CIUIDREN & SOcIEn (1991) 5z4.347-356

Northern Ireland children and cross-community holiday projects

ALAN ROBINSON AND JIM BROWN

SUMMARY: Holiday projects have made a contribution to cross-community relationr in Northern Ireland for 20 years. During that troubled time they have

evolved approaches which have increaringly featured contact between the children involved. This paper. bared Iargely on interviews with organsers and children on holiday projects visiting America in 1989, concentrates upon the essential follow-up component arranged back in the Province. While some

emphasis is made on the application of the so-called ‘contact hypothesis’ to this area within the voluntary sector, the study reveals the challenge that holiday projects must now face in raising and handling controversial issues among

children from direrent cultural backgroundr in a conjlict society.

I hated ‘em before I went on this thing, I thought they got up to all mischief and done bad things.

Background Growing up in the part of the United Kingdom that is Northern Ireland continues to pose a challenge to those who are concerned with the well-being of children. Northem Ireland has a ‘young’ population; there is a higher proportion of young people than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Moreover, Northern Ireland has a chronically high level of unemployment and there is a high incidence of families living in poverty. The violence adds to an environment which appears hostile to the normal and adaptive development of children. Northern Ireland is also culturally visible and rich, but a combination of history, insecurity and segregated housing and education means that young people can grow up as members of the same socio-economic class in the same place and yet be ignorant of one another. Misunderstanding and myth perpetuate alarming levels of distrust, prejudice and even hatred between two broad cultural traditions usually referred to as being nationalist/republican and unionisfloyalist or over simply as Catholic and Protestant.

Education and community relations The conflict and the violence of the last 20 years have attracted a range of creative

347

ALAN ROBINSON AND JIM BROWN

responses; these collectively form something of a movement to improve community relations. A recent advance in statutory provision has been the promotion of an ‘Education for Mutual Understanding’ [EMU] among young people in primary and secondary schools which are for the most part segregated along religious lines @arby et al., 1977; M m y , 1985; DENI, 1989; NICC, 1990, Robinson, 1992). As a cms- curricular theme, EMU forms a part of the new Northern Ireland (i.e. National) Curriculum, and with the support of the Northern Ireland Department of Education [DENI] and the Local Authority Education and Library Boards, EMU is generating an increasing number of planned professional responses among teachers.

Many of these programmes include an element of mixing pupils in learning situations of contact from linked Catholic and Protestant schools (Robinson, 1981; DENI, 1987; Dunn and Smith, 1989). Unlike EMU within schools, contact between schools is not a statutory requirement, but the increasing availability of government funding from 1987 has drawn teachers into EMU activities and experiences that contribute to the new cross-curricular theme and is an item of special attention in the School Annual Report Article 125, (Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order, 1989).

In the voluntary sector non-formal educational experiences have long been estab lished and teachers and children have been attracted by peace workers outside the school gates to a range of reconciliation events. Many of these have featured a residential in a rural haven within the province where children from both traditions have usually lived together and grown to learn more about each other and hopefully themselves in the process (Wilson, 1982; NICED, 1988; McCartney, 1990, FOCUS, 1991). As there is a realisation that residentials have the potential to make a powerful impact on young people, financial support is normally available, but at the same time residential elements have been criticised as being artificial or contrived. Moreover, the so-called ‘re-entry problem’ of children back into their own families and urban neighbourhoods has, it is popularly argued, rendered those experiences as ephemeral and ineffective. Such concerns have led to efforts among workers in both the statutory and the voluntary sectors to build residentials into broader planned programmes that include opportunities to follow-up the residential with meetings andevenrs within their own community. Holiday projects were among the first to withdraw children from the rituals of home and neighbourhood and are a part of this movement.

Origin and development of holiday projects In the early 1970s Fraser (1971; 1973), a child psychiatrist. had disseminated the searing affect that street violence was having on children in Belfast, and Lyons (1973), interested in community psychiatry, had predicted that the ‘epidemic of violence and anti-social behaviour would continue with them, even if the ‘troubles’ were to stop. but believed that ‘it is not impossible that children from both sides could meet and play together’. The early holiday projects were simply a means of providing some relief

348

NORTHERN IRELAND CHILDREN AND CR-MMUNlTY HOLIDAY PROJECIS

from what appeared to be a constant rioting as represented by the media. Removal from the community was felt to provide some protection for children who were seen as being at risk and a number of independent projects were established with funds from private sources outside Northern Ireland. In 1974, the Rotary Club of Minnesota invited and paid for the first mixed group of children to visit America. Holidays were normally timed to coincide with the ‘marching season’ when community tensions were known to be raised but little or no attempt was made overtly to establish contact between children from different backgrounds for the purpose of increasing levels of mutual understanding among them.

The 1980s have been marked by the increasing attention given by the statutory and the voluntary bodies to contact programmes of joint work (Robinson, 1981; Dunlop, 1988), inter-school links (Dunn and Smith, 1988; 1989), crosscommunity schemes (DENI, 1987) and a variety of peace and anti-prejudice programmes (ICCKJP, 1986; 1989; Tyrell and Lampen, 1990). Among holiday projects attempts have been made to mix children before the holiday, during the holiday and, more recently, to the organisation of follow-up meetings after the holiday. By 1982, the Northern Ireland Department of Education had issued its Circular 21 on the role of every educator in contributing to an improvement in community relations (DENI, 1982) and one year later it described cross-community holiday schemes as ‘a practical means of facilitat- ing the coming together of children and young people in circumstances that will contribute to increased understanding between the two traditions’ (DENI, 1983). From 1987 thisgovernment department(together with theNorthem Irelandvoluntary Trust) has administered a growing fund for an imaginative range of cross-community contact occasions emanating from both the statutory and the voluntary sectors (DENI, 1987; 1991).

The so-called contact hypothesis is associated with attempts to improve ethnic relations in America (Allport, 1958) and in Israel (Amir, 1969; Lemish, 1989). It emphasises the importance of the nature and duration of the contact, its frequency and the need to have an equality or balance between participants. The hypothesis is based on three assumptions; namely, that the fundamental problem of inter-group conflict is individual prejudice; that prejudice is an educational as well as a psychological problem and that prejudicial attitudes may be altered by re-education and, once they are, behavioural changes will necessarily follow (pettigrew, 1986). In addition to re- entry concerns noted above, other criticisms have been levelled at the contact element developed by holiday projects. Contact between children may be superficial and divisiveissues,seenby someasanessential aspectofeffectivecontact,maybeavoided for fear of damaging the fragile harmony between groups of children (Cornell, 1989). Furthermore, Brown (1986) has stressed that contact must be at a inter-group level rather than at an inter-personal level if it is to resist peer and other pressure and be in any way effective. In the light of these points most holiday projects have developed quite sophisticated programmes to the extent that Cornell (1989) questions whether

349

ALAN ROBINSON AND JM BROWN

they should retain the label of a ‘holiday’. Evaluation studies work in this particular area of crosscommunity work is generally

associated with Trew (1985; 1986; 1988; 1989) and is based on psychological method. She found no evidence of the impact of holidays on either the self-perception of children or on their attitudes to the other religious group which she noted as being quite positive before the trip (Trew, 1988). This might suggest that only moderate children are involved and raises questions regarding the selection procedure of children for holidays as well as the level of contact between them before, during and after the holiday. Indeed, in a similar study of a project which featured contact among children when in America, Orbell and Trew (1988) reported that ‘the children’s attitudes changed from favourable to very favourable while attending the scheme’. A further study, made by apractitioner, concluded in a report to the Northem Ireland Department of Education (1988) that:

... the overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that the Northern Ireland Children’s Holiday Scheme’s programme is effective in promoting better community relations between Protestant and Catholic young people and is an effective vehicle for producing attitudinal change in its participants (Hinds, 1988).

The current study This paper is based upon a study which aimed at improving an understanding of the follow-up stage of holiday projects for the purpose of assisting projects in critically challenging their own practice in order to plot their way ahead in the 1990s. It was made of those holiday projects which benefited from some government support and which were built around a trip to America in the summer of 1989. In-depth interviews were conducted with the organisers of the six projects which met this criteria and with 48 children who attended all or a few of the follow-up events arranged by two of the six projects. The study was assisted by one of the researchers having worked as a volunteer with one of the two projects in the summer of 1989 and in subsequent follow-up work; not only did this provide an insight into holiday projects but it gave the interviewer credibility with the project organisers.

At an early stage in the study it was hypothesised that, as all projects organised follow-up activities, their degree of effectiveness depended upon:

1. the amount and nature of contact between Northern Ireland children when

2. the type of programme organised for the follow-up; 3. the strength of family and peer pressure in the neighbourhoods from which

in America;

the children were drawn,

350

NORTHERN IRELAND CHILDREN AND CROSS-COMhWNITY HOLIDAY PROJEcrS

The data collected from the organisers revealed the similarities between the six projects: all were concerned with children in the 9-12 age range who were selected by, or with the help of, primary school principals or teachers; all had a balance of Catholic and Protestant children, had a holiday element of some six weeks’ duration that involved hosting in America and included planned contact there, and all projects were found to have a follow-up programme of some kind that featured recreational activity at neutral venues. The differences were largely of degree or of substance.

Projects ranged in size from 19 children to 200. They varied in the frequency of contact both in America and in Northern Ireland. One insisted that in America the children met as a group once a week; another five times a week. Five of the six projects arranged for children to meet in smaller ‘cluster’ groups twice or three times a week; one project made no such arrangement. This project, like two others did, however, organise children into pairs who would meet as ‘buddies’. In Northern Ireland some children were involved with projects which arranged two follow-up events; other children were with projects which arranged up to 40 events in the following year.

As two projects organised aresidential for thechildren while in America, there were also variations in the duration of contact together. Projects also varied in the impor- tance they attached to the religion of the host family in America: one project placed children with families of the same religion; another made a special point of placing the children with families of a different religion and another ‘usually attempted to do this’. For three projects the religion of the host family was not an issue.

The difference of substance refers to the level of attention given to sensitive and controversial issues in the holiday and follow-up programme. Two of the six projects have an ecumenical dimension to them and one of these also, interestingly, adopts a more overt socio-political dimension by the raising and handling of what might be divisive issues that challenge opinion rooted in the cultural traditions represented.

The Irish Children’s Summer Programme for Peaceorganises a number of ecumeni- cal services for the children during their stay in America, one of which is compulsory. The children participate in some of the services with preparations for the services taking place both in Protestant and Catholic churches; ‘I went to mass’, reported one Protestant child ‘and I didn’t know what to do’. This innovative project organises a follow-up programme around craft, sport and ‘educational’ activities; the last half hour of each evening is devoted to what is referred to as a ‘reconciliation slot’. At this time the children are confronted with issues associated with the conflict in Northern Ireland ‘When something happens like abomb or something we would often talk about it’. For example, on one evening aCatholic priest and ahtestant minister attended to discuss their life and work; on another occasion a couple representing a mixed marriage came to discuss how their religious differences had affected theirrelationship: ‘They did this play which said: I have a friend called Jesus and he turns round and says well he’s my friend too - and they both turn round and make up’. Unlike organisers of the other projects who ranked leisure and sporting activities as the most important strategy

35 I

ALAN ROBINSON AND JIM BROWN

towards meeting the aims of their holiday project, the organiser of the Irish Children’s Summer Programme for Peace ranked the examination of controversial issues and strategies promoting co-operation as being the most important approaches.

Controversial issues: a tension in holiday projects Stephan and Stephan (1984) would stress similarities over differences in contact work on the grounds that people simply like those whom they perceive to be similar to themselves. Although the children might share a common holiday experience in America it follows that in adopting a controversial issues programme in the follow-up activity, the Irish Children’s Summer Programme for Peace could threaten the further development of friendship among them.

One child honestly reported that when she had raised a religious issue it had caused offence; in so doing, she had learnt an interpersonal convention in an divided society: ‘Wedon’t takaboutReligion any more’. However, to imply that thechildren from two cultural traditions in a state of conflict are similar in all respects, or to avoid differences in formal contact, as is the case with five of the six projects, can lead to what Hewstone and Brown (1986) described as ‘a shocking disconfirmation of expectations’. Indeed if contemporary holiday projects are to achieve their aims, an atmosphere in which all the participants feel able to express themselves freely must be provided (Moscovici and Zavdloni, 1969). If the organisers of contact holiday schemes are seen to deny the legitimacy of group distinctions by ignoring or avoiding the fact that they exist, then they will constrain freedom of expression and thus become part of the problem as well as a threat to group identity. Turner (1981) warns that even those contact experiences which have been designed to promote co-opemtion between groups by establishing a positive functional interdependence between them will fail if the role and function of each group tradition is not clearly recognisable. If these distinctions are blurred, groups will come toreassert their dfferences and intergroup dislike will increase. Thus Brown and Turner (1 986) recommend that each tradition should be seen as it wishes to be seen and differences should be highlighted as desired by their members.

The skill demands on organisers and workers cannot be underestimated. In the statutory sector, the experience of the Schools Cultural Studies Project, which devel- oped a social studies programme of Northern Ireland issues to be handled by a teacher- chauperson applying a values clarification process rather than adopting a neutral position, demonstrated the professional challenge to teachers who sought mutual respect between individuals and groups of children rather than looked for images of friendship (Robinson, 1981). Nevertheless, it makes for an approach that requires organisers to facilitate discussions that challenge their own holiday scheme and the experiences that it has provided. Some celebration of the differences between mem- bers, claims Cornell (1989), must be apart of cross-community contact projects in the future if they are to have a lasting effect.

Although several children from one project see no point in attending follow-up

352

NORTHERN IRELAND CHILDREN AND CXOSS-COMMUNITY HOLIDAY PROJECTS

events when there was no chance of getting back to America, it may be significant that the attendance rate of the children participating in the follow-up programme arranged by the Irish Children’s Summer Programme for Peace was lower than for other projects: half of those who went to America in 1989 attended the follow-up meetings held in the evening (as compared with 60-70 per cent for other projects) and attendance at the residentials fell h m 80 per cent at the first to 40 per cent at the second (as compared with residential attendance rates elsewhere of 69-95 per cent). Tyrell(l99 1) suggests that thereason why manyorganisersfailed toattend theirown annual meeting in 1985 was that a clumsy attempt had been made to tackle a controversial issue the previous year.

Naturally, current project organisers suggested that one method of determining the effectiveness of their work was by observing the number of friendships which developed between members of the two traditions. In neutral environments friendships are formed easily between Catholic and Protestant young people and continued segregation is the exception rather than the rule. As expected, all 48 children who were interviewed stated that they have more friends from the other religious group than they had prior to their involvement with the holiday projects. Statements made by them reveal the desire to retain the relationships generated in America: for instance, ‘I made friends in America and a lot of them are Catholics and you sort of don’t want to say ‘Cheerio’ because they’re like really, really good friends and you want to stay friends with them’, but one reflective young respondent added ‘yes, we can’t beat them up no

The family and peer pressures exerted on the children at home and at school may also account for the variation in attendance rates. Some children who were attending follow-up events reported an encouragement to attend: ‘You’re Ma tells you to go to it’; it was reported that some of those not attending had been discouraged to attend: ‘His Da won’t let him’; and ‘she’s afraid of bringing trouble on her family; and some preferred other youth activities in the community, but most children intemiewed clearly expressed their tension in order to retain contact with each other: ‘You don’t know sometimes what’s right and what’s wrong - that’s the way you feel when your mates are slagging you’. Indeed, it appears that while holiday projects might lead to the making of friends across the divide, they can hardly be said to win friends at home: ‘Oh God, she’s been with aProtestant’; orat school: ‘My school friend won’t talk tomeand everything’.

Concluding remarks This paper has linked the contact debate with the current practice of holiday projects. It had demonstrated the enormous strides made since holiday projects began and has pointed to the next stage in their development as a force for increasing levels of mutual understanding among the next generation. There is a high level of commitment to improving community relations among project organisers and volunteers, but they are

more’.

353

ALAN ROBINSON AND J&l BROWN

relatively isolated and require support if they are to reflect critically on their practice and plan ways ahead. They may benefit from having closer contact themselves both with each other and with selected academics and government officials alike. The former may assist any review and further an understanding of parental and peer pressures by guiding practitioners in the use of action-mearch methods towards issues and innovations arising from a shared desire to ensure effective holiday projects. Increased contact with the Department of Education (NQ may ease some of the immediate resource problems of arranging follow-up programmes - namely difficul- ties arising over venues, transport and ancillary staffing.

It is a measure of some success that planned cross-community contact programmes between young people in contemporary Northern Ireland take place at all, and it might be surprising that well over half the young people involved in holiday projects attend and participate in organised follow-up events, but it is a particular source of hope to find that one holiday project exhibits an innovative and courageous approach that challenges the condition of culture in the province. Together with other initiatives in the voluntary sector and in the Northern Ireland Curriculum of contemporary school- ing, this holiday project constitutes a significant development towards a more tolerant, creative, cohesive and harmonious society; it now remains for all projects to devise ways of making stronger connections with that society as they currently find it and evolve their policy and practice further to ensure that young people learn to confront difficult issues together more comfortably.

References Allport, G. (1958) The Nature of Prejudice. Garden City: Doubleday. Amir, Y. (1%9) ‘Contact hypothesis in ehnic relations’, Psychological Bulletin, 71. Brown, R. (1985) Reconciliation and Contact. Paper read at the British Association of

Psychologists, Stranmillis College, Belfast, 7 March. Brown, R. and Turner J.C. (1981) ‘Inter-personal and inter-group behaviour’ in Turner, J.C.

and Giles, H. (eds.) Psychology and Social Problems. Chichester: Wiley. Comell, J.C. (1 989) Integration Through Contact in Northernlreland: A Social-Psychologi-

cal Critique. Unpublished paper, M A in Peace Studies, University of Ulster at Magee College, Londondeny.

Darby, J. et al. (1977) Schools Apart? Coleraine: NUU. Dunlop, D. (1987) ‘Inter-school links: A Limavady experience’ in Robinson, A. (ed.)

Education for Mutual Understanding: Roles and Responsibilities. University of Ulster at Coleraine, Faculty of Education Resource Centre.

Department of Education, Northern Ireland (1982) The Improvement of Community Rela- tions; the Contribution of Schools. Circular 1982/21. Bangor.

Department of Education Northern Ireland (1987) Cross-Community Contact Scheme. Circular 1987147. Bangor.

Department of Education, Northern Ireland (1989) Education for Mutual Understanding: A Cross-Curricular Theme. Report of a Working Group. Bangor.

Department of Education, Northern Ireland (1991) Education for Mutual Understanding:

354

NORTHERN IRELAND CHILDREN AND CROSS-COMMUNITY HOLIDAY PROJECIS

The Cross Commwky Contact Scheme. Report of a Survey by the Education and Training andlnspectorate 1989 - 90. Bangor.

Dunn, S. and Smith, A. (1989) Inter-School Lids. University of Ulster at Coleraine, Centre for the Study of Conflict.

FOCUS Group (1991) Who’s Who in EMU? A Guide to Organisatiom Which Can Help Teachers to Plan andCarry Out Work in Education forMutua1 Understanding. Belfast.

Fraser, M. (1971) ‘Ulster’s children of conflict’, New Society, April. Fraser, M. (1973) Children in CorJlict. London: Secker and Warburg. Hewstone, M. and Brown, R. (eds.) Contact andConj7ict inlnterGroup Encounters. Oxford:

Blackwell. Hinds, J. (1988) No~hernlre landChi ln’s Holiday Scheme. Interim Report to the Minkter

of Education (NI). Irish Council of Churches/Irish Commissioners of Justice and Peace, Peace Education

Resources Centre Catalogue, 48 Elmwood Avenue, Belfast BT9 6AZ. Lemish, P. (1989) Cultural ConjTict and the Curriculum. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Research Association, San Francisco. Lyons, H.A. (1973) ‘The psychological effects of the civil disturbances on children’, The

Northern Teacher, Winter. Later Studies suggested that Fraser and Lyons were over- simplifying the situation and were unduly pessimistic (see Harrison J. and Harrison, J. (ed.) (1980) A Society Under Stress. Open Books.

McCartney, C. (1990) Making Ripples: An Evaluation of the Inter-Community Contact Grant Scheme of the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trwt. University of Ulster at Coleraine, Centre for the Study of Conflict.

Moscovici, S. and Zavalloni. M. (1969) ‘The group as a polarizer of attitudes’, Journaf of Personality and Social Psychology, 12.

Murray, D. (1985) Worlds Apart. Belfast: Appletree Northern Ireland Council for Educational Development (1988) Education for Mutual

Northern Ireland Curriculum Council (1990) Cross-Curricular Themes. Belfast. Northern Ireland (1989) The Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order. HMSO: Belfast. Orbell, S. and Trew. K. (1988) An Evaluation of a Children’s Holiday Project: Children’s

Project Northern IrelandLtd. Queens University, Belfast, Department of Psychology. Pettigrew, T.F. (1986) ‘The inter-group contact hypothesis reconsidered’ in Hewstone, M.

and Brown, R. (eds.) Contact andConflict inlntergroup Encounters. Oxford: Blackwell. Robinson, A. (1981) The Schools Cultural Studies Project: A Contribution to Peace in

Northern Ireland. Coleraine, NUU. Robinson, A. (1992) ‘Education for mutual understanding as a cross-curricular theme’ in

Caul, L. (ed.) Schools Under Scrutiny. Belfast: Stranmillis (at press). Smith, A. and Dunn, S. Extending Inter-School Links: An Evaluation of Contact between

Protestant and Catholic Pupils in Northern Ireland. University of Ulster at Coleraine, Centre for the Study of Conflict.

Stephan, W.G. and Stephan, C.W. (1984) ‘The role of ignorance in inter-group relations’ in Miller, N. and Brewer, M.B. (eds.) Groups in Contact. New York: Academic Press.

Trew, K. et al. (1985) Irish Children’s Swnmer Program in Greensboro: Evaluation 1984 - 85. Queens University, Belfast, Department of Psychology.

Trew, K. (1986) ‘Catholic-Protestant contact in Northern Ireland’ in Hewstone, M. and

Understanding: A Guide. Belfast.

355

ALAN ROBINSON AND JIM BROWN

Brown, R. (eds.) Contact and Conjlict in Inter-Groq Encounters. Oxford Blackwell. Trew, K. (1988) Project Children: 1987 Evaluation Queens University, Belfast. Department

of Psychology. Trew, K. (1989) 'Evaluating the impact of contact schemes for Catholic and Protestant

children' in Harbison, J. Graving Up in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Stranmillis LRU. Tyrell, J. (1991) Strategies for Overcoming Resistance from Teachers to the National

Coalition Building Institute's Prejudice Reduction Modet in the Contert of Experimen- tal Education forMutual Uderstanding Work Unpublished dissertation. MA in Peace Studies, University of Ulster at Magee College, Londonden-y.

Tyrell, J. and Lampen J. (eds.) (1990) Ulster Quaker Peace Education Project, Annual Report 1989-90. University of Ulster at Magee College.

Wilson, D. (1 982) Corrymeela and Community Education in Northern Ireland. Ballycastle: Corrymeela Community.

356