Abstract
The chapter discusses the limitations of the study, which includes the inability to generalize it as a single case study, the risks of respondent bias, and the presence of unfamiliar media equipment, such as tape recorders and video cameras, which might interfere with respondent concentration and focus. The study would have been strengthened by interviews with others outside the classroom, for example members of the Community Management Committee (CMC) and adopted learners. Much from this study suggests valuable possibilities for future research, including the interaction between the class and the CMC and the social networks that support diffusion, including the quality of information and its reach. Other programs that use human rights education could be used in a case study as a comparison to Tostan’s.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Habyarimana, James, et al. 2007. Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision? American Political Science Review 101(4): 709–725.
Henrich, Joseph, et al. 2005. Economic man in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28(6): 795–815.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cislaghi, B., Gillespie, D., Mackie, G. (2016). Conclusion. In: Values Deliberation and Collective Action. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33756-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33756-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33755-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33756-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)