YOUTH-LED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH ON SOCIAL COHESION …

YO U T H - L E D PARTIC IPATORY RESE ARCH ON

SOCIAL COHESION IN URBAN AREASF I N A L R E P O R T

Part of the ‘Let’s Think, Let’s Change: Promoting Diversity through Popular Culture’ Multi-Media for Modern Myanmar, Phase II

LEAD CONSULTANT:

IRENA GRIZELJ

18 MAY 2018

2 S E A R C H F O R CO M M O N G R O U N D | M YA N M A R

Y O U T H - L E D P A R T I C I P AT O R Y R E S E A R C H O NS O C I A L C O H E S I O N I N U R B A N A R E A S

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

Introduction 3

Key Findings 4

Recommendations 6

INTRODUCTION 7

Context Overview 7

Youth in Myanmar 8

Project Background 10

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 12

Scope and Limitation of the Research 13

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGS 14

1. Youth Demographics 14

2. Social Cohesion, Challenges and Opportunities for Youth 14

3. Youth Mobilization and Connection 19

4. Intergenerational Trust and Relationships 21

5. Influence of Media and Other stakeholders 23

CONCLUSIONS 26

RECOMMENDATIONS 27

Let’s Think, Let’s Change Project: 27

Broader Recommendations: 28

ANNEXES 30

Annex 1: Bibliography 30

Annex 2: Lead Consultant Biography 30

Annex 3: Questionnaire for Youth 31



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Myanmar’s youth have long contributed to political change and continue to be drivers of social cohesion and peacebuilding in their communities. With Myanmar transitioning towards a democratic and civilian-led government in 2011, young people are facing new multifaceted changes and challenges in the evolving socio-political context. The opening of the economy, increased access to information and media, and greater transportation infrastructure are creating new opportunities for young people’s development – but also pose additional challenges for social harmony and building peace.

An ongoing but fragile national peace process between the government, political parties, military (Tatmadaw), and Myanmar’s multiple ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) is shadowed by emerging intercommunal sub-national conflicts. The youth-led research commissioned by Search for Common Ground (SFCG) will build upon and contribute to an emerging field of research and programming related to youth and peace in the country, in particular highlighting youth voices from contested areas of conflict and violence in Myanmar.

Lashio (Northern Shan State) and Greater Yangon (North Okkalappa, Hlainthaya and Insein townships) are urban areas with diverse ethnic and religious populations, and rapidly evolving contexts intertwined with conflict. As the largest city in Shan State, Lashio is surrounded by ongoing armed clashes between multiple EAOs and the Tatmadaw, resulting in large numbers of internally displaced persons residing in the city. The conflict has further seeped into community-level tensions, with rumors fueling inter-religious and inter-ethnic divides.

Greater Yangon is not directly impacted by armed conflict but faces nuanced issues related to urbanization, security and expanding low-income areas. The rapid inward migration by those seeking economic opportunities from across the country has further exacerbated crime rates and tensions between diverse communities residing in an increasingly crowded space.

This report presents the key findings from a youth-led research that assessed social cohesion in urban areas, specifically in Lashio and Greater Yangon. The research was conducted between 29 January and 7 February 2018 led by 52 young researchers who interviewed 553 respondents – 238 in Lashio and 233 in Yangon. Of the total respondents, 471 (85%) were youth (aged 18-35 years), with near equal gender representation, and 82 (15%) respondents were adults (aged 36 and over). The research was designed and led by an external consultant, with support from the SFCG Myanmar team and Institutional Learning Team (ILT).

The research findings will be used to inform and shape the radio and TV content of the 12-month long SFCG Let’s Think, Let’s Change: Promoting Diversity through Popular Culture Media project Phase II. The overall goal of

Table 2: Average population age by state/region

Area Average age

Magway 29.4

Yangon 28.3

Mandalay 28.2

Bago 28.1

Ayeywady 27.7

Sagaing 27.4

Union 27.1

Nay Pyi Taw 26.8

Mon 26.7

Rakhine 26

Kachin 24.7

Shan 24.4

Tanintharyi 24

Kayin 23.6

Kayah 22.9

Chin 20.1



the project is to promote acceptance of diversity as a social norm in Myanmar, contributing to social cohesion and inter-communal harmony.

The four key objectives of this research, as it relates to the Let’s Think, Let’s Change project, were:

To understand the key challenges facing different youth and ideas of how young people can contribute to social cohesion in Myanmar.

To map how young people, connect, mobilize, and influence their community, and how they can be further supported as positive agents of change.

To understand the inter-generational dynamics and viewpoints between youth and older persons, and entry points for fostering inter-generational trust from both viewpoints.

To understand the role of mainstream media and social media in shaping public opinion and mobilizing people in project locations.

KEY FINDINGSChallenges related to social cohesion

A large majority of youth respondents (72%) mentioned employment as part of their dreams and hopes. Gaining a quality education was another consistently cited aspiration for youth in both Yangon and Lashio.

Youth respondents highlighted crime/robbery (33%), drugs (26%), lack of job opportunities (14%), and sexual harassment (9%) as the key issues in their communities. Adult respondents cited the same top two issues in their communities.

The top two key issues that specifically affect young people, identified by both young and adult respondents, are the lack of job opportunities and drug use.

Over one third (36%) of youth respondents said that young people are involved in violence or crime in their community, with young men responding yes (42%) more often compared to women (30%). Lack of proper job opportunities, drug use and addiction, low education standards, and lack of moral guidance and support were the factors cited by young people as the key drivers of violence.

Almost 90% of young people felt it was acceptable for different communities to interact through working together, living in the same residential area, attending each other’s festivals, and being friends/socializing. This was a slightly higher frequency compared to adult respondents.

The top three characteristics that define a peaceful society for both adults and youth respondents were: 1) mutual understanding and respect; 2) having a sense of unity, social cohesion, and being able to work together; and 3) love and empathy.

Youth mobilizations and connection

Almost half of the youth respondents interviewed were involved in a youth group or organization. These organizations are mostly involved in philanthropy work, capacity building, leadership or awareness raising



on community issues, and interfaith peace work or religious harmony.

The most frequently expressed challenges young people face when trying to organize themselves as a group to implement activities is a weak team spirit and teamwork, financial limitations, and lack of trust from adults/parents or local authorities.

The main channel/platform through which young people mobilize and connect is Facebook – noted by 80% of youth respondents.

Emotional and psycho-social support (87%), and increasing peace knowledge and critical thinking trainings (69%) were cited as the top two needs by young people to better support their participation in peacebuilding and promoting harmony in their communities.

Intergenerational Trust

The intergenerational relationship between youth and adults was described as positive by 43% of youth respondents and negative by another 43%, presenting opportunities to ameliorate intergenerational rapport.

Young people generally perceived that parents, teachers, their peers, and community leaders were the actors that trust young people the most. Of the adult respondents, 68% said that, overall, they trust youth.1

Media & Influence

84% of young women and men interviewed used social media once a day or more – compared to 53% of adult respondents. 30% of adults do not use social media at all – compared to only 5% of youth respondents.

Youth respondents felt that social media has had both negative and positive influences on community relations since it became accessible in the last few years: 25% felt social media has increased openness and decreased tensions while 20% expressed negative impacts and increased tensions. The remainder expressed a mixed impact of social media, with both positive and negative consequences for social cohesion.

TV was mentioned as influential by 44% of youth respondents – 38% of youth respondents did not find TV influential. Radio was influential for 26% of youth respondents and not influential for 47% of youth.2

Facebook featured as one of the most influential sources of young people’s opinions, at par with teachers and friends/peers. Parents (especially mothers) were the top stated influence on young people’s opinion, mentioned by 80% of young people.

Celebrities were expressed as influential, however there was no consistent top influencer, underlining the diversity of youth perspectives and preferences.

1 Note, the interviews were conducted by youth, which may have caused responder bias (influence of response).2 Influence was defined in the research as having an impact to shape opinions and behaviors.



RECOMMENDATIONS1. Focus on everyday issues facing young people in programming, such as drivers of drug use, the challenges

of unemployment, poor (access to) quality education, social discrimination, and intercommunal violence and conflict among youth.

2. Emphasize the emotional and psycho-social challenges and needs of young people in media and broader peacebuilding programming; young people need to feel encouraged, motivated, inspired, and interested to engage in peacebuilding and facilitate social cohesion.

3. TV and social media content could include features to increase understanding of peace, foster critical thinking, and encourage information literacy. This could be done through peace education, rumor management, and social media misuse for communities, as suggested by young respondents.

4. Media content could promote positive intergenerational relationships – as defined by young people – by depicting understanding, respect, adaptability, trust, and friendliness. It could also address the common grievances of young people that contribute to negative intergenerational relationships, such as traditional mind-sets and not understanding youth aspirations.

5. Programming can be designed to target both youth and adults in an integrated approach. Young people felt the need for greater guidance and moral direction, to which media content can respond by promoting scenes of intergenerational dialogue, especially within family.

6. Common community concerns raised by both adults and young people can be used as entry points to strengthen intergenerational trust. Similarly, adults and youth have shared perceptions of a peaceful society, which is an opportunity for building partnerships. Youth perspectives can be broadcasted in order to facilitate adults in understanding youth views, aspirations, and needs.

7. As one of most influential sources of youth opinions, Facebook and social media should be used as platforms for media content to promote social cohesion among young people.

8. Platforms for youth to interact with and have their voice heard by government and community authorities should be supported in order to address the mistrust that young people have towards institutions and authorities.



INTRODUCTION CONTEXT OVERVIEW Despite an ongoing national peace process between the government, military (Tatmadaw), political parties, and Myanmar’s multiple ethnic armed organizations (EAOs), emerging intercommunal sub-national conflicts pose new impediments for prospects for peace and development in the country.3 Decades of military rule has further institutionalized structural violence towards ethnic minorities, which has imbedded distrust and fear between Myanmar’s diverse ethnic and religious populations and sparked new waves of nationalism.

Both Lashio and Greater Yangon are dynamic, complex urban areas that pose a range of different challenges, particularly for young people.

Lashio is the largest city in Shan State, with a population of 323,405.4 The city is home to Buddhist and Muslim Shan, the Wa, Ta-ang, Chinese, and Bamar communities, among others. Multiple EAOs and the Tatmadaw are present in Northern Shan State as it is a key strategic location, with ongoing armed clashes in the vicinity of the city. Consequently, Lashio hosts large numbers of internally displaced persons from the surrounding area. Political dynamics between the National League for Democracy (NLD), Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), and ethnic Shan parties have further fueled underlying grievances of political representation. 5

The national and state-level conflict has seeped into community-level tensions, with rumors and isolation between minority communities exacerbating feelings of identity and insecurity. The city was affected by anti-Muslim riots in 2013 and continues to face inter-religious and inter-ethnic divides, which has potential for escalation. In February 2018, a large bomb explosion caused two civilian casualties, which was described as a set-back for national reconciliation.6

Greater Yangon (North Okkalapa, Hlainthaya and Insein) is not directly impacted by armed conflict, but faces other nuanced issues

3 For recent reports on Myanmar’s political and peace process context, see Myanmar: A Political Economy Analysis (Feb, 2018), Norwegian Institute of International Affairs; and Beyond Panglong: Myanmar’s National Peace and Reform Dilemma (Sept, 2017), Transnational Institute (TNI).

4 Department of Population Ministry of Labour, Immigration and Population (2014). The 2014 Myanmar Population and Housing Census Shan State, Lashio Township Report. The Republic of the Union of Myanmar.

5 See, for example, Ye Mon (10 Nov 2015). Anger as advance votes push USDP to lead in Lashio. The Myanmar Times; and The Global New Light of Myanmar (Nov, 2015) 2015 General Election of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar Victorious Region/State Hluttaw candidates and results.

6 See Thu Thu Aung (21 February 2018) Two dead, 22 hurt from bomb blast in northeast Myanmar city Lashio. Reuters. And Mizzima (24 February 2018) Lashio bomb attacks damaging national reconciliation – State Counsellor.

https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/myanmar-political-economy-analysis

https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/beyond_panglong.pdf

http://www.dop.gov.mm/moip/index.php?route=census/download/product_download&download_id=985

http://www.dop.gov.mm/moip/index.php?route=census/download/product_download&download_id=985

https://www.mmtimes.com/national-news/17521-anger-as-advance-votes-push-usdp-to-lead-in-lashio.html

http://www.globalnewlightofmyanmar.com/2015-general-election-of-the-republic-of-the-union-of-myanmar-victorious-regionstate-hluttaw-candidates-and-results/

http://www.globalnewlightofmyanmar.com/2015-general-election-of-the-republic-of-the-union-of-myanmar-victorious-regionstate-hluttaw-candidates-and-results/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-blast/two-dead-22-hurt-from-bomb-blast-in-northeast-myanmar-city-lashio-idUSKCN1G51N9.

http://www.mizzima.com/news-domestic/lashio-bomb-attacks-damaging-national-reconciliation-%E2%80%93-state-counsellor



related to urbanization, security, and low-income areas. The three townships collectively are home to about 1,600,000 people, of which the Bamar, Karen, Rakhine, and Mon ethnicities make up the majority of the population. It is also home to a large number of Chin, Kachin, Kayah, Chinese, Indian, Muslim, and other people with South Asian roots. North Okkalapa and Insein are satellite towns to Yangon, notorious for high crime rates and weak governance.

Hlaingthaya, bordering with Insein, hosts one of the largest industrial zones in the country. The rapid inward migration by those seeking employment opportunities has resulted in Hlaingthaya being the most populated township in Yangon, with an estimated population of 700,000; abuse of labor rights and security issues are enduring.7 Yangon continues to serve as Myanmar’s center for political and economic activities, even after the translocation of the capital city and government to Nay Pyi Taw in November 2005. The city was the site of anti-colonial protests in the 1920s and 1930s, the anti-government protests in 1974, the pro-democracy uprising in 1988, and the Saffron Revolution in 2007.

YOUTH IN MYANMARMyanmar’s youth have long contributed to political change and continue to be drivers of social cohesion and peacebuilding in their communities,8 with nuanced different experiences between states and regions, and rural and urban areas. With Myanmar transitioning towards a democratic and civilian-led government in 2011, young people presently face new multifaceted changes and challenges in the evolving socio-political context.

A Myanmar National Youth Policy was passed in December 2017 and has legally defined youth as aged 16-35 years old.9 Myanmar’s youth currently comprise over a quarter of the population, with 55% of the overall population being under the age of 30, and 33% are 15-35 years old.10 The national median age in Myanmar is 27 years.11 Interestingly, many of the States, compared to Regions, in Myanmar have a younger average population age (Table 2).

The opening of the economy, increased access to information and media, and greater transportation infrastructure are creating new opportunities for young people’s development – but also pose additional and varied challenges for social harmony and peacebuilding. Only recently have studies and reports begun to shine a light on how youth dynamics relate to

7 Macdonald, Connor & Phyo Thiha Cho (27 February 2016) Rapid migration and lack of cheap housing fuels Yangon slum growth. Myanmar Now.

8 See for example, Paung Sie Facility (2017), and Grizelj (2017)9 The Myanmar age range for ‘youth’ falls slightly beyond the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2250, which officially

defines youth as 18-29 years old. The resolution, however, recognizes that variations of the definition may exist in different national and international contexts. See UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/2250. UN. 09 December 2015.

10 See the 2014 Myanmar Population and Housing Census (2014). Department of Population, Ministry of Labour, Immigration and Population, The Republic of the Union of Myanmar.

11 Myanmar Census, 2014.

Table 2: Average population age by state/region

Area Average age

Magway 29.4

Yangon 28.3

Mandalay 28.2

Bago 28.1

Ayeywady 27.7

Sagaing 27.4

Union 27.1

Nay Pyi Taw 26.8

Mon 26.7

Rakhine 26

Kachin 24.7

Shan 24.4

Tanintharyi 24

Kayin 23.6

Kayah 22.9

Chin 20.1

http://www.myanmar-now.org/news/i/?id=15af2551-98ae-4b69-bc63-9091702da2fa.

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/sres2250.php

http://www.dop.gov.mm/moip/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=140

http://www.networkmyanmar.org/index.php/politics/myanmar-census-2014



peace and conflict in Myanmar.12 The Berghof Foundation paper on the ‘Youth Space of Dialogue and Mediation in Myanmar’ (Grizelj, 2017) was an original study exploring how young women and men self-mobilize to form groups and networks in order to build peace across conflict lines: young people often take initiative to create spaces for dialogue among their peers, through building networks based on friendship within and across ethnic and religious lines. Young people then use this space in attempts to influence decision-making at the community, state, and national levels to promote peacebuilding and intergenerational trust.

Although young people face unemployment challenges and lack of access to quality education, often migrating for better opportunities, a ‘Study on Urban Volunteerism’ (CUSO International, 2015) in Yangon and Mandalay found that young people have particularly high participation rates in volunteering, irrespective of age, gender, and ethnicity. Many young people are driven by a strong sense of altruism to spend their time constructively and give back to their communities, with health and education being the two most popular sectors in which young people volunteered.

The Paung Sie Facility ‘ Youth and Everyday Peace: Fostering the untapped potential of Myanmar’s youth’ (Paung Sie Facility, 2017) research further highlighted several important barriers and challenges for youth participation in politics, peacebuilding, and the peace process. Intergenerational partnerships that could contribute to sustainable peace are limited by the social and cultural intergenerational hierarchy that pervades Myanmar. This is further compounded by the absence of structural and institutional mechanisms to include young people in decision-making. The findings recommended that engaging decision-makers to transform their views towards youth as partners in building peace, rather than threats to political stability, as well as investing in the capacity of young people to be active agents for positive change, would significantly transform the peacebuilding landscape in Myanmar.

With limited critical thinking skills developed during formal education, young people are particularly vulnerability to political exploitation that can be utilized to trigger violence. Social media in particular has played a powerful role in exasperating xenophobic narratives and hate-speech across the country, resulting in several instances of direct violence. An estimated 9.7 million people in Myanmar are registered on Facebook, doubling in number since 2015, of which 54% are between 19-34 years old.13 The proliferation of social media access and usage among young people in Myanmar presents opportunities and threats to promote and engage young people in fostering inter communal harmony and peace. The Asia and the Pacific Regional Consultation on UNSCR2250 (UN, 2017) highlighted social media as a key influence on youth and social cohesion. It further noted challenges related to mistrust of Governments towards youth peace networks, and the need for greater partnerships between youth and political institutions, leaders, civil society, and schools to promote peacebuilding.

12 See Annex 1: Bibliography. 13 Trautwein, Catherine. 2016. Facebook racks up 10m Myanmar users. The Myanmar Times. 13 June. See also Digital Landscape in

Myanmar. Amara: Digital Marketing Agency.

Understanding the diversity of ‘youth’ in Myanmar: The heterogeneous nature of youth in Myanmar should be emphasised and explored in all programming, rather than categorising youth into one broad category. This includes, but is not limited to: gender (male, female or other), Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Questioning and Asexual (LGBTIQA), youth with disabilities, youth from religious minorities, young migrants, stateless youth, internally displaced and refugee youth, youth in non-governmental controlled areas, rural and urban youth, young drug users, and young people with socially stigmatised diseases.

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/business/technology/20816-facebook-racks-up-10m-myanmar-users.html

http://www.amaradigitalagency.com/digital-landscape-in-myanmar




The youth-led research commissioned by Search for Common Ground (SFCG) will build upon and contribute to this emerging field of research and programming related to youth and peace in the country. In particular, the study will draw on the youth voice from contested areas of conflict and violence and investigate how young people perceive opportunities for social cohesion in their communities. The Let’s Think, Let’s Change project will contribute to filling a gap in literature and programming focused on how traditional and social media impacts and influences youth in Myanmar.

PROJECT BACKGROUNDThis report presents the findings from a youth-led research project that assessed social cohesion in urban areas, specifically in Lashio (Northern Shan State) and Greater Yangon (North Okkalapa, Hlainthaya and Insein townships). This research is part of the second phase of Search for Common Ground (SFCG)’s project Let’s Think, Let’s Change: Promoting Diversity through Popular Media Culture. Phase 1 was completed in 2017. The overall goal of the Let’s Think, Let’s Change project is to promote acceptance of diversity as a social norm in Myanmar, contributing to social cohesion and inter-communal harmony.

This research was conducted between 29 January and 7 February 2018. The youth-led process engaged a total of 52 young researchers, women and men from diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds, who interviewed 553 respondents – 238 in Lashio and 233 in Yangon. Of the total respondents, 471 (85%) were youth (aged 18-35 years), with near equal gender representation, and 15% of respondents were adults (aged 36 and over):

Table 1: Overview of research respondents.

Respondents Youth Adults Male 250 (53%) 38 (46%)

Female 221 (47%) 44 (54%)

Total 471 (85%) 82 (15%)

The two target areas were selected in Phase 1 of the Let’s Think, Let’s Change project following a rapid assessment of conflict and social cohesion, and utilizing the following criteria: vulnerable to renewed eruptions of inter-communal violence; ethnically and politically diverse with significant political and economic divides; population migration giving rise to ‘othering’ of ‘outsiders’ that result in social tensions; complex inter-communal tensions (inter-religious, inter-ethnic, inter-social, and exacerbated by proximity of armed tensions); history of violence, or susceptible to narratives stemming from other parts of the country. The same project locations have been engaged with in Phase 2 in order to build on lessons learned from Phase 1, and to measure shifts in social norms and attitudes on social cohesion.

A key outcome of the Let’s Think, Let’s Change project is the production of radio and TV episodes to be broadcast nationally and aired through mobile screenings in target areas. The findings from this research will inform and shape the radio and TV content, enabling content to be relatable and engaging for community members to support the promotion of social cohesion.

The four key objectives of the research, as it relates to the Let’s Think, Let’s Change project, were:

To understand the key challenges facing different youth and ideas of how young people can contribute to social cohesion in Myanmar.



To map how young people connect, mobilize, and influence their community, and how they can be further supported as positive agents of change.

To understand the inter-generational dynamics and viewpoints between youth and older persons and entry points for fostering inter-generational trust from both viewpoints.

To understand the role of mainstream media and social media in shaping public opinion and mobilizing people in project locations.



RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The data collected as part of the fieldwork and interviews sought to understand the dynamics of a diverse youth space in a rapidly changing environment. The research was designed and led by an external consultant, with support from the SFCG Myanmar team and Institutional Learning Team (ILT). The methodology is based on SFCG’s Youth Mapping Methodology Toolkit,14 as well as the Listening and Learning (L&L)15 approach, both of which encourage the empowerment of youth to conduct research within their own communities and have meaningful interpersonal dialogue.

The SFCG Myanmar team reached out to their existing youth networks and contacts to source 52 young researchers, 26 in Lashio and 26 in Greater Yangon. A questionnaire was developed by the lead consultant and reviewed by the ILT and SFCG country team, which included qualitative questions as well as closed, quantitative questions that addressed project indicators and baselines.

The 56 youth researchers were trained for four days: two days on the Common Ground Approach to ensure a basis for conflict sensitive research and two days on research methodology, including practice administrating the questionnaire. To increase youth-led ownership of the project, the youth researchers were encouraged to provide feedback on the questionnaires and research process throughout the training. Particular emphasis was placed on equipping youth researchers with listening skills and participatory approaches in conducting research in order to gain nuanced and detailed responses.

Following the training, the youth worked in pairs and conducted five days of field research within their respective locations. Male and female pairs were encouraged in order to balance the gender of respondents and exposure of the youth researchers to different views. Over the five-day field data collection period, the youth researchers were provided with mentorship and three group ‘check-in’ sessions with the lead consultant to allow space for discussion of any challenges and review progress of the research.16

Respondents were sourced using a snowball approach, whereby the youth researchers reached out to their peers and networks as a starting point and sourced further respondents from these contacts. To promote a diverse sample of respondents, the researchers also approached respondents outside of their networks. Following the data collection phase, a half-day information debrief session with the lead consultant was organized, allowing youth researchers to review and analyze the data from their interviews and input their views on the key findings from the research process.

14 See Search for Common Ground (2014) Mapping Youth Leaders for Peacebuilding Toolkit.15 See Search for Common Ground (2015) Listening and Learning Toolkit. 16 In Lashio, the debrief session was led by SFCG Programme Manager of Let’s Think, Let’s Change, while the lead consultant was

conducting research training in Yangon.

https://www.sfcg.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Listening_and_Learning_Toolkit.pdf



SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE RESEARCHThe research process was presented with several limitations. The limited research experience of the youth researchers, along with a short training timeframe, resulted in a somewhat lack of depth of the qualitative information obtained. While open questions were included in the questionnaire and a conversational approach was encouraged, reasons and clarifications of respondent views were not always obtained. The time-sensitive nature of the research further influenced the methodology of the research process. The research findings required finalization prior to a workshop scheduled for mid-March with national government, media, and celebrity stakeholders. There were tight deadlines during the design phase of the research methodology, preparation of data collection tools, sourcing youth researchers, conducting the trainings, and carrying out the field research. The research process could have benefitted from greater space for testing and reflection on the design and research tools to generate more qualitative data. On the other hand, the youth researchers surpassed the expected respondent target of 350-400 youth and adults, demonstrating the strong capacity of youth researchers to work under time pressure.

Due to the snowball approach of sourcing respondents, whereby the youth researchers utilized their own networks initially, the data may include biased views and skewed results that reflect similar perspectives to those of the youth researchers themselves. To counter this effect, effort was undertaken to source youth researchers from diverse groups with different ethnic and religious backgrounds.

In terms of accessing particularly marginalized youth voices, the youth researchers were encouraged to go beyond their networks to source hard-to-reach youth. However, to maintain the researchers’ safety and security (a key concern raised during the training), and due to the limited research experience of the youth researchers, this was not obligatory, and the researchers remained in areas where they felt safe. The youth researchers faced several challenges in terms of accessing respondents, particularly in Hlaingthaya where many respondents were not comfortable participating in the research. In Lashio, on the other hand, the youth researchers were able to cover all 12 of the township quarters, including those areas that are more difficult to access.



KEY RESEARCH FINDINGS1. YOUTH DEMOGRAPHICS Of the 471 young female (47%) and male (53%) respondents, the religious majority were Buddhist (66%), following by Christian Baptist (21%), Muslim (9%), and other minority religions. This is in line with the representative population majorities. In terms of occupation, one-third of the youth respondents were full-time students, over one-third were full-time workers, and 15% were students while working part-time. The remainder are unemployed or dependent. Regarding education, over half had completed (or are in the process of completing) a Bachelor degree, over one-third had completed high school, and 5% had a secondary school education. For the remainder of respondents, 3% completed a Master’s degree, while 5% attended non-formal education, completed primary school, or did not have an education. The ethnicity of youth respondents is illustrated below:17

2. SOCIAL COHESION, CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH All the youth respondents were asked their dream, vision, or hope for their future. The answers suggest that the fundamental needs and basic concerns related to human development, and access to the market economy have yet to be met for many Myanmar youth. A large majority, 72%, mentioned employment as part of their dreams and hopes. Gaining a quality education was another consistent aspiration for youth in both Yangon and Lashio. This indicates that majority of the youth are presently focused on personal achievements for their hopes and dream rather than larger societal issues.

In Lashio, young people (and especially young men) expressed a hope for peace, harmony, and development in their communities more frequently. This is related to both community-level peaceful coexistence as well as national-level development including individual welfare, a peaceful country, economic and educational development, and respect

17 Other minority ethnicities included: Kayan, Kaman, Danu, Kokant, Pa-O, Lahu, Lisu, Palaung/Ta-ang, and Wa.

1%2%2%3%3%

4%7%7%7%8%

13%43%Bamar

Shan

Kayin

Other minority ethnic

Mixed Bamar & ethnic minority

Kachin

Chin

Muslim

Chinese/Chinese mixed

Rakhine

Gawrakhar/India/Tamil

Mixed minority ethnicies

30%5% 10% 15% 20% 25%0% 35% 40% 45% 50%

CHART 1: ETHNICITY OF RESPONDENTS



for different religious and minority groups. Youth in Lashio also had a strong desire to help others through philanthropy work, which is reflective of the contextual differences between the two areas, with Lashio more gravely affected by armed conflict.

Young women in Lashio expressed migration and quality education as a dream for their future twice as often as men. The desire to migrate often related to better employment opportunities and competitive salaries abroad, as well as to obtain quality education. Many would like to return to Myanmar and start a business or return when the country has progressed more socio-economically.

Key issues facing community: All respondents were then asked the key issues and problems in their community, as compared to the main issues affecting young people specifically. Youth respondents in both Lashio and Greater Yangon highlighted crime/robbery (33%), drugs (26%), lack of job opportunities (14%), and sexual harassment (9%) as key problems in their communities. While these four issues were consistent across both genders, young men cited lack of job opportunities comparatively more than young women. On the other hand, sexual harassment and rape were mentioned more often by young women. Similarly, youth in Yangon noted crime/robbery, sexual harassment, and lack of job opportunities more often, while young people in Lashio noted drugs, poverty, and lack of good education more frequently. This underscores the contextual differences between the two urban areas: the armed conflict in close proximity of Lashio is intertwined with the proliferation of drug production,18 while Yangon faces urban security issues.19

The adult respondents noted the same top two issues in the community as the young respondents: crime/robbery (56%) and drugs (30%), followed by poor economic situation/ low income (26%) and issues related to infrastructure, electricity, and traffic congestion (21%). The common community concerns present an entry point through which to build intergenerational understanding and partnership.

Key issues facing young people: When asked about issues that particularly affect young people, youth respondents most frequently stated lack of job opportunities (40%) and drugs (30%). This is consistent with other interviews focused on challenges affecting youth.20 The issue of unemployment further correlates to the desire and hope for employment in the future.

18 See for example, Transnational Institute (TNI) Drugs and Conflict in Burma. 19 Yangon was ranked as the second most unsafe city in the world, from a ranking of 60 cities. See Safe Cities Index 2017. (2017) The

Economist Intelligence Unit. 20 See for example MITV (March 23, 2016) Myanmar Youth: Key Issues to Prioritize.

05 0 100 150 200

Yangon Lashio

Employment

Good Education

Migration/leaving Myanmar

Peace & Development

Philanthropy Work

CHART 2: YOUTH RESPONDENTS’ DREAM/VISION/HOPE FOR THEIR FUTURE

“The overuse of mobile phones and drugs affects not just education, but also work. I think that not giving a place for youth and lack of understanding on youth’s feeling also has bad effects.

Young people in the countryside have even less access to education and enlist for military service. Lack of proper job opportunity also leads to drug addiction.”

– 19-year old male, Lashio

https://www.tni.org/en/page/drugs-and-conflict-in-burma

http://www.myanmaritv.com/news/myanmaryouth-key-issues-prioritize



Other issues specifically affecting young people included lack of access to quality education, which was another hope for their future; mistrust, lack of social cohesion or connectivity with communities; poverty/ low income; issues related to freedom of expression and social media misuse; and crime/robbery (see Chart 3 for overview).

Adult respondents agreed that the lack of job opportunities and drug use are two key challenges facing young people in their communities, as well as crime and robbery, poor education, and lack of moral guidance and support for youth. Both young people and adults were in agreement around similar issues troubling young people – including the need for more support and guidance for young women and men.

The below table summarizes the key issues and the difference in frequency between between respondents, according

to location. The top priority issues that young people said need to be addressed in their communities are drugs in Lashio and unemployment in Yangon. Over a quarter of young people in Lashio (25%) said drugs were the most important problem to address, compared with 14% in Yangon. Unemployment (18%) is the second priority issue youth feel should be tackled in both locations. Sexual harassment and crime/insecurity was mentioned as a greater priority issue in Yangon.

Male Female Grand total

12020 40 60 80 1000 140

Key issues facing community – Youth vs. Adult Respondents

Issue Youth Adults

1. Crime/Robbery 36% 56%

2. Drugs 29% 30%

3. Job Opportunity (youth) Poverty/low economic status (adults)

16% 26%

Key issues facing youth – Youth vs. Adult Respondents

Issue Youth Adults

1. Job Opportunities 40% 29%

2. Drugs 30% 33%

3. Crime/Robbery 12% 23%

4. Rape & Sexual Harassment

2% 5%

CHART 3: KEY ISSUES FACING YOUTH, ACCORDING TO YOUNG PEOPLE (VS. GENDER)



Over one-third (36%) of youth respondents said that youth are involved in violence or crime in their community, with little difference in response rate between Yangon and Lashio – although more young men (42%) than women (30%) said youth are involved in violence, highlighting potential gender dynamics that should be explored further.

When asked about their thoughts on the drivers of violence, youth cited the lack of proper job opportunities (poverty as a driver), drug use and addiction (higher in Lashio), low education standards, and lack of moral guidance and support as key issues. Youth respondents also perceived a negative or tense household environment, which is not nurturing or providing supportive guidance, as associated with drug use.

Interestingly, 85% of adults felt that there are youth involved in promoting social cohesion in their community. When asked if there are youth involved in violence and crime, only 35% of adult respondents said yes. Activities that were expressed as related to working on social cohesion included philanthropy/charity work, sports, and religious activities. From the perspective of adults, frequent drivers of youth involvement in crime and violence were lack of support and moral guidance/direction from elders, drug use, and lack of job opportunities (low economic status).

In terms of interaction and openness to ‘other’ communities, over 75% of young women and men said that they had had a conversation with someone from a different ethnic, religious, or social background in the last two months, with little regional and gender variation. A slightly smaller number, 68%, of adults said yes to having had a conversation.

CHART 4: TOP PRIORITY ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN COMMUNITY (youth respondents)

6%

10%

25%

14%

5%8%

1%

10%

18% 18%

Lashio Yangon

Crime/Robbery Drug Poverty Sexual Harassment Unemployment

30%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0%

B5.(A) ARE THERE YOUNG PEOPLE INVOLVED IN VIOLENCE OR CRIME IN [YANGON/LASHIO]?

(youth respondents)

64%

36%



Furthermore, almost 90% of young people felt it was acceptable for different communities to interact through working together, living in the same residential area, attending each other’s festivals, and being friends/socializing (Chart 6). Young respondents appeared to be more open and accepting of different communities to interact, compared to adult respondents. This suggests an openness from the youth respondents towards engaging through dialogue with other communities.21

In terms of defining a peaceful society and what is needed for a community to be peaceful, the top three characteristics expressed by both adult and youth respondents were: mutual understanding and respect for one

21 Note, as described in the limitations section, the research may have attracted socially similar youth due to the research methodology and approach of sourcing respondents.

“Weak guidance and support from parents also drives youth in violence: the lack of affection and love within the family makes young people trust their friends more. Young people get involved in fighting to back-up their friends, they don’t think properly and do not judge if it is right or wrong.

Parents themselves are occupied with business struggling to survive and cannot spend time with their children. A combination of all these things drives youth involvement in violence.”

– 22-year old female, Lashio

53%

37%

42%

46%

41%

45%

42%

45%

3%

8%

8%

4%

2%

7%

5%

2%

Very acceptable Somewhat acceptable Somewhat unacceptable Very unacceptable

45%

41%

41%

43%

46%

39%

43%

40%

5%

10%

12%

10%

4%

5%

1%

5%

Work together

Live in the same residential area

Go to their festivals/ ceremonies

Be friends/ socialize

80%60%20%0% 40% 100%

Very acceptable Somewhat acceptable Somewhat unacceptable Very unacceptable

Work together

Live in the same residential area

Go to their festivals/ ceremonies


80%60%20%0% 40% 100%

CHART 6: IN YOUR COMMUNITY, HOW ACCEPTABLE IS IT FOR PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES TO (YOUTH RESPONDENTS):

CHART 7: IN YOUR COMMUNITY, HOW ACCEPTABLE IS IT FOR PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES TO (ADULT RESPONDENTS):



another; having a sense of unity, social cohesion and being able to work together; and finally, love and empathy.

Other prominent responses included non-discrimination, development (related to jobs and education), and the need for peaceful dialogue. Similar to common community concerns, the corresponding definition of a peaceful society between youth and adults is an entry point and opportunity to foster intergenerational understanding and trust.

3. YOUTH MOBILIZATION AND CONNECTION Across the states and regions in Myanmar, young women and men self-mobilize to form groups and networks, from community to state levels. Almost half of the youth respondents interviewed were involved in a youth group or organization, with a slightly higher percentage in

Yangon. Young women in Lashio were slightly less likely to be involved in a youth group, while in both Lashio and Yangon, young male respondents were slightly more likely to be involved. For those involved with a youth group, most were connected (or had heard about the organization) through friends or relatives. In Yangon, young people were more likely to have heard about their youth group through university/ school or via Facebook. In Lashio, young people more heavily relied on information through their family/relatives and their religious community.

In terms of what the youth organizations do: 1) more than half are involved in philanthropy work (such as donations, community services), 2) over one third are involved in capacity building, leadership or awareness raising (higher frequency in Yangon) on various relevant community issues, such as health and education 3) and one-third are working on interfaith peace work or religious harmony (higher frequency in Lashio). Several of the youth researchers from Lashio were from the LGBT community and involved in groups related to awareness-raising and promotion of LGBT rights, hence this features as a key area of work among youth respondents.

Of those who are part of a youth group, the youth respondents expressed several challenges faced when trying to organize themselves as a group to conduct group activities (Chart 10). The most often cited issues for youth organizations were a weak team spirit and teamwork, financial limitations, and lack of trust from adults/parents or local authorities.

CHART 8: ARE YOU A MEMBER OF ANY YOUTH GROUPS OR ORGANISATIONS?

CHART 9: WHAT DOES THE ORGANIZATION DO?

Female Male

YNG

LSH

Yes

No

YNG

LSH

Lashio Yangon

30%

42%

13%

63%

70%

33%

53%

Capacity Building/Leadership/ Awareness

Interfaith Peace/ Religious Harmonization

LGBT

Philanthrophy work

0%

80%60%20%0% 40% 100%05 0 100 150

Mutual

understanding

and respect

Love and empathy

Unity, social cohesion,

working together

DEFINITION OF A PEACEFUL SOCIETY



Youth in Yangon seem to face greater challenges but this needs to be explored further to understand why this may be the case. In Lashio, armed clashes and the presence of armed groups has increased fear among youth, especially young men, of forced recruitment and suspicion towards their activities. Young male respondents also noted criticism and attacks more frequently than women as challenges when organizing group activities. The issue of trust is interesting to observe as adult respondents noted a high level of trust towards youth. However, adult responders may have been biased in the presence of a youth enumerator.

To overcome these challenges, young people take the initiative to explain their goals and intentions to concerned stakeholders, often through open dialogue and discussions – in particular with government and community authorities who can hinder or support their work. Youth respondents involved with youth organizations also explained that they seek to rebuild trust with adults and authorities, and that they work on motivating one another to keep going in the face of challenges.

The main channel/platform through which young people mobilize and connect is Facebook – noted by 80% of youth respondents. This was followed by peer-to-peer mobilization (20%), information communication materials or events (e.g. pamphlets or discussions) (20%), through organizations/ groups (18%), by being encouraged/motivated (10%), and through role models (8%). The finding that an online platform is considered the key connecting and mobilizing tool among young people has implications for both the content of programming that targets youth, as well as the channel through which peace and social harmony messages should be distributed.

Interestingly, the majority of the youth respondents (80%) were not aware of youth groups specifically involved in building peace and promoting harmony in their communities. Over 80% of adult respondents felt, however, that young people do play a role in promoting social cohesion within their communities. In terms of how young

42%

24%

43%

32%

17%

50%

43%

80%

58%

76%

57%

68%

83%

50%

57%

20%

Lashio Yangon

Lack of Commitment

Technical Skill/Knowledge

Lack of interest/ Motivation

Criticism

Objections/Attacks

Lack of Trust (Adult/Parents, local authorities, etc.)

Financial

Weak Team Work/ Team Spirit

80%60%20%0% 40% 100%

CHART 10: CHALLENGES YOUTH FACE WHEN ORGANISING GROUPS OR ACTIVITIES

Facebook

Peers

Groups/ organisations

“I think the language barrier results in less interest in education. There are ethnic minorities living in this area, who do not speak so good Burmese.

Close to the border area, there are more drugs. Parents cannot influence their children and young people are listening more to their friends. Youth needs to be educated: community centres should be created for young people in Lashio to support this.”

- 24-year-old female, Lashio



people can be better supported to participate in peacebuilding and promoting harmony in their communities (what young people need), young people particularly emphasized their need for:22

1. Emotional and psycho-social support (87%), such as encouragement, motivation, and engaging their interests;

2. Increased knowledge and training (69%) on understanding peacebuilding concepts and practices, critical thinking, and information information literacy;

3. Greater moral direction and guidance (18%);

4. Resources such as time, money, and access to internet/computers (13%);

5. More space and opportunities for young people to engage in local governance and have their voices heard (7%). Suggestions included youth seminars with government authorities, building mutual trust with the government, and having the chance to express the difficulties youth face in a common space.

Adult respondents, on the other hand, stated that young people need knowledge and training (first), guidance from parents/seniors (second), and resources (third). Young people evidently feel their ‘soft’ emotional needs related to encouragement, inspiration and motivation are a priority, closely followed by knowledge and training, in order to engage in peacebuilding work.

4. INTERGENERATIONAL TRUST AND RELATIONSHIPS The social and cultural intergenerational hierarchy that pervades Myanmar, compounded by the absence of structural and institutional mechanisms to include young people in decision-making, often limits intergenerational partnerships that could contribute to sustainable peace.

When youth respondents were asked, generally, about the relationship between adults and youth in their communities, the responses that signified a positive relationship were as frequent as those that signified a negative relationship – with little regional and gender variation. When asked what defined a positive relationship, common factors expressed included (in order of frequency): understanding one another; showing/ having respect; adult adaptability; trust; and friendliness.

In terms of what defined or connoted a negative relationship, youth respondents expressed: disagreements; lack of trust/ understanding/ respect towards youth; young people not listening to adults; parents/ adults having a traditional mind-set; and control/ influence of adults towards youth.

Myanmar has a strong hierarchical culture and other research on youth and peace has found that young people feel they have limited opportunities to contribute to decision-making in their communities.23 Conversely, in this research, almost 70% of the adult respondents expressed that young people are able to participate in decision-making in their communities – presenting opportunities to foster greater youth-

22 The results are shown in order of frequency that the recommendation is mentioned by all youth respondents. 23 See Paung Sie Facility (2017)

CHART 11: GENERALLY, WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP LIKE BETWEEN YOUTH AND ADULTS IN YOUR COMMUNITY?

(youth respondents)



adult partnerships.24 The role of youth in decision-making, however, depends on the context: for decisions around community charity and social work, young people have been shown to be able to influence community decisions.25 However, in terms of political processes or state- and national-level decisions, youth involvement in decision-making is limited.26 In order to influence and mobilize their communities, credibility and perceived legitimacy of young leaders and youth groups were found to be a key determinants of success – youth often need to work harder to ‘prove themselves’ to their seniors through implementing actions and activities that benefit the community.27

Of the 200 youth respondents who answered the question, “If there is one thing you wanted adults to know about youth, what would it be?”28 the top three answers were:

1. Understand young people’s aspirations, needs, and voice, in order to have mutual understanding between youth and adults;

2. Recognize the ability of young people as much as adults;

3. Have flexibility/adaptability to change traditional thinking/conservative practices.

Young people generally perceived that parents, teachers, their peers, and community leaders are the actors that trust young people the most (Chart 13). Young people, especially in Lashio, felt the Government, Tatmadaw, armed groups, and political parties trust youth less – or did not feel comfortable to answer the question. The Asia and the Pacific Regional Consultation on UNSCR2250 (May, 2017) noted similar challenges related to mistrust of Governments towards youth peace networks and the need for greater partnerships between youth and political institutions, leaders, civil society, and schools to promote peacebuilding.

Of the adult respondents, 68% said that, overall, they trust youth – compared to 17% who said they distrust youth, and 13% who were neutral.29 This presents opportunities for building on the perceived trust and translating this into partnership.

24 Note, the interviewees were conducted by youth, which may have caused responder bias (influence of response) among adults.25 Paung Sie Facility (2017) 26 This may change with the implementation of the National Youth Policy. 27 Grizelj (2017)28 This question was, by error, not included in the questionnaire that the Lashio-based youth researchers implemented. 29 Note, the interviews were conducted by youth, which may have caused responder bias (influence of response).

Trust68%

Distrust17%

Neutral13%

CHART 12: OVERALL, HOW MUCH DO YOU TRUST YOUTH?

(Adult respondents)



5. INFLUENCE OF MEDIA AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS The proliferation of social media access and usage among young people in Myanmar presents both opportunities and threats to social cohesion and inter-communal harmony. An estimated 9.7 million people in Myanmar are registered on Facebook – this number has doubled since 2015 – of which 54% are between 19-34 years old.30 Men use Facebook at twice the rate of women, while the latter are half as likely to have a mobile phone.31 In this research, a total of 84% of young women and men interviewed used social media once, or more than once, a day, compared to 53% of adult respondents.32 While 30% of adult respondents said they do not use social media at all, only 5% of youth respondents reported not using social media.

Although online hate-speech has contributed to reinforcing divisions, social media also offers a space to counter violent narratives. Youth respondents felt that social media has had both negative and positive influences on community relations

30 Trautwein, Catherine. 2016. Facebook racks up 10m Myanmar users. The Myanmar Times. 13 June. See also Digital Landscape in Myanmar. Amara: Digital Marketing Agency.

31 MacGregor, Fiona. 2016. New technology calls up old inequalities. The Myanmar Times. 04 March. See also Sibthorpe, Claire et al. 2015. Mobile phones, internet, and gender in Myanmar. GSMA Connected Women-LIRNEasia

32 The data in this section may have some weaknesses due to the limited experience of the youth researchers. In particular, the ending questions on “top” radio channels, TV channels, favorite celebrity, etc. were not answered by all youth respondents.

Distrust a little Do not trust youth Prefer not to say Trust a little Trust a lot

LCSO

/CBO

INGO/N

GO

Politcal P

arty

Ethnic

Armed O

rganiza

tions (

EAOs)

Military

National G

overn

ment

Loca

l Auth

orities/V

illage

Administra

tors

Religious L

eader

Community Le

ader

Other Y

outh

Teachers

Parents

60%

20%

0%

40%

CHART 13: IN YOUR COMMUNITY, HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK THE FOLLOWING ACTORS TRUST YOUNG PEOPLE?

(youth respondents)

“Increased media consumption has a lot of influence on young people who are easier to persuade. Media brings fake news/ information and it has impacted young people.”

- 37-year old female, Yangon

http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/business/technology/20816-facebook-racks-up-10m-myanmar-users.html



http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/opinion/19321-new-technology-calls-up-old-inequalities.html

https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Mobile-phones-internet-and-gender-in-Myanmar.pdf



since it became accessible in the last few years. Over a quarter (25%) felt that social media has increased openness and decreased tensions. Still, over 20% felt that there are negative impacts and increased tensions as a result. The remainder expressed a mixed impact of social media, with both positive and negative consequences for social cohesion.

Facebook featured as one of the most influential sources of young people’s opinions, at par with teachers and friends/peers. Parents, however, have the highest influence on young people’s opinion, mentioned by 80% of young people, with mothers cited as slightly more influential.

Overall, when asked about influence on opinions,33 TV was mentioned as influential by 44% of youth respondents, while another 38% of youth respondents did not find TV influential. TV was found to be only slightly more influential for young people than radio. It is important to note that the research did not ask – and so the results do not represent – the level of viewership or listenership (how much people watch TV or listen to radio).

Of the 44% of youth who expressed TV as influential, the top TV channels most often cited (in order of frequency)

were:34 Channel-7; MRTV-4; 5 Plus; and Channel-9. For the 26% of youth respondents who found radio to be somewhat influential, the most frequently mentioned top radio station was Cherry FM.

Celebrities were expressed as influential by 50% of the respondents. However, the range of responses for top celebrities and top TV programs were very diverse, without significant majorities – representing the diversity of

33 Influence was defined in the research as having an impact or shaping opinions and behaviors.34 The questions related to top media and celebrity influencers were answered by less than half of respondents, potentially due to this

question being last, resulting in research fatigue or less effort from respondents towards the end the interview.

Celebrities

Newsp

apers

Radio

Television

Face

book CSO

Natio

nal gove

rnment

Loca

l auth

ority/

Village

tract

administra

tor

Village

elder

Teachers

Religious l

eader/ re

ligious c

ommunity

Friends/p

eers

Relatives

Siblin

gs

Fath

er

Mother

60%

20%

0%

40%

80%

CHART 14: TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE FOLLOWING SOURCES AND ACTORS INFLUENCE YOUR OPINION?

(youth respondents)



youth perspectives and preferences. Some of the top celebrities mentioned included international singers and movie stars such as Sai Sai Kham Hlaing, Nay Toe, Myint Myat, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and General Aung San, and international football players.

Of the 16% of youth who responded to top TV programs, the most frequently mentioned shows were movies, Running Man, Women to Women, Money Drop Myanmar, Family Feud, Korean TV, and Let’s Talk.

CHART 16: TOP RADIO CHANNELS MENTIONED BY YOUTH

57%

11% 11%7% 6% 5%

Cherry FM Shwe FM Thazin FM

BBC Teen Radio City FM

49%

43%

10%7%

Channel-7

MRTV-4

5 Plus

Channel 9

CHART 15: TOP TV CHANNELS MENTIONED BY YOUTH

%



CONCLUSIONS The research presents several interesting findings that are relevant for the development of impactful media programming, as well as more broadly for stakeholders interested in promoting social cohesion and youth engagement.

The issues facing young people in Lashio and Greater Yangon share similarities and differences, which reflect the contextual reality of these areas: unemployment, drug use, crime/violence, and sexual harassment were some of the most pressing issues facing young people in both locations, impeding their prospects for growth. In Lashio, the challenges for young women and men are molded by the proximity of armed conflict between (and within) EAOs and the Tatmadaw, along with lower access to education and development opportunities. Young people in Yangon, conversely, face urban security issues and high rates of inward migration in increasingly crowded residential and work spaces.

In line with this, the need for emotional and moral support was expressed strongly by youth respondents. Addressing the internal and personal struggles facing young women and men within their daily contexts could enhance their motivation, inspiration, and engagement in social cohesion and peacebuilding. Furthermore, youth respondents presented a high level of openness and willingness to interact and engage with ‘other’ communities, which can be built and expanded upon through increasing knowledge and skills around peacebuilding-related subjects.

The participation of young people in youth organizations and networks is significant, with over half of the youth respondents citing an affiliation to a youth group. This is consistent with other research that has highlighted a high level of youth mobilization in the country.35 Still, many youth (and more young women) are not involved in youth organizations. Building on existing youth activities and showcasing them as role models of youth leadership in peacebuilding through media programming could further capture youth interest. In terms of connecting with young people, Facebook was the key platform through which youth mobilized, as well as one of the most influential sources on youth opinions and behaviors. The high use of social media among young people underscores the need for innovative approaches when accessing young people with the goal of shifting their norms and attitudes.

In terms of intergenerational trust, both adult and youth respondents expressed the same priority challenges and definitions of a peaceful society within their communities – presenting entry points to build mutual understanding. Young people, however, feel a need to be listened to and understood better by their adult counterparts. Increased space for in-person dialogue and platforms to share perspectives in a mutually respectful way would enhance avenues for intergenerational partnership to build social cohesion in communities.

The limited qualitative information obtained within the research data points to the need for more in-depth focus group discussions and research conducted with key youth and adult stakeholders. In particular, further research is necessary to better understand adult perspectives towards youth (especially around issues of trust), explore how Facebook influences youth attitudes and behavior in more detail, and illuminate the relationships between young people within their households and with their parents.

35 See for example CUSO International (2015)

“Youth need knowledge and proper guidance along with role models. For this, there needs to be consultation and responding to the needs of youth.

To strengthen the unity and motivation of young people, we need a program that could attract all youth.”

- 23-year old female, Lashio



RECOMMENDATIONSThe following recommendations are opportunities for SFCG to address key issues and challenges in Lashio and Greater Yangon as part of the Let’s Think, Let’s Change project, as well as entry points and broader recommendations for other stakeholders to strengthen social cohesion within and among communities.

LET’S THINK, LET’S CHANGE PROJECT: Programming and media content should focus on everyday issues facing young people, particularly

the high prevalence of drug use, challenges of unemployment, poor (access to) quality education, social discrimination, and intercommunal violence and conflict among youth.

TV and social media content could include features to increase knowledge and understanding of peace, critical thinking, and information literacy. This could include awareness and capacity building activities in peacebuilding, rumor management, and responsible social media use for communities, as suggested by young respondents.

For young women, media can be a key platform through which to raise awareness and educate communities on sexual harassment. Caution should be taken that any content reflecting on sexual harassment avoids victim-blaming by utilizing a women’s rights-focused approach. Based on young men’s responses, it is possible that they face greater social pressure to provide for their families; content that explores the drivers of drug use, high crime rates, and entrepreneurship could be a useful entry point to engage young men.

Media content should promote positive intergenerational relationships, as defined by young people, by depicting understanding, respect, adaptability, trust, and friendliness, and address the common grievances of young people that underlie negative relationships, such as traditional mind-sets and not understanding youth aspirations.

As both young people and adults felt that youth need greater guidance and moral direction, there is an opportunity for platforms, including media content, to encourage intergenerational dialogue and partnerships, particularly through mentorship and fostering mutual understanding. Particular focus should be placed upon relationships with parents and within the home environment.

Radio programs that target older persons could bring youth perspectives on community issues to the forefront and facilitate adults to develop a better understanding of the views of young people.

As one of the most effective mediums for influencing youth opinions, social media, and especially Facebook, should be utilized as a key platform to promote social cohesion among young people.

SFCG could explore partnership and collaboration opportunities with the top TV and Radio Channels mentioned by young respondents. While celebrities were expressed as influential, there is no consistent top-rated celebrity among young people, highlighting the diversity of youth perspectives and preferences.



BROADER RECOMMENDATIONS: The emotional and psycho-social needs of young people should be emphasized in project and media

programming, particularly through social media where youth are more active. Young people need to feel encouraged, motivated, and inspired to engage in peacebuilding. Youth groups encountered weaknesses in ‘team-spirit,’ which can be reflected upon in media content and programs that engage young people.

Tap into existing youth networks, groups and organizations, who already focus on philanthropy, interfaith, or capacity-building work for future programming. The capacity and skills of these groups could be strengthened to better support social cohesion in their communities.

Media content could raise awareness on both the benefits and challenges of participating in youth groups. This would support understanding from adults and authorities on how they can better support young people’s participation (reduce the barriers), as well as understand the benefits of youth participation for the whole community. Presenting success stories of youth groups as role models in peacebuilding and development through media programs could further motivate youth and shift positive perceptions towards them among adults.

The impact of Facebook as a key platform through which youth connect should be explored, as well as how this affects different marginalized youth and their interaction with the surrounding local and international environment.

To build intergenerational trust, programs can be designed to target both youth and adults through an integrated approach. The common community concerns raised by both adults and young people can be used as key bridging points to strengthen intergenerational trust, such as drug use, crime/robbery, poor economic situations, and lack of employment opportunities. Both adults and youth share common conceptualizations of a peaceful society, which can be tapped into as entry points for supporting intergenerational trust.

Stakeholders should support opportunities and platforms for youth to interact and have their voice heard by government and community authorities in order to address the perceived mistrust that young people have towards political institutions and authorities.

Address negative issues that have flourished with an increase in social media use, such as cyber bullying, hate speech, misinformation, and rumor management. Programs could explore how young people and communities can counter the negative impacts of social media and promote positive engagement.



Yangon youth researchers

Lashio youth researchers



ANNEXES ANNEX 1: BIBLIOGRAPHYCUSO International, Searchers-Myanmar & United National Volunteers (2015) A Study on Urban Volunteerism in Myanmar. CUSO International.

Grizelj, Irena (October, 2017). The Youth Space of Dialogue and Mediation in Myanmar. The Berghof Foundation.

Hald, Mathilda and Sarah Smith (February, 2018). Supporting Youth Contributions to Peace in Myanmar. Development Dialogue Paper No. 24. Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation.

Nash, Carolyn and Yulia Nesterova (2017). Youth Waging Peace: Youth Led Guide on Prevention of Violent Extremism through Education. Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development.

Paung Sie Facility (December, 2017). Youth and Everyday Peace: Fostering the Untapped Potential of Myanmar’s Youth.

Search for Common Ground (2017). Rapid Conflict Assessment. Let’s Think, Let’s Change: Let’s Think, Let’s Change: Promoting Diversity through Popular Culture. SFCG Myanmar.

Youth4Peace (May, 2017). Asia and the Pacific Regional Consultation on UNSCR2250.

ANNEX 2: LEAD CONSULTANT BIOGRAPHYIrena Grizelj is an independent researcher and policy analyst focused on youth engagement in peacebuilding and peace processes, specifically in the Myanmar context. Over the three years, through her research, Irena has independently convened and created trusted relationships with a diverse range of youth leaders, networks, and organizations from across the different states and regions of Myanmar. She has gained in-depth knowledge of the Myanmar political, conflict, economic, peace process context – and how these relate to young people’s concerns, interest, needs, and priorities.

Most recently, Irena co-led the design, research, analysis, and drafting of the Paung Sie Facility’s (PSF) seminal 2017 discussion and policy paper, Youth and Everyday Peace: Fostering the Untapped Potential of Myanmar’s Youth. Working in partnership with a team of young Myanmar researchers, they led over 150 qualitative interviews and eight focus group discussions, assessing the state of youth participation in peacebuilding and the peace process, identifying key challenges, and developing policy and programming recommendations for national and international stakeholders. Irena also led the formative case study analysis of The Youth Space of Dialogue and Mediation in Myanmar on behalf of the Berghof Foundation, which will feature as a Thematic Paper in the UNSCR 2250 Global Progress Study independent report.

Originally from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Irena holds a Master’s degree in International Relations and Conflict Management from the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University.

https://cusointernational.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/report-myanmar_wed09.pdf

https://cusointernational.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/report-myanmar_wed09.pdf

https://www.berghof-foundation.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Publications/Other_Resources/YouthSpaceofDialogueMediation__Myanmar.pdf

http://www.daghammarskjold.se/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/dd-paper_no24-web.pdf

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002605/260547e.pdf

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002605/260547e.pdf

http://www.paungsiefacility.org/publications.html

http://www.paungsiefacility.org/publications.html

https://www.sfcg.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/MYA_RCA-Lets-think-Lets-change_dr2.pdf

https://www.sfcg.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/MYA_RCA-Lets-think-Lets-change_dr2.pdf

https://www.youth4peace.info/node/264



ANNEX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR YOUTH Youth: Persons between 18 and 35 years old

Date: Location:

Researchers:

1.

2.

Code of interview:

[Location (YNG or LSH)_Group No._Interview No.]

Consent received?

□ Yes

□ No

Contact information:

A. Profile/Demographics

QUESTION ANSWER

1. What township do you live in? [open]

2. What is your age? [open]

3. [Do not ask – Tick gender] □ Male

□ Female

□ Other

4. What is your marital status? □ Single

□ Married

□ Separate

□ Other

5. What is your highest level of education attained?

□ Primary

□ Secondary

□ High school

□ University – Bachelor degree

□ University – Masters degree

□ Non-formal education (e.g. monastic)

□ Vocational school/training

□ Not attended school/education



6. What ethnic group do you identify with? [open]

7. What religion, if any, do you identify with?

[Do NOT read choices. Select ONE]

□ Buddhist

□ Christian – Baptist

□ Christian – Protestant (Non-Baptist)

□ Christian – Catholic

□ Jewish

□ Parsi/ Zoroastrian

□ Bahai

□ Sikh

□ Jain

□ Taoism

□ Hindu

□ Islam/ Muslim

□ Animism/ Spirit worship (Nat)

□ Ethnic Traditional Belief System ___________

□ No Religion

□ Other:___________

□ Prefer not to say

8. What is your current occupation?

[Do NOT read choices. Select ONE]

□ Full time student

□ Student worker (student while doing paid work)

□ Paid employed – government

□ Paid employed – (other) private business, family business, trad-ing, farmer etc.

□ Dependent (e.g. housewife)

□ Religious Leader (Monk, Nun, Priest, etc)

□ Unemployed

□ Other:_________



B. Youth & Social Cohesion

QUESTION ANSWER1. What are your dreams/vision/hope/goal for your future? [open]

2. What do you feel are some of the key issues/problems in your community and Lashio currently? [open]

3. What are the top three most important issues that you think need to be addressed in your commu-nity?

[SELECT TOP 3. Rank top 3 in order of importance: 1 is most important]

[If not listed, include at bottom]

1. Drugs

2. Unemployment

3. Ethnic tensions

4. Religious tensions

5. Lack of access to education

6. Land grabbing

7. Freedom of expression

8. Sexual harassment

9. Domestic violence

10. Bullying

11. Social discrimination

12. Poverty

13. Crime & security

14. Armed war

□ Other:

□ Other:

□ Other:



4. What are some of the main problems/challenges specifically facing/affecting young people in your community? [Space to write]

4b. [Tick each issue raised. Multiple response.]

□ Drugs

□ Unemployment

□ Ethnic tensions

□ Religious tensions

□ Lack of access to education

□ Human rights abuses

□ Sexual harassment

□ Domestic violence

□ Bullying

□ Social discrimination

□ Poverty

□ Crime & security

□ Armed war

□ Other:

□ Other:

□ Other:

5. (a) Are there young people involved in violence or crime in your community or [Lashio/Yangon]?

□ Yes

□ No

□ Do not know

5 (b) [IF YES] What do you think are main drivers (reasons) of youth involvement in violence/crime?



6. Have you had a conversation with anyone that has a different ethnic, religious or social background than you in the last two (2) months?

□ Yes

□ No

7. How comfortable are you to participate in the following activities with other communities?

[Rank each one from 5. Very acceptable, 4. somewhat acceptable, 3. somewhat unacceptable, 2. very unacceptable 1. Prefer not to say]

Activity 5 – Very comfortable

4 – Some-what comfort-

able

3 – Somewhat

un- comfort-able

2 – Very un- com-

fortable

1 - Prefer not to say


Go to their festivals/ cere-monies

Live in the same residen-tial area

Work together

8. What do you think are the common features/characteristics of a peaceful community?” (What is needed for a com-munity to be peaceful)?

[SKIP IF DO NOT KNOW]

1.

2.

3.

9. How can young people be better supported to participate in peacebuilding and promoting harmony in their com-munities? (What do young people need?)

10. Have you tried to work or have worked with other communities in order to address common issues/concerns e.g. drugs, violence, economy?

□ Yes

□ No



C. Organization & Influence of Youth

QUESTION ANSWER

11. Are you a member of any youth group or organization? □ Yes

□ No [IF YES in 1]

1a. What is the name of the organization?

1b. How did you hear about it/How did you become connected?

1c. What does the organization do?

1d. What is your role?

2 (a) What activities are young people involved with/in in your community? [what issues]

2 (b) Is the activity led by youth, or led by adult (e.g. religious or community leader, politician)?

□ Youth

□ Adult

2. (c) Through what channels/platforms (organization, Facebook etc) do youth mobilise?



3. Can you name 2-3 most influential youth groups/organizations or youth leaders in your community?

1.

2.

3.

□ Do not know[IF YES in 3]

3 (a) How do you know about them?

3 (b) Why do you view them as influential [e.g. action, reputation, impact]?

4. Do you know of any youth groups involved in building peace/ promoting harmony in your community?

□ Yes

□ No [IF YES in 4]

4 (a) Who are they?

4 (b) What do they do (to that supports building peace/promoting harmony)?

5 (a) What challenges (if any) do youth face in the community when organizing themselves as a group or doing activities in the communities through youth groups/organizations?

5 (b) [IF YES] How do youth groups deal with/overcome these challenges?



D. Intergenerational Trust

QUESTION ANSWER

1. In your community, how do you think the relationship is between adults and youth? (open)

(a) Is there good relationship? What are the facts that support they have a good relationship (e.g. respect, trust, listen, common understanding? (b) Are there tensions? What are the facts that support that they have bad relationship?

2. In your community, how much do you think the fol-lowing actors trust young people?

Do you think they ‘Trust youth a lot’, Trust a little, Distrust a little or ‘Do not trust youth at all’?

[ASK on a 5-point scale or Do not know]

Actor 5 – Trust a lot

4 – Trust a little

2 – Dis-trust a little

1 – Do not trust youth

Prefer not to say

Parents

Teachers

Community leaders

Religious leaders

Local authority/ Village tract administrator

National government

Military

Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs)

Other youth

Political party

INGO/NGO

LCSO/CBO

3. If there is one thing you wanted older persons to know about youth, what would it be?



E. Mainstream and social media influence

QUESTION ANSWER1. Do you use social

media? [Prompt, how often?] (e.g. Facebook, Instagram, Viber, WhatsApp, WeChat etc)

[CHOOSE ONE ANSWER]

□ Yes, more than once a day

□ Yes, once a day

□ Yes, a few times a week

□ Yes, a few times a month

□ No, I do not have access to social media

□ No, I do not want to use it/I am not interested.

□ Prefer not to say 2. How do you feel the increase in access to media & social media in the last few years has influenced community

relations? Has it increased/decreased community tensions, openness, activities? [Discuss the effect of social media and mainstream media in the community].

3. To what extent do the following sources and actors influence your opinion?

[Rank each from ‘Very influential’ (5) to ‘Not influential at all’ (1) on a 5-point scale]

[TICK THE ANSWER]

Actor/Source 5 – Very influential

4 – A little influential

3 – Neutral

2 – Not very

influential

1 – Not influential

at all

Do not know/

NA

Mother

Father

Siblings

Relatives

Friends/peers

Religious leader/ religious community

Teachers

Village elder

Local authority/ Village tract administrator

National government

CSO

Facebook

Television

Radio

Newspapers

Celebrities

Other:

Other:



[FOLLOW UP: If the following are expressed as very influential actor/source (4/5), ask for the names]

Radio Program:

TV channel:

TV program:

Celebrity:

Documents

YOUTH-LED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH ON SOCIAL COHESION …