MA Community and Youth Work DissertationTitle:

Structured Online Intergroup Contact Using Pictures Through a Third Party

“An action research; investigating a structured online intergroup contact using pictures, between a young person from Palestine and a young person from Israel, through a young person from the UK.”

Student code: Z0966218

Word Count: 10,947

Date of Submission: September 2016

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge that this dissertation is my work, and I assure that my personal background and nationality did not affect the way participants, their data or the findings and discussions are dealt with.

I am very thankful for everyone whom I met in my life so far, without you I would not be able to learn, question and break the structures in my mind.

I am very grateful for my family and friends for supporting me in this journey. I acknowledge that this dissertation was the most interesting academic learning experience I ever had. Special thanks to my supervisor Andrew Orton and all the people working in the Department of Community and Youth work at Durham University for their support during this year.

Finally, Thanks for the individuals and organizations that were brave enough and wholeheartedly contributed to my data collection: The British Youth Council North East in the UK, Peace and Freedom Youth Forum in Palestine and The Jerusalem Intercultural Center in Israel.

2

Abstract

This research was initiated with a motivation to investigate a structured online contact between two young persons, one from Palestine and the other, Israeli, via a young person from the UK. Six young people (2 from each country) participated in the application of the Structured Online Intergroup Contact model, and they were put into two groups. In each group the participants pretended to be working in a news agency. The UK young person takes the role of an editor, who sends tasks using a predefined text via emails to both the Palestinian and the Israeli Journalists. Both Journalists have to find the meaning of each task using pictures and send it to the editor. The editor had to exchange the responses of both participants.

This concept is relevant to the online use of Contact Hypothesis between conflicting reduce intergroup biases. The use of the third party to start the contact and the use of pictures to create an online dialogue concerns the building of consciences in Critical Pedagogy theories.

The four main findings of the research:

1- The problems of online learning that uses pictures only.2- The potential of using Image Theatre for self-reflection and online dialogue in small

groups. 3- The advantages of making a contact between one Palestinian and one Israeli via a

third person in reducing ingroup-outgroup anxiety.4- The potential of using this concept as a new tool for non-violent online activism for

the third party.

The conclusion and the recommendations of the research are presented as an imagination of structured online platform for intergroup contact by creating groups of one Palestinian, one Israeli and one international.

3

Table of content

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................2

Abstract................................................................................................................................................3

Table of content...................................................................................................................................4

Acronyms and Abbreviations.............................................................................................................5

Chapter One: Introduction.................................................................................................................6

Chapter Two: Methadology................................................................................................................8

Chapter Three: Theoritical Freamework and Literature Review.................................................16

Chapter Four: Findings and Discusion............................................................................................23

Chapter Five:Conclusion and Recommendations...........................................................................34

References:.........................................................................................................................................35

Appendices:........................................................................................................................................42

Appendix I: Structured Online Intergroup Contact Model.......................................................42

Appindex II: Tables.......................................................................................................................52

Appendix III: Interview Guid.......................................................................................................53

Appendix IV: Palestinian and Israeli Particpants Interviews....................................................54

Appendix V: UK Participants Interviews....................................................................................60

Appendix VI: Consent Form........................................................................................................65

Appendix VII: Particpant’s Information Sheet...........................................................................67

Appendix VIII: Approved Ethical Form.....................................................................................70

4

Acronyms and Abbreviations

SOICM: Structured Online Intergroup Contact Model.

AR: Action Research

CMC: Computer Mediated Communication

IT: Image Theatre

CP: critical pedagogy.

IDF: Israeli Defence Forces

FtF: Face to Face

5

Chapter OneIntroduction

I. Introduction and Research Problem:

Creswell (2003) encouraged qualitative researchers to include in the research reports their feelings, thoughts, biases, and motivations.

In July 2014, I participated in organizing a march from Ramallah toward Jerusalem using a social media campaign; the march was called 48thousands March. It aimed to show solidarity with people in Gaza. It was the biggest rally in the West Bank since 20 years. The Israeli military handled the March with excessive use of armed force. That night turned into a nightmare with the death of a 17-year-old Palestinian, and over 200 injuries among the Palestinian protestors (972mag.com, 2016)

I will never forget that night: experiencing the power of the people when they come together, yet mixed with the pain and the guilt of bloodshed. I have no power to protect the people whom I called to participate. What can we do to change the reality? Till when could we stop losing innocent lives in face of this illegal occupation according to the international law (see Securitycouncilreport.org, 2016)? How to protect vulnerable and innocent people from both sides? Hundreds of questions were running through my head for the next months in retrospect, until one idea diverted me to progress in thinking again: ‘Maybe the Israelis cannot hear us? Maybe they are brainwashed by their media and politics? How can we make them see our perspectives?’

These questions forced me think that we need to create mass communication with the Israelis. However, how is this possible when there are walls and checkpoints, when there is no common language, when there are hatred and propaganda from both sides. This is a profound and complex historical conflict with religious, cultural, social and international dimensions and roots. In November 2015, I did a talk about student movements in Palestine at Durham University, and a person from the audience asked me: “What we can do as an international community to help solve this conflict?” I answered her immediately: “I do not know.” Reflecting on her question alongside my idea of creating communication between Israelis and Palestinians using social media, I came up with the concept of this research: What if an international third-party created this communication?

From that moment, I decided to dedicate my MA research in community and youth work to investigate the experience of establishing this communication with young people aged 18 to 29 from UK, Palestine, and Israel.

II. Relevance of the research:

I believe that this investigation is relevant to youth work purpose, whereas, creating online informal contact between young people can “[encourage] their personal, social and political development by enabling and empowering them to have a voice and influence in their communities and society” (NYA, 2016, p.3)

6

III. Research Aim and Objectives:

Aim:

The purpose of this research is to analyze the perspectives of 6 young people, aged 18 to 29, from Palestine, Israel, and the UK, about their experience in the application of the Structured Online Intergroup Contact Model (SOICM). I designed SOICM specifically for this research, with an aim to create an indirect contact between two young people from conflict groups (Palestine and Israel) through a third party (a young person from the UK).

Objectives:

1- To apply the SOICM with six young people from Palestinian, Israeli and UK.

2- To analyse and discuss their perspectives about their experience in the SIOCM.

3- To conclude and suggest recommendations for future research and applications that are interested in creating online intergroup contact between Palestinians and Israelis.

IV. Research questions:

Marx (1997) suggested different possible sources that can help formulate the research questions. One of these sources can be the motivation of the researcher and a social problem. Therefore, the question of this research is built based on my personal experience, motivation, and a social issue (how to create a new contact between Palestinians and Israelis young people).

Main question:

What are the perspectives of those six research subjects? Who participated in indirect email communication, using pictures and predefined text, between a young person from Palestine and a young person from Israel via a young person from the UK. While, pretending to be journalists appointed by the young person from the UK, to make visual reports about four topics: (Love, Fun, Freedom and their future)?

Sub-questions: See the interview guide in Appendix (III)

V. Structure of the research:

The following Chapter will discuss the methodology of research by explaining what philosophy, approaches, and methods are employed, and how population sampling, data collection, and analysis are designed. In Chapter three, I shall shape the theoretical framework and present relevant literature. In Chapter Four, the data is analyzed from which the findings are stemmed. Finally, in chapter five, I shall conclude and offer recommendations for researchers and practitioners.

7

Chapter TwoMethodology

I- Introduction:

This chapter is about outlining and justifying the philosophy and the methods I used in this research. I will highlight the ethical considerations I took to protect myself and the participants.

Two factors have shaped the philosophy and the methodologies in this research:

1- Limitation of the Study: This research is limited to only 11,000 words and five months’ duration from the moment of having the ethical committee approval till the submission date.

2- Participants involvement: I tried to find out if there is an existing model that was applied to create online contact between Palestinian and Israelis with the support of a third party. Since I found no such example, I thought about designing it in cooperation with the participants, or with other practitioners. However, this will make the research more complex, as it will lead to generating two types of primary data: the data about the model designing process and the data about the application of the model, which I cannot do in such a small research. Therefore, I chose to focus on the data produced by the application of the model, as this is more connected to my aim and I was able to design the model by myself.

II- Research Approach:A- Paradigm

Research is a harmonic and consistent process of investigation (Burns, 2000; Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). Before discussing the methodology of this study, it is worth defining the philosophical framework of the research or what is called “Paradigm” (Mertens, 2005; Bogdan and Biklen, 1998). Guba and Lincoln (1994, p.105) defined paradigm as “basic belief system or worldview that guides the investigation”. Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) advice new researchers to set the paradigm as the first step to help in deciding the “methodology, methods, literature or research design, as it affects the way of studying the data.”

According to Creswell (2003, p.8), interpretivist/constructivist paradigm depends on “participant’s views of the situation being studied”. In addition to their background and experiences (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). Moreover, Constructivist researchers “generate or inductively develop a theory or pattern of meanings" (Creswell, 2003, p.9). For this reasons, I decided to use interpretivist/constructivist paradigm with an inductive approach, because it is consistent with the aim of the research to investigate the participant’s views about their experience in the SOICM.

On the contrary, I have no theory or hypothesis to test, to depend on a Positivist paradigm or deductive approach (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). The scope of the research is too

8

small to affect policies or the political agenda to call it “Transformative” paradigm (Creswell, 2003, p.9). Moreover, I am not applying different approaches to the research problem, which in this case is a “Pragmatic” Paradigm (Creswell, 2003, p.11).

B- Qualitative Vs Quantitative

The two famous approaches are tending towards the method of collecting data and analyzing it, not the theoretical approach of the research (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006).

Making a decision of which methodology to use should be based on the research questions (Bryman, 1988). Cavaye (1996) argued that the phenomenon of interest decide which methodology to use, not the opposite. Ritchie and Lewis (2003, p.27) defined qualitative research as “facility to describe and display phenomena as experienced by the study population, in fine-tuned detail and the study participants”.

I started this research by defining the aim and the research questions. Bryman (2012, p.409) stated that questions in quantitative research are more “specific”, while they are more “open-ended” in qualitative research. My research questions can be categorized as open-ended questions, using (what and how), and this factor decided the use of qualitative methods in this research.

Also, a quantitative approach was not suitable for the research questions, as the population is only the people who participated in the experiment of the SOICM.

III- Research design:

After defining the aim and the question of the study, the next step is to identify the design and the strategy that will help in achieving the aim. The design has three primary stages, the first stage is designing the SOICM, the second stage is applying the model with six young people from Palestine, Israel, and the UK, and the third stage is collecting the data and analyzing it. The first and second stages are crucial to give the participants an experience that will help them diagnose the problems, and create perspectives that served as primary data. I can claim that such design can be called Action Research (AR) design. Action research according to (Glassman et al., 2013) is a form of social investigation through the interaction between members of social groups, involve in open dialogue about their intergroup relations, and participate as an equal collective in a learning process to create social change. In this research, the SOICM is designed to create the interaction between participants who belong to different groups, and it allows them to investigate each other’s’ lives by communicating through pictures that reflect their views.

The word “action” in Action Research is about bringing changes to the social rules through engaging community members in a dialogue, the research will be challenging the participant’s habits and influence their boundaries (Glassman et al., 2013). In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the ordinary habits, and norms that people from both sides are not communicating or interacting with each other due to the deep-rooted conflict, and physical, social and mental boundaries that created hatred, anxiety, prejudices, and stereotypes. I believe that the participants broke their habits by entering a contact with each other. Including the participants of the UK, whit their unusual role as a third party.

9

Small and Uttal (2005) argued that AR is more interpretive than a positivist way of creating epistemology, which is consistent with my inductive approach. Some academics reject AR for lacking firmness and for being too biased. However, it is advocated by some researchers because of its commitment to involve people. (Bryman, 2012).

III. Research design (?)A. Sampling

The sampling in this research was a criterion purposive sampling, which means “Sampling all units (cases or individuals) that meet a particular criterion” (Bryman, 2012, p.419). I used this sampling method since there are no previous Interventions similar to the SIOCM. Therefore, my sample was all the people who participated in the SOICM.

In general, small and purposive sample are very common in qualitative research (Sullivan, 2012). Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2006, p.70) explain this: “the goal is to look at a process or the meanings individuals attribute to their given social situation, not necessarily to make generalizations.”

Research duration and nature put a limitation of how many people may be involved in the model. So, choosing a group of six young people only (two participants from each country) was rational. I used a strategy of selecting the participants through organizations with specific criteria for both the organization and the young people.

Organizational level:

The British Youth Council North East as a UK organization, Peace and Freedom Youth Forum as a Palestinian organization and The Jerusalem Intercultural Centre as an Israeli organization were selected as supporting partners in this research. The reason of having criteria for the organizations was to help in recruiting participants in such a global research, depending on robust and legal structures that can protect and support the participants. The criteria for selecting the organisations are listed in Appendix (VIII and III).

Young people Level:

The selection criteria for the young people participating in the model application and the research was done by the selected organizations. I explained the criteria I used for selecting the young people in the ethical considerations section and Appendix (VIII and III)

B. Data generation:

I designed and used the SOICM in (Appendix I) as a tool to generate perspectives for the participants, and these perspectives served as primary data.

10

What happened during the model application?

After selecting the participants, I put them randomly in two groups. I will refer to the participants with the nicknames: P1, I1, and UK1 for group1, and P2, I2 and UK2 for group2. P1 and I1 were males, while the rest of the participants were females. Each participant received a document with instructions and information about their role in the SOICM (See Appendicies I, VII). After that, I created email addresses for all the participants, and I gave the UK participants the email addresses of the Palestinian and Israeli participants in their group. I had access to these email addresses with the approval from all the participants, to be able to observe the interaction between the participants and interfere if needed. Once I had the approval from the Research Ethics Committee to start the process, I gave the green light to the participants to launch the interaction. In the instructions for the Palestinian and the Israeli participants, they had to pretend that they are a journalist in their area contracted by an editor working in a news agency in the UK. The UK participants had to claim that they are the news editor, and they have to send a weekly task for the Journalists. The Palestinian and Israeli participants had to complete their missions about their real life using pictures or drawings. Once the tasks were sent to the Editor in the UK, He/she will exchange their responses between them, and send them the new task. During the application, there were some delays in accomplishing the tasks which affected the duration of the process from one month to one month and a half. In some cases, I interfered to notify the participants to send the tasks. Only one time, I1 did not submit the task, and after asking him, he suggested to move to the next one. There was no evidence of any offending, hatred, or insulting text or pictures during the interaction. This is not an indicator that the model is preventing hatred or heated communication in intractable conflicts, it is more because the participants know that this is a controlled research, not a real life event, so their representation of themselves cannot be considered authentic.

C. Data Collection:

Since this was the first time to use the model, it was hard to decide what questions to ask. Moreover, the research question is open-ended with a lot of possibilities, which can be better investigated by having a conversation with the participants. Therefore, interviews were the most suitable as qualitative data method as suggested by Bryman (2012) in this conditions. Mack et al. (2005) defined interviews as a tool to investigate what the participants felt, experienced and understood from the social context. Bryman (2012, p.469) highlighted two main types of qualitative interviews “unstructured interview and the semi-structured interview.”

Bryman (2012) advised using semi-structured interviews since it depends on both the use of predefined questions which serve as a guideline and the freedom of interaction between the participants and the researchers.

Concerning my research aim and questions, I needed a guideline. Otherwise, the interviews might be driven toward political discussion more than the experiences of the

11

participants. For this reason, I chose semi-structured qualitative interviews for data collection using face to face meeting with the UK participants and Skype meetings with the Palestinians and the Israelis participants. I depended on both a prepared agenda of questions guided by the aim of the research, and I created an environment during the interviews that allowed me and the participants to have a conversation and discuss any issues related to the topic. The guideline for the Semi-structured interviews is in Appendix (III)

D. Ethical considerations:

I used the internet for skype interviews and for generating data. Sullivan (2012) believes the use of internet in research poses ethical questions of anonymity, authenticity, and consent since it is hard to make sure that participant’s information are not leaked to the public and cause harm to them. I was aware of these challenges, and Appendix (VIII) shows all the ethical considerations including the mitigated risks on the participants and myself, and the strategy I used to prevent these risks.

The three organizations cooperating in this research provided a mentor to support the participants in case they needed anything, especially translation. The age of the participants was set above 18 to avoid safeguarding issues. Unfortunately, considering the limitations on my capacity to provide support for participants with special needs in such global research, I made a decision to exclude them, to avoid any ethical issues of not being able to support them equally as others, which might also affect the data.

I acknowledge that all the ethical considerations were followed concerning the approved ethical form, and no harmful incidents occur during the research for me or the participants.

E. Data analysis

Bryman (2012) acknowledged that there is no development yet for a clear set of rules for analyzing qualitative data. Merriam (1998) described this process as in interaction between the researcher and the data trying to use analytical skills to transform these data into findings. However, what is available and can help researchers are guidelines in the shape of “strategy” and “basic operations” for data analysis (Bryman, 2012; p.565).

Using inductive philosophy approach demands an inductive data analysis strategy. According to (Thomas, 2006) inductive data analysis serve the aim of allowing research’s findings to unfold from the data without any constraint of the methodology. Table (2.1) taken from (Thomas, 2006; p.240) explains the different inductive approaches for data analysis. I chose the ground theory approach since it is more suitable for my research aim and question, and my assertion that new concepts might result from this research.

On the contrary, the general inductive approach is more appropriate for evaluation than research, and the discourse analysis and phenomenology approaches are not convenient to my design.

12

Table (2.1) taken from (Thomas, 2006, p.240)

Strauss and Corbin (1998) and Brayman (2012, p.569) defined three main stages in analyzing data using the ground theory strategy:

1- “Open coding”: generating the concepts and categorize them. 2- “Axial coding”: finding the links and interaction between categories. 3- “Selective coding”: selecting core categories and finding links between them, to

produce a concept or theory.

My first strategy for data analysis was to follow these three steps. The second strategy was about dividing the participants into two different categories which should be seen with two different lenses: 1- Palestinian and Israeli participants: They both belong to intractable conflict.2- The UK participants: They are not part of the conflict, and they have a role in

facilitating the contact between one Palestinian and one Israeli.

I will show here an example of how I analyzed the data using the two strategies. First, the questions in the interview formed an initial categorization for the areas of investigation, (e.g., the role of the third party). Then, using the lens of the Palestinian and Israeli participants and the literature, I tried to find new categories that I was not aware of; like the role of the third party in reducing their anxiety during contact. And how it is related to other categories. In addition to, how important is this category for different participants. The next step was to select the core categories that led to define my main findings.

Each finding is supported by quotations from the participants, and I am attaching parts of the transcripts of the interviews in Appendices (IV and V). The reader will be able to judge my analysis, and if the data analysis was affected by my personal preferences, which is called the problem of “anecdotalism” according to Silverman (1999) cited in (Silverman, 2010, p.276).

13

Finding the literature was delayed till I did the data analysis, and this is one of the disadvantages of using the ground theory; since researchers cannot be sure what they are investigating (Bulmer, 1979). I was unable to make any “iterative “approaches because of the academic nature of the research, which is the process of jumping between data collection and data analysis while applying needed modifications (Bryman, 2012, p.566).

H. Research evaluation: Validity approach

Table (2.2): “Validity Procedures Within Qualitative Lens and Paradigm Assumptions” taken from (Creswell and Miller, 2000, p.126)

I used table (2.2) taken from (Creswell and Miller, 2000, p.126) to choose a method to give validity and credibility of my findings. This decision is very logical as I defined the paradigm from an early stage to be constructivist/interpretative, and there was a relatively long interaction between the participants in the application of the SOICM that lasted for one month and a half, with available records and observation that can be used to validate the findings. The three procedures that can be used to evaluate the validity and credibility of my findings are:

1- Disconfirming evidence:

This procedure depends on the researcher’s lens, which is, for constructivist, a lens to view reality in a “multiple and complex” way (Creswell and Miller, 2000, p.127). The procedure relies on the researcher ability to show the different perspectives for each theme or category, including negative or discomforting evidence (Miles and Huberman, 1994). This procedure alone is not credible as most researchers by nature find it easier to talk about confirming instead of disconfirming evidence (Creswell and Miller, 2000). Appendices (VIII and IX) will help the readers to assess the credibility of this lens.

2- Prolonged engagement in the field:

According to Creswell and Miller (2000, p.128); observations helps the researcher create more holistic perspectives and understanding for the participant’s views and their context. The application of the SOICM lasted between mid-April until the beginning of June 2016. I agreed with the participants to have access to their emails which was only designated for the research; this allowed me to observe the pictures they were exchanging. This insight on their interaction helped me in the interviews and the data analysis. However, these observations were not used as a source of data.

14

3- Thick, rich description:

This procedure relies on the lens of the reader, by “establishing credibility through describing the setting, the participants, and the themes a qualitative study in rich details” (Creswell and Miller, 2000; p.128). In this research, I tried to be reflective and descriptive about my motivation and background, at the same time the nature of the research is built on personal reflection of the participants. Creswell and Miller (2000) argue that rich description provides the readers with a tool to judge the credibility and how applicable are the findings to different settings and contexts.

I. Reflexivity:

According to Bryman (2012, p.393) reflexivity is related to understanding the rooted meanings of “speech and actions.” Flick et al. (2007, p.11) believed that the researcher's experiences and their reflexivity are part of the study. My knowledge and expertise played a crucial role in this research. First, because I am Palestinian, and I lived my life in the world being study, including experiences of normal contacts with Israeli’s, which helped me a lot in recruiting the participants. Second, I could not design the SOICM without broad experience in Europe and the Middle-East and knowledge about youth work practices and values. Finally, my personal motivation is to contribute to peace building, and to do so; I was very critical, and I tried to avoid giving any personal political opinions or showing any biases.

15

Chapter ThreeTheoretical frameworks and Literature review

I. Introduction:

This Chapter serves in creating a conceptual framework and presenting the latest advancement of theory and researches related to the research questions. Wiersma (1995, p.406) highlighted the value of literature review in research: “The review of the literature provides the background and context for the research problem. It should establish the need for the research and indicate that the writer is knowledgeable about the area”.

The inductive nature of the research made it difficult for me to decide where to start and what literature should be studied and searched. For this reason, my search for literature was guided by the core categories of the data analysis in chapter four. This chapter will start with defining the two main theories that were used to discuss the findings, then the recent research, projects, and articles.

II. Theoretical framework:

3.2.1 Critical Pedagogy (CP):

Asking the participants to find meaning for words and concepts using pictures is rooted in the idea of CP theory. In my findings, I argue that the role of a young person from the UK can be identified as grassroots online activism for peacebuilding by facilitating the contact between one Palestinian and one Israeli. I used John Paul Lederach’s (1995) model for grassroots peace building in his book “Preparing for Peace” to explain this finding. Lederach’s model was also influenced by Paolo Freire “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” (Ramsbotham et al., 2011).

According to Darder et al. (2009) CP is about the philosophy of questioning the reality, structures, and power, and their relation with pedagogy. The concept was influenced by the work of many philosophers like Carl Marx, Frankfurt critical thinking school, Gramsci, Giroux and Freire (Breuing, 2011).

Kincheloe (2005) defined three key features of CP:

Create a vision for Justice and Equality Create a political education. Contribute to minimize dehumanization.

The aim of CP in (Ellsworth,1989) is to practice critical democracy and freedom to achieve social justice and social change. Ledwith (2011) asserted that social justice and social change start when individuals share their experiences, reflect on it, and question its contradictions. Freire (2000) called this process of learning “conscientizacao.” Dialogue for Fieri is a praxis of reflection and action. It is the dialogue that reveals the reality and allows the consciousness to emerge.

More about CP and its critiques will be included in the discussion.

16

3.2.2 Intergroup Contact Hypotheses:

Coleman (2011) argued that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be described intractable. Ramsbotham et al. (2011, p.103) characterized intractable conflict as: “antagonistic group histories, exclusionist myths, demonizing propaganda and dehumanizing ideologies”, these characteristics cause intergroup biases.

According to social categorization theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986; Turner, 1975; Turner et al., 1987 ), there are connections between intergroup biases in conflicts and social group identities. People labels themselves not as individuals only, but also according to the social group to which they belong (ingroup), which will lead to the categorization of ingroup against outgroup, especially when there are differences in “interest, values, and beliefs” (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013; p221).

Having one Palestinian, one Israeli and one UK young people in online communication, with a pre-written and structured communication using text and pictures can be categorized as intergroup contact through computer-mediated communication, which is rooted in the framework of the contact hypothesis (Brown, 2000). According to Pettigrew (1998), the hypothesis states that positive influence in reducing intergroup stereotypes and mutual prejudices, including conflicting groups, relies on providing certain conditions and control before, during and after the making of the intergroup contact.

Allport (1954) introduced this hypothesis to continue the work of Kurt Lewin (1947) “Frontiers in Group Dynamics”, which describe change process in small groups (Bargal, 2006).

Amir (1969) cited in (Maoz,2011; p.116) summarized Allport (1954) conditions: “

1- Equal status of groups in the contact situation; 2- The ongoing personal interaction between individuals from both groups;3- Cooperation in a situation of mutual dependence, in which members of both groups

work together toward a common goal; 4- Institutional support – consensus among the authorities and the relevant institutions. ”

Cook (1962) quoted in (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013; p222), added “acquaintance potential” as an essential condition for building interpersonal relations. (Hewstone and Brown, 1986; Riordan and Ruggiero, 1980) asserted that hundreds of studied proved the effectiveness of the positive change in attitude if the conditions were met. However, most of the studies showed that this positive change does not necessarily change how we judge all other outgroup members, nor how we transfer our positive change to other ingroup members (Hewstone & Brown, 1986 for a review).

Pettigrew and Tropp (2000) argue that it is challenging to provide all the conditions proposed by Allports (1954), and sometimes mere contact is sufficient and can outreach beyond the individual contact.

17

According to Amir (1969, p.178): ‘‘the assumption that contact always lessens conflicts and stresses between ethnic groups seem naïve’’. He explains this with the planted image we have about the outgroup in our minds at an early stage of life. Therefore, the conditions should be studied very carefully for each context and personalities using different variables. Otherwise, the contact might confirm the prejudices about the outgroup. He added that the dependency of personality, background, and the environment make it difficult for developing policies and programs that can apply to everyone in the society.

Pettigrew and Tropp (2008) suggested directing the focus now to when and how intergroup contact can be more efficient. With the current developments in information technology and the development of theories of computer-mediated communication (CMC), a new window opened for researching intergroup contact hypothesis in online settings.

III. Literature review:

A. Models for Face to Face (FtF) intergroup contact in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict:

Moaz (2011) made an analysis of different research and interventions that used FtF intergroup contact between Jews and Palestinians livening in Israel between 1988 and 2008. The relationship between both groups can be labeled as majority/minority, with clear power and control for the Jewish majority (80%), and it is also deeply related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (Moaz, 2011).

Based on this analysis, Moaz (2011, p.118) identified four major models that shaped all the interventions: “

1. The Coexistence Model, 2. the Joint Projects Model, 3. the Confrontational Model, 4. and the Narrative/Story-Telling Model. ”

(Moaz, 2011; Bekerman, 2007; Dixon et al., 2005; Maoz, 2000) argued that ethical dilemmas can arise from the “we are all human” approach when using the coexisting model, or from the task-oriented approach when using the joint projects model. These dilemmas are because both models are avoiding discussing the conflict. This might be understood as an approach promoting to keep the status quo, as changing intergroup bias alone is not the core cause of the conflict and is not enough to lead to social change.

The Confrontational model is built based on the Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), where the intergroup interaction not the interpersonal is the core of changing the intergroup bias (Moaz,2011). (Maoz et al., 2007) argued that this approach might lead to destructive communication, negative attitude and decrease intergroup trust.

The storytelling model was introduced by the Israeli Psychologist Bar-On, and it combines both the interpersonal and intergroup contact by depending on story-telling (Bar-On, 2000, 2002, 2006, 2008; Bar-On and Kassem, 2004). This model reduces the disadvantages in the coexistence and confrontational models and utilizes their advantages

18

(Moaz, 2011). However, defining what is a transformative story stays a dilemma in this model (Ross,2000). B. Intergroup contact and CMC:

Amichai‐Hamburger and McKenna (2006, p.825) listed three greatest challenges for the intergroup contact:

“1- practicality 2- anxiety 3- generalization: success tends to be limited to the context of the meeting and the

participants. ”

In the Palestine - Israeli context we can add an endless list of challenges that will make it more challenging for contact to start, including physical segregation between territories, life threats, and risks to be socially abandoned by other in-group members. In such case, intergroup contact using computer-mediated communication (CMC) can have much more advantages over face to face (FtF).

CMC is defined as “the process by which people create, exchange, and perceive information using networked telecommunications systems that facilitate encoding, transmitting, and decoding messages” (December, 1996). Amichai‐Hamburger and McKenna (2006) argued that CMC intergroup contact can help us to utilize the intergroup contact effectively and overcome its challenges. Moreover, the internet can inhabit all the conditions of Allbort’s (1954) for effective contact (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013). Amichai-Hamburger and Hayat (2013) cited in (Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2015; p.517) defined seven characteristics for enabling effective environment for reducing intergroup anxiety and shape the concept of structured online contact in CMC intergroup contact:

“anonymity, control over the physical exposure, control over the interaction, ease of finding similar others, universal and constant availability and accessibility of the Internet, equality, and fun.”

Amichai-Hamburger and Furnham (2007) believe that structured online contact can go in different stages and sometimes lead to FtF contact. However, in the case of serious conflicts the structure might include an expert supervisor and predefined program (Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2015)

19

1. Unstructured online Intergroup Contact:

Ruesch (2011) made a content analysis study for informal intergroup contact between Palestinians and Israelis. The study analyzed the content of 770 Facebook groups related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Ruesch (2011, p.10) concluded that these groups are “highly fragmentized, polarized virtual sphere with little intergroup interaction”; Only 14.4% of the groups were designated for peacemaking and dialogue, while the rest of the groups were set for ingroup purposes. It worth’s mentioning, the moderate or peace-making groups were more active than the extremist groups (Ruesch, 2011). Moreover, both groups showed evidence of the opportunity provided by the internet to give space for marginalized voices and help them in finding people with similar perspectives, which can be helpful for moderate and marginalized views to challenge social norms (Ruesch, 2011). Finally, the study raises the question of whether the extremist views and hate speech on the internet are useful for democratic deliberation, emancipation, conflict resolutions, and might as well reduce the physical violence (Ruesch, 2011). Eliss and Moaz (2007) did another study for unstructured online contact between Palestinians and Israelis, and they doubted if unstructured online discussions can change positively intergroup biases.

20

2. Structured online Intergroup Contact:

In Appendix (II), Hasler & Amichai-Hamburger in (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013; p.240) provided a list of the projects that used structured online intergroup contact with conflicting groups. I made Table (3.1) to show a brief analysis for these interventions.

Table (3.1)

Intervention Target groups and relevant conclusionsBreaking Boundaries

Target group: Catholic and Protestant schools in IrelandConclusion:

1- Austin (2006) recommended starting with online tasks that enhance cooperation between the groups, rather than sensitive topics.

2- Austin (2006) asserted the crucial role of the teachers and schools support.

Centre of multi -culturalism and technology

Target group: religious and secular, Jewish and Arab teachers in colleges in Israel.Conclusion: Hoter et al. (2009, p.10) concluded that structured online intergroup contact “interventions “could reduce bias, stigmas, and ethnic prejudice among prospective teachers,” this was because of the following reasons:

1- Avoiding conflict-related topics.2- The long duration of the contact.3- The used of different phases of communication until reaching FtF

meetings.4- The teachers were from different cultural groups.

Feeling close from distance

Target group: Arab and Jewish teenagers in Israel.Conclusion:The change in perspectives about the outgroup was much higher in the Jewish participants compared to the Arab (Yablon and Katz, 2001).

Project for Arab-Jewish Dialogue

Target group: Israeli Jews and Palestinian University StudentsConclusion (Mollov, 2006):

1- Knowledge increased about each group religious practices2- No statistical evidence about change in attitude toward the other group,

because it was positive before the contact started.3- The participants did not discuss the structured topics only but also

exchanged personal emails.4- Combining online with offline contact can have more impact.5- Avoiding political and historical topics leads to positive outcomes.

Good Neighbors Blog

Target group: Bloggers from the Middle-East representing different political, religious and nationalities Conclusion (McKenna et al. (2009):

1- Content analysis for the blogs showed a change in bloggers attitude and their views.

2- Even with securing anonymity for the bloggers, it was hard to recruit them. Due to, language barriers, and fears from potential risks within

21

their societies, as some will consider it a collaboration with the enemy.

Hasler and Amichai-Hamburger in (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013) asserted that there is a lack of empirical studies about online intergroup contact, and these projects do not show validity or generalization to other conflicts. Also, most of the participants represent a moderate minority in their societies.

Moreover, they believe that future research should focus on the facilitator's roles, choosing between sensitive topics approach or humanistic approach, the challenge of language barriers and how to employ new technology to avoid it, and the effect of the duration of the contact on intergroup interaction. Aiken et al. (2013) suggested that language barriers can be resolved using translating software. (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013; Yablon and Katz, 2001) argued that the facilitators should be well trained in conflicting intergroup contact. Walther (2009) concluded that long contact duration has more potential to succeed, although, it is challenging to ensure the involvement of participants for long periods.

22

Chapter FourFindings and Discussions

I. Introduction:

It is not the purpose of this research to assess if the intergroup biases have changed or not, and I did not use any tools or indicators to evaluate that. The aim and the questions were guided by the participant’s perspectives, and its relation to the facilitation tools I used in my design for the SOICM. Problem-solving approach guided the design of the SOICM. The use of pictures was to avoid language barriers and heated conversations. The role play was to give anonymity and justify their relation with each other. The third party, to reduce the anxiety of direct contact. I chose love, fun, and freedom tasks from an exercise in (IREX, 2016, p.27) which aim to bring the discussion about basic needs and values in relation to conflicts. Then I added the future task, as I thought it would be interesting for the particpants to build an image for the future.

The structure of this chapter will start first with an overview of how I analyzed the data, then a discussing and conclusion for each finding.

II. Data analysis:A. The participant Lens:

As I mentioned before in Chapter two, I used the grand theory approach in (Brayman, 2012) for the data analysis, using three encoding processes:

1- Open coding: Initial categories were: motivation, anxiety, safety, anonymity, self-disclosure, peace-building, learning about self and others, role playing, visual communication, reflection through self-expression, and the role of the third party.

2- Axial coding: Dealing with the participants as two different groups with different experiences, roles, context, and motivation during the process. This helped me to look at the findings from two broad categories:

Intergroup contact between the Palestinian, Israeli and UK participants. The role of the UK participant in establishing the contact.

3- Selective coding: To produce the final findings, I tried to find links between the categories from the open coding, and the two main categories of the axial coding.

23

B. The Theoretical Lens:

Figure (4.1) taken from (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013, p.229): “An integrated model of Allport’s (1954) conditions, and moderators and mediators of intergroup contact effects”.

The first theoretical lens is about the mediator's effects; which refers to the psychological components that affect reducing intergroup biases in the integrated model of Allport’s (1954) conditions (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013, p.229) in Figure (4.1). The data analysis of the interviews highlighted two mediator effects: increasing knowledge and reducing anxiety. Increasing knowledge is relevant to participant's views on what they learned from the other participant’s pictures. While reducing anxiety was used to explain the Palestinian and Israeli participants perspectives on the indirect online contact via the third party.

The second theoretical lens is the use of Critical Pedagogy theory. CP was used to explain the participant's perspectives on the use of pictures to find meanings for the four tasks. In addition to explaining the UK participant’s perspectives on their role in peace-building.

24

III. Findings and discussion:

1. Problematic learning about others.

This finding explains how the participants understood what the other person wanted to tell them using pictures.

Palestinian and Israeli participants:

I2: “Well, I think that I enjoyed the parts that were showing something of their unique situation like hobbies. Some of the images were generic; any person would love candy for instance, and some images say this is who I am, and I will show you a piece of me. I am not sure if I read the correct meaning of all of them which the other person wanted to communicate, but it was very nice to see them. You would know that the other person might be a friend if we do not have conflict or barriers. I think we are very similar in our mindset, maybe not in details.”

The motivation of both participants, especially the Israeli participants can be described with one-word {curiosity}, to learn and understand the other group as individuals. The Palestinian participants focused more on showing their human perspectives for both the Israeli and the UK young persons. Almost all the participants have agreed that the use of pictures alone without the option to give feedback, interact or ask questions about the meaning of pictures, have limited their ability to make an opinion about the other person. However, some images were clear.

P1: “When I received his response of the last task about the future, it made me smile. It was a picture of Israeli soldiers hiking up toward the sunset and another picture of a science museum. I felt he sees the Israeli soldiers as his backboard. I felt that I saw my enemy. As he sees the people who are occupying us as his protectors.”

UK participants:

UK1: I think it is an interesting concept to have perspectives from two different people in another part of the world, to be able to see and have some insights into their life...I found it fascinating to start generating ideas of who this person might be. It was an eye-opening as this person could be just like me, or I know someone similar to them.

UK2: I have never been out of this country. I wanted to find out what is it like for other people having different beliefs and religions and to see how different they are from me. I did not have any knowledge about the conflict or the history of that area. I did not have political motivation to participate, or to know more about the conflict…. When you see their responses, you come to realize that they are not different. You can tell they are massively similar; I could not recognize if they are in a conflict or not.

25

The UK participants were mainly receivers in this communication; however, what they received had an impact on them. They received two different perspectives from two young people who gave them an insight into their life. These images helped them to increase their knowledge about the two outgroups.

Discussion:

The cognitive component of intergroup bias is about categorizing the outgroup members with a homogenous identity using prejudices and stereotypes (Linville and Jones, 1980; Linville et al., 1989). Learning about the outgroup is a paramount cognitive mediator to decrease intergroup bias (Pettigrew, 1998). The more people receive information and process it about others, the more they can see each other as individuals or humans, what allows finding similarities (Pettigrew, 1998) and creating a new image for the outgroup (Kawakami et al., 2000). However, studies showed that increasing Knowledge alone about the outgroup is not enough and considered a weak mediator (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2008).

From the two quotes of the UK participants, we can claim they learned something about the Palestinian and the Israeli in their group. However, UK2 have highlighted an ethical issue in learning about the others in intergroup contact, especially when there are political elements in this learning. If only pictures without any indication or explanation of the conflict were exchanged, then the third person learning about the conflict will be shaped with “we are all human” concept, similar to the “coexisting and joint project model” in (Moaz, 2011). The UK participant might create an image that everything looks perfect for those people, without understanding the real struggles they live, and the need to bring social change to the current status quo (Moaz,2011).

Moreover, Rouhana and Korper (1997) asserted that in such interventions it is important to tackle the conflict and the power asymmetry; otherwise, it might create unintentional support by the third party to the group with higher power. Finding Similarity with one group and differences with the other might create a new set of intergroup bias and delusive learning about the conflict for the third party.

Vegh (2003, p.136) called this challenge the “acceptance of normative acceptability of rightness,” which can be caused by “laziness to verify the information,” “lack of shared lifeworld”, or “shared cultural background.” For example, when both P1 and I1 sent pictures of mountains, UK2 who never traveled outside the UK, received new information about the geography of that area. However, she did not recognize that P1 sent a picture of internationally recognized illegal Israeli settlement (see:Securitycouncilreport.org, 2016), which he wanted to show as a challenge for his freedom. She cannot be blamed for that, as she does not share their lifeworld.

Even if both participants have shared pictures revealing their views about the conflict clearly, this might lead to destructive communication between them and confuse the learning of the third person. Such challenge is similar to the “confrontation model” in (Moaz,2011), especially if the third party person is not trained to facilitate such dialogue.

Conclusion:

26

Considering the problematic learning, the suggestions of the participants and the four models in Moaz (2011). We can conclude and suggest that; in structured online intergroup contact between conflicting groups using a third party, the “storytelling model,” similar to FtF intergroup contact in (Moaz,2011), might be effective for increasing knowledge about the outgroup.

The Storytelling model combines the advantages of both the coexistence and the confrontation model and decreases their disadvantages (Moaz,2011). Moreover, the participants suggested the use of more instructions or specification of the tasks and allowing them to interact with each other's pictures. Using the storytelling model, we can guide the participants to make personal stories or meanings using the pictures. They can explain both their human and political thoughts and feelings. They can utilize the advancements of CMC to give them the ability to create a structured dialogue related to the stories only. Also, as Amichai-Hamburger (2013) suggested, providing information about the conflict for the young people playing the third party before or after their contact can contribute to their reflection and learning. To realize; yes, both of them are human, but their reality needs a change.

2. The possibility for online Image Theatre (IT) through finding meanings and self-discovery dialogue:

This finding is related to the question of what perspectives the participants had while thinking and deciding of what pictures to send? And the UK participants’ self-reflection of what they could have responded to the task?

Palestinian and Israeli participants:

The journey of finding meanings of the four tasks and expressing them using pictures was different from one person to another. For example, I1 felt it was more an investigation more than learning. I2 commented that she is always thinking about these topics.

Most of the participants agreed that it was not easy to express freedom and future tasks, and made them think deeply about it.

P1: This research helped me to set down and think about the things I have in my life, simple things I never noticed. I think the most important tasks were freedom and future. I sent many pictures; one of them was a settlement in the mountain, which made me realize that my freedom is limited.

P2: Every task forced me to think carefully about my life, what I want, how I see things. Freedom task was hard. Being a woman in restricted society and living under occupation made me realize the different meanings for freedom, and I felt I’m roped from all of them...The future task made me think about making a change in my life.

UK participants:

27

UK1: When I was sending the tasks I was thinking about it, and how I would respond to it. The future task made me stuck quite a bit. It forced me to reflect on my life, and compare it with what they have sent, and ask myself; would I have done the same as they did? It was eye opening...The fun task made me decide to do more fun activities.

UK2: This questioning helped me to make a decision in my life, which I was not going to do without this reflection.

Discussion:

I found similarities between the concept of finding meanings for the four tasks using pictures and the idea of Image Theatre (IT). IT is “a process in which participants make still pictures of their lives, feelings, and experiences, using nonverbal communication to reveal truths about society” (Shank and Schirch, 2008, p.230).

I can argue that there is an opportunity to use this method in online intergroup contact, although this approach is used so far using body performance to represent “word, meaning and concerns” in small groups (Spratt et al., 2000, p.118).

IT is rooted in the concept of critical pedagogy theory. The Brazilian theatre theorist and practitioner Augusto Boal introduced it in his book “Rainbow of Desires”. Most of Boal work including IT was influenced by the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” for Paolo Freire (Spratt et al., 2000, p.118). For Freire (2000), the transformation is about empowering individuals by allowing them to discover their world and words critically. Razack (1993, p.68) made it very simple: it is about asking the question of “how we know” rather than “what we know.”

Using information technology in small groups with facilitation and instructions can lead to a critical dialogue. The important part that was missing in the SOICM to call it “IT” was allowing the participants to interpret the meaning together, and then collectively try to build an image of how they want to see this meaning (Spratt et al., 2000). When P1 said that he saw his enemy, commenting on the picture of the Israeli Soldiers, he did not have the chance to tell I1 how he understood the picture and ask him why he chose this picture? The next step might be asking both of them to create a picture together (Spratt et al., 2000). Of course, this is not easy from practical aspects, and also might lead to negative dialogue rather than meaningful one. However, according to the method, enough trust in the small group is crucial to start an effective dialogue and discussion (Spratt et al., 2000). This happened in the case of I2 and P2. They found lots of individual similarities; that led to creating trust. That little confidence was demonstrated by their mutual request to exchange email addresses after the research ended to discuss the pictures more.

We can forecast some of the challenges for using IT online from the ones are facing CP. Ze'ev in (Gur-Ze'ev, 1998; p.10) argued that when people reflect on their experiences they might conclude “false consciousness.” Westoby and Dowling (2013, p.93) also pointed to the possible crash between critical questioning, and ideology and culture that will lead

28

to “non-reflexive dialogue”. Gur-Ze'ev (1998, p2) called this the “violence of self-evidence and power.” According to Freire (2000, p.157), this is a natural process, especially if the learners are used to “non-dialogical” practices, and once they enter a dialogue, they try to defend they know rather than being critical of it.

Conclusion:

The participants asserted that they did not feel they had a complete dialogue, and it was hard to express their meanings using pictures alone. Moreover, it was difficult to understand the meaning of the other people pictures in the first finding.

There is an opportunity to use IT online. However, there is the dilemma of finding the indicator for the readiness of participants to enter a constructive and empowering dialogue. The suggestion might be to mix the practices of the contact theory gradually with the practices of CP. Contact theory practices will support building trust, then using IT or other CP practices to start the dialogue and increase knowledge about the other group.

For example, we can make an online platform to make the contact and the self-discovery journey experience for the participants, then the reflection and the dialogue can be facilitated in each country by practitioners with knowledge about the context. In a similar way to my role in this research by doing the interviews and having the knowledge about the three contexts. In turn, they might be ready to enter a dialogue with each other.

3. The role of the UK young person (Third party) have contributed in reducing outgroup and ingroup anxiety:

In this finding will discuss the Palestinian and the Israeli perspectives about the role of the UK young person in creating indirect communication between them.

Discussion:

P2: If I have a direct dialogue with an Israeli it will be considered normalization and co-existence with the occupier, I’m against that, to be honest. I have nothing against the Israelis, but I’m against the idea that we should normalize our relation with them while we are under occupation. Like, let hug each other and be friends, while the status quo is not changing. However, I do not think there is normalization when the dialogue is indirect, and the mediator is there.

P1: It is vital for us as Palestinian people living under oppression to show the world our life and our feelings. If someone international puts effort and energy to mediate dialogue between a Palestinian and Israeli, it will be an interesting and a learning experience for him/her and a good way for us to express ourselves to the world and the other side of the conflict.

An intractable, protracted, and asymmetric conflicts like the case in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, are full of intergroup bias and negative prejudices and stereotypes, which cause anxiety, lack of confidence or sympathy toward outgroup members (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). This is known as the effective psychological component of intergroup biases (Pettigrew, 1998). Because of anxiety; individuals are not motivated to start contact

29

voluntarily with an outgroup member, they fear actual or imagined risks from the outgroup on their lives or interests (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Anxiety can cause, uncertainty, distrust, miscommunication during and after the contact (Dovidio et al., 2002). Evidence from Several studies showed that reducing anxiety can have a positive impact on the contact. (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2008).

I1: It helps you to expose yourself without feeling you are exposed. The fact that there was someone in between is crucial. It is not about safety; it is about direct exposure. If you have direct communication with someone else, you feel very exposed and very personal with that person. It is very easy to shut yourself off and to stop. It is easier to open up when you have someone in between.

People feel less anxious in CMC compared to FtF contact for several reasons: the feeling of privacy while using the internet, the ability to control their exposure, anonymity, and flexibility in choosing the way they express themselves and their views without the pressure of immediate response (Amichai-Hamburger, 2008; Amichai-Hamburger, 2005; McKenna, 2007; McKenna and Bargh, 2000).

On the other hand, (Brewer, 1999; Otten and Moskowitz, 2000 ) asserted that anxiety from the outgroup is having a direct influence on individual’s relation with their ingroup. Individuals develop feelings and attitudes of belonging, trust, finding similarities, and sympathy toward other ingroup members. These feelings become stronger in the case of possible threat from the outgroup.

In the event of conflicts, groups develop general norms and guidance of what is acceptable and what is not in relation with outgroups members, to avoid possible harms from this contact. For example, when P2 talked about normalization, which is defined by Mi'Ari (1999, p.339): having a normal relation between two ethnic groups, especially “occupied and occupier,” despite the conflict, the social distance, stereotypes, and prejudices. Mi'Ari (1999) made a study with 270 students at Birzeit University in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in 1994, one year after the Oslo peace agreement (for more info see: History.state.gov, 2016). The study concluded that normalization with the Israelis is supported by significant responses of the population, without the condition of ending the occupation. The study also showed that this support was much stronger among students coming from working class families, where big numbers of these families were working inside Israel at that time.

Nowadays, it is still acceptable in the Palestinian society to work in Israel. However, due to the failure of the peace process, most of the activities that bring together Palestinian and Israelis is faced by a strong anti-normalization movement, with a general accusation that such activities aim to keep the status quo (Barakat and Goldenblatt, 2012). The Anti-normalization movement now is setting the general guideline for Palestinian individuals of what is acceptable and what is not when contacting Israelis. These guidelines are debatable and not clear for individuals, which cause uncertainty, fear, and anxiety for Palestinians. They fear to break their ingroup norms if they enter a contact with Israelis. For the same reason but with less effect, there are also groups in Israel that are often neglecting the occupation, or does not recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinian rights or

30

believe in the possibility of peace. These groups marginalize peace activist in Israeli and put ingroup anxiety on them (Barakat and Goldenblatt, 2012).

Conclusion:

Having a third person from the UK to start the contact reduced the anxiety of the participants and increased the safety of the online environment. The anxiety is caused by both ingroup and outgroup fears. Many empirical studies proofed that third party intervention have an influence on the interaction between conflicting intergroup members (Bartunek, Benton & Keys, 1975; Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992; Notz & Starke, 1978), and can affect their attitude and behavior toward each other (Ramsbotham et al., 2011). I can also add in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict the third party can also reduce anxiety from ingroup. This can be explained by referring to the precondition of having the support of authorities in (Allport, 1954) model. According to this condition, support from leaders or organization for individuals to take part in intergroup contact can reduce the anxiety. P2 is following her group norms of avoiding any contact with Israelis, however, having the third party can be a protection for here from any ingroup anxiety, by claiming that she is not in a direct contact with the Israeli.

The other explanation is related to the nature of the role and motivation of the young person from the UK. This role is not similar to expert third parties, or state third parties in conflict resolution, where their intervention might have an agenda of interest. The role of the third party was understood by the Palestinian and Israeli participants as normal citizens to citizens intervention. In other words, it can be called grassroots online activism for peace building. Acknowledgment of this motivation by the Palestinian and the Israeli make them feels safer that there are no hidden agendas rather than learning and contributing to peace building.

4. The possibility for a new tool for non-violent online activism for peace building

This finding is from the perspectives of the UK participants about their role in making structured online contact between one Palestinian and one Israeli.

Discussion:

UK1: I know that direct communication can put them in danger or put consequences on them or their family. So a mediator using anonymous system could be efficient in the short term.

UK2: It made me feel like a superhero. I just felt I closed a little gap there; it might not be massive with two people in a month. Imagine what would happen with thousands of people in a year.

Figure (4.2) taken from (Gallo and Marzano, 2009) represent Curle (1971) and Lederach (1995) model for transforming asymmetric conflict. Curle (1971) and Lederach (1995) used the conscientization concept from Freire in the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” as the first step to change the structure of the conflict (Ramsbotham et al., 2011). This model depends on the role of the third party to influence the power structure through grassroots

31

movements, either by putting pressure on the one with more power or supporting the one with less power (Ramsbotham et al., 2011).

Galtung (1989, p.20) advocated using third party nonviolent activism in the case of asymmetric conflicts. Individuals and organizations from powerful countries or opponent group of the oppressing regime can play this role (e.g., Israeli anti house demolishing committee, Israeli anti-occupation groups, breaking the silence).

Figure (4.2) taken from (Gallo and Marzano, 2009): “The phases of a structurally asymmetric conflict.”

Rodriguez (2013, p.9) argued that there are two main strategies for this dispute resolution: “continued mediation through the United Nations and other State actors, and nonviolent activism.” He proceeds that the first strategy has failed several times due to the United States power in the general assembly to prevent any resolution according to the international law. Therefore, it is important to consider the non-violent activism as a strategy to change the conflict hegemony or States policies toward it.

There are different forms of nonviolent activism, among them is online non-violent activism. Vegh (2003, p.71) defined online non-violent activism as “a politically motivated movement relying on the internet. Activists now utilize the technologies and tools offered by the web to achieve their goals. Their strategies are “either internet enhanced or internet based”.

32

Online activism can be classified into three broad categories: “awareness/advocacy; organization/mobilization; and action/reaction” (Vegh, 2003; p.71) The Internet has provided activists with inexpensive, interactive, and global dimension and outreach (Vegh, 2003). This activism can take the form of: “spreading messages, recruiting people, raising funds, lobby for politicians, mount petitions, and other forms” (Marmura, 2008; p.250).

Conclusion:

Regardless of the problems related to learning and raising awareness; UK1 and UK2 are simple examples of people around the world, excluded from being online activists toward building peace between Palestinians and Israels because of the lack of tools that motivate and suit them. To be motivated to support one side, or to put pressure on the other one in such long and complex conflict demand to have the knowledge and thorough understanding of the different perspectives. UK1 and UK2 did not need that; they just can feel active and empowered if they let a Palestinian and an Israeli make contact. Online activism in such case is employing the potential of online social networks to give voice and empower individuals from one hand (Doan et al., 2011). From the other hand, it will fit the strategy of the new social movements: “collective identities, knowledge, and information” in “non-hierarchical, open protocols; open communication; and self-generating information and identities” (Vegh, 2003; p.129). However, such tool demands a careful study and support from organizations and states, to ensure the safety of the participants.

33

Chapter FiveConclusion and Recommendations

In a world full of global conflicts and increased extremisms, researchers and practitioners should take actions to promote diversity, inclusion, equality, equity and peace. Social problems of societies are moving to the internet world, thus researchers and practitioners need to utilize the internet and their practices effectively to create social change. The findings of this research require more investigation using more advanced computer-mediated communication systems with a larger population.

I will use this chapter to create an imagination for an online platform that summarizes the conclusion and the recommendations of this research.

A war with pictures is a better option than a war with weapons:

Imagine a platform with three categories of profiles: Internationals, Palestinians and Israelis. Organizations like schools, Universities, and NGOs can recruit young people locally to sign up. Your profile is anonymous, and you can even create an avatar for your profile. The platform randomly set the young people in groups of three. If people accept to be in a group, they can access features and games that use pictures to find meanings of their world or make a story. The features are icons; once you press it you send the task to the other two people in your group, or you start a pictures game with them.

The international person starts the process of the contact. This person’s role is to decrease outgroup and ingroup anxiety for the Palestinian and Israeli participants. The international person can also participate in sending pictures for the tasks or the game. The other two participants have the options to use the features to send tasks or start a game. The three participants can interact with or question the other participant's responses, and then maybe discuss how to create a picture together for this meaning. People can leave the small groups whenever they want, and they can join other groups.

Organizations can facilitate FtF discussions locally before and after the participant's experience in the online platform, and can provide information about the conflict or the cultures.

This Platform might not be for everyone, and maybe some will use it to insult the others or try to cause harm to them. Future Research should focus on protection policies to

34

ensure the safety of the participants, how to make it inclusive and meaningful for the participants and what other practices can be carried to such online intergroup contact to make it more effective.

References:

1- 972mag.com. (2016). ‘The largest West Bank protest in decades’ | +972 Magazine . [online] Available at: http://972mag.com/the-largest-west-bank-protest-in-decades/94280/ [Accessed 7 Aug. 2016].

2- Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

3- Amichai‐Hamburger, Y. and McKenna, K.Y., 2006. The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 11(3), pp.825-843. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

4- Amichai-Hamburger, Y. and Furnham, A., 2007. The positive net. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(2), pp.1033-1045. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

5- Amichai-Hamburger, Y., 2008. The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via internet: Theoretical and practical aspect. Psychological aspects of cyberspace. Theory, research, applications, pp.209-222. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

6- Amichai-Hamburger, Y. and Hayat, Z., 2013. Internet and personality. The social net: Understanding our online behavior, p.1e20. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

7- Amichai-Hamburger, Y. ed., (2013). The social net: Understanding our online behavior. OUP Oxford. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

8- Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Hasler, B.S. and Shani-Sherman, T., 2015. Structured and unstructured intergroup contact in the digital age. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, pp.515-522. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

9- Amir, Y., 1969. Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological bulletin,71(5), p.319. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016]. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

10- Aiken, M., Wang, J., Gu, L. and Paolillo, J., 2013. An exploratory study of how technology supports communication in multilingual groups.Interdisciplinary Applications of Electronic Collaboration Approaches and Technologies, pp.17-29. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

11- Austin, R., 2006. The role of ICT in bridge‐building and social inclusion: theory, policy and practice issues. European Journal of Teacher Education,29(2), pp.145-161. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

35

12- Bar-On, Dan (2000) Bridging the Gap. Hamburg:Koerber.

13- Bar-On, Dan (2002) Conciliation through storytelling:Beyond victimhood. In: Gavriel Salomon & BaruchNevo (eds) Peace Education: The Concept, Principlesand Practices around the World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 109–116. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

14- Bar-On, D., 2006. Tell your life story: Creating dialogue among Jews and Germans, Israelis and Palestinians. Central European University Press. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

15- Bar-On, D., 2008. The others within us: Constructing Jewish-Israeli identity. Cambridge University Press. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

16- Bar‐On, D. and Kassem, F., 2004. Storytelling as a way to work through intractable conflicts: the German‐Jewish experience and its relevance to the Palestinian‐Israeli context. Journal of social issues, 60(2), pp.289-306. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

17- Barakat, R. & Goldenblatt, D. 2012, "Coping with Anti-Normalization", Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 86-95. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

18- Bargal, D., 2006. Personal and intellectual influences leading to Lewin’s paradigm of action research Towards the 60th anniversary of Lewin’s ‘Action research and minority problems’(1946). Action research, 4(4), pp.367-388. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

19- Bartunek, J.M., Benton, A.A. and Keys, C.B., 1975. Third party intervention and the bargaining behavior of group representatives. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 19(3), pp.532-557. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

20- Bekerman, Z., 2007. Rethinking intergroup encounters: Rescuing praxis from theory, activity from education, and peace/co‐existence from identity and culture. Journal of Peace Education, 4(1), pp.21-37. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

21- Boal, A. (1995). The rainbow of desire. London: Routledge.

22- Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

23- Breuing, Mary. (2011)."Problematizing Critical Pedagogy". International Journal of Critical Pedagogy Vol 3.(3). pp 2- 23. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

24- Brewer, M.B., 1999. The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate?. Journal of social issues, 55(3), pp.429-444.

25- Brown, R., 1988. Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups. Basil Blackwell.

26- Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods 4e. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

27- Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Unwin Hyman.

28- Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods. London: SAGE.

29- Bulmer, M., (1979). Concepts in the analysis of qualitative data. The Sociological Review, 27(4), pp.651-677. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1979.tb00354.x/full [Accessed 8 Aug. 2016].

36

30- Carnevale, P.J. and Pruitt, D.G., 1992. Negotiation and mediation. Annual review of psychology, 43(1), pp.531-582.

31- Cavaye, A. (1996). Case study research: a multi-faceted research approach for IS. Information Systems Journal, [online] 6(3), pp.227-242. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2575.1996.tb00015.x/abstract [Accessed 8 Aug. 2016].

32- Creswell, J.W. and Miller, D.L., (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice, 39(3), pp.124-130. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2?journalCode=htip20 [Accessed 8 Aug. 2016].

33- Creswell, J. (2003). Research design. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

34- Coleman, P., (2011). The five percent: Finding solutions to seemingly impossible conflicts. PublicAffairs.

35- Cook, S.W., 1962. The systematic analysis of socially significant events: A strategy for social research. Journal of Social Issues, 18(2), pp.66-84. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

36- Curle, A., 1971. Making peace. Tavistock Publications.

37- Darder, Antonia, Marta Baltodano, and Rodolfo D Torres. (2009). The Critical Pedagogy Reader second edition. New York: RoutledgeFalmer,. Print.

38- December, J. (1996). What is Computer-mediated Communication? From http://www.december.com/john/study/cmc/what.html

39- Dixon, J., Durrheim, K. and Tredoux, C., 2005. Beyond the optimal contact strategy: a reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist,60(7), p.697.

40- Doan, A., Ramakrishnan, R. and Halevy, A.Y., 2011. Crowdsourcing systems on the world-wide web. Communications of the ACM, 54(4), pp.86-96.

41- Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.E., Kawakami, K. and Hodson, G., 2002. Why can't we just get along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(2), p.88.

42- Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L. and Kawakami, K., 2003. Intergroup contact: The past, present, and the future. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,6(1), pp.5-21.

43- Dudouet, V., 2008. Nonviolent resistance and conflict transformation in power asymmetries.

44- Ellis, D.G. and Maoz, I., 2007. Online argument between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Human Communication Research, 33(3), pp.291-309.

45- Ellsworth, Elizabeth. (1989)."Why Doesn't This Feel Empowering? Working Through The Repressive Myths Of Critical Pedagogy". Harvard Educational Review 59.3: 297-325. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

37

46- Flick, U., Kvale, S., Angrosino, M.V., Barbour, R.S., Banks, M., Gibbs, G. and Rapley, T., (2007). Doing interviews. SAGE Publications Ltd, London

47- Freire, Paulo. (2000). Pedagogy Of The Oppressed. New York: Continuum,. Print.

48- Gallo, G. and Marzano, A., 2009. The dynamics of asymmetric conflicts: the Israeli-Palestinian case. Journal of Conflict Studies, 29. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/15231/19943

49- Galtung, J., 1989. Nonviolence and Israel/Palestine. University of Hawaii Institute for Peace.

50- Glassman, M., Erdem, G. and Bartholomew, M. (2013). Action Research and Its History as an Adult Education Movement for Social Change. Adult Education Quarterly, [online] 63(3), pp.272-288. Available at: http://aeq.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/02/28/0741713612471418.abstract [Accessed 8 Aug. 2016].

51- Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.

52- Gur-Ze'ev, Ilan. "TOWARD A NONREPRESSIVE CRITICAL PEDAGOGY". Educational Theory 48.4 (1998): 463-486. Web. 14 Mar. 2016

53- Hesse-Biber, S. and Leavy, P. (2006). The practice of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

54- Hewstone, M.E. and Brown, R.E., 1986. Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters. Basil Blackwell.

55- History.state.gov. (2016). Milestones: 1993–2000 - Office of the Historian. [online] Available at: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo [Accessed 1 Sep. 2016].

56- Hoter, E., Shonfeld, M. and Ganayim, A., 2009. Information and communication technology (ICT) in the service of multiculturalism. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(2).

57- IREX. (2016). Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation Toolkit. [online] Available at: https://www.irex.org/resource/conflict-resolution-and-peer-mediation-toolkit [Accessed 1 Dec. 2015].

58- K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

59- Kawakami, K., Dovidio, J.F., Moll, J., Hermsen, S. and Russin, A., 2000. Just say no (to stereotyping): effects of training in the negation of stereotypic associations on stereotype activation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(5), p.871.

60- Kincheloe, Joe L. (2004). Critical Pedagogy Primer. New York: P. Lang. Print.

61- Lederach, J.P., (1995). Preparing for peace. Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. New York.

62- Ledwith, M. (2011) Doing community development. In Margaret Ledwith, Community Development: a critical approach, Bristol: Policy, p. 53-76.

38

63- Lewin, K., 1947. Frontiers in Group Dynamics, II: Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action Research. Human relations, 1, pp.149-157.

64- Linville, P.W. and Jones, E.E., 1980. Polarized appraisals of out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(5), p.689.

65- Linville, P.W., Fischer, G.W. and Salovey, P., 1989. Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of personality and social psychology,57(2), p.165.

66- Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K.M., Guest, G. and Namey, E., (2005). Qualitative research methods: a data collectors field guide.

67- Mackenzie, N. & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues In Educational Research, 16(2), 193-205. http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html [Accessed 7 Aug. 2016].

68- Maoz, I., 2000. Multiple conflicts and competing agendas: A framework for conceptualizing structured encounters between groups in conflict—the case of a coexistence project of Jews and Palestinians in Israel. Peace and Conflict: Journal of peace psychology, 6(2), p.135.

69- Maoz, I., Bar-On, D. and Yikya, S., 2007. “They Understand Only Force” A Critical Examination of the Erruption of Verbal Violence in a Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue. Peace and Conflict Studies, 14(2), pp.27-48.

70- Maoz, I., 2011. Does contact work in protracted asymmetrical conflict? Appraising 20 years of reconciliation-aimed encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Journal of Peace Research, 48(1), pp.115-125. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

71- Marmura, S., 2008. A net advantage? The internet, grassroots activism and American Middle-Eastern policy. New Media & Society, 10(2), pp.247-271.

72- Marx, G. (1997). Of methods and manners for aspiring sociologists: 37 moral imperatives. The American Sociologist, [online] 28(1), pp.102-125. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12108-997-1029-9?LI=true [Accessed 7 Aug. 2016].

73- McCaughey, M. and Ayers, M.D. eds., 2013. Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice. Routledge.

74- McKenna, K.Y. and Bargh, J.A., 2000. Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and social psychology review, 4(1), pp.57-75.

75- McKenna, K., 2007. Through the Internet looking glass. Oxford handbook of Internet psychology, pp.205-221.

76- McKenna, K.Y., Samuel-Azran, T. and Sutton-Balaban, N., 2009. Virtual meetings in the Middle East: Implementing the contact hypothesis on the Internet. Israel Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1(1).

77- Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

78- Mertens, D. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

39

79- Mi'Ari, M., 1999. Attitudes of Palestinians toward normalization with Israel.Journal of Peace Research, 36(3), pp.339-348.

80- Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M., (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.

81- Mollov, B., 2006. Results of Israeli and Palestinian student interactions in CMC: An analysis of attitude changes toward conflicting parties. In annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany.

82- Notz, W.W. and Starke, F.A., 1978. Final-offer versus conventional arbitration as means of conflict management. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp.189-203.

83- NYA. (2016). Ethical conduct in youth work - NYA. [online] Available at: http://www.nya.org.uk/resource/ethical-conduct-youth-work/ [Accessed 7 Aug. 2016].

84- Otten, S. and Moskowitz, G.B., 2000. Evidence for implicit evaluative in-group bias: Affect-biased spontaneous trait inference in a minimal group paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(1), pp.77-89.

85- Pettigrew, T.F., 1998. Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), pp.65-85. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

86- Pettigrew, T.F. and Tropp, L.R., 2000. Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. Reducing prejudice and discrimination, 93, p.114. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

87- Pettigrew, T.F. and Tropp, L.R., 2008. How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), pp.922-934.

88- Ramsbotham, O., Miall, H. and Woodhouse, T., (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution. Polity.

89- Razack, Sherene. "Story‐Telling For Social Change". Gender and Education 5.1 (1993): 55-70. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.

90- Riordan, C. and Ruggiero, J., 1980. Producing equal-status interracial interaction: A replication. Social Psychology Quarterly, pp.131-136. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

91- Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice. London: Sage Publications.

92- Rodriguez, T. (2013). Resolving the Israeli-Palestine Conflict with Activism. [online] Transformative Studies Institute. Available at: http://transformativestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/Resolving-the-Israel-Palestine-Conflict-with-Activism.pdf [Accessed 11 Aug. 2016].

93- Ross, M.H., 2000. " Good enough" isn't so bad: Thinking about success and failure in ethnic conflict management. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 6(1), p.27.

94- Rouhana, N.N. and Korper, S.H., 1997. Power asymmetry and goals of unofficial third party intervention in protracted intergroup conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 3(1), p.1.

95- Ruesch, M., 2011. A Peaceful Net? Intergroup Contact and Communicative Conflict Resolution of the Israel Palestine Conflict on Facebook. Probing the Boundaries, p.13.

40

96- Securitycouncilreport.org. (2016). UN Documents for Israel/Palestine. [online] Available at: http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/israelpalestine/ [Accessed 1 Sep. 2016].

97- Shank, M. and Schirch, L., 2008. Strategic Arts‐Based Peacebuilding.Peace & Change, 33(2), pp.217-242.

98- Silverman, D., (2010). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook, erd ed, London:Sage.

99- Small, S. and Uttal, L. (2005). Action-Oriented Research: Strategies for Engaged Scholarship. J Marriage and Family, [online] 67(4), pp.936-948. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00185.x/full [Accessed 8 Aug. 2016].

100- Spratt, T., Houston, S. and Magill, T., 2000. Imaging the future: Theatre and change within the child protection system. Child and Family Social Work,5(2), pp.117-128.

101- Stephan, W.G. and Stephan, C.W., 1985. Intergroup anxiety. Journal of social issues, 41(3), pp.157-175.

102- Strauss, A. and Corbin, J., (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, Inc.

103- Sullivan, Jessica R. (2012) "Skype: An Appropriate Method of Data Collection for Qualitative Interviews?," The Hilltop Review: Vol. 6: Iss. 1, Article 10. Available at: http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/hilltopreview/vol6/iss1/10 [Accessed 8 Aug. 2016].

104- Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C., (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.The social psychology of intergroup relations, 33(47), p.74.

105- Thomas, D.R. (2006). ‘A general Inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data’,American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), pp. 237–246. doi: 10.1177/1098214005283748. Available at: http://aje.sagepub.com/content/27/2/237.short. [Accessed 8 Aug. 2016].

106- Turner, J.C., (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European journal of social psychology, 5(1), pp.1-34.

107- Turner, J.C. and Tajfel, H., (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of intergroup relations, pp.7-24. Web. [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

108- Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S., (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.

109- Vegh, S., 2003. Classifying forms of online activism. Cyberactivism, pp.71-95.

110- Walther, J.B., 2009. Computer-mediated communication and virtual groups: Applications to interethnic conflict. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37(3), pp.225-238.

111- Westoby, Peter, and Gerard Dowling. Theory And Practice Of Dialogical Community Development. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.

112- Wiersma, W. (1995). Research methods in education: An introduction (Sixth edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon

41

113- Yablon, Y.B. and Katz, Y.J., 2001. Internet-based group relations: A high school peace education project in Israel. Educational media international,38(2-3), pp.175-182.

Appendices:Important Note: In some appendices the name of the SOICM is written as Online Mediation Reflective Model, and the title of the research is written as: One to One Online Reflection Mediation. The reason I didn’t change these names, because these documents where used to get the ethical approval and the consent from the participants, and it is not ethical to change them now.

Appendix IThe Structured Online Intergroup Contact Model

SOICM

Introduction:

SOICM is a model designed to be tested in the participatory action research:

Structured Online Conflicting Intergroup Contact using a third party: A case study on using structured online inter-group contact with one Palestinian, one Israeli young people, through a young person from the UK.

The model is designed to create indirect contact between one young person from Israel and one young person from Palestine, via a young person from the UK, (the age range is 18 to 29).

The young person from the UK will have a set of instructions as a facilitator, and will be sending emails to both conflict parties asking them to do tasks, with a one-week deadline for each task. The participants will use role playing characters for their email communication; pretending that three of them are working in an international news agency The young person from the UK is the editor, while the Palestinian and the Israeli are the journalists.

The duration of testing the model is one month, during which the journalists have to accomplish four tasks. These tasks will be described in the model. When they send their reports about the task, the UK person will exchange the results between the two of them. There is no direct communication between the two journalists, and the mediator has to establish the communication between them separately.

Translation will be provided from English to Arabic and Hebrew for the communication between the editor and the journalists, to avoid the limitations of a language barrier in

42

understanding the tasks. The product of the task will be a non-written and non-verbal response. The two journalists will have to accomplish their missions using photography or drawings.

All the participants will use special email accounts that don't reveal their personal information and encrypt the data they are sharing between each other. The participants will be asked to remove the metadata from the files before sending it, and they will be advised not to share files that contain sensitive information about their personal life, to avoid any harm if it was misused.

The editor has to be committed to communicating with the two parties equally and take a neutral position from their responses. The model will describe the tasks for each character in greater details.

The model plan:

1- Recruiting the two groups of young people from the UK, Palestine, and Israel. 2- Signing the research consent with the research participants.3- Creating email addresses for all the participants. 4- Sharing the characters with all the participants, and organizing one to one talk with

them to discuss the use of online communication and data saving in this model, confidentiality of information, and their role in the research.

5- The researcher will give the participants the green light to start the communication.6- After one month, this model will end, and the researcher can start interviewing the

participants about their experience.

The characters and instructions:

The Editor (UK participants):

The information below is about your character in this model. You need to pretend that you are this character while communicating with the others.

Your name is: Adam/Alice Dowden

Age: 35

Marital status: Single

Occupation: You just received your master degree from Durham University in media and politics. After this, you got a job as the primary news editor for Palestine/Israel at Justice News Agency in the UK.

General information about your character: You were born in the UK, and you have lived there all your life. You have traveled a lot for a vacation to Australia, the USA, and Spain, among many other countries. You have never been to a conflict area in your life, and that is why this job is so challenging for you.

Your view of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict: You believe in justice and human rights. You have read some books and articles about the conflict, and you have watched some

43

documentaries and news report about it, but you have never been there. For an expert in media like you, you believe that you don’t know the real situation there. So, you can’t create a clear personal judgment. After taking this job, you decided to be neutral and not to support one side over the other. To show the truth and only the truth. You are not interested in showing the conflict, you want to find common ground for both sides to see each other as human beings and not enemies. That’s why you came up with the idea of a project based on photography or drawing to show the life of ordinary people. You hope this will help them to reflect their values, and how they meet their basic needs.

You will be working with one journalist from Palestine and one from Israel. Because of the situation there, Palestinian and Israeli communication is considered a taboo in both societies, so you’ve decided to communicate with both of the journalists separately. However, you’ve also agreed to exchange their responses, so they can see what the other journalist have done before publishing the pictures. But they are not allowed to give feedback about the other journalist work.

Personal issue: You are a quiet person. You don’t get stressed easily from work or personal issues. You prefer to split your professional life from your personal life, that’s why you don’t get too involved with your co-workers. You are friendly with them, but you can’t be friend with them.

The idea of your project: You want to make a report about how people are meeting their human needs and values which are: Love, Fun, Freedom and the Future. You choose these four topics since is it is easier to collect stories about them to encourage a reflective comparison for your audience when you publish your article. You didn’t choose topics like justice, shelter, faith, food, and so on because you believe it will lead to heated discussion and the debates. You would rather try to create common ground for dialogue and change.

Establishing the connection:

After finishing your induction at the news agency, you were asked to start the communication with the journalists in Palestine and Israel. You need to send them the following email separately.

Dear [NAME]

Hope you are doing well.

I’m Adam/Alice Dowden. The new editor for Justice News Agency in the UK for Palestine and Israeli news. I’ve heard from my colleagues that you are a professional journalist, and your records of working with Justice News are amazing. I’m really looking forward to working with you.

In the upcoming month, we will be working on a new project regarding the Palestinian and Israeli news. The aim of this project is to investigate how the values and basic needs of life are met in both countries. Therefore, I will be kindly asking you to do some tasks. You will not be asked to address the tasks by written or verbal reports, you need to make your tasks using only pictures or drawings from your surroundings. Please send me an email with your approval to be part of this project within two days so I can send you the first task.

● You have the freedom to choose not to make any task.● You are under a non-disclosure agreement which means you are not allowed to share your

44

work or the work of other journalists working for Justice News Agency with anyone else.● It would be great if you can achieve the tasks in time if you can’t please inform us.● You need to send the materials of your work only to my email. ● During the week, don’t bother sending emails to the editor. I will be away and can’t answer

your questions.● You are not allowed to give feedback and comment on other journalist’s work. ● Justice News Agency will not pay you money to buy a camera. You can use your mobile

camera to make your story.Best regards,

Adam/Alice Dowden

Task one: Love

The purpose of this task is to discover how people practice love in both Palestine and Israel. Love is a basic need for human beings, and we need it in our life to feel accepted by others. We need to have ties with our family, partners, friends, society, and environment.

● Once you receive the confirmation email from both journalists, you can send them the first task.

● Send them the email below, and wait one week to get their responses. ● Once the two journalists send their replies to you, you can send them the exchange

email. Then wait one day then send the next task ● If one of them didn’t respond to your communication, you could send them a

reminder email (see the reminder email draft section). It is fine if they fail to deliver the task.

● If they send you questions about the work, don’t answer these emails. You are away, in a field work, and you can’t answer their emails.

Dear [NAME]

Hope you are doing well,

Thanks a lot for being part of my journalist team at Justice News Agency. I think we will do great things together.

Today I have a small task for you, we want to make a story about love in your life, love with the people around you and your surroundings. It doesn’t have to be the love between partners only, it can be any kind of love between people. What does love mean to you? How do you practice it? What challenges you to practice love?

It is a big task, but please try to make it as simple and creative as possible. Be honest, investigate your society and discover your Love.

You need to send me your response as we agreed - in photos or drawing by replying to this

45

email. You have one week from today to send me the materials

You can’t ask me questions about the task, as I will be traveling this week. However, you can seek support from your local organization. I trust that your professionalism and competencies will lead you to complete this task in a transparent and professional way.

Good luck, and have a lovely week.

Best regards,

Adam/Alice Dowden

Task Two: Fun

People need to have fun in their life, and they do that in many different ways. Sometimes by having food, playing games, singing, and so on. You want to discover how people do that in both Palestine and Israel.

● One day after exchanging their responses to task one, please send the email in the green box, and wait one week to receive the answers.

● Once the two journalists send their replies to the researcher; you can send them the exchange email. Then wait one day then send the next task

● If one of them didn’t respond to your communication, you could send them a reminder email (see the reminder email draft section). It is fine if they fail to deliver the task.

● If they send you questions about the task, don’t answer these emails. You are away, in a field work, and you can’t answer their emails.

Dear [NAME]

Thank you,

I know the first task was hard. Now we need to finish the next one in our project.

I need you to make a story about Fun today. How do you have fun in your life? How do you have fun in your free time? Do you have fun at work, at home, or it is just on special occasions and in special places? What challenges do you face when you want to have fun?

It is a big task, but please try to make it as simple and creative as possible. Be honest, investigate your society and discover your Fun.

You need to send me your response as we agreed - in photos or drawings by replying to this email. You have one week from today to send me the materials

You can’t ask me questions about the task, as I will be traveling this week. However, you can

46

seek help from your local organization. I trust that your professionalism and competencies will lead you to complete this task in a transparent and professional way.

Good luck, and have a lovely week.

Best regards,

Adam/Alice Dowden

Task Three: Freedom

People need freedom in their life, sometimes they are aware of that and sometimes they are not. There are different ways in which people practice freedom and portray it. You will ask your journalist to make a story about that.

● One day after exchanging their responses to task one, please send the email in the green box, and wait one week to receive the answers.

● Once the two journalists send their replies; you can send them the exchange email. Then wait one day then send the next task

● If one of them didn’t respond to your communication, you could send them a reminder email (see the reminder email draft section). It is fine if they fail to deliver the task.

● If they send you questions about the task, don’t answer these emails. You are away, in a field work, and you can’t answer their emails.

Dear [NAME]

We are a great team!

We are half the way to finish this project.

Today I’m sending you this email to work on your weekly task, which will be about Freedom. It is a huge topic.

Please make a story about it. This task will be about your own freedom. So, you need to make a story about what freedom means to your life as a young person in your society? How do you practice it? What challenges do you face when you try to be free?

It is a big task, but please try to make it as simple and creative as possible. Be honest,

47

investigate your society and discover your Freedom.

You need to send me your response as we agreed in your contract - in photos or drawings by replying to this email. You have one week from today to send me the materials

You can’t ask me questions about the task, as I will be traveling this week. However, you can seek help from your local organization. I trust that your professionalism and competencies will lead you to complete this task in a transparent and professional way.

Good luck, and have a lovely week.

Best regards,

Adam/Alice Dowden

Task Four: The Future

In this task, you will give your journalists the freedom to choose the topic of their story. You will only ask them to make the story about the future, and how they want it to look like.

● One day after exchanging their responses to task one, please send the email in the green box, and wait one week to receive the answers.

● Once the two journalists send their replies; him you can send them the exchange email.

● Wait one day after exchanging their answers, then send them the “thank you” email.● If one of them didn’t reply to your communication, you could send them a reminder

email (see the reminder email draft section). It is fine if they fail to deliver the task.● If they send you questions about the task, don’t answer these emails. You are away, in

field work, and you can’t answer their emails.

Dear [NAME]

Finally, we are almost done with this project.

It was amazing working with you

I’m not sure about the topic of the last story so I will leave that for you to decide, under one condition; it should be a story about your view of the Future. You have the freedom to choose the topic about your personal life, but it should represent how you want the future to be.

It is a big task, but please try to make it as simple and creative as possible. Be honest, examine your society and discover your Future.

You need to send me your response as we agreed - in photos or drawings by replying to this

48

email. You have one week from today to send me the materials

You can’t ask me questions about the task, as I will be traveling this week. However, you can seek help from your local organization. I trust that your professionalism and competencies will lead you to complete this task in a transparent and professional way.

Good luck, and have a lovely week.

Best regards,

Adam/Alice Dowden

Exchanging email draft:

This is a draft email you will use when you exchange the responses between the two journalists. Please remember that you have to send this in a separate email for each the journalists.

Dear [NAME]

I’m sending you this email as part of our agreement to share with you the task of our journalist [NAME] in [COUNTRY]

Please have a look at the attached files.

Please don’t make comments about the work and don’t share it with anyone, as we are not at the stage of evaluation yet.

I will send you the next task tomorrow.

Best regards,

Adam/Alice Dowden

Reminder email:

49

You may not receive the tasks from the journalists on time, or they might not send them at all. If they don’t send it, it is their choice, but if they couldn’t manage to carry the task on time, you can send them the reminder email.

Dear [NAME],

I was waiting to receive your task by yesterday.

I know it is not an easy task, but this is a professional job, and you agreed to do it.

You have two extra days to do the task, or to choose not to do it, and move to the next one.

Best regards,

Adam/Alice Dowden

Thank you email:

Dear [NAME],

It was amazing to work with you on this project, I learned a lot from you.

Thanks a lot for your efforts.

Best regards,

Adam/Alice Dowden

Palestinian Character:

The information below is about your character in this model. You need to pretend to be this character while communicating with the other participants. If you will be asked to make a story from your personal life, this means your personal real life, not the character life. The character is only used to give a purpose for the communication between you and the Person from the UK.

Name: Ahmed / Abeer

50

Age: 30

Marital status: Single

General information about your character:

You have a degree in media and journalism from Birzeit University. You’ve worked as a journalist and photographer in different local and international agencies, one of them is Justice News Agency in the UK. Recently, a new editor was appointed for the Palestine and Israel News section at Justice News Agency, and you will be contacted by them to sign a new contract.

You’ve lived all your life in Palestine, and you dream to contribute to building a better life for the future of your country. You are a professional journalist, and you want to always show the truth and only the truth, without caring about ideology or the opinions of others. For this reason, you’ve become a famous journalist and you are respected by your colleagues in the field.

You need to do this job with Justice News Agency because you are in a big need for money. You need the money for your car loan.

Israeli Journalist Character:

The information below is about your character in this model. You need to pretend this character while having communication with the other participants. If you will be asked to make a story from your personal life, this means your personal real life, not the character’s life. The character is only used to give a purpose for the communication between you and the person from the UK.

Name: Adi / Abi

Age: 30

Marital status: Single

General information about your character:

You have a degree in media and journalism from Tel Aviv University. You’ve worked as a journalist and photographer in different local and international agencies, one of them is Justice News Agency in the UK. Recently, a new editor was appointed for the Palestine and Israel News section at Justice News Agency, and you will be contacted by them to sign a new contract.

You’ve lived all your life in Israel, and you dream to contribute to building a better life for the future of your country. You are a professional journalist, and you always want to show

51

the truth and only the truth, without caring about ideology or the opinions of others. For this reason, you’ve become a famous journalist and you are respected by your colleagues in the field.

You need to do this job with Justice News Agency because you are in a big need for money. You need the money for your car loan.

Appindex IIOverview of online intergroup contact projects in conflict regions, taken from (Amichai-Hamburger, 2013; p.240)

52

Appendix IIIInterview Guide

This is an interview guide for the researcher and the participants in the research Structured Online Intergroup Contact Using Third Party and the SIOCM. Semi structured interviews will be done with the six participants participated in testing the model. Face to face

53

interviews will be done with UK participants, and Skype interviews will be done with the Palestinian and Israeli participants, due to the lack of resources and time for the researcher to travel there. All the interviews will be recorded.The interview will have pre-defined questions related to the research questions, in addition to having a space for the researcher and the participants to add more topics if needed.

The pre-defined questions:Questions for all the participants:1- What were your perspectives when the researcher explained to you the research? Why?2- What level of motivation did you have before taking part of this model? How your motivation

changed during the process?3- Have you felt safe and secured while using the model? Why?4- How you felt about having a character? Does that helped you? How?5- What are your suggestions for future application of this model?

Questions for the Israeli and Palestinian participants:1- What were your perspectives when you were collecting the stories? What challenges did you

face while making your story? Have this changed over the process?2- What do you think about the use photography, drawing, and non-verbal videos to reflect on

your values and basic needs?3- What were your perspectives when you saw the other journalist stories? Have this changed

over the process?4- What do you think about the editor role? And how was the communication with him/her?

How you felt about it? 5- At the end of the process: What do you think about love, fun, Freedom and the future? Does it

change?6- At the end of the process. What do you think about Love, Fun, Freedom and the future in the

life of the other journalist? Does it change?

Questions for the UK participants:1- What were your perspectives when you were receiving the stories of both sides? Does this

helped you to reflect also on the four areas of values and basic needs: love, fun, freedom, and your future?

2- What do you think about using photography, drawing, and non-verbal videos to reflect on the two participant’s values and basic needs?

3- What were your perspectives when you exchanged both stories with the participants?4- What were your perspectives to have a character? How helpful or unhelpful this role helped

you?Interview Policies:

All the interviews will be recorded, with the approval of the participants. Participants have the right to use their real names, or nick names during the interviews. The time of each interview is one hour to two hours. The participants have the right to stop the interview at any point. The participants have the right to skip any question if they don’t feel they want to answer. The interview will take place in closed space, with agreement and privacy between each

participant and the researcher.

Appendix IVData analysis

Palestinian and Israeli Participants

Finding one: learning about the others:

54

I1: it is a new experience, I wanted to explore it, and I wanted to see what it is like to be a Palestinian. I felt very motivated to take part.

P1: My motivation was to learn and understand from other examples. To give a chance to develop my feelings and understanding of the other side, and what common ground we share as humans.

Researcher: Do you feel that you know the other person? I1: Not very much actually. P1: No, I do not. The amount of pictures he shared didn’t trigger me to

make an opinion about him. I2: There were some responses that are personal that helped me to learn

about her. But, it is not like a real connection, so, I can’t honestly say that I know this person. What they like and what they think about things.

Researcher: What do you know about them in general? I1: I honestly can’t tell. Because pictures can convey certain ideas but it

cannot build thoughts about that person from a couple of ideas. So I do not feel like I know that person.

P1: I know that he loves his country and the military. And he sees himself living in a developed country.

Researcher: would you like to meet that person? And why? I1: Maybe, I’m not sure. It is true that we created a connection, but we

shared personal information about each other, and it will feel awkward to meet and talk about it.

P1: yes, why not. I don’t feel that I have connected with him that much. And I don’t feel the eager to meet him. I don’t mind meeting with him.

P2: Maybe, but it is hard. If I got the opportunity probably, I would take it because she/he has a nice personality from the pictures I received. It is risky to meet in our environment and context, but maybe in a controlled environment, it will be okay.

Researcher: Do you have questions about certain things to that person? I1: No, I don’t. Maybe asking about the meaning of some pictures he sent.

Understanding why choosing these picture and what it presents. And what he is conveying to them.

P1: Maybe, I will ask him what he thinks of me or his perspectives of what I have sent to him. I want to see if my messages were clear. The codes I put was encoded correctly. The narrative he received was right as I presumed or no.

P1: The level of difficulty was hard at the beginning then it became easier to understand what we are doing. I didn’t know what to expect from the other participant, but when I started to receive the pictures from the other participant, I began to understand what I’m doing.

55

P1: As a Palestinian when I was expressing my thoughts and feelings about love, fun, freedom, or future, I tried as much as possible to show myself as a human being, I decided to stay away from the occupation, which was challenging. I tried to touch on emotions and the future of us as people who want to learn, succeed and grow.

P1: yes, I felt that at the end. I felt that I should have done more. I wasn’t comfortable about sharing. But when I received his response of the last task about the future, it made me smile, and I told myself this guy knows what he is doing. It was a picture of the IDF hiking up to the sunset, with another picture of a science museum. I felt he sees the IDF as his backboard, and for me, I don’t have this kind of military that I can be proud of. I can be proud of armed groups sometimes, but it can be perceived that I support terrorists, and I was afraid to show that. Maybe as a Palestinian, I can see small army groups like Al Qassam or Hezbollah as a standing force against this occupation. But I will not endorse them as somebody who’s I’m proud of.

P1: The other participant was not driving me to put a lot of effort. Because I was putting a lot of effort that at the beginning by sending many pictures, then I realized that the other participant is posting one or two pictures. I started asking, why I’m giving too much about myself, while he doesn’t seem interested. The effort and the commitment of the other participant affected my dedication and motivation.

P1: Future is an important aspect of this research. It is the base, if you want to talk with someone you need to show him what I’m looking forward, or if we can meet up in the end, and if we have a shared future. I was thinking about future on the personal scale, but I felt that I should do more about the macro scale, especially when I saw the pictures of the Israeli participant. I was sad and mad at myself why I didn’t think on a bigger scale. I felt selfish

P1: I didn’t find his views irritating me, it was evident messages. He was focusing on the quality, not quantity. I was actually amazed by his answer about the future, as I felt that I saw my enemy. As he sees the people who are occupying us are his protector. And I felt there is a gap.

P2: It was interesting especially when I receive the answer from the other side, it made me see how similar we are. And it made me curious to see their next respond.

P2 : it was like getting to know someone. I know that she is fun, loving, kind to animals, and fashionable.

P2: I didn’t try to prove the justice of my cause, I tried to show myself as human, without any politics. I felt it is like a dating session.

I2: I think there was a little bit of communication, like a starter for communication.

P1: Some of the pictures were spontaneous, and some were taken for the purpose to send a message I want to send to the other side. It would be great to have an interaction with the other person about my tasks, and if they understood what I meant from my pictures. I felt it was a short dialogue.

I2: In one hand I didn’t want to show something that is too personal, and forms the other hand I wanted to show the other person some sort of hints about myself.

56

I had also to think about things that can be easily communicated through images, and that could be understood by people. As I don’t know the other person and how they understand my communication, so I tried to use things that can be understood. It was more trying to tell the other person, without knowing them, and how I should talk to them, it was a nice challenge. I think it is a good method, I’m graphic designer, I think it would work well around the language barrier. But I think it would be more productive if it were conducted more like a conversation, and people were allowed to respond to each other’s images. Because I have no idea what the other person understood or perceived from the things I sent, it felt basically like talking to a wall. However, if it were two-sided, it would be more efficient. You can respond to an image without words, you can express very complex thoughts with images and icons, we have the whole language of emoticons that can express feelings. I think it is very possible to communicate without writing a single word if you want to.

I2: I was under the impression that there will be more socializing involved. I got disappointed when I found out that I can’t really talk with the other person who is participating. I was hoping to connect to a Palestinian and we really talk. I know few Israeli Arab, but it is not the same as knowing Palestinians.

I1: my stand on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; is that there can’t be peace at the moment. I have no problem with Palestinians as individuals, but I have a problem with Palestinian political groups and the Palestinian Authority. I only felt very curious and motivated to learn about Palestinian individuals.

Finding Two: Self-expression and reflection

I1: Sometimes it was a little bit difficult, not always. I1: I didn’t do the first task about love. I don’t know how to explain it; I was

curious to see what I would come up with or bring out of myself. And how I express myself.

I1: I didn’t feel that I learned something new about myself. I was more like investigating myself, and finding what I have in life. I didn’t feel stressed or anxious.

I1: My views about these topics haven’t changed. I was using this to express myself. Every person has his own definitions of this kind of topics. I didn’t know what to expect, I was open to expecting anything. It was very interesting to peek into someone’s life and understand what they feel. But I wasn’t participating in this model with one specific thing in mind, and I wasn’t expecting anything, so it didn’t matter. Just curious.

P1: I felt limited of how I can express myself because sometimes images can’t be enough to show the answers to the tasks.

P1: When I was given the first task of love, I was really thinking about it. My perspectives about love were deep and it was about what bring joy to my life. I love my dog, I love freedom, I love to walk around. Things in your life you know for sure that you love. This research helped me to set down and think about the things I have in my life, simple things I never noticed. I think the most important tasks were freedom and future. In freedom as a person living under occupation, freedom means traveling without obstacles, without limits, without walls. I sent a

57

lot of pictures of me traveling around. One of them was a settlement in the mountain, which made me realize that my freedom is limited.

P2: Every task made me think really hard about my life, what I want, how I see things. Like freedom, being under occupation, there are many forms of freedom, being a woman, being in a restricted society in many ways. So, freedom as a task was hard for me, I feel there are different forms of freedom, and I’m roped from all of them.

P2: I thought about the future, what I really want from the future, I have some decisions, and I need to work on them. It made me think about making a change.

P2: Love and fun were easy, while freedom and future were hard to express, and they made me think hard about my life choices and what I want.

P2: when I was doing the tasks I had different ideas of how to make it, how to collect different pictures, and to show myself and my opinion, which was enjoyable.

I2: I’m introvert, so I always think a lot about my life and what things I need to do, and the things that I like.

I1: yes, they are very good tools. The problem is that not everybody is an artist or photographer, so it was sometimes a bit difficult. But I feel it is a very good method of communication. It is universal, emotional, it doesn’t require language. So it was a very good tool.

P1: I think everyone has the ability to express themselves using drawing or pictures that make sense. You don’t have to be an artist, you just need an idea, a camera or paper, and a pen. I also think that we can express these tasks using songs. There should be more focus on drawing since it shows that you care about this communication.

P2: it was a little bit hard because it was only using pictures and drawing, I’m more comfortable with using words. So, how to express my feelings with pictures was a little bit hard for me.

Finding Three: The role of the third party on reducing anxiety

P1: The editor made it feel as it is real, that I’m part of a professional agency, with tasks and deadlines.

I1: I felt it contributed to the project. It is the same concept for having a character to stand behind. If you have someone between you and the other journalist, you will feel less exposed. You would expose yourself more if the communication were direct and without a character. It helps you to expose yourself without feeling you are exposed. I don’t feel how the editor character mattered too much, while the presence of someone in-between, sending the pictures to another person is crucial. The fact that there was someone in between is vital.

I1: it is not about safety. It is about direct exposure if you have direct communication with someone else you feel very exposed and very personal with that person. It is very easy to shut yourself off and to stop. It is simpler to open up when you have someone in between. And this is how it feels to me.

P1: Actually the mediator created a comfortable atmosphere where I can feel really at ease when sharing my stories. But when he or she sends the stories of the Israeli participant then I felt the competition.

58

P1: I like the fact that there is someone in the middle. I feel comfortable to have indirect communication with the Israelis through a meditator because it gives you time to think and prepare. While direct communication, can lead to discussions about very sensitive topics, which sometimes can be irritating, and lead to nowhere. Having a structure for the dialogue about things like love, fun, freedom, and future, will help to avoid these sensitive topics, and make it more humanistic.

P1: It is good to have someone from outside the conflict to initiate this conversation. The mediator also can play a filtering role, to absorb all the information or mistakes that can lead to end the communication. I don’t want to show the world about my life, but I want to show them how I view life. It is crucial for us as Palestinian people living under oppression to show the world our life and our feelings. And if someone international puts effort and energy to mediate dialogue between a Palestinian and Israeli, it will be an enjoyable and learning experience for him/her and a good way for us to express ourselves to the world and to the other side of the conflict.

P2: I think having the editor is a good thing. If I have a direct dialogue with an Israeli, it will be considered normalization and co-existence with the occupier, I’m against that, to be honest. I have nothing against the Israelis, but I’m against the idea that we should normalize our relation with them while we are under occupation, like let hug each other and be friends, while the status quo is not changing. But I don’t think there is normalization when the dialogue is indirect, and the mediator is there. It is not normalization also since we didn’t discuss politics, we discussed our personal life. And this made me think about her/him as human, not as an Israeli.

I2: I think it will be a paramount role. Because not everybody will be eager participants. Some people need to be convinced to cooperate. Editor role in targeting people.

I2: I think the moderators should have very clear ideas about what they want to see in this chats and what they don’t want to see. Like if I look in my online social circles, sometimes discussions can get ugly. You want moderators who can put foots down and say this is not an acceptable way to communicate, and we will shut this down if it gets to the point of having a negative discussion. I think maybe even making digital role playing groups, like playing a bunch of hobbits being in the adventure would be awesome.

I2: Usually I’m very open on the internet, so I didn’t feel that threatened, I’m open about things, even with people I don’t know, like people on Facebook, I share my hobbies, and the things I advocate for, and part of my life story. So I wasn’t feeling threatened or unsafe.

Recommendations

I1: The concept is very interesting. I’m not sure how practical it is to change anything about the conflict. Because this kind of conflict is not about individual people. On the individual level, it is very interesting, while on a macro scale I’m not sure how much it can change.

P2: I think if this will be applied on a large scale, we will start to see each other like humans not only enemies, terrorist, Zionist, or occupation and occupied.

59

I2: I don’t presume to understand the scope of the conflict. I don’t give it a lot of attention in my daily life. I think my biggest contribution being an individual, not a politician is to connect with other person or several people, and show them we are all humans. I guess everybody needs to have this lodge in their brain that we are all people. Even if we don’t agree with politics, we can agree about a lot of little things, and have conversations and exchange opinions about the last Marvel movies, which is completely not connected to the conflict. The first step is making the other side people. Recently people are losing, because the politicians are getting more and more right wing and angry, we can’t stop them really, because the people who chose these politicians to have these opinions. I think stopping this flood is only possible if more people as possible talk about little things. If you understand that the other person just wants to go to work and feed their kids, and they want actually see most things differently as you see it, I think this is an important lesson to learn.

I2: I think you need to start with certain open mind people when you approach this. Especially that images are very vague, and you can interpret them in many ways, and sometimes you will interpret them so that they would agree with your political opinions, or the bad images you think about the other side. And I think you need to be pleased with some kind of readiness to an open mind, and actually look at what the other side is offering you. So, I think it is not for everybody. I’m optimist, and most people if they were approached in a way they understand and they get prepared in the right way, and they approach the subject in an openness to see what the other person has to offer about anything, then it would work.

I1: My suggestion is to include written communication text as a way to respond to the tasks in English, like writing a story, a poem or song.

P1: you can send the editor tasks; I think this will be interesting. I would love to see the mediator active. As I’m curious to know this person and their values. I don’t want to have a biased mediator, neither for me nor for the Israeli. This kind of information will nourish their experience. I also want to know the person, and who’s taking care of my stories and the mediation.

P1: love and fun are the same for me. I think the tasks should be more precise, as they are vague. I realized that I took the same picture that can work as a response to the four tasks.

P2: She was good at giving tasks, but she was not that helpful, we couldn’t send questions or complaints. I suggest making it more interactive.

P2: The role of the editor should be bigger and more interactive. And to use different methods for communication rather than only pictures.

60

Appendix VData analysis

UK participants

Finding one: learning about the others.

UK1: I think it is an interesting concept, and it is something I never thought I will be part of. To have perspectives from two different people in another part of the world. And be able to see and have some insights into their life. And that’s why I decided to take part.

UK1: It was very interesting. I can tell from what I received that they are both males. It was clear who were they are. It was very interesting perspective about something I obviously have no idea about when I send them the task, and then seeing how they interpreted it using their environment and send it back to me. It was very interesting to see the contrast of each task.

UK1: You can understand why some of the pictures were chosen and others I don’t know why exactly they chose it. It shows the character of who they are. It is not for me to make judgments, but I understand why some pictures were chosen, and I will choose maybe something totally different.

UK1: I found it very interesting to start generating ideas of whom this person might be, and I hope that what happened between them as well. It was eye opening as this person could be just like me, or I know a person who is similar to them. It is difficult to say if the dialogue happened, but I hope it did.

UK1: One of them was more a home comfort person, which is like me. While the other participant was an active outdoor kind of personality, which is not me.

UK1: I think pictures have a strong impact, you can immediately see what it is. But sometimes you don’t understand why they have chosen that picture, I don’t really get their decision. So, maybe if there has been an option to explain what is each picture, to translate and help better understanding. Or the ability to ask the other person to explain it.

UK2: I was quite interested to see what the outcome would be, obviously because I’m from England, and I have never been out of this country, I thought it would give me some sort of insight into others people’s life and what is it like where they live. I was excited to participate in this research. I was interested, and I wanted to find out what is it like for other people having different beliefs and religions and to see how different it was to me. I didn’t have any knowledge about the conflict or the history of that area. And I didn’t have political motivation to participate, or to know more about the conflict. But when you see their responses you come to realize that they are not different. Their views of life, and what they are enjoying, you can tell they are massively similar. So, I couldn’t recognize if they are in a conflict or not. They looked to me like normal people, the things they are enjoying the pictures I received, are those the things I enjoy.

UK2: I think maybe in the third task; I2 was trying to express her feelings about personal things, which was really emotional. I felt the emotions coming from her. I felt I wanted to ask her to explain to me, and how does it feel, and how this is freedom for her.

61

UK2: Yes, I would like to meet them. I want to have a chat with them and ask them about the photos. And why they made these decisions. They also could give me advice.

Finding Two: self-reflection.

UK1: When I was sending the tasks I was thinking about it, and how I would respond to it.

UK1: Every time I sent a task, I would ask myself what I would choose if someone asks me to make this task, what picture will I choose? It made me start thinking about what I do in my life, and what my answers would be? The future task made me stuck quite a bit. It definitely made me reflect on my own life, and kind of compare it with what they have sent me, and ask myself, would I have done the same as they did? It was eye opening.

UK1: I think with the fun one, I realized I don’t do much. So it made me decide to do more fun activities. The future one was difficult. I have Idea of what I want to be, but I couldn’t put it in pictures form. I’m a person who works with words, so to try to visualize something was a bit difficult for me. Their responses helped me to think that my future could be what I already have, or something completely different, it is all up to me.

UK2: When I was receiving their responses, I was asking myself; what I would think and respond to each task, and how I feel about them, especially the freedom. And actually, this questioning helped me to make a decision in my life, which I was not going to do without this reflection. Because I felt if I was answering these questions, this how I would see myself free. I thought about what would make me happy and make me free, and have better future. It is really difficult to answer the future task; I have no idea what’s going to happen. I didn’t take part in doing that tasks, but that didn’t mean that I wasn’t constantly thinking about them and how I would respond to them, and comparing their responses to what would be mine. I was expecting creative pictures for the tasks, but it was very simple and natural.

UK2: Maybe people who are interested in the world, different cultures, beliefs, and religion. I think it will be more like an education for some people to learn about different views and understand the conflict.

Finding three: Playing the role of the third party as a tool for online activism.

UK1: If it is safe to communicate directly, it would be potentially better. But I know that this can put them in danger or put consequences on them or their family. So a mediator using anonymous system could be more effective in the short term, and hopefully, in the longer term, they can communicate more directly. And hopefully, this would not cause issues regarding safety.

UK1: I think so. Maybe they can’t be friends as they are two different personalities and only a few things are in common. But I don’t see why in particular there will have issues with each other, they seem normal in their lives. As all human, they don’t necessarily be friends, but they can definitely get along.

UK1: Doing something like this with young people, it will potentially make a big transformation of their life, and could have a huge impact, since they could see the other side and say: Oh, that is just like me, or related to someone I know. And

62

think why we are doing this? And to these people who are very similar to us? It will make them start questioning more about the whole reasoning behind fighting and the conflict. And if this is done on a large scale more people will be questioning and eventually it could change things. If the young people in mass come together, they could start questioning their life, and then it could change the whole reality of that area.

UK1: I think the right kind of people will definitely be willing to participate in this model. I studied modern languages, and I know many people who did same studies are interested in world affairs, this would be a good target audience it terms of mediators. There different kind of people who might have the interest to do it, but not necessarily everyone. People who will be willing to participate maybe should not be judgmental, as a good approach you don’t judge people’s life. They can do whatever they want as longs as they are not harming other people. Another characteristic is to be open to seeing new perspectives, having an awareness of seeing things beyond themselves. People who can be the outsider for a new person who’s completely from a foreign environment, and be able to understand how to compare and contrast what you are experiencing and what other people are experiencing.

UK1: If people know that they are doing this for the purpose of bringing peace and hopefully create harmony between people, I don’t know if this necessarily will make them more incline to do it or not, because maybe they would be scared, or they will say this have nothing to do with me, why should I bother.

UK1: There is an opportunity for the participant’s views to change, but it will depend on if the participants wanted to learn something or not. If they knew I’m meant to do this to work towards peace, or if they are strongly pro-one side, they might not be willing to gain that from the experience. Whereas if they didn’t know who is who, and they received pictures from two young people without knowing who’s is the Palestinian and who’s is the Israeli. And then asking the mediator, did you know who is who? That might have more of an impact. Whereas, if they knew what they are doing, they might build a barrier in their minds to say no, I’m not going to learn anything, and they will come with their knowledge and pre-judgments on the participant’s responses.

Researcher: Do you have the motivation to know more about this conflict? UK1: Yes, having done this I probably would be more willing to start looking into

it, trying more to understand it. It is such a long and complicated history of conflict. It is quite overwhelming.

UK2: I have been motivated, it wasn’t a hard job. I was quite anticipated to see what they will come back with for each task. I felt that I was building communication between them, and try to show them their differences and similarities, and I felt I’m motivated to contribute in building this communication. Bringing them together, although there was no direct conversation between them.

UK2: No, you just need to be open-minded to what you expect and don’t judge anyone, even if you don’t agree or think that’s right or wrong, and have an understanding of their choices. I didn’t know what to expect when I was receiving the responses. The instructions helped me a lot. But without it then you need a person with a wider knowledge of what’s going would be better. If I was sending

63

a lot of communication, this might have resulted in destruction for the whole communication.

UK: I didn’t have a position on one side of the conflict before, and I don’t have it now. I was neutral in this mediation. And if someone biased try this model, I think definitely their views will change, it will show this person that the people you are talking to regardless of where they are from are so similar.

UK2: I found it interesting and exciting. When I was doing the exchange, I was kind of imagining what kind of reaction they will have. And if it will be similar to my reaction when I received the pictures. I wished to know what their thoughts on it.

UK2: I think they should be able to communicate out of the instructions, with the presence of control to prevent the heat, and miscommunication, negative communication or more conflict. Facebook and snap chat are full of negativity. I think the role of the mediator is crucial. If someone of them said something offensive or inappropriate toward the other person, then I think I would try to step in. The facilitator role gives the participants kind of a plan, with instructions and tasks. While if you ask the Palestinian and the Israeli to communicate alone, it will not work. I would suggest making it accessible to set groups, on social media, and use this groups to make this application active, and at the same time meet the purpose of the groups. I think three people in the group was really good, because if you have a lot of opinions it will be overwhelming.

UK2: I think it will be good, with restrictions on place. The impact would be massive; a positive impact hopefully. And it will make people more understandable and knowable, because what they see on the news or social media make them believe what they see. So, if they actually talking directly to each other, it will give them better understanding

UK2: Yes, because they are two humans to me, and I get to know them without knowing anything about the conflict or where they are from. So, to think that they are in conflict, even if not directly, this will motivate me to know why, and try to get these groups to communicate more, and build bridges and break the barriers.

UK2 : it made me feel like a superhero. I just felt I closed a little gap there, it might not be massive with two people in a month. Imagine what would happen with thousands of people in a year.

UK1: Everything was written for me, so I didn’t feel it is a particularly challenging role. But it was very interesting to see everything. If we take the written instructions out, then you need to be careful with your words, and you are not meant to make any judgments or make comments on different things. So, it will be more challenging in writing your own dialogue and being sure not to offend anyone or say the wrong thing. At the same time, you have to understand that they are two young people, the same as you. It will be more challenging, but it would be more interesting in term of the mediating to have power for yourself.

Recommendations.

64

UK1: The point was to mediate between the two of them. But maybe if the mediator were able to make their own things, then I would feel I’m more part of it. Like having a more active role. The character gives a reason why I’m contacting the two participants, otherwise why I should be talking to them! I have my own backstory for my character, but it would be good if I knew the back story for the two journalists. This may create a better opportunity for interaction. If I send responses to the task, they can see my perspectives and it can be interesting to see.

Researcher: Do you need to be an experienced mediator to do this? UK1: I knew I have to exchange it, I would look at them, and say this is

interesting, and I wanted to know what the other person would say about it, which was not available for me. I would prefer to have the opportunity to have some sort of feedback from these two people looking at each other’s life, this would help to understand the impact of exchanging these pictures between them. I was always thinking what they are going to think and say about the responses of each other.

UK1: Having the option to have feedback will be more efficient. Using words, I’m not a visual learner, if they are not a visual learner. Learning their learning style.

UK2: I would like to have a more active role. This will help to build a better relation, especially over a long time. They have the right to know my opinion and what I feel.

UK2: Maybe people who are interested in the world, different cultures, beliefs, and religion. I think it will be more like an education for some people to learn about different views and understand the conflict. Besides that, it will be a way for socializing as well. Although you don’t know the person, you talk to, sometimes you can be open and honest in such communication. People who are interested in communicating with people from outside the UK, or have the interest to travel there. I think older people would be more interested than young people. With young people maybe it can be beneficial to use it with them at schools, for topics like history, or how to perceive the news and the media.

UK2: A video will be quite good. Maybe if there is words and translation would be good too. Because the pictures put limits on how expressive you can be.

65

Appendix VI

Consent to Participate in a Research StudyDurham University ● School of Applied Social Science, MA

Name of Researcher(s)

Title of study One to One Online reflective mediation

Case Study: Palestinian-Israeli conflict

Please read and complete this form carefully with reference to the information sheet about the research. If you are willing to participate in this study, ring the appropriate responses and sign and date the declaration at the end, or you can reply on the email with your confirmation to participate in the study. If you do not understand anything and would like more information, please ask.

I have had the research satisfactorily explained to me in verbal and / or written form by the researcher. YES / NO

I understand that the research will involve: participating in the application of the online reflective model explained in the information sheet for one month duration, and participating in the audiotape interview with the researcher for one hour and half maximum. YES / NO

I understand that I may withdraw from this study at any time without having to give an explanation. YES / NO

I understand that all information about me will be treated in strict confidence and that I will not be named in any written work arising from this study. YES / NO

I understand that any audiotape material of me will be used solely for research purposes and will be destroyed on completion of your research. YES / NO

66

I’m fully aware of the risks mentioned in the participant’s information sheet. I will follow the safety instructions and ask for support from my organization or the researcher if needed. YES / NO

Signature: …………………………………………………………………….………….

Date: ………………………………………………………………………………………

67

Appendix VIIParticipant Information Sheet for the research:

One to One Online reflective mediation

Case Study: Palestinian-Israeli conflict

Summary of the research:

This research aims to analyse the perspectives of young people aged 18 to 29 from Palestine, Israel and UK who will participate in testing a suggested online reflective mediation model. This mediation model allows the participants to engage in a role-playing game that involves them sharing pictures representing four areas of values and basic needs: Love, Fun, Freedom and their future.

This research can be useful to add knowledge to the theories of conflict resolution in general, and to contribute in building new approaches and tools for online conflict mediation.

As a participant in this research, you will be asked to participate in:

1- Participate in the communication of the online reflective mediation model:

If you are a young person from UK: you will play the mediator role, and your task will be to establish the communication with both the Palestinian and Israeli youth separately, using contact details for them that will be provided by the researcher. Then you will send them four tasks (one per week), and ask them to respond to these tasks using one of the following methods:

Using a drawing as a response and sending it to the mediator. Taking pictures from their daily life or environment that can be a response

to the task and sending these to the mediator.

The researcher will create a new email address for you, which will be used for the purpose of this research to keep your personal information confidential and ensure information is shared securely.

Please see the annex which provides further details of what is requested from you in the online reflective model.

2- An interview that will take place after completing this process. This will discuss your experience of using the model, and your perspectives and evaluation of it.

You have been chosen to take part of this research by your organization based on your willingness, availability, and ability to participate.

A translation for the communication between you and the other participants will be provided from and to your mother tongue language if needed, and support will be available from your organization throughout.

68

The process of the research:

Once you have agreed to take part in this research, the following points explain the steps of your involvement in the research:

1. The process will start with an initial conversation with the researcher to explain the process, including the security of data and your safety during the participation in the model, and to answer your questions about the research.

2. The researcher will create an email account for you, for use in this research.3. The researcher will share with you the specially-created email addresses of the other

participants who you will be working with.4. The researcher will inform you to start using the model as instructed in the

information sheet you receive.5. The process will then take place over around one month, where one task will be set

and expected to be completed every week. The researcher will be in touch with you every week to support you in doing the task.

6. Then you will be kindly asked to complete one interview with the researcher. This interview will be recorded, and your input will serve as the data of the research. Your information and opinions will be anonymous in the research, and this data will be saved on secure Durham university servers only.

Safety of the participants and security of the data:

This research will not involve direct communication between Palestinian and Israeli young people. However, seeing the responses made by young people from different positions in the conflict may possibly impact on your wellbeing by causing you stress or anxiety. You have the right to withdraw from this research at any time, without giving an explanation.

An email address will be created for you for the use in this research. The email address will provide automatic encryption for the information being shared when using it to send messages to the other participants, to keep these as secure as possible. Nevertheless, no form of electronic communication can be guaranteed to be totally secure, so please bear this in mind when sharing images and only share those which would not cause you or others embarrassment or harm if they were intercepted. If you are unsure about what this means, please discuss this with the person supporting you in the partner organisation where you are based.

The findings from this research may be used for developing improved forms of this model and the researcher may publish them. However, your personal information and opinions will remain anonymous, and your communications and responses to other young people whilst using the online reflective mediation model will not be published.

All the pictures and drawings exchanging during the implementation of the model will be destroyed and not used in any published findings, and the data from the interviews about your experience of using the model will be saved only on Durham University Servers.

69

Organization and Participants’ selection:

Three organizations will be selected in Palestine, Israel and UK to take part as partner organizations in this research. The role of these organizations is to recruit, select and support the young people who will take part in testing the model. These organizations have been selected by the researcher, based on their willingness to participate.

The criteria for selecting these organizations was to:1- Be an official and active youth organization registered in Palestine, Israel and the UK

respectively.2- Have the ability to recruit young people based on the selection criteria mentioned

below.3- Be able and ready to give support to the young people selected to participate in the

research.4- Be willing to sign a research agreement confirming this.

Young people’s selection:

2 Palestinian young people, 2 Israeli young people, and 2 young people from UK will be selected to participate in the research, by the partner organisations based in their country.This selection will be done based on the following criteria:

1- To be willing, available and able to take part in the online communication and respond to it, and the interviews afterwards.

2- To be 18 to 29 years old.3- The participants should have no experience in communication with the other side of

the conflict.

70

Appendix VIII

REVISED RESEARCH ETHICS AND RISK ASSESSMENT FORM, MAY 2015

SECTION A: INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION

A.1. Name of researcher(s):

A.2. Email Address(es) of researcher(s):

A.3. Project Title: One to One Online reflective mediation

Case Study: Palestinian-Israeli conflict

A.4. Project Funder (where appropriate):

A.5. When do you intend to start data collection?

April, 2016

A.6. When will the project finish? September, 2016

A.7. For students only: Student ID:

Degree, year and module:

Supervisor:

000289734

MA community and youth work 15/16

Carl Barton

A.8. Brief summary of the research questions:

What are the perspectives of young people aged 18 to 29, who will participate in an online reflective mediation model that will use role playing characters to reflect on four areas of their values and basic needs (Love, Fun, Freedom and their future) using photography or drawing between one Palestinian young person, one Israeli young person and one young person from UK?

Aim:The aim of this participatory action research is to analyse the perspectives of young people’s aged 18 to 29 from Palestine, Israel and UK, about the use of the online reflective mediation model suggested for this research, which allows the participants to discover and reflect on four areas of values and basic needs: Love, Fun, Freedom and their future while pretending to play a role playing game.

71

A.9. What data collection method/s are you intending you use, and why?This research can be defined as a participatory action research, since it has a combined approach of diagnosing a problem and the development of a possible solution, with participation from the researcher and members of the social setting. The research will be designed in three stages, the first stage is designing the online reflective mediation model by the researcher, then testing the model, then researching the evaluation of the model by the participants. The second and the third stages will have full participation of the young people, their organizations and the researcher.

Since this is the first time to use the model designed, it will be hard to forecast the impact of such application and what are the measurements that need to be tested, and what questions needed to be asked. For this reason a semi structured qualitative interviews will be the way to collect the data from the participants after the application of the model. In addition, this research seeks to find effect of the application on a group of six young people personal values and basic needs. Therefore, a prepared agenda of questions can be reliable to use in order to predict part of the effects on the participants, and the other part will be measured through the interpretation and interaction between the researcher and the participants through direct conversation.

Another reason to choose this methodology is the aim to see the problem and the effects of the model on the participants from their eyes and perspectives. As this model have not been tested before, this means that the outcomes can be unpredictable to be put in quantitative research setting, and it requires the researcher to investigate deeply for descriptive explanation and feedback through direct contact with the participant. The suggested model will contain a processes of interaction and communication between the researcher and the participants from one side, and between the participants themselves from other side. This research will focus to study and investigate these processes.

The communication between the participants during the application of the model will help to create the experience of the participants only, and it will not be used as a source of data for the research. This communication will destroyed. However, only the audiotaped face to face or skype semi-structured interviews between the research and each participant separately will serve as primary data for the research.

SECTION B: ETHICS CHECKLIST

While all subsequent sections of this form should be completed for all studies, this checklist is designed to identify those areas where more detailed information should be given. Please note: It is better to identify an area where ethical or safety issues may arise and then explain how these will be dealt with, than to ignore potential risks to participants and/or the researchers.

Yes No

a). Does the study involve participants who are potentially vulnerablei?

b). Will it be necessary for participants to take part in the study without their knowledge/consent (e.g. covert observation of people in non-public places)?

c). Could the study cause harm, discomfort, stress, anxiety or any other negative consequence beyond the risks encountered in normal life?

72

d) Does the research address a potentially sensitive topicii?

e). Will financial inducements (other than reasonable expenses and compensation for time) be offered to participants?

f). Are steps being taken to protect anonymity and confidentiality?

g). Are there potential risks to the researchers’ health, safety and wellbeing in conducting this research beyond those experienced in the researchers’ everyday life?

SECTION C: METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION

C.1. Who will be your research participants?

Young people aged between 18-29 from UK, Palestine and Israel

C.2. How will you recruit your participants and how will they be selected or sampled?

The sampling in this research will based on criterion purposive sampling, where the participants will be selected upon a pre-defined criteria that will allow the research questions to be answered and their willingness to take part in the research . The reason behind choosing this sampling technique is to include all the participants who took part partially or fully in trying the online reflective mediation model. The model will be applied in a group of 6 young people only, and the reason why to choose 6 people (2 people from each country), is due to the limited time and resources to implement the model and analyze the data for such application, which will include first time experience for young people to be involved in such complex dialogue done via email communication. Email communication will be used to test the model, to make it easy for translation, easier for the participants to follow the instructions and for the documentation of the communication. Therefore, other sampling techniques are foreseen to be difficult to use in this research, since there is no previous application for the model, and the sampling population is limited. The logic behind choosing the age group from 18 to 29 is to insure that the participants are not vulnerable, due to the sensitivity of the topic, which may cause harmful impact on younger and more vulnerable young people.

The Criterion purposive sampling will be done on two levels:

Organizational level:Three organizations will be selected in Palestine, Israel and UK to take part as partner organization in this research. These organizations role is to recruit, select and support the young people who will take part and in the application of the model. The British Youth Council North East have agreed to be the UK organization, while Peace and Freedom Youth Forum and The Jerusalem intercultural Center are the Palestinian and the Israeli partners respectively. These organization were selected by the researcher, based on their willingness to participate.

The criteria for selecting the organizations are:5- To be an official and active youth organization registered in Palestine, Israel and UK6- Ability to recruit young people based on the selection criteria of the young people

mentioned below.7- Able and ready to give all means of supports for selected young people in the research8- Recruiting translators to help in the email communication.9- To sign the research agreement.

73

Young people Level:

Applying the model on 2 groups (2 Palestinians, 2 Israelis, and 2 from UK)

The selection criteria for the young people participating in testing the model and taking part in the research will be done by the selected organizations as mentioned before. This selection will be done based on the following criteria:

4- To be willing, available and able to take part in the online communication and respond to it, and the semi structure interviews afterward.

5- To be 18 to 29 years old, 6- The participants should have no experience in communication with the other side of the

conflict.

C.3. How will you explain the research to the participants and gain their consent? (If consent will not be obtained, please explain why.)

A document with full explanation of the research will be sent to the participants, including their role in the online reflective mediation model and the semi structured interviews. In addition to holding skype and face to face conversations to explain it more before the research starts. Each participant have to approve in a written agreement to take part in the research. If some of them refuse to take part due to the sensitivity of projects that contains dialogue between Palestinian and Israeli youth, a new selection will be made in cooperation with the involved organizations.

C.4. What procedures are in place to ensure the anonymity and confidentiality of your participants and their responses?

All the participants’ names, data or information will be anonymous in the research. Emails accounts on https://tutanota.com/ will be created with anonymous identities for all the participants in the online reflective mediation model. Using these email accounts will provide encryption for all the data used in email correspondence between the users of this email service. Pictures files will be sent via these emails between the participants, and the participants will be asked to remove the metadata from the files before sending it (e.g. file properties that might reveal the location where photographs were taken), and given instructions how to do this, and they will be advised not to share files that contains sensitive information about their personal life, which might harm to them if these were misused.

A document will be signed by the researcher and the participants indicating that all the communication and the data of the online reflective mediation model, will be confidential and will not be published or shared with public.

All the data collected during the model (pictures and drawings will be destroyed) and will

74

not be used as primary data for the research. While the data from the interviews between the researcher and the participants will be saved in Durham University server.

C.5. Are there any circumstances in which there would be a limit or exclusion to the anonymity/confidentiality offered to participants? If so, please explain further.

Yes, If one of the participants decide to share the pictures of the other participants outside the designated email communication channel, or decide to use these files for other purposes; like sharing them on social media, or with other people.

C.6. You must attach a participant information sheet or summary explanation that will be given to potential participants in your research.

Within this, have you explained (in a way that is accessible to the participants): Yes No

a). What the research is about?

b). Why the participants have been chosen to take part and what they will be asked to do?

c). Any potential benefits and/or risks involved in their participation?

d) What levels of anonymity and confidentiality will apply to the information that they share, and if there are any exceptions to these?

e). What the data will be used for?

f). How the data will be stored securely?

g). How they can withdraw from the project?

h). Who the researchers are, and how they can be contacted?

75

SECTION D: POTENTIAL RISKS TO PARTICIPANTS

You should think carefully about the risks that participating in your research poses to participants. Be aware that some subjects can be sensitive for participants even if they are not dealing explicitly with a ‘sensitive’ topic. Please complete this section as fully as possible and continue on additional pages if necessary.

What risks to participants may arise from participating in your research?

How likely is it that these risks will actually happen?

How much harm would be caused if this risk did occur?

What measures are you putting in place to ensure this does not happen (or that if it does, the impact on participants is reduced)?

1. Psychological risks

Due to the sensitivity of the conflict some participants may face bad feelings, stress or anxiety, due to the unusual activity of being in indirect dialogue with a person from the other side of the conflict. It is likely that this will happen to the participants.

It may cause feeling of stress and anxiety on the participants. This is not considered very harmful on the participants, as the level of communication will the other party of the conflict is very low, and indirect. In addition that the participants will be aware to this, and they have the option to opt out of the research if they are not feeling comfortable.

This is one of the thing that the research is interested to evaluate. The participants will be informed about this risk, and they will also be informed that they can withdraw at any time if they don’t feel well. Also, the partner organizations and the researcher will provide any means of support for the participants, and a weekly check will be done to ensure the wellbeing of the participants during the whole process.

2. Safety of information

The participants will be sharing personal pictures files from their own life with other two young people that they don’t know, this files can be misused or shared outside the research scope.

This risk can be very harmful, especially if the personal files have been used in the media or by agencies in a way to publish the personal information of the young person to the public.

This risk can’t be avoided 100% if one of the participants decided to share the files. However, the participants will be asked to remove the meta data from the pictures before sending them, and they will be advised not to take pictures that contains sensitive or personal information about their life.

76

Email accounts with automatic encryption of the data will be used for the communication between the participants, and they will not know the real identity of the each other.

The researcher will also explain to the participants the danger of misusing the files outside the scope of this research to the participants, and how important to respect the privacy of others.

The partner organizations will also be involved in explaining these risks to the participants.

The participants drop out from the model application or the research interviews

This can happen due to the complexity of the research, which will affect the participant’s motivation to continue in taking part in the research.

The use of set instructions from the researcher and email communication which are not very interactive, and requires a lot of effort from the participants can cause lack of motivation and enthusiasm to continue on doing the tasks or participating in the interviews. This risk have a low effect on the participants themselves, since they have the freedom to drop out at any time they want, but it can cause limitation on the research data.

The participants will have an interview with the researcher before the start of the research, so they can be aware of the effort needed from them, and they are provided with a full explanation of the process of the research. Beside this, the researcher will be in a weekly contact with the participants to remove any confusion that may happen during the process.

77

SECTION E: POTENTIAL RISKS TO RESEARCHERS

You should think carefully about any hazards or risks to you as a researcher that will be present because of you conducting this research. Please complete this section as fully as possible and continue on additional pages if necessary. Please include an assessment of any health conditions, injuries, allergies or intolerances that may present a risk to you taking part in the proposed research activities (including any related medication used to control these), or any reasonable adjustments that may be required where a disability might otherwise prevent you from participating fully within the research.

1. Where will the research be conducted/what will be the research site?

What hazards or risks to you as a researcher may arise from conducting this research?

How likely is it that these risks will actually happen?

How much harm would be caused if this risk did happen?

What measures are being put in place to ensure this does not happen (or that if it does, the impact on researchers is reduced)?

1.Media and Social pressure

There is a risk that this research will be considered as normalization activity between the Palestinian and Israeli. Normalization activities are considered now as a taboo in the Palestinian society, and since the researcher is Palestinian he may face some social pressure if the media have published anything about the research

It can be harmful, if the information about the research have been explained wrongly to the media, which will cause boycott from some local organizations toward the researcher.

No publication or communication with media about the research during the research stage.

All the involved parties and participants should keep the research process confidential.

78

SECTION F: OTHER APPROVALS

Yes, document attached

Yes, documents to follow

No

a). Does the research require ethical approval from the NHS or a Social Services Authority? If so, please attach a copy of the draft form that you intend to submit, together with any accompanying documentation.

b). Might the proposed research meet the definition of a clinical trialiii? (If yes, a copy of this form must be sent to the University’s Insurance Officer, Tel. 0191 334 9266, for approval, and evidence of approval must be attached before the project can start).

c). Does the research involve working data, staff or offenders connected with the National Offender Management Service? If so, please see the guidance at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-offender-management-service/about/research and submit a copy of your proposed application to the NOMS Integrated Application System with your form.

d). Does the project involve activities that may take place within Colleges of Durham University, including recruitment of participants via associated networks (e.g. social media)? (If so, approval from the Head of the College/s concerned will be required after SASS approval has been granted – see guidance notes for further details)

e). Will you be required to undertake a Disclosure and Barring Service (criminal records) check to undertake the research?

f) I confirm that travel approval has or will be sought via the online approval system at http://apps.dur.ac.uk/travel.forms for all trips during this research which meet the following criteria:

For Students travelling away from the University, this applies where travel is not to their home and involves an overnight stay.

For Staff travelling away from the University, this applies only when travelling to an overseas destination.

Yes No

79

i Potentially vulnerable groups can include, for example: children and young people; those with a learning disability or cognitive impairment; those unable to give informed consent or individuals in a dependent or unequal relationship.ii Sensitive topics can include participants’ sexual behaviour, their illegal or political behaviour, their experience of violence, their abuse or exploitation, their mental health, or their gender or ethnic status. Elite Interviews may also fall into this category.iii Clinical Trials: Research may meet the definition of a clinical trial if it involves studying the effects on participants of drugs, devices, diets, behavioural strategies such as exercise or counselling, or other ‘clinical’ procedures.