Contributions of Digital Communication Technology to Human Rights Education:
A Case Study
A Proposal for Dissertation Research
Leading to the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
in Human Science
by
Rebecca Joy Norlander
Saybrook University
San Francisco, California
December 1, 2012
Committee Chair: Joel Federman
Committee Member: Bob McAndrews
Committee Member: George Kent
ii
Abstract
Advances in technological capacity have played an increasing role in helping human
rights educators promote the dignity of people worldwide. Digital information and
communications technologies (ICTs) are being deployed to promote human rights education
(HRE), aiming to fulfill rights for all human beings. This proposed dissertation will ask: How
can new digital communication tools facilitate HRE and contribute to the development of a
human rights culture? The research will utilize the World Programme for Human Rights
Education (WPHRE) definition of HRE as “any learning, education, training and information
efforts aimed at building a universal culture of human rights” (United Nations General
Assembly, 2010, p. 4). The significant need for evaluating exisiting HRE initiatives has been met
by a dearth of critical assessment, especially for initiatives that incorporate digital technology.
Following a review of relevant literature, this proposal will outline the methodology for a
case study of the human rights organization Amnesty International, exploring the organization’s
use of digital ICTs to advance a culture of human rights. The dissertation will critically evaluate
the advantages and disadvantages of using digital ICTs for HRE by investigating Amnesty
International’s current HRE work worldwide, as experienced by members of an international
network of facilitators and educators, measuring it against the success criteria identified by the
WPHRE: a) advancement of knowledge and skills, b) development of corresponding values,
attitudes and behaviors, and c) demonstration of identifiable action that defends and promotes
human rights (United Nations General Assembly, 2010).
The growing interest in the use of digital communication tools for human rights work has
increased the need for rigorous research to investigate their effectiveness, identify challenges,
iii
and make recommendations for future HRE initiatives. This research is intended to serve as a
valuable resource for human rights organizations and educators worldwide.
iv
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY.......................................................................1
Context and Rationale ......................................................................................................................4
Purpose and Goals of the Study .......................................................................................................8
Central Research Question ...............................................................................................................9
Overview of Research Design .......................................................................................................10
Significance of the Study ...............................................................................................................11
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................13
Understanding Human Rights Education.......................................................................................13
What are Human Rights? ...................................................................................................13
The United Nations and Human Rights Education ............................................................17
Approaches to Human Rights Education: Formal, Non-Formal, Informal .......................20
Human Rights Education: Research to Date ..................................................................................21
Theory of Human Rights Education: Objectives and Methodology ..................................22
Programming and Implementation ....................................................................................26
Evaluation and Assessment................................................................................................28
The Evolution of Digital Communications Technology ................................................................31
The Participatory Web .......................................................................................................32
Unprecedented Proliferation of Mobile Phones ................................................................33
Growth of Internet Access Through Mobile Technology ..................................................35
Research on the Social Impact of Recent Digital Communications Technology ..........................36
Integrating Digital Tools and Human Rights Education Through Digital Activism .....................41
Research on Digital Activism for Human Rights Change .............................................................46
Chapter Conclusion ........................................................................................................................52
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................54
Methodological Framework ...........................................................................................................54
Methodological Lens .........................................................................................................55
Constructivist Worldview ......................................................................................55
Research Design Overview ............................................................................................................56
Case Study as Research Strategy ...................................................................................................57
Applying Case Study Methodology to Research on Human Rights Education.................57
Research Purpose and Goals ..........................................................................................................57
Research Questions ........................................................................................................................58
Procedures
................................................................................................................................58
Outline of Procedures .......................................................................................................58
Case Selection Overview .................................................................................................59
Data Collection .................................................................................................................60
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................61
Strategies for Establishing Study Validity and Reliability ............................................................64
Delimitations and Limitations........................................................................................................66
v
Anticipated Ethical Issues ..............................................................................................................67
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................69
APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................................80
Appendix A. Research Questionnaire ............................................................................................80
Appendix B. Research Interview Protocol.....................................................................................82
Appendix C. List of Commonly Used Abbreviations ....................................................................84
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Example of a Mashup (Screenshot) ........................................................................ 45
1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Human rights –the “two most evocative and powerful words in global political discourse”
(Fagan, 2011, para. 2) are captivating a larger audience as advances in Internet technology make
communication increasingly scalable and efficient. Digital tools have expanded the potential for
human rights educators to reach and empower diverse populations. While the language chosen
for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 emphasized the importance of
educating people about, in, and for their human rights, recent advances in digital technology
have made new ways of such education possible, democratizing access to human rights learning.
Clements (2011) acknowledges: “It has only been with the information technology revolution
that awareness and understanding of human rights have been able to infiltrate across
authoritarian borders, bypass resistant bureaucracies and become easily accessible to
communities around the world” (para. 1).
The field known as human rights education (HRE) plays a vital role in providing the
means and methods necessary for individuals to secure rights for themselves, their families and
communities. It is dedicated to promoting and protecting human dignity and is the purview of the
United Nations, national governments and civil society. It has been argued that such education
should be promoted through diverse educational venues, where educators work to advance a
culture of human rights, comprised of communities that respect, value and support human
dignity. A culture of human rights is developed through raising awareness and skill building,
essentially empowering people to identify and claim their rights, leading to an environment that
affirms the value of each human being.
2
The usefulness of education to advance a culture of human rights has been gaining
worldwide attention. In 2009, the Lisbon Forum brought together representatives from
governements and civil society throughout Europe, the Middle East and North Africa under the
theme Creating a Culture of Human Rights through Education. Participants shared experiences
and discussed strategies for cooperation and promotion of human rights values. This
corresponded to the World Programme for Human Rights Education (WPHRE), which defined
HRE as “any learning, education, training and information efforts aimed at building a universal
culture of human rights” [United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), 2010, p. 4], encompassing
the acquisition of knowledge, development of corresponding values and attitudes, and promotion
of action to uphold, defend, and advance human rights. These goals can be summarized as efforts
to inform, train and empower:
HRE aims to provide information about international or regional human rights norms,
standards, and systems and to give people the skills and attitudes that lead to the
protection and support of human rights. Educating people in their human rights should
empower them to know and use their human rights to protect themselves and others from
human rights violations. (Mihr, 2009, p. 177)
Those who are unaware of their fundamental rights may be at increased risk of violation
and abuse, which further compromises their ability to advocate for the fulfillment of those rights,
causing a vicious cycle. Human rights education – while advantageous for all people – is
especially vital for those facing discrimination and exploitation. Following the Asia-Pacific
Regional Resource Center for Human Rights Education (ARRC), three groups merit special
consideration:
3

Disadvantaged people –those who are unable to access resources or
opportunities usually enjoyed by the majority of people in society,

Marginalized people – those excluded from the mainstream of society and because of this
exclusion are near or below the limit of reasonable conditions of existence, and

Vulnerable people – those that are susceptible to exploitation, injury or attack. […]
people who are, because of their position in society, susceptible to violations of their
basic human rights. (Sillan, 2004, pp. 5-6)
The case study that will be considered in the dissertation proposed here targets this mandate to
address the human rights of disadvantaged, marginalized, and/or vulnerable populations; a
delineation corresponding to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and
Training (UNDHRET), which specifies that HRE “should take into account the particular
challenges and barriers faced by…persons in vulnerable and disadvantaged situations and
groups…in order to promote empowerment and human development and to contribute to the
elimination of the causes of exclusion or marginalization” (UNGA, 2011, p. 5).
Human rights organizations and educators are starting to recognize the potential of digital
tools to increase the scope and impact of their work (Norlander, 2012). The 2009 Lisbon Forum
launched an interdisciplinary conversation between educators, development workers,
policymakers, and technologists that emphasized the importance of ICTs for HRE, particularly as
a way of reaching youth. Two years later, the Declaration on Human Rights Education and
Training (UNDHRET) affirmed that HRE should “capitalize on and make use of new
information and communication technologies, as well as the media, to promote all human rights
and fundamental freedoms” (UNGA, 2011, p. 5).
4
Context and Rationale
The notion of a culture of human rights is a relatively recent invention, evolving
alongside an increasingly interconnected and globalized world. During the Cold War, East and
West held polarized definitions of human rights and thus differed in their prioritization of human
needs (Mihr, 2009): “From the perspective of Western states this meant that political freedom
rights were more relevant than social and economical human rights. Socialist countries, by
contrast, proclaimed that social and economical human rights had to be realized before political
freedom could be guaranteed” (p. 178). If the Cold War era subjected human rights to the
reductionist categories of an overly-simplified bipolar world, increased globalization since then
has introduced new challenges. The nation-state has increasingly given way to an intricate web
of intersecting, multinational and transnational forces. When human rights abuses are not aligned
with geopolitical borders, it can become increasingly difficult to identify actors on both sides –
abusers and abused.
Frezzo (2011) defines globalization in the context of thinking about human rights as
“increasing economic, political, social, cultural, and environmental interdependency, the growth
of a global public sphere (mediated by the Internet and other advanced communications
technologies)” (p. 11). The political disruption caused by expanding Internet connectivity and the
growing prevalence of digital devices cannot be overstated. Common citizens can use these new
communication networks to create consensus and mobilize large-scale nonviolent protests
against repressive regimes.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee (2010), the inventor of the World Wide Web, argues that this
revolution in the human experience is based on a deceptively simple fact: that any individual can
now share any information with anyone else, anywhere, and at any time. The web of
5
communication networks continues to expand rapidly, with diverse implications for human
interaction. In particular, the rapid rise of mobile telephony and increased access to web services
on mobile devices make once unheard of communication abilities commonplace:
The Internet has given citizens across the world enhanced opportunities to communicate
in the public domain, breaking down commercial, social and geographical boundaries to
communication. The ability to access the Internet via mobile phones promises to extend
the benefits of the internet to people who do not have access to desktop computers and
fixed line internet connections. (Horner, 2011, p. 4)
The use of digital tools to advance human rights initiatives is now the subject of growing
debate in an increasingly wired world. While concerns about privacy and security abound,
advances in technological capacity have demonstrably assisted human rights educators in their
work to promote dignity and secure rights for those most subject to abuse. This new potential has
translated into an ever-widening array of programs and initiatives being developed and deployed
in both governments and civil society, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs):
“Many international, regional and national and sub-national organisations have recognised the
value of using both non-formal and formal educational approaches and of making use of the
reach and creative prospects of the ICTs” (Lisbon Forum, 2009, p. 25).
The advent of digital technology has the potential to dramatically alter educational
initiatives by making teaching and learning decreasingly reliant upon traditional classroom
settings. Organizations as diverse as the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights
Watch, and the University of Minnesota all provide extensive resources, available for free, public
access online. The non-profit organization Human Rights Education Associates (HREA) has a
library with over 3,000 articles, curriculum guides and other documents to assist educators and
6
also conducts online courses on various human rights topics (Human Rights Education
Associates, 2007). The value of HRE and the potential of digital tools, however, extends beyond
mere availablity of content. Making information easily accessible and transferrable is only the
first step in empowering learners to effectively claim their rights. This proposed research
anyalyzes the additional steps of integrating human rights learning into daily, meaningful
activities, and then developing ways of evaluating the effectivness of different methods for
producing meaningful results.
This dissertation research will investigate the possibility to further a global human rights
culture by exploring the interaction between HRE and digital information and communications
technologies (ICTs), focusing on mobile phones as a primary tool for enacting human rights
change. In this dissertation proposal, digital ICT refers explicity to a category of tools that use
digital networks to create, store and transmit information. The advantages of digital ICT for
advancing human rights initiatives include increased speed, ability to scale, unilimited storage,
and lower cost than previous methods of engagement.
As digital communication technology develops, so does the opportunity for improving
global standards of living through the practice of digital activism, defined here to refer to the use
of digital devices to organize and advocate for social change. Because technology can promote
positive social and political engagement, but can also be manipulated to disempower
communities, a critical analysis of the potential impact of new digital tools must take into
account the full range of potential outcomes. In this proposal, digital activism refers to a way of
advancing HRE initiatives using digital communication tools. The goal of digital activism in
relation to HRE is to further the aims of human rights educators – specifically, to inform, train,
and empower people in their human rights and promote a culture affirming of human dignity.
7
Digital ICT can help change the discourse around human rights, emphasizing what all
people share in common and aiding in dissemination of human rights learning (Mihr, 2009). The
Internet has been a vehicle for spreading information about both rights and abuses through
informal networks, increasing awareness even in places lacking official HRE programming.
Human rights education is a relatively young field and in need of more scholarly
assessment. Creswell (2007) regards a gap in scholarship on a given topic as a convincing
rationale for conducting additional research. Theorists and practitioners of HRE admit to the
undertheorization of the field (Keet, 2012; Waldron & Ruane, 2010). To commemorate the 60th
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), educators and activists
participated in a roundtable on HRE, identifying priority areas for action and research. A
UNESCO (2011) review of this roundtable concluded that “(o)ne of the core concerns was how
to link research and policy in a way that enables not only the identification of common problems
and challenges, but also the design of practical and effective solutions” (pp. 14-15). While there
are studies of HRE applications in the field (Amnesty International, 2010; Silan, 2004; Teleki,
2007), and some guides for conducting evaluations (Equitas International Centre for Human
Rights Education & the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
2011; The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security
and Co-operation in Europe, 2009), a study carried out by Asia-Pacific Regional Resource
Center for Human Rights Education (ARRC) points to the need for further evaluation:
If human rights education is to be a tool towards social justice and social transformation,
then it is imperative to see how the various human rights education programs have served
the vulnerable, disadvantaged, and marginalized; and how they have contributed to the
empowerment of these sectors and individuals. In relation to this, it is important to look
8
at the methodologies that worked best in enhancing human rights knowledge, as well as
capacity for human rights action. (Sillan, 2004, pp. 1-2)
The 2009 Lisbon Forum found a lack of evaluations of HRE in actual practice, proposing the
development of an “evidence base” for HRE, to strengthen the rationale for funding in both the
public and private sectors. These evidence-based assessments are useful for informing
subsequent HRE programming that “promotes a human rights culture” (p. 53). Human rights
education is more varied than ever, necessitating an increase in relevant evaluation that will
interest a growing and diverse number of educators: “As HRE has been adopted and elaborated
upon by more and more educational stakeholders, HRE can no longer be characterized as a
singularly understood practice” (Bajaj, 2011, p. 489). This proposed research will seek to
document and assess current methodologies being used to promote human rights’ values and
norms in a way that accurately captures the diversity characteristic of the field.
This proposal aims to correct the lack of scholarship at the intersection between HRE and
digital ICT, both in theory and practice. Well-established human rights organizations (like the
three-million-member strong Amnesty International) are increasingly recognizing the benefits of
new technologies and incorporating them into existing programs. Despite the increased use of
ICT in human rights work and the willingness of NGOs to implement methods appropriate for a
digital era, the impact of technology on the way HRE is designed and deployed remains
unexplored. This dissertation proposal suggests one approach to filling identified gaps in HRE
literature and offers educators and NGOs recommendations for using digital ICT to advance a
culture of human rights.
Purpose and Goals of the Study
The purpose of the dissertation proposed here is to understand the contribution of digital
9
communication tools to human rights education (HRE) at a global human rights organization.
Through a case study of Amnesty International – the largest organization facilitating HRE in the
world currently – this research will critically assess the advantages and disadvantages of using
digital ICT for HRE and make recomendations for designing and implementing new initiatives.
It will explore the implications of evolving communication technology for establishing processes
that foster universal human rights, including limitations and weaknesses. The researcher will
produce and disseminate meaningful results to human rights practitioners everywhere, not only
those working with Amnesty International. The findings will suggest new strategies and best
practices for all human rights organizations and educators.
Central Research Question
This proposed dissertation asks the following question: Can new digital communication tools
facilitate human rights education and contribute to the development of a human rights culture,
and if so, how? Several sub-questions will be explored and are intended to inform the exploration
of the primary question:

How does the use of digital communication tools advance knowledge of human rights
issues and skills to effectively deal with human rights violations?

How can digital communication tools contribute to the development of values, attitudes
and behaviors that correspond to human rights principles?

How can the use of digital communication tools help produce identifiable actions that
defend and promote human rights?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of using digital communications tools for HRE?

Can digital communications tools be implemented more effectively for HRE?
10
Overview of Research Design
This proposed research project is designed as a case study of use of digital
communications technology by Amnesty International to facilitate human rights education
throughout the globe. A review of the literature seeks to understand the concept of human rights,
describes the development of HRE, explores digital communication technology and assesses
current work in the field, integrating new tools with human rights concerns through the practice
of digital activism.
According to Creswell (2007), “the process of designing a qualitative study begins...with
the broad assumptions central to qualitative inquiry, a worldview consistent with it, and in many
cases, a theoretical lens that shapes the study” (p. 42). This study will be characterized by a
constructionist framework, “which implies that social properties are outcomes of the interactions
between individuals, rather than phenomena ‘out there’ and separate from those involved in its
construction” (Bryman, 2004, p. 266). It is assumed that human rights are socially constructed
norms, rather than derived from pre-existing natural laws. If they are not granted to human
beings by an external authority, the advancement of such rights depends solely on HRE.
Understanding the processes by which we construct and learn about human rights is essential to
determinine how such rights are advanced, and finding the most effective means of advancing
them.
Following a review of literature, a chapter on methodology will offer an explicit
description of the selected methodological approach and specify the process of collecting and
analyzing data. Data will be collected from a variety of sources, including a questionnaire sent to
140 human rights educators and HRE Coordinators who work for Amnesty International
Sections in 60 countries around the globe, and semi-structured interviews with select survey
11
respondees. Extensive document analysis will also be undertaken, including all relevant
organizational literature. Questionnaire and interview data will be triangulated with the
document analysis to support the overall accuracy of the findings. Amnesty International’s use
of ICT for HRE will be evaluated according to criteria identified in the WPHRE:
a) advancement of knowledge and skills,
b) development of corresponding values, attitudes and behaviors, and
c) producing identifiable action that defends and promotes human rights. (United Nations
General Assembly, 2010).
The proposed research will apply the concept of emergent design. According to Creswell
(2007), an emergent research process in qualitative inquiry means that any phase of a proposed
study is subject to modification. Changes may occur to the data collection procedures based on
the conditions in the field. This will allow the researcher broad flexibility to adapt to changing
and emergent conditions in the field, allowing the research to evolve in a way that best suits the
participants and site constraints.
Significance of the Study
Despite being born of the best intentions, examples abound of technology being used
inapropriately or ineffecively. Since 2010, New York-based MobileActive has been conducting
FAILFaires, an opportunity for those using ICT for human rights and social impact to come
together to share failed strategies, flawed designs or ineffective initiatives (What is FAILFaire?,
2012). Failures are rarely discussed outside of individual, isolated contexts – despite the potential
advantages of doing so – often for fear of losing prospective funding and/or credibility amongst
organizational peers. The popularity of recent FAILFaire events around the country represents a
vital recognition by those attempting to use digital tools for positive social change that, in some
12
cases, the use of such technology can be ineffective or counterproductive. This research will
provide an opportunity to explore both successes and challenges in a way that informs the design
and deployment of new initiatives.
This proposed research will also provide groundwork for further fieldwork, perhaps
applying the design of this study to include other human rights organizations. Subsequent
research could also survey users of the tools acting to advance their own human rights, rather
than the organization responsible for programming and implementation. A scholarly inquiry such
as this one will ideally improve both policy and practice. Understanding past pitfalls and
successes can lead to smarter design of HRE initiatives at Amnesty International and beyond.
13
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The dissertation will examine the expanding potential of digital communication
technology for human rights education initiatives by investigating two fields of action and
inquiry: Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) and Human Rights Education
(HRE). It will first consider the evolution of each field and then discuss their points of
intersection. Recent events and global trends provide the backdrop for considering the
convergence of ICTs and informal approaches to HRE through digital activism.
This literature review has been divided into three sections, consisting of two parts each:
explanation and description of existing literature. The first section of this review will examine
human rights and explain the role of the United Nations in defining and promoting HRE. The
next section will describe the evolution of digital technology, while the third will discuss the role
of digital tools for promoting a culture of human rights through digital activism.
Understanding Human Rights Education
What are human rights?
Given the diversity of the human experience for members of different cultures and the
centrality of the concept for this proposed dissertation project, it is important to clarify the
meaning of the term “human rights.” According to international human rights agreements, all
people have certain rights simply by virtue of being human, independent of distinctions like sex
or race. These rights are inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away from any individual or
group, and are legally reinforced: “Human rights involve the use of law to promote human
flourishing. They are the entitlement of every human being” (Starkey, 2010, p. 16).
14
The meaning of the word “right” depends on the context of its use. Kent (2010) describes
a fundamental distinction setting human rights apart from other rights: “Not all rights are human
rights. If one has a human right, one can make a claim that the government and others must do or
desist from doing specific things to further human dignity” (p. 156). Some rights may have
limited jurisdiction, for example, the rights of workers at their place of employment or tenants in
a residential building, and are not applicable universally. Human rights, by definition, must apply
to all human beings.
The concept of human rights has been emergent in various religious, political and cultural
traditions throughout history, yet in the contemporary age there persists a lack of sufficient
articulation concerning their foundation and supposed universality (Buchanan, 2008). Federman
(1999) acknowledges that, historically, “for the most part, human rights have been justified by
appeals to common sense, ‘self-evident’ truths and ‘natural laws.’ In other words, such rights are
assumed to simply exist a priori: they just are” (p. 79).
Legally speaking, limits were first placed on the monarch’s power in favor of the people
through the 1215 Magna Carta in England (Magna Carta 1215, 2008). Limited notions of
“universal” rights formed the basis of both the French and American revolutions, and documents
such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789 (Declaration of the
Rights of Man – 1789, 2008), although women and slaves were generally excluded from these
provisions. During the Enlightenment, what became known as the “natural school” of human
rights theory took hold and continues to be the most widespread human rights doctrine today.
Dembour (2010) states this approach is central to current human rights orthodoxy. In this school
of thought, rights are attributed to human nature, discoverable through reason alone, and
universally applicable to all human beings, rather than tied to any particular social context. Even
15
though rights are understood as universal, they may or may not be supported by international
laws.
The natural school of human rights theory represents one way to understand the
conceptual basis for human rights. Dembour (2010) identifies another possibility: the
“deliberative school” where rights are agreed upon rather than granted on the basis of nature.
Human rights orthodoxy is increasingly moving away from the natural school in favor of the
deliberative school, which emphasizes the will to adopt values over the belief that they are given.
“Deliberative scholars tend to reject the natural element on which the traditional orthodoxy bases
human rights. For them, human rights come into existence through societal agreement”
(Dembour, 2010, p. 3)
The deliberative school of human rights theory underpins this dissertation proposal.
Human rights are those that are possible through a global process of negotiation at any given
point in history, the sum total of what is conceivable as such. According to Federman (1999),
“…the consensus of global public opinion at any given time determines the content of human
rights. In other words, human rights are whatever they are declared to be” (p. 81). Human rights
are socially constructed values. They are often cumulative over time. This understanding of
human rights as deliberative aligns well with the constructivist approach to research described in
this proposal. The justification of rights is an ongoing, mediated, and dynamic process. Ignatieff
(2000) understands deliberated human rights as “the shared vocabulary from which our
arguments can begin and the bare human minimum from which differing ideas of human
flourishing can take root” (p. 349).
Understood narrowly, the term human rights refers to human rights law, as expressed in
legally binding resolutions, treaties and protocols. However, in this proposal the term will be
16
understood more broadly and used to signify agreed-upon principles that promote human dignity
– including those found in non-binding declarations such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) (United Nations, 2012). Human rights education, then, by definition,
refers to learning about rights that are universal, inalienable, indivisible, nondiscriminatory and
interdependent; although to some extent local circumstances may determine how human rights
are interpreted and applied.
It is often argued that human rights are based largely on a Western system of neoliberal
economic and political priorities. For example, Buchanan (2008) asks whether the concept of
human rights “reflects an arbitrarily narrow set of values or rankings of values due to cultural
biases” (p. 45). When the UDHR was drafted, Africa was still largely under colonial rule and
therefore not represented at the United Nations. The West has occasionally disguised self-interest
as concern for human rights, leading to a conflation of the concept with a Western agenda (Mihr,
2009). Forcing a normative system on another culture, no matter how well-intentioned, can be
thinly veiled neo-imperialism, and resistance to human rights may sometimes stem from the fear
that local values and traditions may not be respected, because so-called “universal” values are
understood to take precedence. Many activists simply consider human rights representative of
universal values, representing a lack of critical reflection and practices that do not adequately
respect the interests they supposedly defend (Silian, 2004).
While human rights are universal by definition, they are far from universal in application.
Kent (2010) points out the important distinction that having rights does not mean those rights are
always realized or fulfilled. But, thinking of human rights in this way may sell short their
aspirational value. Ignatieff (2000) suggests universality does not mean that rights are
universally applied, but universally applicable:
17
Rights are universal because they define the universal interests of the powerless, namely
that power be exercised over them in ways that respect their autonomy as agents. In this
sense, human rights is a revolutionary creed, since it makes a radical demand of all
human groups, that they serve the interests of the individuals who compose them. (p.
331)
While entitlement to rights is considered universal, the struggle to achieve them depends on
particular sociopolitical and cultural factors. As Starkey (2010) affirms, “working out the
implications of [human rights’] principles will be different according to cultural context” (p. 15).
Discourse focused on universal human rights can be useful for educators working with diverse
learner populations, whose understanding and application of human rights principles may be
determined by their respective life experiences.
The United Nations and human rights education.
The formalization of the idea of human rights began almost a century before the creation
of the United Nations in 1945 with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the 1864
Geneva Convention (International Committee on the Red Cross, 2010). The four Geneva
Conventions and additional protocols provided a foundation for universal humanitarian law - a
concept related to, but distinct from, human rights. The purview of humanitarian law is
protecting people who are not directly involved in a given conflict and limiting the ways in
which war can be fought (Scherling, 2009). Humanitarian law upholds human dignity by limiting
violence and alleviating suffering, but primarily in the context of armed conflict.
The creation of the United Nations (UN) in 1945 greatly expanded states’ collective
capacity for “promoting and encouraging respect for human rights” (United Nations, 2012, para.
3) This mission was further extended through the 1948 adoption of the Universal Declaration of
18
Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR Commission took various religious and cultural
perspectives on “values, rights and legal traditions” into account to guide the Commission
“toward the commonality of the human experience” (Clements, 2011, p. 1). The idea of universal
human rights provides a common language for global discourse without negating cultural
differences or denying distinct applications of rights-based programs: “The United Nations and
international civil society organizations accept human rights as common principles for dialogue
and diplomacy in a globalised world” (Starkey, 2010, p. 15).
While not an enforceable treaty, the UDHR resolution is a document of undeniable
importance, representing the most comprehensive global articulation of universal rights and an
expression of the United Nations Charter, which all states have agreed to uphold. The UDHR,
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights together form the International Bill of Human Rights
[Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 1996]. Human
rights education per se was conceived alongside the development of the UDHR and subsequent
covenants, and detailed protocols for HRE were developed in 1993 at the World Conference on
Human Rights in Vienna (OHCHR, 1995).
Following a recommendation of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, the UN
General Assembly (UNGA) established the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education
(UNDHRE), whose goals and methods were described in a Plan of Action (UNGA, 1996). A
decade-long initiative to promote human rights education (HRE) worldwide began in 1995.
However, the 10-year period proved an insufficient amount of time for establishing a foundation
for HRE, and by 2004 many objectives remained outstanding (Print, Ugarte, Naval, & Mihr,
19
2008). The UNDHRE provided evidence of the scope of HRE, the difficulty of implementing
educational programs that empowered learners, and the need for continued efforts.
The UNDHRE (1995-2004) focused primarily on formal, classroom-based approaches to
HRE, but additional strategies were needed to expand HRE initiatives. Subsequently, in 2005,
the UNGA established the World Programme for Human Rights Education (WPHRE, or World
Programme), beginning in 2005 and continuing to the present day. Rather than delineate a
specific period of time (as the decade-long UNDHRE had done), sponsors of the WPHRE
designed the Programme to occur in consecutive phases with periodic evaluation and
modification.
In 2006, the United Nations’ Commission on Human Rights was replaced with the
Human Rights Council (HRC), which was tasked with promoting HRE (Gerber, 2011).
Beginning in 2007, an Advisory Committee of the HRC started drafting a declaration, soliciting
views and opinions of Member States, NGOs and civil society organizations. On December 19,
2011, the UNGA adopted the Declaration of Human Rights Education and Training
(UNDHRET) as the newest instrument in the set of international human rights standards. This
landmark document strongly reaffirms UN support for HRE as important for all sectors of
society. The Declaration also expands the idea of a human rights culture, including in its scope
“all educational, training, information, awareness-raising and learning activities aimed at
promoting universal respect for and observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms
and thus contributing to […] the building and promotion of a universal culture of human rights”
(UNGA, 2011, p. 4).
20
Approaches to human rights education: Formal, non-formal, informal
Human rights education programs are often grouped according to formal, non-formal and
informal initiatives, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages.
Formal HRE occurs within a traditional school environment, usually under the direction
of governmental bodies, and typically corresponding to a three-tier structure (primary,
secondary, tertiary).
Non-formal human rights education, primarily conducted by non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), may also be comprised of “relatively planned curricula, planned stages of
learning and perhaps even assessment of learning,” but does not lead to a particular certification,
diploma or degree and occurs outside a formal learning environment (Le Roy & Woodcock,
2010, p. 1). Non-formal education is an organized, systematic approach used to target specific
populations in a given community (Sillan, 2004).
Finally, informal education refers to the way that people accumulate knowledge through
everyday experience. Sources of informal learning may include learners’ environments, families,
peer groups, the media, and more. Informal learning encompasses “a vast array of learning that
all people take part in, in their everyday lives...without control from educators” (Le Roy &
Woodcock, 2010, pp. 2-3). Informal education initiatives have potential to reach diverse
populations and age groups through conversations, environmental influences, or media, thus
offering students a more holistic experience of human rights in actual life experience that extends
past the limits of classroom learning (LeRoy & Woodcock, 2009). Also called popular education,
informal HRE is not limited to traditional “students” of a particular age, but also promotes skilldevelopment of entire communities.
21
Human rights education: Research to date
The field of human rights education has expanded rapidly over the last decade and, as
with any growing field, theoretical analysis has been slow to keep pace with practice (Waldron,
2010; Keet, 2012). While this dearth of literature presents a challenge for contextualizing this
research, it points to the need for additional scholarship in the field. In the meantime, as the
theoretical basis for HRE is formed, there is no shortage of enthusiasm for new ideas and
innovations. A certain amount of open-endedness concerning the way that HRE is interpreted
and applied may well be one of its strengths, rather than simply indicative of a lack of cohesion
among practitioners (Teleki, 2007; Flowers, 2003).
In this section, it will be instructive to define “human rights education research” as not
being strictly limited to an academic understanding of qualitative or quantitative analysis, but
rather widened to include a larger body of work on the topic. Within the field of HRE, it is useful
not only to consider what has been written about the pedagogical approach, but also the range of
actual materials designed to implement this approach, as well as any evaluation of the success of
particular instances of HRE.
This section of the literature review builds from the conceptualization of extant research
and practice in this area provided by an article entitled “Perspectives on Human Rights
Education,” by human rights educators Felisa Tibbitts & Peter Kirchschlaeger, which classifies
the research to date in three broad categories:

Theory of HRE – identifying objectives and describing its pedagogical methods
necessary for achieving those objectives.

Programming and Implementation – the shape of HRE when put into practice, and
22

Evaluation and Assessment – a focus on analyzing the outcomes and results of HRE
initiatives. (Tibbitts & Kirchschlaeger, 2010)
Certain online databases are extremely helpful in locating HRE resources, including ones
offered by Amnesty International, Human Rights Education Associates, United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Equitas (The International Centre for Human
Rights Education), and others. Many databases include search functions for locating resources in
languages other than English; however, research surveyed for this literature review was limited
to that written in English, even if originally translated from another language. It is recognized
that surveying English language resources is a limitation of this literature review, and that
additional valuable materials exist, but are not included because their language differs from the
researcher’s primary tongue.
Theory of human rights education: Objectives and methodology
No single definition of human rights education (HRE) exists, nor do educators always
agree about how to design and implement HRE curricula (Flowers, 2003). There is, however, a
large degree of consistency of reliance upon the UDHR as the conceptual core and origin of HRE
(Amnesty International, 2011; Tibbitts, 2005; Keet, 2012). Human rights education literature
emphasizes the universality of human rights, identifies educational objectives, and discusses
methodological approaches for achieving educators’ goals: “Despite being under-theorized,
Human Rights Education (HRE) has evolved into a burgeoning pedagogical formation that
sources its currency from a perceived consensus on human rights universals” (Keet, 2012, p. 7).
Almost all sources concerning the theory of HRE reviewed for this proposal support
objectives that echo those stated by the WPHRE: advancement of knowledge and skills,
23
development of corresponding values, attitudes and behaviors, and demonstration of identifiable
action that defends and promotes human rights (UNGA, 2010). Lohrenscheit (2002) interprets
these objectives, describing an important distinction between two types of HRE: learning about
rights (a focus on content) versus learning for them (empowering rights-holders to act in support
of human rights values). She states that, by definition, all HRE includes the first component –
disseminating knowledge of human rights instruments – and most also strive to accomplish the
second objective, learning for rights as a process of individual transformation. Those writing
about HRE are consistent in their assertion that human rights learning is essentially about
engagement – not only informing people of their rights, but also providing training to increase
the likelihood that rights-holders will be active participants in securing their rights and
developing a human rights culture. Tibbitts & Kirchschlaeger (2010) assert that this is what is
meant by empowerment, a frequently-occurring term that serves to guide the conduct of HRE in
design and implementation.
Echoing Lohrenscheit (2002), many theoretical writings concerning HRE note that a
focus on transferring content to learners is insufficient if not conducted in a way that helps
develop human rights values: “Simply making students memorize the articles and conventions of
human rights misses the point of human rights education” (Lapeyese, 2002, pp. 19-20). How
objectives are met may vary according to context, but the pedagogical framework required for
achieving them is consistent throughout the literature. The methodology of HRE – “a defined set
of principles and methods used to design and implement a learning process to teach about human
rights” (Silian, 2004, p. 30) – occupies a significant amount of the literature that can be classified
as HRE theory. In particular, a methodology of participatory learning is repeatedly cited as the
most important characteristic of HRE. Indeed, “nearly all formal literature associated with HRE
24
will mention the importance of using participatory methods (Tibbitts, 2005, p. 107). Throughout
the literature, the word “participation” refers to two separate ideas: first, that learners engage
with real-world issues that are relevant to their lives; and second, that the pedagogical approach
to HRE changes the way that educators and learners interact, an idea based on the ideas of
Brazilian theorist Paulo Freire (2009).
The first understanding of participatory learning refers to the use of educational methods
that further an understanding of key human rights concepts by grounding them in real-world
events directly affecting learners’ lives. Discourse on human rights issues begins with the
everyday realities, prior experiences, and current injustices faced by the participants; to be
effective, education must be made relevant (Silian, 2004; Bartlett, 2008; LeRoy & Woodcock,
2010). Participatory learning nurtures learners’ willingness to become personally invested in the
protection and promotion of human rights and is seen as the most effective way to engender
permanent changes in values, attitudes and actions (Norlander, 2012). Banks (2010) calls this
learning experiential, asserting: “Students must experience human rights in order to internalise
human rights ideals, beliefs, and behaviors” (p. 44). The literature on this aspect of HRE
methodology reinforces the belief that a lived experience, integrated into a learner’s
understanding of the world, can produce lasting behavior modification and is of greater value
overall than learning that is disconnected from real-world application. According to a report by
the Asia-Pacific Regional Resource Center for Human Rights Education (ARRC):
Each step in participatory human rights education process seeks to affirm respect for each
individual as learners in the educational process and as actors in their own lives. The
educational process is designed to nurture the sense of human dignity of each participant
25
and seeks to strengthen their personal and community capacities to change structures that
defile their dignity as human beings. (Silian, 2004, p. 16)
The philosophy and pedagogy of the Brazilian theorist and educator Paulo Freire has
been highly influential in the development of HRE as both academic discipline and professional
field; many acknowledge Freire’s “critical pedagogy” as a central tenet (Flowers, 2003; Tibbitts,
2005; Tibbitts and Kirchschlaeger, 2010). Human rights educators readily refer to their approach
as “Freirean” and suggest, as Freire did, that education should be built upon a co-construction of
knowledge. This idea is seminal for many HRE theorists, who contrast what Freire (2009) called
“banking education” with “problem-posing education” (p. 84). In the banking education model,
educators “deposit” knowledge into learners. This is a one-way, top-down approach, with the
students participating only as passive receptacles. Bartlett (2008) faults banking education for
treating students as objects, “outside of history and agency” (p. 2). Authoritarian structures that
emphasize power are considered counterproductive to true learning: “Structures and methods
must emphasize that education is a continual, collaborative process in order to avoid the
competitive, authoritarian and antagonistic qualities of a militaristic or dominator style” (Finley,
2005, p. 274).
Contrasted with this approach is Freire’s problem-posing education, in which the
traditional hierarchy is subverted and both educators and learners are active participants in the
co-creation of knowledge. As Mihr (2009) notes, “HRE has moved… [to] a bottom-up approach
in which the needs and interests of learners and target groups are part of the training concept” (p.
185). In their Human Rights Education Handbook, The Human Rights Resource Center (2000)
calls for transitioning the role of the instructor into that of a facilitator, who creates an
environment of trust – an open and safe space for engaging with difficult (and often personal)
26
issues, while at the same time ensuring that all voices are included and valued. Silian (2004)
acknowledges that this shift to facilitation could radically alter education, increasing the
likelihood of empowering students. Finley (2005) – drawing upon the ideas of sociologist Riane
Eisler - calls this style of education “partnership pedagogy,” as opposed to a traditional
“dominator” model, asserting that the more learners are involved in the design and outcome of
their own education, the more meaningful HRE becomes.
Programming and implementation
Resources related to HRE programming and implementation have been designed
according to the target audience and purpose of any given learning initiative. They can be
categorized based on the expected participants and whether the education occurs in formal or
informal settings. Given the proliferation of related materials that have become recently available
(Flowers, 2003), it is beyond the scope of this literature review to be fully comprehensive;
instead a few examples will be provided that indicate the breadth of possibilities.
Flowers (2003) points to the wealth of HRE resources developed in recent decades, with
new materials designed to be relevant across a broad spectrum. Beyond merely classifying
materials according to learners’ respective ages, education and training resources exist
specifically for certain professional settings. Examples of this include Alderson’s (1984) Human
Rights and the Police, Seydegart’s (1990) Human Rights Training for Public Officials, or
Reynaud’s (1986) Human Rights in Prisons.
Those developing HRE materials (such as guides, manuals or lesson plans) often indicate
a target audience to ease the job of educators looking for age-appropriate materials. For example,
resources may be developed at the primary school level, such as Oxfam's (n.d.) Children’s
Rights: A Series of Lesson Plans for Children Ages 8-10; secondary school level, e.g., Death
27
Penalty Curricula for High School (Michigan State University Communication Technology
Laboratory & Death Penalty Information Center, 2000); or for higher education, such as the
International Labor Organization’s (2004) Child Labour: A Textbook for University Students.
Adding to the diversity of HRE programming materials is the fact that the term is used to
refer to general education about human rights systems and instruments as a whole, as well as
education about particular rights. Examples can be categorized according to those focusing on
one particular right (e.g., the right to housing), a category of rights (e.g., civil and political
rights), or human rights generally (e.g., states responsibilities according to UN human rights
instruments).
It is often the case that curricula explicitly designed for classroom-based teaching could
be easily adapted for informal HRE and vice versa: Informal approaches are often useful for
formal educators (LeRoy & Woodcock, 2010). This is primarily because the same engagement
and active participation methods are often used in both formal and informal HRE. An example of
this is Ben ni Walen: Mobilising for Human Rights Using Participatory Theatre (Sganga &
Visser, 2005), which uses interactive theater to explore human rights issues. Human Rights
Education in the School Systems of Europe, Central Asia and North America: A Compendium of
Good Practice (ODIHR, 2009) includes a chapter on professional development for teachers and
other adults, recognizing that education extends beyond the classroom and there is a need for
informal HRE training throughout all sectors of society. Other materials likewise emphasize the
need for community engagement directed at social transformation and the realization of a human
rights culture. Monitoring and Reporting Human Rights Violations in Africa: A Handbook for
Community Activists (Amnesty, 2002) offers guidance for local human rights monitors to
become involved in the process of documenting and reporting on human rights violations in their
28
communities. The Advocates for Human Rights (2011) training manual entitled, Discover
Human Rights: A Human Rights Approach to Social Justice helps social justice advocates use
international human rights standards to guide their social change efforts.
Evaluation and assessment
The final category of HRE research includes evaluation and assessment, that is, the way
that specific instances of HRE have been studied. In their review, Tibbitts & Kirchschlaeger
(2010) understand this area of HRE literature as focused on outcomes of HRE, i.e., an effort to
assess the impact of HRE on learners, educators, and the wider society. The following survey
will include guides and instruments for evaluating HRE, as well as examples of the range of
HRE assessments that have been conducted to date.
Educators, governments and NGOs have developed tools that aim at evaluating the
impact of HRE. Human Rights Education in the School Systems of Europe, Central Asia and
North America: A Compendium of Good Practice (ODIHR, 2009) lists seven different
approaches to assessing HRE initiatives, including for each the organization or group that
developed the evaluation method, the intended audience and purpose of the evaluation being
conducted, and a description of procedures involved in conducting the evaluation. For example,
one of the instruments for HRE evaluation included in the Compendium is Evaluating Human
Rights Training Activities: A Handbook for Human Rights Educators (Equitas International
Centre for Human Rights Education & the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights, 2011), which lists the following objectives for conducting assessment:

Effective analysis of issues and situations encountered in participants’ work in their
organizations, using a human rights framework;
29

Effective exploration of the ways in which human rights education can increase the
effectiveness of human rights work; and

Increased capacity of participants to apply learning within their organizations and
society. (ODIHR, 2009)
The methods used to conduct this assessment include observation, questionnaires, discussions
and debriefing sessions, all of which are used to develop a final evaluation report that includes
suggestions for increased effectiveness.
The literature suggests that evaluation is conducted in one of two ways: 1) in-depth
analysis of a given region or population where HRE is practiced, or, 2) a comparative study of a
single approach across different regions.
Examples of the first type of study include From 'time pass' to transformative force:
School-based human rights education in Tamil Nadu, India (Bajaj, 2010) and Case Studies in
Human Rights Education: Examples from Central and Eastern Europe (Tibbitts, 1997). Within a
given geographical region, studies may be further categorized according to a specific target
population, as is the case with Saul, Kinley and Sangroula’s (2010) Review of Human Rights
Education and Training in the Criminal Justice System in Nepal and Müller’s (2009) Human
Rights Education in German Schools and Post-Secondary Institutions: Results of a Study.
The second type of HRE evaluation takes a particular approach to HRE that has been
implemented in various locations and uses a cross-case analysis to generate findings. An
example of this is Amnesty International’s (2010) study, entitled The Multiplier Approach in
Human Rights Education: Lessons Learned from the Rights Education Action Programme. The
Rights Education Action Program (REAP) was designed by Amnesty International Norway and
implemented in 10 countries around the world (Amnesty International, 2010). Local needs were
30
assessed in each place by REAP project partners and "multipliers" were trained to spread human
rights awareness and action:
The concept of developing human rights education multipliers is to train individuals who
are able to pass on their knowledge by reaching out to and engaging with many others.
Individuals such as educators, government staff, prison officials, religious leaders, youth
and students, NGO workers and others can in turn teach, train, and organize human rights
initiatives. Through multipliers, REAP is able to offer opportunities for human rights
activism to a wide and diverse audience, which exponentially increases the impact of
Amnesty International’s human rights education work (Amnesty International, 2010, p.
1)
One of the distinct features of REAP is that "constant and thorough" assessment was
integral to the design and conduct of the initiative (p.1). The effect of REAP in individual
countries was assessed, followed by key recommendations resulting from the project as a whole.
The organization Human Rights Education Associates – commissioned by Amnesty to perform
an external audit of the REAP program – found that "There is evidence that impacts on the
multipliers and beneficiaries have been transformational, resulting in profound changes in
personal attitudes and behaviour" (Amnesty International, 2010, p. 2).
Virtually all studies of HRE initiatives mention the need for further evaluation of the
field. In her study, Human Rights Training for Adults: What Twenty-six Evaluation Studies Say
About Design, Implementation and Follow-Up, Teleki (2007) points to the lack of longitudinal
studies of the impact of HRE, and offers suggestions for best practices. A report on
contemporary issues in HRE by UNESCO (2011) again affirmed the diversity of HRE practices
worldwide, indicating that, although assessing impact is identified as a "pressing research focus"
31
(p. 63), the difficulty in undertaking evaluation may be due to the lack of agreed-upon indicators
about what constitutes successful implementation of HRE programming. Tibbitts &
Kirchschlaeger (2010) offer a path forward for future research, calling for assessment based on
the potential of HRE to be empowering and transformative for learners: "The unique qualities
that HRE aspires to have – such as the use of participatory and critical pedagogy – and its aims
to promote a human rights culture – suggest that future research might concentrate especially on
these areas" (p. 21).
The Evolution of Digital Communications Technology
Technology – understood in a broad sense as tools employed by human beings to
accelerate the completion of tasks – is not a new phenomenon. Technology has often been a
catalyst for future-oriented thinking, and it a has been common part of the human experience. As
Freire (2000) wrote: “Critically viewed, technology is nothing more nor less than a natural phase
of the creative process that engaged man from the moment he forged his first tool and began to
transform the world for its humanization” (p. 63). This section examines how recent
developments in information and communications technology (ICT) have increased the ability of
people worldwide to engage socially with one another. New levels of access have revolutionized
patterns of communication, notably through the use of mobile devices. Digital communication
tools have been called “catalysts of the Information Revolution” and are valuable for both their
range of functionality as well as their versatility when applied in specific ways (Selian, 2002, p.
5).
In particular, as mobile phones become cheaper – to produce, purchase, and operate –
millions of people who live in isolated areas are now able to reach out and connect across the
globe. The decentralization of information networks has led to an unprecedented spread of
32
politically diverse ideas, which are challenging traditional hierarchical power structures. As
Selian (2002) notes, “Information has become itself a resource and commodity, surpassing its
traditional role as mere facilitator to political and economic decision-making” (p. 8).
The participatory web
During the early days of the World Wide Web – the 1990s and early 2000s – users were
almost exclusively consumers of information produced and published by others. During that
phase, now broadly referred to as Web 1.0, websites served as a “one-to-many” broadcast
medium. This approach was soon supplemented in the mid-2000s, however, by a “many-tomany” model of what came to be known as Web 2.0. This onset of the Web 2.0 era can not be
tied to a particular event, but rather was an overall shift in the use of web-related technologies.
Any individual with the appropriate technology and access could could become a publisher, and
the content on a single website might be authored by thousands. This has made today’s Internet a
far richer online experience (Franco, 2010). It was “a shift in the Internet landscape from a static,
information-oriented Web experience to a more connected, more user-centered, more dynamic
second-generation Web” (Cronk, 2007, p. 27).
The user-generated content at the heart of the new generation of web technology that
began in the mid-2000s includes text, images, videos and other media developed and uploaded to
the Internet, often by amateurs and not for financial gain (Comninos, 2011). Also referred to as
the “social web,” Web 2.0 has become a catch-all phrase used to describe almost all sites,
services, or tools that promote sharing and collaboration, including blogs, wikis, photo and video
sharing sites, social networks, and micro-blogging services.
Many of these sites fall under the category of social media – “the poster child of the 2.0
generation” (Ho, 2010, p. 5). The content of social media sites is “designed to be distributed
33
through social interactions between creators” (Whyte & Joyce, 2010, p. 221). Two social media
giants, Facebook and Twitter, have captivated the global spotlight in recent years. Their
popularity suggests their influence, evidenced by an exponential growth in their user base in a
short number of years. Facebook began in 2004, and as of June, 2012, had 955 million monthly
active users, 81% of whom live outside the United States and Canada – a testament to its global
impact (Facebook, 2012). Facebook is undisputedly a popular application on smartphones, but is
also accessible on more standard handsets through “Facebook Zero” - a free, simplified, textonly version that doesn’t accumulate data fees, a form of access that is crucial for low-income
phone owners with cheaper monthly prepaid plans (Mims, 2012). Twitter – another titan of the
social media realm – is a microblogging platform whereby users can post “tweets” or short
messages of 140 characters or less to any number of followers. Twitter celebrated its sixth
birthday in March, 2012, recording 340 million tweets per day from 140 million active users.
Twitter is truly a global phenomenon – in June 2012 the three cities with the top number of
tweets were Jakarta, Tokyo and London (Semiocast, 2012).
Unprecedented proliferation of mobile phones
“The mobile phone is no longer a luxury but a necessity. By morphing and adopting into various
aspects of our lives, the mobile phone has gone beyond its original purpose of phone calls and
text messages and it now serves as a bank, a computer a radio and a television set among other
things. In a nutshell, it has penetrated every aspect of our lives.”
-Dr. Bitange Ndemo, Kenya’s Minister of Information and Communication
Mobile phone technology has made remarkable strides in recent years, becoming the
most prevalent means of communication worldwide. With 5.9 billion mobile-cellular
subscriptions, global penetration has reached 87%, including four out of every five people in the
developing world (International Telecommunication Union, 2011). By the end of 2012, mobileconnected devices will outnumber people on the planet, and by 2016 the world’s projected 7.3
34
billion inhabitants will own 10 billion mobile devices, an average of 1.4 per person (Cisco,
2012).
Since 2005, decreased costs, improved infrastructure and increased competition have
caused mobile phone subscriptions in the Global South to outpace those of their northern
counterparts. (GSM Association, 2011; UNDP, 2012). The technological revolution that has
impacted every aspect of life in the developed world is having a similar effect in undeveloped
countries, but accelerating at a much faster rate. Mobile penetration in Africa, which has
overtaken Latin America as the world’s second largest market (behind Asia), has grown from 2%
in 2000 to 57% (GSM Association, 2011). New cell towers are built almost hourly, today
reaching 90% of Africa’s urban population and over 48% of its rural areas (Williams, Mayer &
Minges, 2011). The growth rate of mobile phone use is greatest in low-income countries and the
next billion subscribers will be primarily the rural poor (Khalil, Dongier, & Qiang, 2009).
In places where charges for voice communication prove cost prohibitive, text messaging
provides a more affordable option. Short-messaging service (SMS) is widespread both in
wealthy nations and the developing world. A Pew Research Center (2011) poll conducted in 21
countries found that a median of 75% of cell phone owners use their devices for text messaging.
Mobile telephony has received unprecedented attention in recent years across all public
and private sectors, especially from organizations concerned with human rights, who seek to
bridge the “digital divide” between those who have access to information through digital means
and those who do not. Both market-driven and not-for-profit groups continue to push for
increased access to mobile phones for the world’s poorest citizens, where access to services
makes both a quantitative and qualitative difference in standard of living. The link between
mobile phone ownership and economic prosperity is so salient that the government of India
35
proposed giving away a mobile phone and 200 minutes of talk time to every Indian family living
below the poverty line (Singh, 2012). Beyond the obvious ability to keep in touch via voice calls
and text messages, mobile phones produce a “powerful ripple effect on other industries within
and beyond the mobile ecosystem” (GSM Association, 2011, p. 28). For example, farmers
benefit from realtime market prices and weather forecasts, doctors can monitor the health of
pregnant women remotely, shippers can predict and respond to changing needs, police can
respond to new criminal threats, and women can travel more safely.
Growth of Internet access through mobile technology
Internet fiber infrastructure has spread at an exponential rate in developing countries,
spurred on by public-private partnerships between local governments and international investors
who see it as the foundation for economic growth. While the expansion in Internet access is
spurred by for-profit motives, the convergence of multiple ICT services has reduced upfront
costs of deploying new development initiatives (Khalil, Dongier, & Qiang, 2009).
The world's population of Internet users has now reached 2.27 billion, or about one-third
of the earth’s inhabitants (International Telecommunication Union, 2011b). The number of
people with direct Internet subscriptions in the developing world is relatively low, but it does not
accurately represent the number of people connected to the Internet. Banks, governments,
businesses and non-profit NGOs have bridged Internet services with the SMS capabilities
available on any phone. Gmail, the popular email service from Internet behemoth Google, is
available using phones that are restricted to SMS, without the use of mobile Internet (Lancet,
2012). The Kenyan mobile money service m-Pesa offers users the ability to deposit, withdraw
and send funds from their phone (Jack & Suri, 2010).
36
During the early years of the Internet, desktop computers, and later laptops, were the only
means for accessing the Web, but the prevalence of smarter mobile phones has considerably
expanded the prospects for access and participation. These Internet-enabled devices are
becoming smaller and cheaper, allowing poorer countries to leapfrog intermediary technologies.
In 2011, mobile Internet traffic more than doubled for the fourth year in a row, becoming eight
times as great as the volume of the entire global Internet in 2000 (Cisco, 2012). As mobile
devices become increasingly capable, the number of Internet subscribers is no longer limited by
the number of computers, but by the number of phones.
Even the least expensive phones have become smarter. Simple web browsers are
appearing on basic models and the cost of highly capable, fully functional smartphones has fallen
drastically, with a much lower upfront cost than a traditional computer. For example, the Chinese
firm Huawei debuted an $80 smartphone to Kenya in 2010, selling hundreds of thousands of
devices in a country where 46% of the population lives on below the poverty line (ICTworks,
2012; UNICEF, 2012). With greater computing power than PCs from just 5 years ago, devices
like this have put more information and communications ability into the hands of more people in
the last year than any other technology innovation. In fact, 487 million smartphones were sold in
2011 alone, surpassing PC sales for the first time. (Canalys, 2012)
Research on the Social Impact of Recent Digital Communications Technology
In writings about the social impact of digital technology, much has been made of Wael
Ghonim, the Google executive who became a key figure of the 2011 Egyptian revolution, and
who credited social media for making possible the massive demonstrations in Cairo’s Tahrir
Square that ultimately ended Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year regime. In an interview with Cable News
Network’s (CNN) Wolf Blitzer, Ghonim touted what he calls “Revolution 2.0,” saying “If you
37
want to free a society, just give them Internet access, because people are going to…hear the
unbiased media [and see the truth about] other nations and their own nation, and they're going to
be able to communicate and collaborate together” (Blitzer, 2011, para. 8). Other proponents of
this view similarly claim that the Internet is an unmatched tool of empowerment with which to
foster emerging civil societies and strengthen developed ones.
Yet, disagreements among scholars and activists concerning the potential benefit of new
tools abound. Innumerable research studies have been undertaken by both the private and public
sectors to gauge the impact of recent developments in digital communication technology. This
section highlights some of the factors that continue to prevent the full participation in civic life
by all sectors of society. As a way to rein in the excessive technophilia that sometimes
characterizes writings about the use of ICT for positive social impact, the more serious and
analytical research and commentary tempers “cyber-optimism” with a thoughtful and realistic
assessment of outstanding obstacles (Varghese, 2011; Morozov, 2011). A review of these
analyses will help inform the subsequent discussion of how IHRE can be combined with new
digital ICT specifically for human rights change, given that participation and inclusion lie at the
heart of a human rights education approach to social transformation.
Akpan-Obong, Alozie, and Foster (2009), in an analysis of 48 countries, found that a
strong correlation exists between ICTs and levels of democratization in Sub-Saharan Africa,
determining that the mobile phone was the ICT of greatest relevance by an order of magnitude,
even when compared to computer and Internet access combined. More importantly, the effect of
mobile phones on political development is independent of other factors, including education and
economic prosperity. They suggest that this is due to the fact that mobile phones are affordable
by even the poorest and useful even to the illiterate.
38
The United Nations Development Programme (2012), in a report entitled Mobile
Technologies and Empowerment: Enhancing Human Development Through Participation and
Innovation, found that the introduction of the mobile phones has made a demonstrable difference
in advancing participatory models of political and socio-economic decision-making processes,
by “opening and enhancing democratic governance processes and mechanisms in ways we are
only beginning to understand, offering new potential for empowering people, stakeholders and
end users” (p. 19). As “catalytic tools,” mobiles allow more citizens to become more informed
and more empowered in civic life. Even the most basic of mobile phones have made it possible
for trained volunteers or common citizens to act as election monitors using SMS, email, Twitter
or other mobile tools to report fraud or potential election violence (UNDP, 2012).
Mobile governance, or “M-governance” – defined by the United Nations Development
Programme (2012) as the use of mobile phones to disseminate information or deliver services
that support governance – has proven to be a cost effective way to include even the most distant
or poor citizen with access to civic services. Health, education, safety and other services can
provide timely and relevant information cheaply and democratically. Citizens and advocacy
groups can report on local bureaucratic corruption and send concerns, suggestions and
complaints directly to policy-makers, increasing transparency and lowering the cost of oversight.
Mobile phones offer a second and independent channel of information that was once held by
local politicians, businessmen and police that could use that monopoly to extract bribes, inflate
prices and act with impunity (UNDP, 2012).
The literature on the evolution and impact of digital ICT reflects an ongoing concern with
the “digital divide,” which is the discrepancy in access to digital services between people of
varying socio-economic levels. Available bandwidth, connection speeds, and extent of network
39
coverage are all problematic in large regions of the Global South. The lack of a reliable and
affordable source of electricity to power and connect devices is also troubling. Digital literacy is
less widespread in impoverished or extremely rural areas, and both hardware and software may
be difficult to operate and navigate for those who have never encountered them. Certain
technologies and applications may also not be usable by those who are illiterate, physically
disabled, or speak a minority tongue and lack the extent of digital content in their native
language that English and other majority language-speakers enjoy. Conversely, Ali (2011) notes
some commentators who insist that the divide is only a temporary phenomenon that will
disappear over time as infrastructure improves and associated costs decrease. It can also be
argued that lack of access to information technologies in the Global South merely reflects
general patterns of impoverishment, symptomatic of overall economic disparity, not specifically
related to access to and use of digital technology.
Beyond considerable challenges related to infrastructure and device design, Horner
(2011) notes that affordable and widespread use of the mobile Internet may be undermined by
cultural practices and traditional gender roles: “The persistence of the digital exclusion of
particular groups as a result of social and cultural inequality is particularly worrying” (p. 14).
Even those with the capacity to access digital ICT may choose not to, citing either concerns
about the way that technology may alter their culture and traditional practices, or because they
remain skeptical of the alleged benefits that will result. As Horner (2011) notes, “The internet is
perceived to pose a particular threat to cultures in which specialised or traditional knowledge
plays a central and sacred role in community life and identity” (p. 14).
The GSM Association Development Fund and Cherie Blair Foundation for Women
(2010) found that a troubling gender gap exists with regard to phone ownership and use. Despite
40
the increasing prevalence of mobile phones in low and middle-income countries, 300 million
more men own mobile phones than do women world-wide. On average, 21% fewer women own
mobile phones, a percentage that jumps to 37% in South Asia. The reasons for this gap depend
on the region, but typically include cost of access, cultural factors like traditional male-female
roles and privileges, and poor technical literacy, depriving many women of much-needed
opportunities offered by mobile phones, such as access to healthcare or banking services: “In
many households in communities across the world, access to digital technology is the preserve of
men, with women often having to ask for permission to use mobile phones and the internet, and
being monitored when they do so” (Horner, 2011, p. 14).
A study on gender, socioeconomic status and mobile phone use in Rwanda (Blumenstock
& Eagle, 2010) found that mobile phone devices are disproportionately owned and used more
often by the wealthy than the poorer classes. However, the usage between men and women was
not significantly different. This may be because most phones are shared with at least one other
person, so ownership may not be an accurate indicator of use. In fact, the ability to share a phone
is significant as it is quite common for people to own just a SIM card, borrowing a nearby phone
when needed, eliminating the upfront cost of mobile usage.
While increased access to communication technology is an undisputed advantage for
many, the manufacturing process of the phones themselves negatively impacts others. Ironically,
the very people targeted for increased mobile connectivity through poverty reduction schemes
are also those whose lives are in jeopardy from the mining required to make electronic devices
(Kristof, 2010). Mobile phones require rare earth metals that are often extracted by children and
slaves in conflict zones. The idea of “blood mobiles” is modeled after the well-known campaign
against blood diamonds mined in African war zones and used to perpetuate conflict.
41
Integrating Digital Tools and Human Rights Education Through Digital Activism
Until recently, use of electronic resources or ICT in HRE consisted primarily of
disseminating content. Technological limitations made this a top-down, one-to-many
conversation such as radio or television broadcasts. This has all changed in the last decade,
however, as digital ICT has become cheaper, more powerful and more widespread. Mobile
phones, increased Internet access, and Web 2.0 applications have put these tools into the hands
of ordinary citizens, making it possible for anyone with this access to share stories and report on
personal experience. Such citizens, in working to safeguard their own dignity, have become their
own human rights educators in a peer-to-peer conversation with other victims, allies and
oppressors alike. Understood in this way, digital activism is vehicle for integrating HRE and the
new tools of ICT.
Digital activism is a broad designation and while many digital activists neither have
formal training nor identify themselves as human rights educators, their work often promotes a
culture of human rights by teaching new skills and raising awareness to empower citizens to
identify and claim their rights. Digital activism is one way to operationalize HRE principles.
Digital activism can have various human rights objectives. It may educate citizens about
the rights they have and demonstrate when and where they are being violated. It may report on
abuses and teach the political skills necessary for ordinary citizens to demand justice. It may
demand basic human rights needs for disenfranchised communities and engage governments that
have a history of violating rights (Cullum, 2010).
For the success of any human rights movement, mobilizing a critical mass of people to
take action is key and new digital tools offer a way to increase participation in all areas of
society. Ever-growing levels of penetration have led many NGOs to choose mobile networks as a
42
primary tool used in change initiatives. There are numerous advantages to using mobile phones
for human rights work, including rapid transmission of information and relatively low cost of
usage (Cullum, 2010). Even more importantly, the increased capacity for any citizen to generate
and contribute information offers a way of counteracting what Land (2009) calls the
“professionalization” of the human rights field (p. 207). Human rights advocacy using mobile
networks promotes a human rights culture, putting the tools of change potentially into the hands
of each and every citizen. Most visibly, social media tools have decentralized the ability to
organize and execute human rights action. Joyce (2010) draws a parallel with new electrical
networks, which, unlike the traditional, centralized power grid, are based on a model of
distributed energy sources:
The new power grid is a decentralized network of individuals, each of whom can both
produce and consume information, interact with the media, take action, and engage in
protest. At the edges of the network, the term “consumer” does not apply anymore. While
the organizer of an action may be called a“producer,” supporters who participate in the
action are producers as well. The action is its participants. (p. 214)
Social networking sites have received much publicity – both positive and negative –for
the way they have drastically altered strategies and approaches to organizing efforts that aim at
human rights change. Activists and educators alike have taken advantage of social media by
tapping into a collective desire to connect with other people, deepen shared interests, and
exchange stories and experiences. Virtual networking allows people to engage in acts of
solidarity and democratic participation that were previously inconceivable. Coupling an
infinitely scalable system of communication with capacity for organizing and demanding change,
social networks are compelling tools, since they are often founded on pre-existing real world
43
relationships, but offer more expansive and efficient communication. The dramatic events of the
Arab Spring, as noted above, were but one example of political organizing through distributed
social ICT.
Promoting a human rights culture by using an technology dedicated exclusively to HRE
may not be as effecteive as using technologies that citizens already use, even though they were
not designed with HRE in mind. Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms have
become a revolutionary way to increase the scale of human rights campaigns. These widely-used
platforms also have inherent value to activists because their popularity and high visibility makes
them more difficult for politicians to block (Scholz, 2010). The Egyptian president, Hosni
Mubarak, tried to thwart activists by terminating his entire country’s access to the Internet in
January 2011, thereby disabling Facebook and other popular social media tools. He ultimately
failed to stifle communications networks that threatened his regime, as activists found other ways
of getting online, largely through mobile networks and telephone “land lines.”
As mobile phones in particular have become more capable, they have become more
powerful instruments for human rights advocacy. When people use their phones to capture and
share photos and videos with their friends, they also gain the skills to document and report
human rights violations firsthand. This ability to “observe from below” or “watch the watcher”
has been termed sousveillance – the inverse of surveillance—and can offer a point of view that
may diverge from the official, state-sponsored presentation of an event (Whyte & Joyce, 2010, p.
221): “Social media provide many opportunities for activists to observe and report on the
activities of political authorities—who usually are in the position of monitoring activists” (p.
221). This transformation inverts the traditional human rights advocacy paradigm from a topdown to a bottom-up approach, increasing self-sufficiency for those in crisis situations or
44
experiencing rights violations. Despite being recorded by average citizens, who are neither
trained journalists nor human rights experts, footage can be widely disseminated and have
significant ramifications (Morse, 2009). For example, mobile footage from the 2009 civil war in
Sri Lanka was aired as a way of drawing attention to the atrocities committed and shaming the
perpetrators responsible. This “naming and shaming” – a function typically associated with
NGOs – can now be done by average citizens (Land, 2009). The Sri Lankan government had
deported journalists so as to rid the country of witnesses to the bloodshed, but mobile devices
captured the graphic footage of the horrors that killed at least 40,000 Tamil civilians. As one
commentator (The Observer, 2011) has noted, “It will be increasingly difficult for bodies such as
the UN to refuse an investigation when billions of people can access compelling evidence of
crimes at the click of a mouse” (para. 10). Using sousveillance tactics to supplement traditional
journalistic forms provides new ways of documenting evidence, representing a major advance in
human rights accountability mechanisms.
Interactive, real-time mapping is another new tool that digital activists are using to
promote a human rights culture. Beyond simply broadcasting digital media content, new digital
applications make use of virtual maps to synthesize data in mashups, which are understood in
this context to mean the juxtaposition of different layers of digital data in a geographic
representation (Whyte & Joyce, 2010). An example of this type of mashup is HealthMap – an
online aggregator of emerging public health threats that uses various sources of information to
organize, integrate, filter and visualize data in real-time (Boston Children’s Hospital, 2012). An
illustration is provided here in Figure 1.
45
Figure 1. Example of a Mashup (Screenshot)
Another example of this kind of mashup is Ushahidi – named after the Swahili word for
testimony – a software tool that enables people to witness and record events and place them on a
digital map. It was first developed and used in 2008 during Kenya’s post-election violence, as a
way to identify the location of violent incidents using mobile phones and the Internet, in
collaboration with citizen journalists (Ushahidi, 2012). Since then, Ushahidi has grown into a
multi-functional, global platform. Providing an alternative to traditional information gathering,
Ushahidi is leveraged in crisis situations where documentation and real-time data are needed, but
other journalistic outlets are compromised. This democratization of recording and reporting
maximizes participation and is an example of “crowdsourcing,” a term defined by Horner (2011)
as the “use of digital technologies to harness the value of combined knowledge and ideas from
geographically dispersed people…allowing users to see how events are unfolding and to analyse
geographical and temporal trends” (p. 7).
46
The new tools of digital activism, and the crowdsourced data they enable, can ensure
greater accountability for governments and other duty-bearers responsible for ensuring that
human rights are respected. Previously, human rights activists tried to hold governments
responsible for human rights violations, but had limited resources, inadequate tools, and a lack of
access to relevant data. With crowdsourced data – in which data are generated and vetted by
many users rather solely by experts – a participatory feedback loop is created that involves more
people in a more fully democratic process of ensuring that rights are upheld. Actions on all sides
–rights’ holders, rights’ protectors and rights’ offenders – are more easily monitored,
encouraging honesty and transparency, with accountability built into the system. This kind of
transparency building process encourages ongoing participation and involvement (UNDP, 2012).
Because mobile phones serve as a safe and anonymous way to report abuses, crowdsourced
information may be the best means for human rights organizations, courts and international
organizations to track and respond to violations (UNDP, 2012).
Research on Digital Activism for Human Rights Change
LeRoy & Woodcock (2010) emphatically assert that, given the emergence of today’s
digital natives, “no discussion of informal education and human rights can be carried out without
a discussion of electronic resources” (p. 6). Yet, the World Programme only begins to take into
account the role of new communication technology in HRE. The digital tools that will be the
focus of this study are largely excluded from the official literature on HRE, which is limited to
“website resources, […] e-learning, online learning programmes, e-forums, web conferencing
and distance learning programmes” (UNGA, 2010, p. 14), even though their potential clearly
represents an opportunity to dynamically re-envision the field, particularly in informal learning
environments. As for studies of digital ICT, as noted above few frame their evaluations in the
47
language of human rights. Although research to date may not employ language explicitly joining
HRE and digital ICT, new mobile and Internet technologies have the potential to significantly
advance the current WPHRE objective to promote a culture of human rights.
The range of research considered here will not be focused broadly on digital activism, but
more narrowly on human rights advocacy efforts, reflecting one possible understanding of IHRE
as efforts to promote a human rights culture and engender human rights change using digital
tools. Description of available literature on digital activism for human rights change is highly
relevant to the case being considered for this proposed study. In a sense, most contemporary
activism has become ‘digital,’ dependent on tools like email, search engines and mobile phones.
In the article, “Digital Politics as Usual,” Nielsen (2010) does not see digital tools as evidence of
a revolutionary break from the past, so much as the “new normal.”
Following the reorganization of the political landscape in the Middle East during the
2011 Arab Spring, new ICT tools were credited with the ability to advance democracy (Blitzer,
2011), yet this cyberoptimism has not been met with rigorous research establishing causality
(United States Institute of Peace, 2012). The field of digital activism for human rights advocacy
is young, and most research is anecdotal, with little examination of the actual impact of using
digital tools to promote a culture of human rights. Overall, the literature indicates the value of
using ICT to advance the objectives of informal human rights educators, but significant
challenges need to be overcome before these resources can be utilized to their fullest potential.
In some instances, the traditional tools of social activism are amplified through the
capabilities of widespread mobile phone ownership, such as those noted by Cullum (2010) where
mobile phones are used for human rights advocacy in the Philippines, Spain, and Argentina.
These successful cases demonstrate several social activist tactics that are enhanced by mobile
48
technology, including smart mobbing, election monitoring, citizen reporting and sousveillance.
Now that technologies like cheap internet-enabled phones are increasing in their availability,
activists work to ensure that citizens have the skills to use the tools and prevent government
censorship from suppressing their voice or, worse, using the tools against them. Voices that do
not have the access, the skills or the freedom to use digital tools are the voices that need them
most (Brodock, 2010). This aligns with Silan’s (2004) claim that education for human rights is
particularly directed at disadvantaged, marginalized and vulnerable populations.
Cullum (2010) and Brodock’s (2010) studies are indicative of a current trend in recent
literature – a greater tendency to identify challenges alongside advantages in using digital ICT
for human rights change. The greatest advocates of digital tools are also some of the most
critical, pointing to the multitude of factors that may contribute to the success or failure of
particular initiatives, rather than considering the technology in a void
One of the primary challenges related to using technology for human rights is
encapsulated in Manji, Free, and Mark’s (2012) assertion that digital ICTs are characterized by
power relationships and depend heavily on access and control, rather than having intrinsic
democratizing potential: Technology is "but a manifestation of the underlying social relations of
production, reflecting the power of those who own it, control it and seek to exercise power
through it" (p. 2). Kranzberg’s (1986) frequently quoted first law of technology points out that
technology is neither good nor bad, but nor is it neutral. While digital activism tools may be
powerful tools for human rights change in open, democratic societies, authoritarian governments
are taking advantage of the very same digital tools to quell dissent, track down movement
leaders, and spread propaganda. “The proliferation of Web 2.0 services – and especially social
networking – has turned ‘amateur’ activists into easier targets for surveillance” (Morozov, 2011,
49
“The Trinity of Authoritarianism” para. 2). Communication tools that are useful for coordinating
activists are, unfortunately, no less effective when used by despotic dictators for obstruction and
oppression. User-generated content is often uploaded insecurely and can be easily intercepted,
leaving people vulnerable and at the susceptible to abuse by government authorities (Comninos,
2011). Social media platforms can be used for surveillance and have been used to track activists,
occasionally arresting, detaining and even torturing them. Those countries that most vocally
advocate for free speech are also themselves sometimes complicit in compromising individual
liberty. Many U.S. and European ICT firms are responsible for having sold surveillance
technology to autocratic states in Middle East that has been used to target dissidents (Calingaert,
2012; MacKinnon, 2012).
There is wide acknowledgement within the literature that the use of new technologies can
be transformative, but it is not inherently so (Manji, Free, & Mark, 2012). Scholz (2010) warns
that the digital infrastructure is not intrinsically open and democratic but must rather be
deliberately designed and built with those ideals in mind. Digital activists using social media
tools like Facebook and Twitter for human rights advocacy must remain vigilant: aware that their
privacy may be compromised and continually putting pressure on the commercial owners of
those systems to ensure that they remain safe places to affect change (Scholz, 2010). Few deny
the encouraging prospect of increased connectivity, yet gains are easily marred by serious
compromises in privacy and safety. Use of digital tools increase vulnerability, especially for
those in activist or leadership positions who may need to remain anonymous. Widespread use of
new communications tools, and social media in particular, can have a destabilizing effect on
totalitarian governments. Leaders often feel threatened by the increasing use of these
technologies and rationalize their consolidation of power by whatever means necessary. In the
50
words of Varghese (2011), this potential for backlash is causing doubt about the potential for the
triumph of the “technically-savvy David over the Goliath of violence and despotism” (p. 10).
A growing body of literature cautions researchers to not oversimplify the lessons learned
from digital activism, since the tools used are just the most recent innovations in a changing
arsenal of social activism and may not be characteristic of broader trends (Glaisyer, 2010). Social
change initiatives are complex, and the success of past initiatives does not necessarily indicate
future results. Joyce (2010) suggests that the tactical lessons of digital activism are short-lived
because they may be specific to a time, place and particular technology. She asserts that the
current body of strategic activist theory does not apply in the digital age and the tremendous gap
in strategic knowledge requires new frameworks and strategies for the new era of activism.
Integrating the language and framework of informal approaches to human rights education may
be one way of addressing this concern.
Perhaps the most important contribution of new communication technologies to the
advancement of HRE is their capacity to facilitate connections among people. Clay Shirky, New
York University professor in the Interactive Telecommunications Program, notes that "we have
historically overestimated the value of access to information and underestimated the value of
access to one another" (quoted in Howard, 2011, para. 5). Manji., Free, & Mark (2012) confirm
Shirky’s claim that technology is only as effective as underlying human agency:
The adornment of technology with human ability - 'connecting', 'empowering', 'enabling' only serves to obscure the marginal role that it has played in actual cases of collective
action. Through all this glorification it becomes easy to forget that it is not the technology
itself but ordinary citizens who have taken advantage of new media to drive forward
development... (p. 1)
51
The increased ability to communicate more effectively with strangers who happen to
share interests that such technologies provide has become a key ingredient in social change
endeavors. Technology is viewed as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, direct social
interaction (Fahamu Networks for Social Justice, 2010).
While recognizing that technology represents an integral part of our collective
experience, Freire (2000) warned about the fetishization of technology and the temptation to see
it as “species of new divinity” rather than a tool or expression of creativity (p. 63). Avoiding
such fetishization, Manji, Free, and Mark (2012) wisely place people back at the heart of human
rights change: "Social transformation will be, as it has always been, the outcome of collective
actions, not the outcome of the availability of new media technologies" (p. 2). The most
significant benefits of digital ICT relate to increased access to communication networks,
introducing new interactive tools and making use of crowdsourced data to involve people in the
process of defending and promoting their own human rights. There is also a recognition within
the literature that realizing the benefits of digital ICT will require not only vigilance but hard
work over a sustained period of time, and a recognition of people, rather than technology, as the
true source of power:
While remaining cognizant that the practical promise of new technologies is important,
the incessant talk of “great potential” can be dangerously misleading if it is taken to
describe the present realities of digitally augmented and Internet-assisted activism. We
have no systematic evidence to suggest that the Web has given power back to the
people.[...] Power is not something activists “get.” It is something they build.
(Nielsen, 2010, p. 185)
52
Chapter Conclusion
As demonstrated through this review of the literature, technology plays an increasingly
prominent role in re-envisioning HRE “curricula” in informal contexts, providing compelling
ways for learners to turn education into advocacy. (Norlander, 2012): “People with different
skills can teach and train one another in informal ways, increasing the scope and efficacy of
HRE” (p. 75). The use of new communication technologies can facilitate an increased perception
of individual agency through user-generated content and real-world applicability. Digital tools
can provide a means of contextualization, making learning adaptable to diverse populations.
Activities can be easily assimilated into learners’ lived experience rather than compartmentalized
or isolated from deeper meaning. Certain tools allow learners to take action on issues that are of
interest to them personally, integrating “education” with personal experience. This increases
participation and motivation, resulting in a greater sense of ownership of both problems and
solutions (Norlander, 2012).
The empowerment of people through the use of new communication technologies can
occur on both societal and individual levels. This participatory process lies at the heart of HRE.
Such education is required first to inform people of their rights, then to train them to use the
tools available, and finally to empower them to take action. By informing, training and
empowering people to take individual and collective action on behalf of each other, education for
human rights is, at its core, primarily about human agency, and the belief that collaborative
efforts can help realize a culture affirming of human dignity.
Certain critical questions concerning the application of digital ICT to human rights
teaching and learning are virtually absent from existing literature. Who are the educators and
who is the audience? Human rights education alters traditional differentiations between the role
53
of instructor and learner. As definitions of the respective participants, and other elements of the
education process, become more difficult to establish, so do the processes by which they are
evaluated. How should “successful” education for human rights, and human rights activism, be
measured? The nature and breadth of work in this field necessitates flexible evaluation
standards. Despite a wealth and variation of activity in the field, a dearth of scholarly work
exists investigating the use of digital ICTs in HRE work. Current research omits a key ingredient
– the framework and mandate provided in United Nations documentation, specifically the World
Programme and the UNDHRET, which provide justification for informal education methods and
a common global language for a discussion of rights.
54
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
Methodological Framework
Selecting the methodological framework of a study informs the choice and application of
research methods (Anfara & Mertz, 2006), and governs how tools are selected and used for
acquiring and analyzing data (McCandless, 2007). The research proposed in this study is based
on a case study of Amnesty International, using qualitative methods of analysis informed by the
methodological lens of constructivism.
Because this research must capture the views and opinions of dynamic subjects,
embedded in a particular context, the best approach is qualitative assessment. Bryman (2004)
contends that “the social world must be interpreted from the perspective of the people being
studied, rather than as though those subjects were incapable of their own reflections” (p. 279).
Qualitative research aims at a holistic account of a given issue. Rather than try to isolate and
control variables, its goal is to understand multiple perspectives that permit complex analysis. It
is an expansive rather than reductionist approach: “Researchers are bound not by tight causeand-effect relationships among factors, but rather by identifying the complex interactions of
factors in any situation” (Creswell, 2007, p. 39).
A qualitative research inquiry such as this is axiological in nature, questioning the role of
values in human interaction and social behavior. The researcher admits a normative bias toward
universal human rights, understanding that such values will shape the research procedures and
findings, and acknowledging that both articulated and subconscious values may, in part,
determine outcomes:
55
All researchers bring values to a study, but qualitative researchers like to make explicit
those values. This is the axiological assumption that characterizes qualitative research.
[...] In a qualitative study, the inquirers admit the value-laden nature of the study and
actively report their values and biases as well as the value-laden nature of information
gathered from the field. (Creswell, 2007, p. 18)
Methodological Lens. The research in this qualitative study will be informed by
constructivism - a methodological framework in which social structures and processes are
understood as shaping forces behind subjects’ identities and behavior.
Constructivist worldview. This research will be characterized by a constructivist
epistemology, according to which social phenomena are understood as examined, constructed –
and implicitly interpreted – by the participants themselves (Bryman, 2004). It recognizes that
social structures “shape the identities and interests of actors” (McCandless, 2007, p. 113).
Constructivism is based upon the idea that learning involves constructing meaning according to
one’s experience and observations, then linking new information to prior knowledge. As
Creswell (2009) states, “Social Constructivists hold the assumption that individuals seek
understanding of the world in which they live and work. Individuals develop subjective
meanings of their experiences, meanings directed toward certain objects or things” (p. 234).
Subjective meaning is “negotiated” by individuals through interaction with one another and with
socio-cultural norms, rather than “imprinted” on them (Creswell, 2007). Given the fluidity of
social “reality,” a constructivist approach allows for a process of constant revision and reinterpretation, a process analogous to qualitative research itself. This approach also parallels the
deliberative school of understanding human rights as being worked out through social consensus,
noted above, with constructs defined within a particular historical moment.
56
The proposed inquiry will be constructivist both in its understanding of data analysis –
recognizing that participants create meaning from their experiences and that those meanings are
a primary focus of the study – and in its view that the researcher is subject to contextual forces in
analysis of the data. Bryman (2004) notes the importance of researchers becoming aware of their
own participation in the social construction of reality: “In recent years, [constructivism] has
come also to include the notion that researchers’ own accounts of the social world are
constructions” (p. 17). The researcher acknowledges her epistemological and advocatory biases,
rather than claiming to be a neutral arbiter of information.
Research Design Overview
This research will examine digital communications technology utilized for human rights
education at Amnesty International, in an in-depth single case study. Following a survey of
human rights educators in the Amnesty HRE Network (140 individuals across 60 countries), five
respondees will be selected for follow-up interviews, based on the relevance of their responses to
the questionnaire. All interviews will be transcribed. After correlating the transcribed interviews
with both organizational literature and results of the questionnaire, a content analysis will be
used to identify patterns and themes concerning the use of digital tools to promote a culture of
human rights. The use of digital ICT for HRE at Amnesty International will be evaluated
according to how well it accomplishes the three objectives identified in the WPHRE:
a) advancement of knowledge and skills,
b) development of corresponding values, attitudes and behaviors, and
c) producing identifiable action that defends and promotes human rights (UNGA, 2010).
Best practices will be identified and recommendations will then be made for subsequent HRE
program design.
57
Case Study as Research Strategy
A research strategy allows for the systematic collection and analysis of data in a way that
meaningfully explores a given phenomenon.
Applying case study methodology to research on human rights education. This
proposed research project is single case study of current uses of digital tools to promote and
expand universal human rights. Yin (2003), whose detailed handbook Case Study Research:
Design and Methods will inform the execution of the study, promotes this method as a
comprehensive research strategy, calling it an “all-encompassing method” – that includes design
logic, data collection procedures and approaches to analyzing data (p. 14). Including contextual
conditions into the study will allow a more holistic evaluation, than, say, an experimental
approach which deliberately separates phenomena from their respective contexts. The digital
tools being utilized in HRE are deployed in very specific contexts, the conditions of which likely
play a role in the outcome and must be taken into account. A case study approach is prefered
because contextual conditions (i.e., the effect of using digital tools in particular locations with
select participating communities) are “highly pertinent” to the phenonmena themselves (Yin,
2003).
Research Purpose and Goals
The purpose of this proposed dissertation research is to investigate the effects of using
certain digital communication tools in the global human rights arena by documenting and
evaluating current iniatives. An in-depth case study approach will allow the researcher to
critically assess the advantages and disadvantages of using digital ICT for HRE, and understand
the implications of ever-evolving communication technologies for developing HRE initiatives.
The researcher hopes to identify strategies that produce meaningful impacts in the field, and
58
provide useful qualitative data for human rights educators and activists currently deploying
digital tools, at Amnesty International and beyond.
Research Questions
This proposed dissertation asks the following question: Can new digital communication tools
facilitate human rights education and contribute to the development of a human rights culture,
and if so, how? Several sub-questions will be explored and are intended to inform the exploration
of the primary question:

How does the use of digital communication tools advance knowledge of human rights
issues and skills to effectively deal with human rights violations?

How can digital communication tools contribute to the development of values, attitudes
and behaviors that correspond to human rights principles?

How can the use of digital communication tools help produce identifiable actions that
defend and promote human rights?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of using digital communications tools for HRE?
Can digital communications tools be implemented more effectively for HRE?
Procedures
Outline of procedures. The organization Amnesty International has been selected as the
case for study because it is the largest organization in the world facilitating human rights
education and can thereby offer valuable insight into the proposed research question. The
researcher will collect data to be analyzed in the forms of a questionnaire, in-depth interviews,
organizational literature, and direct observation by the researcher Content analysis of the data
will be performed according to the procedures detailed below. The findings will be interpreted
according to the evaluation criteria stipulated in the proposal and the final dissertation will be
59
presented as a case study analysis focused on answering its primary research question.
Case selection overview. Amnesty International (commonly referred to both as
“Amnesty” and “AI”) is the largest human rights organization in the world. Amnesty has a
highly visible presence throughout the globe and exemplifies an organization in the process of
updating its methods – both for efficiency and utility, and to train a new generation of activists.
While in the past, Amnesty’s mission was limited to securing release for prisoners of conscience,
in the digital age its mission has become much broader in scope, to include advocating for
economic, social and cultural rights (Hopgood, 2006).
According to Amnesty International, educating for human rights “means both conveying
ideas and information concerning human rights and nurturing the values and attitudes that lead to
the support of those rights” (Amnesty International, 2012). The organization uses grassroots
efforts to promote awareness of human rights and teach people the skills needed for successful
advocacy. Bajaj (2011) points out that this approach prioritizes learners becoming their own best
human rights advocates, amid the larger project of social transformation. “Both social change as
an outcome, and learners becoming agents of this process of claiming their own rights and
defending others’ rights, are central in [Amnesty International’s] definition” (Bajaj, 2011, p.
485).
Since it was founded in 1961, Amnesty has relied on the participation of an extensive
network of volunteers around the globe to carry out its campaigns. The organization encourages
activists to write letters to politicians and authorities, acting as surrogate voices for those whose
political freedom had been compromised. Text-messaging has been an effective way engaging
younger people in activism. Mobile technology has the added advantage of speeding up
campaigns – that are often time-sensitive – and drastically scaling initiatives beyond what was
60
possible with letter-writing.
Data collection. For case study research, Creswell (2007) identifies “four basic types of
information - interviews, observations, documents, and audiovisual materials” (p. 43). All play a
role in the research proposed here. Data for this single case study will include a questionnaire,
semi-structured interviews, the researcher’s field notes and observations, an extensive analysis of
written documentation and organizational literature, and other digital media such as audio-visual
material.
A questionnaire sent to Amnesty International’s HRE Network, followed up by five indepth interviews with Network members selected on the basis of their responses to the
questionnaire will be the primary sources of data collection (See Appendices A & B). The
questionnaire will serve to gather important preliminary data and serve to identify key players,
while the interviews will allow the researcher to probe the research topic more deeply. The
questionnaire will be made available in English, French and Spanish, to encourage broader
participation.
Yin (2003) calls interviews “one of the most important sources of case study
information” (p. 89). Semi-structured interviews are less structured than in quantitative research
but offer greater depth of subjective experience and interpretation (Bryman, 2004). In a semistructured interview, the researcher begins with a list of specific questions to ask each
interviewee that will inform the research problem, but as per Yin (2003), will be open-ended in
nature, allowing the researcher to ask “about the facts of a matter as well as their opinions about
events” (p. 90).
This dissertation research will follow Bryman’s (2004) interview protocol, which
suggests that questions be developed to help direct the course of conversation, but that the
61
researcher be prepared to alter the order during the actual interview if doing so will yield greater
insight. This iterative exercise elucidates important reflections from the people most deeply
immersed in a particular phenomenon – in this study, using digital ICT for HRE. The interviews
allow for an interpersonal experience while maintaining the authenticity of the interviewees’
responses, adding an important dimension to the analysis of other documentation and
organizational literature. Unlike document analysis, interviews allow a researcher to ask for
clarification or elaboration on specific points raised during the interview.
The interview protocol will include a list of questions the researcher may choose to ask
during the interviews (see Appendix B). Depending upon the answers to the pre-formulated
questions, the interview may venture off-script to more detailed, clarifying or probing questions.
All interviews will be recorded and later transcribed so that an exact record exists of each
interview. The transcriptions will be kept in a password-protected file on the researcher’s
computer and backed-up virtually in a secure location.
In addition to the in-depth interviews, this study will use a wide range of documentation
that will be collected for the duration of the research period.
Data analysis. This stage of research will determine how the data informs the core
research question, and sub-questions. In a process known as qualitative content analysis,
individual data will be segmented, coded, and grouped into categories in order to develop themes
(Saldana, 2009). These themes will address the core research question and sub-questions.
The nature of qualitative data lends itself to capturing the complexity of social
phenomena, but analyzing raw data can be a challenge due to volume and/or the lack of
standardized procedures for analysis. Given these difficulties, and the wide range of researchers
who conduct qualitative analysis, Tesch (1990) says that the only agreed-upon truth is that
62
“analysis is the process of making sense of narrative data” (p. 4). Researchers themselves who
work with qualitative data reject standardization (Tesch, 1990), seeing qualitative analysis as
“fluid” and “applied to a wide variety of principles and procedures” (p. 4). Bryman (2004) points
out that “one of the main difficulties with qualitative research is that it very rapidly generates a
large, cumbersome database because of its reliance on prose” (p. 399). For this reason, precise
and detailed methods are needed at the outset.
The first step will be organizing the files, documents, notes, questionnaire responses,
transcriptions and physical documentation so that they are easily accessible in in a digital format.
For the purposes of this case study, digital folders (with respective subfolders) will be created,
allowing for logical organization and easy retrieval of data.
The data will then be organized into meaningful “segments” through coding—organizing
individual pieces of datum into categories and eliciting themes (Basit, 2003; Bryman, 2004;
Saldana, 2009). The researcher will then distinguish themes, or categories, in the research data
and name them by attributing a code to them. Codes have been called an “analytic handle” –
helping researchers make sense of data and identify patterns (Boeije, 2010, p. 96). A code is a
label that depicts the the core topic of a segment, or “a word or string of words used as a name
for a category generated during analysis” (Boeije, 2010, p. 95). Coding is an iterative process as
categories are never fixed entities, subject to continual reassessment as themes emerge. The
researcher will elicit themes from the presence of certain words and phrases within the material.
A “theme” can be defined as “the matter with which the data are mainly concerned” (Boeije,
2010, p. 95).
Data analysis is an inductive process, meaning that the researcher maneuvers back and
forth between the raw data and the emergent themes to allow new ways of interpreting and
63
understanding the data (Creswell, 2007). Researchers must be aware that coding is not an
objective process, and that “researchers engage in interpreting the data when they conduct
qualitative research” (Creswell, 2007, p. 154), no matter how self-reflective and systematic the
approach. One way to acknowledge this is what Neuendorft (2002) labels interpretive analysis,
which allows “the analyst [to be] in a constant state of discovery and revision” (p. 6). Interpretive
analysis is content analysis with a more fully acknowledged bias. Because data analysis is an
interpretive and iterative process, the researcher will repeatedly return to the raw data to
determine whether additional points of interest emerge.
The evaluative framework for this project will determine the extent to which using digital
communication tools for Amnesty’s HRE work advance the three goals of the World
Programme: a) advancement of knowledge and skills, b) development of corresponding values,
attitudes and behaviors, and c) producing identifiable action that defends and promotes human
rights (UNGA, 2010). This approach follows that of the Human Rights Resource Center (2000),
which identifies the role of informal human rights educators in shaping the way that information,
training, and advocacy come together to promote democratic initiatives, integrating the three
objectives of the WPHRE:
Human rights education is essential to active citizenship in a democratic and pluralistic
civil society. Citizens need to be able to think critically, make moral choices, take
principled positions on issues, and devise democratic courses of action. […] Active
citizenship also means participation in the democratic process, motivated by a sense of
personal responsibility for promoting and protecting the rights of all. But to be engaged
in this way, citizens must first be informed. (para. 2)
64
The questionnaire and semi-structured interviews with Amnesty’s HRE Network members will
aim at identifying the degrees of success in accomplishing the World Programme objectives,
which will facilitate the data analysis goals.
Strategies for Establishing Study Validity and Reliability
Certain logical tests can be used to determine the quality of a research design (Yin,
2003). The most standard and commonly used tests are validity and reliability. Various strategies
for validating findings are employed by researchers, depending on the nature of the data being
collected. Creswell (2007) considers validation when doing qualitative inquiry as “an attempt to
assess the ‘accuracy’ of the findings” (p. 206). For the purposes of this single case study, it is
helpful to understand validity as further divided into construct validity and external validity.
To uphold construct validity, researchers must establish “correct operational measures for
the concepts being studied” (Yin, 2003, p. 35). This can be done through verifying that the way
of measuring the phenomena under consideration is suited to the objectives of the study; in other
words, having the right tools to address the question(s) at hand (Yin, 2003).
Extensive content analysis will be used to triangulate data. following Yin’s (2003)
formulation: “For case studies, the most important use of documents is to corroborate and
augment evidence from other sources” (p. 87). Data triangulation is a widely practiced and
effective measure for guaranteeing construct validity, “because the multiple sources of evidence
essentially provide multiple measures of the same phenomenon” (Yin, 2003, p. 99). Different
sources of information are examined and the findings are then used to justify the elicited themes
(Creswell, 2009). The results of the survey will be triangulated with the information gained from
the interviews, the organizational literature, and the personal observations of the researcher.
65
In addition to data triangulation, a process known as member checking will increase the
construct validity by taking specific data and corresponding conclusions to the interviewees to
solicit their opinions on the accuracy and credibility of analyses (Creswell, 2007). This is a vital
step in a participatory, iterative process and important for supporting the overall accuracy of the
analyses. Research participants will vet narrative drafts of each case study to ensure the truth and
accuracy of the interpretations, and then be informally invited to comment on subsequent
revisions of the findings.
External validity can be problematic for single-case studies such as the one proposed
here, since the degree of generalizability of the results can be difficult to assess. However,
negative or discrepant information that runs counter to the research themes will be identified in
the analyses. As Creswell (2009) notes, identifying such discrepant information is important
“(b)ecause real life is composed of different perspectives that do not always coalesce, [and]
discussing contrary information adds to the credibility of an account” (p. 192).
The reliability of a study refers to its replicability – whether a different researcher could
re-execute the study and arrive at the same results. To achieve reliability, research procedures
will be documented explicitly and executed with precision. A case study database will be used so
that other investigators can “review the evidence directly and not be limited to the written case
study reports” (Yin, 2003, p. 102), reducing the possibility of inaccuracy or researcher error and
overcoming a “major shortcoming of case study research [that] needs to be corrected” (p. 102).
A case study database consists of two separate collections: one is the raw data or evidence, and
the other is comprised of the researcher’s reports, all in a format that is easily accessible by an
independent third party.
66
Delimitations and Limitations
Any proposed research design must set deliberate boundaries to make the study feasible.
The design of this proposal consciously includes certain methods and delimits the scope of its
inquiry, excluding many other possibilities. This study is delimited to an examination of
Amnesty International’s work to advance human rights through the use of digital ICT. It will not
examine the opinions of human rights learners who are actually using the digital tools, except
indirectly through the responses of members of Amnesty’s HRE Network who will be surveyed
and/or interviewed. To increase the feasibility of the study, research that extends beyond London
(the location of the International Secretariat of Amnesty International where the researcher
works) will be conducted virtually – using audio, video and web-based applications – rather than
requiring the researcher to travel to the areas where the respective digital tools are deployed.
Yin (2003) identifies concerns over generalizability as one of the primary limitations
attributed to case study methodology. The same concern exists for researchers doing qualitative
studies more broadly. There is debate among researchers as to the generalizability of qualitative
research findings, “since the intent of [qualitative] inquiry is not to generalize findings,” rather,
its value “lies in the particular description and themes developed in context” (Creswell, 2009, p.
193). In other words, in qualitiative inquiry, the focus is on particularity rather than
generalizability. However, it can still be useful to make generalizations from the findings, and
develop relevant theories, where appropriate, while acknowledging the limitations of the validity
of such generalizations, given the nature of the research approach. Yin (2003) admits that case
studies are not usually generalizable across diverse populations but they can be helpful in
generating new theory. In this study, the limitations on generalizability may pertain to the digital
67
tools used in a given region or with a particular community, which may not be useful in other
locations or under different circumstances.
Anticipated Ethical Issues
Typically, when researching issues surrounding human rights violations, ethical
considerations abound. In this case, however, interviews will be conducted not with individuals
who have personally suffered abuse, but rather facilitators designing ways to address human
rights concerns. Every effort will be made to respect the feelings and emotions of participants
and interviews will be conducted in a professional and respectful manner. Interviews may be
terminated at any point by the interviewee if he or she becomes uncomfortable with the direction
of the conversation. The interviewees will be asked not to mention specific individuals by name
when answering questions about their experience facilitating HRE programs and activities.
Transcriptions of the interviews will be made available and provided for each interviewee as part
of the member checking process for validity.
Prior to each interview conducted, interviewees will have access to the written
dissertation proposal and list of questions that may be discussed. Oral consent will be obtained
according to the Saybrook Institutional Review Board (SIRB) requirements for a study of the
nature proposed here. Prior to commencing the interviews, an application for exemption from
SIRB Review will be submitted, wherein the researcher will:
(a) identify who is conducting the study, including institutional affiliation and academic
status,
(b) describe why the study is being conducted,
(c) state who is being recruited and why they have been chosen,
68
(d) explain what subjects will be asked to do and estimate how long it will take to complete
the task,
(e) emphasize that participation is voluntary,
(f) describe any incentive offered or costs that may be incurred, and
(g) provide the contact information for inquiries. (SIRB, 2011, p. 3).
69
REFERENCES
Advocates for Human Rights. (2011). Discover human rights: A human rights approach to
social justice training manual. Retrieved from the Advocates for Human Rights website:
http://www.discoverhumanrights.org/
Akpan-Obong, P., Alozie, N. O., & Foster, W. (2009). Cell vs. Internet: Impact on
democratization in Africa. Retrieved from
http://www.fosterandbrahm.com/docs/Akpan_Alozie_Foster_TPRC_2010-2.pdf
Alderson, J. C. (1984) Human rights and the police. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
Ali, A. H. (2011). The power of social media in developing nations: New tools for closing the
global digital divide and beyond. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 24, pp. 185-219.
Retrieved from http://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/185-220.pdf
Amnesty International. (2002). Monitoring and reporting human rights violations in Africa: A
handbook for community activists. Retrieved from
http://www.codesria.org/spip.php?article1164
Amnesty International. (2010). The multiplier approach in human rights education: Lessons
learned from the Rights Education Action Programme. Retrieved from the Amnesty
International website:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/POL32/003/2010/en/e40bef43-e41d-414b-93c63a6f5cb32445/pol320032010en.pdf
Amnesty International. (2011). Facilitation manual: A guide to using participatory
methodologies for human rights education. Retrieved from the Amnesty International
website: http://amnesty.org/en/library/info/ACT35/020/2011/en
Amnesty International. (2012). Human rights education. Retrieved from
http://www.amnestyusa.org/resources/educators
Anfara, V. A. Jr. & Mertz, N. T. (Eds.) 2006. Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bajaj, M. (2010). From 'time pass' to transformative force: School-based human rights education
in Tamil Nadu, India. International Journal of Educational Development. Retrieved from
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/6458/Bajaj_Time_Pass_2010_In_Press.pdf
Bajaj, M. (2011). Human rights education: Ideology, location, and approaches. Human Rights
Quarterly, 33, 481–508. Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2143410
Bartlett, L. (2008). Paulo Freire and peace education. In Encyclopedia of peace education. New
York: Columbia University Press. Retrieved from http://www.tc.edu/centers/epe
70
Basit, T. N. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis.
Educational Review (45)2, pp. 143-154. doi: 10.1080/0013188032000133548
Berners-Lee, T. (2010, December). Long live the Web: A call for continued open standards and
neutrality. Scientific American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/
article.cfm?id=long-live-the-web
Blitzer, W. (2011, February 11). The situation room [Interview with Wael Ghonim]. CNN
Transcripts. Retrieved from
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1102/09/sitroom.01.html
Blumenstock, J. & Eagle, N. (2010). Mobile divides: Gender, socioeconomic status, and mobile
phone use in Rwanda. Retrieved from http://mobileactive.org/research/mobile-dividesgender-socioeconomic-status-and-mobile-phone-use-rwanda
Boston Children’s Hospital (2012). HealthMap. Retrieved from http://www.healthmap.org/en/
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Buchanan, A. (2008). Human rights and the legitimacy of the international order. Legal Theory,
14, 39-70. doi: 10.1017/S1352325208080038
Brodock, K. (2010). Economic and social factors: The digital (activism) divide. In M. Joyce
(Ed.), Digital activism decoded (pp. 71-84). New York: International Debate Education
Association. Retrieved from http://www.meta-activism.org/book/
Calingaert, D. (2012, May 9). Dictatorships go high-tech, with our help [Web log message].
Retrieved from http://www.freedomhouse.org/blog/dictatorships-go-hightech%E2%80%94-our-help
Canalys. (2012, February 3). Smart phones overtake client PCs in 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.canalys.com/newsroom/smart-phones-overtake-client-pcs-2011
Cisco (2012, Feb. 12). Cisco visual networking index: Global mobile data traffic forecast
update, 2011–2016. Retrieved from the Cisco website:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/white_
paper_c11-520862.pdf
Clements, C. (2011). Strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights. SGI
Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.sgiquarterly.org/feature2011Oct-11.html
Comninos, A. (2011). Twitter revolutions and cyber crackdowns: User-generated content and
social networking in the Arab spring and beyond. Retrieved from the Association for
Progressive Communications website:
https://www.apc.org/en/system/files/AlexComninos_MobileInternet.pdf
71
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cronk, H. (2007). Pushing towards Web 3.0. organizing tools. Social Policy 38(1), 27-34.
Cullum, B. (2010). Devices: The power of mobile phones. In M. Joyce (Ed.), Digital activism
decoded (pp. 47-70). New York: International Debate Education Association. Retrieved
from http://www.meta-activism.org/book/
Declaration of the Rights of Man – 1789. (2008). Lillian Goldman Law Library: The Avalon
Project. Retrieved from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp
Dembour, M. B. (2010). What are human rights? Four schools of thought. Human Rights
Quarterly, 32, 1-20.
Equitas International Centre for Human Rights Education (Equitas) & the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2011). Evaluating human
rights training activities: A handbook for human rights educators. Retrieved from the
Equitas website: http://equitas.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/Equitas_EvaluationHandbook.pdf
Facebook. (2012). Newsroom. Retrieved from
http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22
Fagan, A. (2011). An education in human rights. SGI Quarterly. Retrieved from
http://www.sgiquarterly.org/feature2011Oct-2.html
Fahamu Networks for Social Justice. (2010, March). Strengthening the pan African movement
for social justice: Challenges of using ICTs [PowerPoint slideshow]. Retrieved from iisdb.stanford.edu/evnts/6020/Manji1.ppt
Federman, J. (1999). The politics of compassion (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Finley, L. (2004, Fall). Teaching for peace in higher education: Overcoming the challenges to
addressing structure and methods. OJPCR: The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict
Resolution, 6(1), 272-281. Retrieved from www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/6_1finley.htm
Flowers, N. (2003). What is human rights education? Retrieved from
www.hrea.org/erc/Library/curriculum_methodology/flowers03.pdf
Franco, A. (2010). Web 3.0: Distraction, evolution or revolution? Information Management,
20(6), 9. doi: 2177389401.
72
Freire, P. (2000). Cultural action for freedom. Boston: Harvard Educational Review.
Freire, P. (2009). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). New York: Continuum
International.
Frezzo, M. (2011). Sociology and human rights education: Beyond the three generations?
Societies Without Borders, 6(2), 3-22.
Gerber, P. (2011). Education about human rights: Strengths and weaknesses of the United
Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training. Alternative Law Journal,
36(4), 245 -249.
Glaisyer, T. (2010). Political factors: Digital activism in closed and open societies. In M. Joyce
(Ed.), Digital activism decoded (pp. 85-98). New York: International Debate Education
Association. Retrieved from http://www.meta-activism.org/book/
GSM Association. (2011). African mobile observatory 2011: Driving economic and social
development through mobile services. Retrieved from the GSMA website:
http://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wpcontent/uploads/2012/04/africamobileobservatory2011-1.pdf
GSM Association Development Fund, & Cherie Blair Foundation for Women. (2010). Women
& mobile: A global opportunity. A study on the mobile phone gender gap in low and
middle-income countries. Retrieved from http://www.mwomen.org/Research/womenmobile-a-global-opportunity_1
Ho, V. (2010). The web evolves: The new Internet isn't a number, it's a journey of purposeful
and powerful communication. Information Management, 20 (6), 5. doi: 2177389381.
Hopgood, S. (2006). Keepers of the flame: Understanding Amnesty International. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Horner, L. (2011, June). A human rights approach to the mobile Internet. Retrieved from the
Association for Progressive Communications website: http://www.apc.org/en/node/12431
Howard, A. (2011, January 21). The role of the Internet as a platform for collective action grows
[web log message]. Retrieved fromhttp://radar.oreilly.com/2011/01/pew-internetplatform.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Human Rights Education Associates (HREA). (2007). Library. Retrieved from
http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=102
Human Rights Resource Center (2000). The need for human rights. The human rights education
handbook [Part I, D: For whom?]. University of Minnesota. Retrieved from
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/hreduseries/hrhandbook/part1D.html
73
ICTworks. (2012, July 20). Celebrate the IDEOS vs. Samsung $100 smartphone price war in
Kenya [web log message]. Retrieved from
http://www.ictworks.org/news/2012/07/20/celebrate-ideos-vs-samsung-100-smartphoneprice-war-kenya
Ignatieff, M. (2000, April 4-7). I. Human rights as politics; II. Human rights as idolatry. Paper
delivered at The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Princeton University. Retrieved
from http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/Ignatieff_01.pdf
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). (2010). History of the ICRC. Retrieved from
http://www.icrc.org/eng/who-we-are/history/overview-section-history-icrc.htm
International Labor Organization. (2004). Child Labour: A textbook for university students.
Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/ipecinfo/product/viewProduct.do?productId=174
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2011). The world in 20111: ICT facts and
figures. Retrieved from the ITU website: http://www.itu.int/ITUD/ict/facts/2011/material/ICTFactsFigures2011.pdf
Joyce, M. (2010).Conclusion: Building the future of digital activism. In M. Joyce (Ed.), Digital
activism decoded (pp. 209-216). New York: International Debate Education Association.
Retrieved from http://www.meta-activism.org/book/
Jack, W. & Suri, T. (2010, August). The economics of M-PESA. Retrieved from the Massachsetts
Institute of Technology website: http://www.mit.edu/~tavneet/M-PESA.pdf
Keet, A. (2012). Discourse, betrayal, critique: The renewal of human rights education. In C.
Roux (Ed.) Safe spaces: Human rights education in diverse contexts (pp. 7-28). Boston:
Sense Publishers.
Kent, G. (2010). Designing rights-based school feeding programs.” Societies Without
Borders,5(2). Retrieved from http://societieswithoutborders.org/2011/02/26/designingrights-based-school-feeding-programs/
Khalil, M. Dongier, P. & Qiang, C. Z. (2009). Overview. Information and communications for
development [World Bank report]. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTIC4D/Resources/58706351242066347456/IC4D_2009_Overview.pdf
Kristof, N. (2010, June 26). Death by gadget. New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/opinion/27kristof.html?_r=1
Kranzberg, M. (1986) Technology and history: "Kranzberg's Laws". Technology and Culture,
27 (3), 544-560.
74
Lancet, Y. (2012, July 18). Google brings emails to feature phones in Africa, no Internet access
required [web log message]. Retrieved from
http://www.techhive.com/article/259473/google_brings_emails_to_feature_phones_in_af
rica_no_internet_access_required.html
Land, M. (2009, November). Peer producing human rights. Alberta Law Review, 46(4), 11151140. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1712021
Lapayese, Y. V. (2002). The work of human rights educators: Critical pedagogy in action
(doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database.
(No. AAT 3076622).
Le Roy, E., & Woodcock, P. (2010). Informal education and human rights. Children’s Identity
and Citizenship in Europe. Retrieved from http://www.londonmet.ac.uk
Lisbon Forum. (2009). Creating a culture of human rights through education. Conference
proceedings. Retrieved from
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/nscentre/Resources/Publications/The_2009LisbonForum_net.pd
f
Lohrenscheit, C. (2002). International approaches in human rights education. International
Review of Education 48 (3-4), 173-185. doi: 10.1023/A:1020386216811
MacKinnon, R. (2012, May 25). Internet freedom and the erosion of democracy [Web log
message]. Retrieved from http://www.themarknews.com/articles/8527-internet-freedomand-the-erosion-of-democracy#.UFSh_b127tg
Magna Carta 1215. (2008). Lillian Goldman Law Library: The Avalon Project. Retrieved from
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/magframe.asp
Manji, F., Free, A., & Mark, C. (2012, March). New media in Africa: Tools for liberation or
means of subjugation? New Media, Alternative Politics Working Papers, no. 2. Retrieved
from http://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/cghr/docs/NMAP_Manji_paper_2.pdf
McCandless, E. (2007). Selected research perspectives and paradigms. In E. McCandless, A. K.
Bangura, M. E. King & E. Sall, E. (Eds.) Peace research for Africa: Critical essays on
methodology (pp 111-124). University for Peace: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Retrieved from
http://www.africa.upeace.org/documents/Peace_Research_for%20Africa.pdf
Michigan State University Communication Technology Laboratory & Death Penalty Information
Center. (2000). Death Penalty Curricula for High School. Retrieved from
http://www.deathpenaltycurriculum.org/
Mihr, A. (2009). Global human rights awareness, education and democratization. Journal of
Human Rights, 8, 177–189. doi: 10.1080/14754830902939080.
75
Mims, C. (2012, September 24). Facebook’s plan to find its next billion users: convince them the
Internet and Facebook are the same [web log message]. Retrieved from
http://qz.com/5180/facebooks-plan-to-find-its-next-billion-users-convince-them-theinternet-and-facebook-are-the-same/
Morozov, E. (2011). The Net delusion: The dark side of Internet freedom [Kindle version]. New
York: PublicAffairs. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com
Morse, J. (2009, August). Human rights group embraces social media via "The Hub”. State
Department Documents / Federal Information & News Dispatch. doi: 1827079001.
Müller, L. (2009). Human rights education in German schools and post-secondary institutions:
Results of a study. Retrieved from
http://www.hrea.org/erc/Library/display_doc.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hrea.org%
2Fpubs%2FHREA-Research-in-HRE-Papers_issue2.pdf&external=N
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Nielsen, R. K. (2010). Digital politics as usual. In M. Joyce (Ed.), Digital activism
decoded (pp.181-196). New York: International Debate Education Association. Retrieved
from http://www.meta-activism.org/book/
Norlander, R. J. (2012). A digital approach to human rights education? Peace Review, 24(1), 7077. doi: 10.1080/10402659.2012.651025
The Observer (2011, June 19). War crimes: The world has seen the evidence. Now we must act
[Editorial]. Retrieved from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/19/observer-editorial-war-crimes-srilanka
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (ODIHR). (2009). Human rights education in the school systems of
Europe, Central Asia and North America: A compendium of good practice. Retrieved
from Human Rights Education Associates website:
http://www.hrea.org/pubs/Compendium.pdf
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (1995). World
conference on human rights, 14-25 June 1993, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ABOUTUS/Pages/ViennaWC.aspx
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (1996). Fact
Sheet No.2 (Rev.1), The International Bill of Human Rights. Retrieved from
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet2Rev.1en.pdf
76
Oxfam. (n.d.) Children’s rights: A series of lesson plans for children ages 8-10. Retrieved from
the Oxfam website: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/
Pew Research Center. (2011, December 20). Global digital communication: Texting, social
networking popular worldwide. Retrieved from
http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/12/20/global-digital-communication-texting-socialnetworking-popular-worldwide/
Print, M., Ugarte, C., Naval, C., & Mihr, A. (2008). Moral and human rights education: the
contribution of the United Nations. Journal of Moral Education (37)1, 115–132. doi:
10.1080/03057240701803726.
Reynaud, A. (1986) Human Rights in Prison. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Saul, B., Kinley, D, & Sangroula, Y. (2010). Review of human rights education and training in
the criminal justice system in Nepal. Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1701476_code609399.pdf?abstractid
=1701476&mirid=3
Saybrook Institutional Review Board (2011, December). Application for exemption from
Saybrook Institutional Review Board (IRB) Review. Retrieved from
https://www.saybrook.edu/mysaybrook/sirb/appforms
Scherling, J. (2009). International humanitarian law and human rights education: An exploration
of differences and complementarity. In Factis Pax, 3(1), 64-79.
Scholz, T. (2010). Infrastructure: Its transformations and effect on digital activism. In M. Joyce
(Ed.), Digital activism decoded (pp. 17-31). New York: International Debate Education
Association. Retrieved from http://www.meta-activism.org/book/
Selian, A. N. (2002, August). ICTs in support of human rights, democracy and good governance.
Retrieved from the ITU website:
http://www.itu.int/osg/spuold/wsisthemes/humanrights/ICTs%20and%20HR.pdf
Semiocast. (2012, July 30). Geolocation analysis of Twitter accounts and tweets by Semiocast.
Retrieved from
http://semiocast.com/publications/2012_07_30_Twitter_reaches_half_a_billion_accounts
_140m_in_the_US
Seydegart, M. (1990) Human rights training for public official. University of Ottawa: Human
Rights Research and Education Centre.
77
Sganga, C. & Visser, T. (2005). Ben ni walen: Mobilising for human rights using participatory
theatre. Amsterdam: Amnesty International.
Silan, E. (2004). Reclaiming voices: A study on participatory human rights education
methodologies in the Asia Pacific. Asia Pacific Regional Resource Center for Human
Rights Education (ARRC). Retrieved from http://www.hrea.org/erc/Library/arrc04.pdf
Singh, M. K. (2012, August 8). Every poor family may get a mobile. The Times of India.
Retrieved from
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-08/india/33099799_1_serviceproviders-crore-scheme-pure-value
Starkey, H. (2010). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and education for cosmopolitan
citizenship. In F. Waldron & B. Ruane (Eds.) Human rights education: Reflections on
theory and practice (pp.15-42). Dublin, Ireland: The Liffey Press.
Teleki, K. (2007). Human rights training for adults: What twenty-six evaluation studies say
about design, implementation and follow up. Retrieved from
http://www.crin.org/docs/hrea.pdf
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. Philadelphia:
RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor & Francis, Inc.
Tibbitts, F. (1997). Case studies in human rights education: Examples from Central and Eastern
Europe. Retrieved from
http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=104&language_id=1&erc_doc_id=231&categor
y_id=4&category_type=3&group=
Tibbitts, F. (2005, May). Transformative learning and human rights education: Taking a closer
look. Intercultural Education 16(2), 107–113. doi:10.1080/14675980500133465.
Tibbitts, F. & Kirchschlaeger, P. (2010, September). Perspectives of research on human rights
education. Journal of Human Rights Education, 2(1), pp. 1-31 Retrieved from
http://www.hrea.org/erc/Library/display_doc.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hrea.org%
2FTibbitts-Kirchschlaeger_HREResearch.pdf&external=N
United Nations. (2012). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2012). Mobile technologies and
empowerment: Enhancing human development through participation and innovation.
Retrieved from http://www.undpegov.org/mgov-primer.html
United Nations Children's Fund. (UNICEF). (2012). Kenya at a glance. Retrieved
from http://www.unicef.org/kenya/overview_4616.html
78
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2011).
Contemporary issues in human rights education. Retrieved from the UNESCO website:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002108/210895E.pdf
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (1996, December 12). Report of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights on the implementation of the Plan of Action for
the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (A/51/506/Add.1). Retrieved
from
http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/A.51.506.Add.1.En?OpenDocum
ent
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (2010, July 27). Draft plan of action for the second
phase (2010-2014) of the World Programme for Human Rights Education.
(A/HRC/15/2). Retrieved from
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.28_en.pdf
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (2011). United Nations Declaration on Human
Rights Education and Training (A/HRC/RES/16/1). Retrieved from
http://www.hrea.org/A_HRC_RES_16_1%20UNDHRET_April%202011.pdf
United Nations. (2012). Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles.
Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
United States Institute of Peace. (2012). Blogs and bullets II: New media and conflict after the
Arab Spring. Retrieved from http://www.usip.org/publications/blogs-and-bullets-ii-newmedia-and-conflict-after-the-arab-spring
Ushahidi. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.ushahidi.com/
Varghese, A. (2011, Winter). How will the revolution be blogged and tweeted? PeaceWatch.
Retrieved from http://www.usip.org/publications/winter-2011-peacewatch
Waldron, F., & Ruane, B. (Eds.) (2010). Human rights education: Reflections on theory and
practice. Dublin, Ireland: The Liffey Press.
What is FAILFaire? (2012). Retrieved from http://failfaire.org/about/
Whyte, T. & Joyce, M. (2010). Glossary. In M. Joyce (Ed.), Digital activism decoded (pp. 217221). New York: International Debate Education Association. Retrieved from
http://www.meta-activism.org/book/
Williams, M. D. J., Mayer, R., & Minges, M. (2011). Africa’s ICT infrastructure: Building on
the mobile revolution. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTEC
HNOLOGIES/Resources/AfricasICTInfrastructure_Building_on_MobileRevolution_201
1.pdf
79
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
80
APPENDIX A: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Name of your Amnesty International Section, structure or entity:
2. Job title of your current position:
3. Do you currently use any of the following digital tools in your HRE efforts? (Select all that
apply) Please elaborate and give specific examples of uses that stand out in your HRE work.
Please provide url links where applicable.

Social Networking (e.g., Facebook)

Blogs (e.g. Wordpress, Tumblr)

Microblogs (e.g., Twitter)

Enewsletters

Webconferencing (e.g., Skype, GoToMeeting, Adobe Connect)

Event planning (e.g., Evite)

Collaborative writing or editing (e.g., Google docs)

Online community spaces (e.g., Moodle)

Content management services (e.g., Drupal)

Video sharing (e.g., YouTube)

Wikis (e.g., Wikipedia)

Presentation sharing (e.g., SlideShare)

Photo sharing (Picasa, Flickr)

Crowdsourced maps (e.g., Ushahidi, Google Maps)

Other (please specify below)
4. Has digital ICT enhanced your existing HRE projects or activities? Please explain.
5. Have digital tools enabled you to create new HRE activities?
6. Do the constituencies you work with (e.g., youth activists, teachers, law enforcement agents,
etc.) have access to digital tools? Please explain (Where and how does access occur? In school
classrooms? Mobile phones versus computers?)
7. Has the incorporation of digital ICT into your work helped you:

Connect better with your current HRE networks/constituencies?

Reach new constituencies?
8. Three out of four people worldwide now have access to a mobile phone. Has this increased
access changed your ability to facilitate HRE? If so, how? (Please mention specific applications
"apps" or functions, such as text messaging). Please explain
81
9. Does digital ICT increase your ability to advance awareness of human rights issues? Please
explain in detail.
10. In your experience, what have been the strengths of using digital tools for HRE?
11. In your experience, what are the barriers to using digital ICT for HRE? What (apart from
funding) would prevent you from delivering ICT-based HRE activities?
12. Are you aware of cases where digital tools help foster peer-to-peer learning, e.g., HRE
without a designated teacher? If so, can you give examples?
13. Do you have any final thoughts on how digital communications tools could be used more
effectively for HRE by Amnesty International or other organizations?
14. What is your name?
(*Names will only be used internally, to facilitate peer sharing across the HRE Network)
15. What is your email address?
82
APPENDIX B: RESEARCH INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
The following list of questions will serve as a basis for each of the five interviews to be
conducted in this study, as described in the research procedure. Some questions are not
necessarily applicable to every case and may be modified accordingly. Additionally, following
the semi-structured interview format, the researcher may decide to pursue an alternative line of
questioning, varying from this protocol.
Spoken introduction by Interviewer:
Hello______. Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed, I’m looking forward to hearing more
about your HRE work in [Amnesty International Section]. This interview will last approximately
45 minutes. I will record and transcribe our interview today but your identity will remain
anonymous in my dissertation analysis. Your participation is voluntary and if you wish to
terminate the interview at any point, for any reason, just let me know. Your time and willingness
to be interviewed are greatly appreciated. While this is primarily a qualitative study, any
qualitative or quantitative data you can provide about your HRE work will add richness and
depth to the analysis and is more than welcome (documents, websites, projects, plans, etc.).
You’re welcome to contact me any time with additional information or questions. Shall we
begin?
In a recent email, I sent you a passage from The World Programme for HRE, which says that
HRE encompasses:
(a) Knowledge and skills — learning about human rights and mechanisms, as well as
acquiring skills to apply them in a practical way in daily life;
(b) Values, attitudes and behaviour — developing values and reinforcing attitudes and
behaviour which uphold human rights;
(c) Action — taking action to defend and promote human rights.
The questions I ask you during this interview will lead to a better understanding of how digital
ICT contributes to those goals. I am also interested in hearing more about what, according to
your experience, are the strengths and weaknesses of using digital ICT for HRE and if you have
any recommendations for best practices or advice to share with the Network.
1) Please tell me your name, Section and job title.
2) In your response to the survey questions, you mentioned using [name of digital ICT] for
[particular HRE initiative]. Would you mind describing that in more detail? Specifically,
what action resulted from this experience?
83
3) What does human rights “knowledge” mean to you? Can you think of digital tools that
are particularly useful for increasing this knowledge?
4) How do you understand human rights “skills”? Are you aware of skill-development
among your constituencies that would not have occurred without the use of digital ICT?
5) The World Programme calls for developing values and reinforcing attitudes and
behaviour which uphold human rights. Can you think of specific ways this was facilitated
in your section through the use of digital ICT?
6) One of the most fundamental aspects of HRE is participatory pedagogy, getting people
to engage with real-world issues and changing the traditional dynamic between teachers
and learners. Have you facilitated or participated in HRE events/training where digital ICT
has been instrumental to the methodological approach?
7) At Amnesty, HRE is often thought of as a long-term practice – transformative social
change that occurs slowly, over many months if not years. Yet often, digital ICT focuses
on quick action that can be taken immediately (e.g., signing a petition via text message),
which is more synonymous with “campaigning” as understood by Amnesty, especially
Urgent Actions. What do you think about the relationship between long-term and shortterm action, or about integrating HRE with Campaigns? Is HRE also activism? Can digital
activism be considered HRE?
8) In the questionnaire, you mentioned the following strengths of using digital tools for
HRE. Would you mind elaborating…
9) In the questionnaire, you mentioned the following weaknesses or challenges of using
digital tools for HRE. Could you tell me more…How might those challenges be overcome?
10) You’re aware of the new digital interactive platform for HRE respectmyrights.org.
What’s your opinion of the site? Did you find that it was a useful way to engage young
people? Did most people simply use it as a way to learn about poverty and slums or did
they also take action (on the site or anywhere else)? How do you plan to use
respectmyrights.org in the future?
11) Can you tell me more about any ideas you have for using respectmyrights.org to
facilitate HRE? What would make the platform more useful for you?
12) What are your objectives or goals for using ICT for HRE going forward? Is there
anything else you’d like to share with other facilitators or educators, in the Amnesty
network and beyond?
84
APPENDIX C. LIST OF COMMONLY USED ABBREVIATIONS
AI – Amnesty International
ARRC – Asia-Pacific Regional Resource Center for Human Rights Education
ICT – Information and Communications Technology
HRC – Human Rights Council
HRE – Human Rights Education
HREA – Human Rights Education Associates
NGO – Non-Governmental Organization
ODIHR – Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security
and Co-operation in Europe
OHCHR – Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
REAP – Rights Education Action Programme
UDHR – Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UN – United Nations
UNDHRE – United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education
UNDHRET – United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training
UNESCO – United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization
WPHRE – World Programme for Human Rights Education
(UN)GA – (United Nations) General Assembly