should be drawnonly tentatively and in the light of their implications for future researchdirections.

Findings

This section directly compares participants’ beliefs about democracy andeducation for democracy along with contextual factors influencing the simi-larities and differences in these beliefs, then compares the findings to rele-vant literature. This approach was adopted ‘to enable researchers to betterunderstand what is done, and why, in both the “other” country and theirown in order to develop theory and understanding with an eye to possiblereform and improvement’ (Phillips and Schweisfurth 2006, 14).

Beliefs about democracy

The US pre-service elementary teachers’ beliefs about democracy were fairlyconsistent. The five participants perceived democracy to be more of a gov-ernment function than a way of living or a responsibility stemming from cit-izenship. Conversely, the five Bosnian pre-service teachers held verynuanced and passionate beliefs about democracy and took democracy veryseriously. Some of the participants believe that the rush to democracy wasone of the causes of the Bosnian War.

Definitions of democracy

When asked to define democracy, the five US participants gave remarkablysimilar definitions of democracy. For example, Kim stated that it is ‘a coun-try or government that is ruled by the people – that they get to have inputin and make decisions on the laws that govern them.’ According to Lindsey,‘only if all people have their say what they do and how the governmentworks … that’s democracy.’ All five US participants discussed how democ-racy is interpreted in the USA, but only Stacy expanded on this in her initialdefinition of democracy: ‘I guess you couldn’t really have a true democracy.… In American democracy, there are all these little loopholes.’ Althoughthe distinction between democracy in the USA and the pure definition ofdemocracy is noteworthy, Stacy’s cynicism and disconnection from democ-racy and participation is particularly interesting.

Compare 403

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The BiH participants noted similar – if perhaps more technical – defini-tions. Esma indicated that no single definition of democracy existed:‘Democracy is a big word and there are many different kinds. … Europeandemocracies are different than the US.’ Adema noted that ‘direct democracy… is when the people get to vote for what they want. We here [in BiH] votefor leaders and they make decisions, so it is not direct.’ These commentsclearly show that these students have very informed definitions of democ-racy. Esma further extended these definitions: ‘Democracy is a kind of gov-ernment in which power is held indirectly by citizens in a free electoralsystems, and all citizens have equal access to power and all citizens enjoyand recognise universal freedoms and liberties.’’

State of democracy in their respective countries

Participants from the USA were asked to expand on their definitions ofdemocracy by discussing democracy in the USA. The participants consis-tently referred to democracy as something that occurs in Washington, DC,but that has little local purpose or impact. This repeated comment high-lighted the sense of disconnect these pre-service teachers felt with theirdemocracy. They were divided about the progress of US democracy.According to Stacy, ‘I still feel like the big corporations, the big moneymakers, control … [they] say this is what you are going to do, then that iswhat we are going to do.’ Conversely, Lucy was encouraged by the resultsof the 2008 election: ‘I know so many people who were so upset with Presi-dent Bush for some of his choices. I definitely think that led to a greaterdemocratic outcry.’

The belief that democracy is key in maintaining peace and getting BiHinto the EU was evident in all of the BiH participants’ comments. Adisa sta-ted that BiH ‘must stay a democracy or we will never survive’. Mersadahighlighted the need for a stabilising force to keep BiH democratic: ‘Eitherthe US or being part of the EU must be there so someone else can settledisputes … because we cannot sometimes.’ Such comments indicate theconstantly changing nature of democracy in BiH. Indeed, when askedwhether they believed BiH had become more or less democratic in their life-time, the participants provided detailed and varying responses. Adna focusedon equality in access to education as a measure of democracy: ‘I think thiscountry has become more democratic because we have now childrens [sic]with special needs that are included in primary education in primary schoolswith normal kids, and now gypsies [Roma] people can have rights to educa-tion.’ Adema assessed the situation based upon voting and elections: ‘Butwhen we go in history, we didn’t have elections earlier. … I think thatbecause of that we are becoming more and more democratic.’ Adisa held aless optimistic view of BiH’s democratic nature. ‘I feel it has become lessdemocratic, because I have so much [sic] ideas and needs, and I just can’t

404 B.K. Lanahan and M.S. Phillips

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

accomplish them because I don’t have the say and money to do that.’ Inaddition, lingering ethnic tensions were noted by several participants. Whenasked if voting still occurred along ethnic lines, Adema responded, ‘I thinkthat this is still present; it shouldn’t be so – I think that’s the wrong way inmy opinion.’

Beliefs about education for democracy

Participants from the USA generally stated that their K–12 schooling did lit-tle to prepare them to teach about democracy. Most participants discussedone or tw’o social studies classes in high school, during which some instruc-tion on democracy was provided, but no additional content on the form andfunction of US democracy was noted. Conversely, the five Bosnian pre-service teachers held very nuanced and passionate beliefs about civicseducation. In general, they favoured a robust citizenship education for pupilsat all levels, with a focus on teaching the form and function of their govern-ment while building the skills and dispositions necessary for democraticcitizenship. Bosnian respondents also emphasised the need to teach aboutthe dangers of using democracy for political violence.

Content to be taught

Katie, from the USA felt that the only content on democracy to which shewas exposed occurred during her senior year in her government class: ‘Welearned about the government in high school. Actually we just did it becausewe got to go to the state Capitol.’ This limited civic knowledge left USparticipants feeling relatively unprepared or unwilling to incorporate contentknowledge that might benefit elementary pupils. Lucy noted that, althoughshe believed civic knowledge was important, she did not feel comfortableteaching basic functions of government: ‘Kids should definitely knowexactly how the government functions. Like, all the branches and everythingand the roles of the people within those branches. I know that is definitelywhat I am most confused about.’ Kim also struggled with what content shemight incorporate into her classroom: ‘I guess they need to know specifictopics or issues that are going on … a good balance of opinions from bothsides so that they can make a decision.’

These participants’ limited definition of democracy as a function ofgovernment also left them questioning the appropriateness of such materialin an elementary classroom. Stacy voiced a concern about age appropriate-ness. After describing different ways to incorporate content on democracy(i.e. choice, discussion and debate), she stated that ‘I kind of want to teachkindergarteners, so that would be a little hard’. Stacy’s concern about pupils’exposure to politics again appeared when she was asked to discuss whatspecific content she might include in her instruction. She struggled to

Compare 405

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

identify specific content, but noted that ‘I think the teacher’s role is toremain neutral. You just need to be neutral, but provide information’. Lucyalso voiced a concern about bias in her classroom: ‘Obviously I would teachthe rules or the ideas of the nation they are in. I would promote the ideas,but maybe not all of them. I think they should show both sides.’ This con-cern for impartiality was an inherent part of all US participants’ beliefs.

Meanwhile, all the Bosnian participants noted the power – both positiveand negative – of teaching pupils about democracy. Adisa emphatically sta-ted, ‘It is like putting fire in the children’s hands … you have to be carefulthey do not [get] burn[ed].’ Esma explained the source of such caution: ‘Wewere hurt when forced to act like a democracy in 1991. No one knew whatto do. Now we see the politicians using democracy to get their way.’ Basedon her experiences as a Bosnian citizen, Mersada noted the need for citizen-ship education. ‘[Pupils] should know what democracy is and prepare them[selves] to be good citizens.’ Adema explained that part of this citizenshipeducation is an understanding of BiH’s dysfunctional constitution: ‘Studentsneed to know the construction of the country, even though it is very wrongin parts and needs to be changed.’

Bosnian participants repeatedly noted the need to teach pupils about theirrights and obligations. According to Adisa, ‘they have to know what rightsdo they have and what they can do and what they can’t do.’ These rightsand obligations were extended to include teaching children how to conductthemselves as citizens. According to Esma, ‘They must consider other opin-ions, to respect other people – no matter of colour, nationality. They mustdevelop logical thinking and critical opinion and to give [sic] argumentsvalue for some facts.’ Indeed, Lamija explicitly stated that equality needs tobe taught: ‘They need to know that’s the most important in our country –that they are equal with every Muslim and every Croat and every Serbbecause we are equal, we are all people. And we are the same people.’

Democratic teaching practices

Participants from the USA were able to articulate ways in which they wouldincorporate practices related to democracy and citizenship. Stacy noted thatyoung learners could ‘learn how to be a good classmate, a good friend’. Shenoted that practices such as cooperation and group work could help developthese skills, but she struggled to define specific methods of instructionbeyond these two ideas. Lucy also discussed specific skills for democracythat she believed to be important for elementary pupils to develop, such aslistening: ‘They definitely need to listen. I think that is one of the mostcrucial features because we have to learn to really listen and to open theirminds.’ However, when asked, Lucy also failed to mention specific methodsof instruction or classroom practices to facilitate the learning of thisskill. Conversely, Lindsey could articulate specific skills and methods to

406 B.K. Lanahan and M.S. Phillips

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

encourage democratic participation in the classroom. When asked if shebelieved democratic instruction could be a part of an elementary classroom,she said, ‘I mean, you can give choice on anything from a small assignmentor asking kids to vote on who wants to do what, to help out in the class-room and have chores or jobs.’

Each of the Bosnian participants identified specific teaching practices thatsupport democratic understandings. Esma described democracy in the class-room as follows: ‘The teacher give opportunities to all of their pupils toshow what they know, to participate in work [and] to give their own opin-ion.’ Mersada extended Esma’s thoughts while focusing on rights: ‘In theclassroom, every child has the same rights. They can participate in someprojects; they can say [their] opinion.’ Lamija perceived the classroom as avenue to model the skills and disposition of democratic citizenship: ‘Theteacher has to provide the pupil [with an] example, like how to be demo-cratic. I understand that not everybody not always [sic] can be democratic,but it’s important to try, and when children see that, then they will takesomething.’ Problem solving was one of the skills Adisa wanted to model:‘When we talk to students, we have to be together and together we can fixsomething and/or we can do something better and we can help other peo-ple.’ Adisa also noted that she ultimately hopes to influence pupils’ livesoutside of school: ‘I think that everything what happened in the classroomwill happen outside of the school … when I say that some kind of theirbehaving is ok, they will accept that, and they will behave like that outsideof school.’

Discussion

Beliefs about democracy

Both US and BiH participants shared similar definitions of democracy inline with Cummins’ (2000) notion that, at the most basic level, democraciesare ruled by and for the people, as well as Parker’s (1996) belief thatdemocracies are based on justice, freedom and equality. This commonunderstanding of democracy could be tied to the fact that the BiH partici-pants were taught with curriculum materials provided by Civitas Interna-tional, which are translations of US textbooks and used universally in BiHsecondary schools (McDermott and Lanahan 2012). Moreover, many inter-national NGOs, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch,are active in BiH and espouse similar definitions of democracy articulatedby both groups of participants. These similar definitions confirm the claimthat, due to globalisation, education is increasingly similar across nations(Baker and LeTendre 2005) and civics curriculum is increasingly similaracross nations (Wiseman et al. 2011).

Despite the beliefs by some participants that BiH is becoming moredemocratic, a persist theme emerged related to democracy’s limitations.

Compare 407

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Mersada’s belief in the need for ‘someone else [who] can settle disputes …because we cannot sometimes’ indicates the limits of democracy in BiH andthe need for external mediation. Many BiH participants noted lingeringethnic tensions that lead to voting along ethnic lines: ‘I think that this is stillpresent; it shouldn’t be so I think that’s the wrong way in my opinion.’Lingering ethnic tensions are common in post-conflict countries (Freedmanet al. 2008; Niens and Chastenay 2008; Pasilic-Kreso 2002; Russo 2001)and often act as a major barrier to reform (McDermott and Lanahan 2012).Adisa added another limitation of Bosnian democracy when she mentionedhaving so many ideas but neither the say nor the money to accomplishthem. Her comments demonstrate disengagement similar to Wilkins’ Britishparticipants, who also conveyed a similar sentiment: ‘Politics? It’s a joke. Imean, what’s it got to do with ordinary people’ (Wilkins 1999, 219).Despite the limitations, BiH participants did note improvements, such as theinclusion of children with special needs in primary schools and Roma peo-ple’s rights to education. This rubric supports Chikoko et al.’s (2011) state-ment that democracies regard ‘all people as having equal social and politicalrights as human beings’ (6).

Participants from the USA also discussed their perceived limitations ofdemocracy, which differed from those of the Bosnians. Many US partici-pants mentioned how they felt removed from the power and that democracyin the USA is ‘ancient’ and ‘entrenched’. These perceptions could be due toparticipants’ age and/or distance from the capital. They also appeared toshare an underlying concern about one citizen’s ability to influence out-comes and a general sense of disconnect from the government (e.g. ‘[thecorporations] say this is what you are going to do, then that is what we aregoing to do’). This disengagement extended to cynicism about unequalapplication of rules and laws, as in Stacy’s definition of democracy toinclude ‘all these little loopholes’. Again, these comments mirror the disen-gagement voiced by the students in Wilkins’ (1999) study. Interestingly,both groups discussed the limitations of democracy. In particular, theBosnians fear the influence of religious/ethnics groups which supersede theinterests of their democracy (Bilfesky 2008), while US participants fearcorporations (Dillingham 2011). In both cases, the participants felt less thanempowered to affect political change.

Education for democracy

The two groups of participants differed on what content should be taughtrelated to democracy education. Belief by participants from the USA thatdemocracy is a government construct was surprisingly consistent and canperhaps best be explained by the way in which they remembered experienc-ing democracy content in government classes. They mentioned the need to‘remain neutral but provide information’ and ‘teach the rules’. Such

408 B.K. Lanahan and M.S. Phillips

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

comments closely resemble Ross and Yeager’s (1999) category of having a‘low’ understanding of democracy which ‘[stress] rule following, appreciatebehavior, establishment of order’ (260). This perspective does little tosupport Dewey’s (1916) vision of how schools should function indemocratic societies, but does confirm Barton and Levstik’s (2004) findingthat teachers seek peer approval and want to avoid practices deemed contro-versial.

Moreover, limited knowledge due to the lack of effective civic andsocial studies instruction in K–12 classrooms left the US participants feel-ing unprepared and unable to teach about democratic processes beyondvoting, which closely mirrors Wilkins’ (1999) British participants’ reluc-tance to teach civics (e.g. ‘I don’t really know what the subject is, and, Icertainly wouldn’t know what to teach’ [227]). Perhaps this can best beexplained when placed in the context of the lack of effective K–12 socialstudies instruction in general (Dinkelman 1999) and the repercussions ofnot seeing civics instruction in the classrooms they observe (Sunal andSunal 2008).

Meanwhile, the Bosnians recognised the importance of citizenship educa-tion and direct civics instruction. Mersada’s statement that pupils ‘shouldknow what democracy is and prepare them[selves] to be good citizens’clearly relates to Hoge’s (2002) belief in the importance of pupils learningabout democracy. The Bosnians also repeatedly mentioned the need forpupils to learn about their rights, responsibilities and the importance ofworking towards the common good. The beliefs in the importance of rightsand responsibilities align with the research of many scholars (e.g. Bartonand Levstik 2004). The belief in the importance of pupils learning aboutworking towards the common good concurs with other scholars (Camicia2009). Esma’s statement that ‘[pupils] must develop logical thinking andcritical opinions and to give arguments value[able] for some facts’ clearlyreflects the belief of many scholars in the importance of pupils learningabout deliberation (e.g. Cummins 2000) and debate (e.g. Hay 2006) andalmost directly mirrors Chikoko et al.’s (2011) statement that citizens musthave ‘respect for evidence in forming opinions and respecting the opinionsof others based on evidence’ (6). This practice also represents a more‘pupil-centred approach’ as opposed to the ‘teacher-expert approach’ com-monly found in post-communist countries (de la Sabionniere Taylor, andSadykova 2009). Finally, most of the Bosnians noted the importance ofteaching pupils about the dangers of using democracy for political violence,a phenomenon noted by Pašalić-Kreso (2002).

Beliefs about democratic teaching practices provided perhaps the starkestcontrast between the two groups of participants. The US participants almostexclusively believed in teaching social skills in order to help childrenget along, which is only a fragment of Dewey’s (1916) belief in howschools should model methods of democracy. Whereas the Bosnians hope to

Compare 409

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

create social change by modelling democratic ways of interacting anddemonstrating methods of democracy, the US participants repeated the edu-cation they received.

The US participants recognised the importance of schools as a source ofdemocratic knowledge, despite their belief that this knowledge was not apart of their schooling experience. Overall, they felt that they lacked theknowledge necessary to provide pupils with the knowledge and skills theydeemed important and necessary for a democracy. This lack of knowledge isclosely related to the low status of social studies in the K–12 curriculum(Sunal and Sunal 2008). The lack of extensive social studies coursework intheir programmes further reinforces their beliefs that, although it may beimportant to teach for democracy, they do not really need to have theknowledge and skills to develop effective classroom instruction (Barton andLevstik 2004). More than one of the US participants felt that democraticinstruction consisted of giving pupils choices when completing assignmentsand having pupils vote on classroom management issues (e.g. snack time).These comments mirror Szymanski Sunal, Kelley and Sunal’s (2009) find-ings and resembled the statements made in papers rated as ‘moderate’ byRoss and Yeager (1999).

Conversely, the Bosnians listed specific teaching practices that go farbeyond teaching pupils how to get along – practices that attempt to preparepupils for democratic citizenship. In particular, Adisa’s comment – ‘Whenwe talk to students, we have to be together and together we can fix some-thing and or we can do something better and we can help other people’ –demonstrated that she wants to teach pupils to work toward the commongood (Barton and Levstik 2004). Adisa also indicated her commitment tohow democracy prepares pupils for real life when discussing how events inthe classroom impact events in real life (e.g. ‘when I say that some kind oftheir behaving is ok, they will accept that, and they will behave like thatoutside of school’). These comments directly reflect one of Ross andYeager’s (1999) high-rated criteria (i.e., perceiving democracy as a way tolive with others). Clearly, the Bosnians view schools as a place where pupilsare taught how to act as democratic citizens (Apple and Beane 2007) andthat schools in a democracy must model democratic processes (Freedman2007). The Bosnians appear to believe in schools as a democratic institutionand desire to work collaboratively with other teachers to solve problems(Dworkin, Saha, and Hill 2003). Adna’s comments also mirror HoraceMann’s (as cited in Groen 2008) belief that school is a place where diver-gent groups should meet to relate and deal with social issues (Groen 2008).Taking the Bosnian’s comments as a whole, they appear to reflect thedesired civic education for post-conflict societies:

theoretical transition from a traditional conceptualization of citizenship cen-tered on the appropriation of a predefined set of rights and duties of citizens

410 B.K. Lanahan and M.S. Phillips

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

of a given nation (as found, for example, in former civic education classes) toa vision of active citizenship built on a model of participatory democracy inwhich rights and duties are debated and challenged. (Niens and Chastenay2008, 520)

Conclusion

As evident in this paper, established democracies do not necessarily havethe most knowledgeable and prepared pre-service teachers. The US partici-pants had completed 14 years of education, yet still lacked knowledge abouttheir government’s form and function – US teacher educators need toconsider this problem and determine the basic civic knowledge teachersneed to be certified. Contrary to the US participants’ detached aloofness, theBosnians’ comments demonstrated the strong desire to create a more demo-cratic country. How did these pre-service teachers – born into socialism,raised during a civil war and living in a nascent democracy – come to havesuch nuanced and substantive ideas about democracy and democracy educa-tion? If passion and desire are the main reasons for this discrepancy, howdo teacher educators in mature democracies kindle the desire to teachtransformative democracy? Moreover, these divergent understandings ofdemocracy within the two institutions in the USA and BiH may suggestpotential benefits to both sides of shared learning between teachers inemergent and established democracies, which could be explored in futureresearch.

These findings raise questions about the current state of education in BiHversus beliefs of the BiH pre-service teachers in this study. Previous researchfrom BiH indicates low levels of education for democracy taking place (e.g.Lanahan and McDermott 2012; Pasilic-Kreso 2002; Russo 2001), in starkcontrast to the passionate and informed beliefs of these BiH pre-serviceteachers. Is there a ‘tipping point’ at which the beliefs of these pre-serviceteachers will be found in Bosnian schools? If so what will bring on thischange? Future research should seek to create a developmental model orsequence common among post-conflict countries to identify stages throughwhich nations must pass and which teacher education practices and policiespromote growth.

Finally, a recurring theme among both participant groups was their per-ceived limitations of democracy. The Bosnians clearly capitulated thatbecoming a democracy was not going to dissolve centuries of ethnic/reli-gious tensions. Meanwhile, US participants noted their beliefs in the powerof corporate interests that supplanted the will of the populace. Futureresearch should explore pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the limits ofdemocracy and instruction on how to overcome these perceptions to becomemore effective citizens and, in turn, better teachers.

Compare 411

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ReferencesApple, M. 2004. Ideology and curriculum. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge Falmer.Apple, M., and J. Beane. 2007. Democratic schools: Lessons in purposeful educa-

tion. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Baker, David, and Gerald K. LeTendre. 2005. National differences, global similari-

ties. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Barton, K., and L. Levstik. 2004. Teaching history for the common good. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Beane, J. 2005. A reason to teach: Creating classrooms of hope and dignity.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Bilefsky, D. 2008. Fears of new ethnic conflict in Bosnia. The New York Times,

December 14, A.Camicia, S.P. 2009. Identifying soft democratic education: Uncovering the range of

civic and cultural choices in instructional materials. Social Studies 100, no. 3:136–42.

Carnegie Corporation. 2003. The civic mission of schools: A report from CarnegieCorporation of New York and The Center for Information and Research onCivic Learning and Engagement. New York: Carnegie Corporation. http://civic-missionofschools.org/cmos/site/campaign/cm_report.html.

Chikoko, V., J. Gilmour, C. Harber, and J. Serf. 2011. Teaching controversial issuesand teacher education in England and South Africa. Journal of Education forTeaching: International Research and Pedagogy 371: 5–19.

Crouch, M., and H. McKenzie. 2009. The logic of small samples in interview-basedqualitative research. Social Science Information 45, no. 4: 483–99.

Cummins, J. 2000. Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the cross-fire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

de la Sabionniere, R., D.M. Taylor, and N. Sadykova. 2009. Challenges of applyinga student-centered approach to learning in the context of education in Kyrgyz-stan. International Journal of Educational Development 29: 628–34.

Department of Education National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983.A nation at risk. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.

Dewey, J. 1916 [1966]. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philoso-phy of education. New York: Macmillan.

Dillingham, M. 2011. Top 5 targets of Occupy Wall Street. The Christian ScienceMonitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1024/Top-5-targets-of-Occupy-Wall-Street/Wall-Street-obviously.

Dinkleman, T. 1999. Conceptions of democratic citizenship in pre-service socialstudies teacher education: A case study. Paper presented at the American Educa-tional Research Association Annual Conference, April 1, in Montreal, Canada.

Dworkin, A.G., L.J. Saha, and A.N. Hill. 2003. Teacher burnout and perceptions ofa democratic school environment. International Education Journal 4, no. 2:108–20.

Freedman, E. 2007. Is teaching for social justice undemocratic? Harvard Educa-tional Review 77, no. 4: 442–528.

Freedman, S.W., H.M. Weinstein, K. Murphy, and T. Longman. 2008. Teaching his-tory after identity-based conflicts: The Rwanda experience. Comparative Educa-tion Review 52, no. 4: 663–91.

Gibson, Cynthia, and Peter Levine. 2003. The civic mission of schools. New York:Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Center for Information and Researchon Civic Learning.

412 B.K. Lanahan and M.S. Phillips

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Glenny, M. 1996. The fall of Yugoslavia: The third Balkan War . 3rd ed. London:Penguin.

Goodlad, J. 1996. Democracy, education and community. In Democracy, educationand the school, ed. R. Soder, 244–74. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Groen, M. 2008. The Whig Party and the rise of common schools, 1837–1854.American Educational History Journal 35, no. 1/2: 251–60.

Hahn, C.L. 2006. Comparative and international social studies research. In Researchmethods in social studies education: Contemporary issues and perspectives, ed.K.C. Barton, 139–57. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Hahn, C.L. 2010. Comparative civic education research: What we know and whatwe need to know. Citizenship Teaching and Learning 6, no. 1: 5–23.

Hatch, J.A. 2002. Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY:SUNY Press.

Hay, W.A. 2006. What is democracy? Liberal institutions and stability in changingsocieties. Orbis 50, no. 1: 133–51.

Hickey, M.G., and B.K. Lanahan, eds. 2012. ‘Even the janitor is white’: Educatingfor cultural diversity in small colleges and universities. New York: Peter LangHickey and Lanahan.

Hoge, J.D. 2002. Character education, citizenship education and the social studies.Social studies 93: 105.

Holstein, J.A., and J.F. Gubrium, eds. 2003. Inside interviewing: New lenses, newconcerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kennedy, K. 1998. Academics blast state history, geography standards. EducationWeek 17, no. 25: 7–9.

Lanahan, Brian K., and Peter McDermott. 2012. Post-conflict education for democracy:The case of Sarajevo. International Journal of Social Education 24, no. 2.

Lincoln, Y., and E. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Mansfield, E., and J. Snyder. 2005. Electing to fight: Why emerging democracies go

to war. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Marshall, C., and G. Rossman. 1999. Designing qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage.Mathews, S.A., and P.P. Dilworth. 2008. Case studies of pre-service teachers’ ideas

about the role of multicultural citizenship education in social studies. Theory &Research in Social Education 36, no. 4: 356–90.

McDermott, P., and B.K. Lanahan. 2012. Democracy and social justice in Saraj-evo’s schools. Qualitative Report 17: 1–27.

Merriam, S. 1998. Qualitative research and case study applications in education.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis . 2nd ed. New-bury Park, CA: Sage.

National Center for Education Statistics. 2007. The nation’s report card: Civics2006. National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreport-card.

Niens, U., and M.H. Chastenay. 2008. Educating for peace? Citizenship educationin Quebec and Northern Ireland. Comparative Education Review 52, no. 4: no.519–40.

Parker, W.C. 1996. Curriculum for democracy. In Democracy, education andschooling, ed. R. Soder, 182–210. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pašalić-Kreso, A. 2002. Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Minority inclusionand majority rules: The system of education in BiH as a paradigm of politicalviolence on education. Current Issues in Comparative Education 2, no. 1: 6–13.

Compare 413

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Pašalić-Kreso, A. 2008. The war and post-war impact on the educational system ofBosnia and Herzegovina. International Review of Education 54: 353–74.

Patton, M. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods . 2nd ed. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Phelan, R. 2003. Overview of the standards movement. Education week on theWeb. http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=55.

Phillips, D., and M. Schweisfurth. 2007. Comparative and international education:An introduction to theory, method and practice. London: Continuum.

Pryor, C.R., and B.W. Pryor. 2005. Pre-service teachers’ attitudes and beliefs aboutdemocratic classroom practice. Influences on intentions for pedagogical integra-tion. Current Issues in Education 8, no. 6.

Ross, D., and E. Yeager. 1999. What does democracy mean to prospective elemen-tary teachers? Journal of Teacher Education 50, no. 4: 255–66.

Russo, Charles J. 2001. Religion and education in Bosnia: Integration not segrega-tion? Brigham Young University Law Review 1: 945–66.

Sunal, C., and D. Sunal. 2008. Elementary teacher candidates describe the teachingof social studies. International Journal of Social Education 22, no. 2: 29–48.

Szymanski Sunal, Cynthia, Lynn A. Kelley, and Dennis W. Sunal. 2009. Citizenshipeducation in the elementary classroom: Teacher candidates photograph anddescribe their perceptions. Journal of Social Studies Research 33, no. 1: 33–70.

Torney-Purta, J., R. Lehmann, H. Oswald, and W. Schulz. 2001. Citizenship andeducation in 28 countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age 14.Amsterdam: IEA.

Wilkins, C. 1999. Making ‘good citizens’: The social and political attitudes ofPGCE students. Oxford Review of Education 25, no. 1–2: 217–23.

Wiseman, A.W., M.F. Astiz, R. Fabrega, and D.P. Baker. 2011. Making citizens ofthe world: The political socialization of youth in formal mass education systems.Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 41, no. 5:561–77.

414 B.K. Lanahan and M.S. Phillips

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Appendix A. Interview protocol

Table A1. Interview questions.

Protocol

DemocracyWhat is your definition of democracy?What is the role of debate in democracy?Why is equality important to democracy?Why is compromise important to democracy?What should the relationship between the majority and minority be in ademocracy?

Can you provide some examples of how citizens participate in democracy?Can you provide specific examples of how you participate in democracy?Do you think this country has become more or less democratic in your lifetime?Are there examples of democratic leadership in this country?What’s next for BiH/the US?

Education for democracyWhat does democracy look like in a classroom?What role do you as a teacher have in a democracy?What role do schools have in a democracy?How can/should pupils participate in democracy?What is your role as a teacher to prepare pupils to participate in democracy?What knowledge do pupils need to be citizens in a democracy?What skills do pupils need to be citizens in a democracy?What kind of instruction/pedagogy supports pupils learning about democracy?

Compare 415

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

5:26

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14