What do our future teachers think about terrorism and politically motivated violence in the Basque Country?

The paper situates the Basque Country within a broader context of global and historical armed conflicts and highlights the role of education in addressing legacies of violence. The Basque Country experienced decades of terrorism, kidnappings, torture, threats, extortion, exile, and human rights violations by both terrorist groups such as ETA and by state actors. Following ETA’s ceasefire and dissolution, society entered a peacebuilding phase that emphasizes memory of victims and coexistence. Public institutions, notably the Basque Government’s Secretary of Peace, Coexistence, and Human Rights, have promoted policies and educational plans that culminated in The Adi-adian educational module, which leverages victim testimonies to teach human dignity, coexistence, empathy, and human rights. The purpose of the study is to analyze aspects of Adi-adian’s implementation within teacher education by establishing a baseline of future teachers’ attitudes and knowledge prior to the program. Specifically, the study asks: (1) what attitudes teachers-in-training hold regarding terrorism and politically motivated violence in and from the Basque Country since 1960; (2) their views, as future teachers, on addressing such controversial issues in classrooms; and (3) their sources and satisfaction with information received on these topics.

The literature underscores a shift from nation-building historical narratives toward democratic citizenship education emphasizing human rights, diversity, and participation. Challenges in post-conflict education include confronting difficult histories, avoiding silences or distortions of the past, and balancing memory with emotional well-being. Recommendations include critical reflection on historical significance, avoiding normalization of violence, and incorporating personal testimonies where textbooks are silent. International experiences show mixed success: while citizenship and peace education can increase respect for rights, reduce violence, and enhance political knowledge (e.g., South Africa, Liberia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, Peru), barriers include school authoritarianism, teacher fears, emotional burdens, and external biased narratives from families and media. In the Basque context, public policies evolved from early contentious materials to more consensual approaches using victim testimonies (Victims who educate; Adi-adian) and comprehensive programs like Bakeaz Blai, where family and teacher involvement and victim participation were key. Prior Basque studies reveal that while many youth support victims and human rights, minorities may justify violence; families are primary influencers; knowledge about recent violence is limited; and youth report fear of expressing opinions and low political interest. These insights motivated teacher training initiatives to equip future teachers to address controversial issues.

Design: Mixed-methods approach integrating quantitative and qualitative descriptive studies conducted independently. Study 1 (quantitative) used a self-administered questionnaire; Study 2 (qualitative) analyzed student narratives. Ethics approval was obtained from the University of the Basque Country’s Ethics Committee (M10/2019/197). Participants: Study 1 included 204 future teachers from UPV/EHU: Preschool Education (n=45), Primary Education (n=138), and a Master’s in Secondary Education Teacher Training in Social Sciences (n=21). Study 2 collected narratives from 112 students: Primary Education (n=85) and the Master’s program (n=27). Instruments: Study 1 employed a 29-item questionnaire (28 Likert-scale items and one multiple-response item) informed by prior instruments (Instituto de Derechos Humanos Pedro Arrupe, 2017; Garaigordobil, 2009). Constructs included empathy, human rights, conflict addressing, emotion management, commitment to peace, recognition and reparations for victims, treatment of controversial issues in schools, sources of information, and satisfaction with information received. The instrument underwent a pilot (Nov 2019), expert validation, and adjustments. Study 2 used the thinking routine narrative prompt “I used to think… now I think…”. Only the “I used to think…” portion was analyzed, coded into nine thematic nodes (e.g., quantity/sources of information, empathy, human rights, attitudes toward addressing conflicts, commitment to peace, motivation, treatment in classroom). Procedure: Study 1 questionnaires were administered under routine teaching conditions before Adi-adian implementation. Study 2 narratives were written after the program but only baseline (“used to think”) content was analyzed. Data collection was anonymous/pseudonymous; consent for publication was obtained at project end. Data analysis: Study 1 computed descriptive statistics and frequencies using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 after checking for anomalies and missingness. Study 2 conducted thematic analysis in NVivo 12, coding responses by nodes and obtaining frequencies. Datasets are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author; not publicly available as part of a larger ongoing project.

Empathy: Large majorities endorsed empathetic stances—recognizing victims’ suffering (item 8: 92.6% total+somewhat agree; 50% totally), being attentive to others’ suffering (item 23: 94.1% total+somewhat; 49.5% totally), and perspective-taking (item 24: 98.5% total+somewhat; 60.3% totally). Narratives (12 refs) mostly expressed empathy; a few noted limits due to personal convictions. Human rights: 91.7% agreed life is above any political project (item 3: 60.3% totally; 31.4% somewhat). 89.7% rejected violence against human dignity (item 4: 50.5% totally; 39.2% somewhat). Consequences of violence viewed as negative (item 7: 84.3% total+somewhat). Opposition to ETA violence was strong but varied (item 9: 49% totally agree; 31.4% somewhat; 14.8% disagreed). Fewer unequivocally recognized state violations in the anti-terror fight (item 10: 22.5% totally agree; 47.1% somewhat; 22.5% disagreed). Many recognized plural beliefs/values (item 16: 61.3% totally), yet fewer self-identified as highly tolerant (item 15: 38.2% totally) or endorsed building a common inclusive culture (item 17: 27.5% totally). Narratives (8 refs) more often mentioned rights violations (murders, kidnappings, torture; lack of victim recognition; references to prisoner dispersion) than explicit rights respect. Addressing conflicts: Some endorsed situational resort to violence (item 5: 10.8% totally agree; 31.4% somewhat), but 96% endorsed non-violent problem-solving (item 6: 67.6% totally; 28.4% somewhat). High self-reported awareness/analysis of conflict positions and constructive approaches (items 19, 21, 22: 85–93% total+somewhat agree; ~8% missing on some items). Narratives (15 refs) were largely positive about addressing conflicts; a few feared inadequate conflict-management skills or asserted conditional legitimacy of political violence. Managing emotions: Students reported capability to reflect on negative feelings (item 25: 94.6% total+somewhat) and distinguish positive/negative emotions (item 26: 95.1% total+somewhat). Narratives mentioned fear of discussing the conflict due to ideological polarization. Peace process and civic climate: Few perceived a clear climate of peace (item 11: 12.3% totally agree; 55.9% somewhat; 29.9% disagree/don’t really agree). Limited perceived freedom to express views publicly (item 27: 15.7% totally; 41.7% somewhat; 40.2% low/very low). Strong willingness to support peace/coexistence actions (item 29: 82.4% very/generally inclined) and high importance given to recognition/reparations for victims (item 28: 84.3% very high/high). Treatment in schools: Broad support for promoting positive social values (item 13: 85.3% totally agree). More moderate support for activities seeking alternatives to violent behavior (item 12: 59.3% totally). Fewer fully supported discussing socio-political realities to foster active engagement (item 18: 43.6% totally; 42.6% somewhat; 10.3% not agreeing). Narratives (18 refs) showed both support and reservations, citing difficulty, risk of conflict, and methodological uncertainty versus the importance of addressing a local historical issue. Information sources and satisfaction: Primary sources reported were family (66.7%), mass media (61.0%), and school (52.2%), followed by social networks (44.0%), friends (29.6%), and books (12.6%). Narratives also highlighted school, family, and visual media. Satisfaction with information received was low: 1.0% very satisfied, 16.2% fairly satisfied, 51.5% not very satisfied, 28.9% very unsatisfied. Overall: Baseline suggests strong human-rights orientation and delegitimization of violence, substantial motivation and interest, but dissatisfaction with prior information, perceived constraints on free expression, and uncertainty about classroom approaches.

Findings address the research questions by establishing a baseline in which most future teachers endorse human rights, empathize with victims, and prefer non-violent conflict resolution, aligning with prior Basque and international studies. However, a small minority appears to justify certain violence or struggles to understand opposing perspectives, and fewer respondents clearly acknowledge state-perpetrated violations—potentially reflecting partial or silenced memories in the public narrative. Students perceive an incomplete peace and limited freedom to express views, which, together with emotional burdens and fear of controversy, may hinder classroom engagement with the topic. Despite reservations, most value school-based work that promotes positive values and alternatives to violence, and many are willing to engage in peace-promoting actions. Family and mass media dominate information transmission, while dissatisfaction with received information indicates gaps that teacher education can address. The results reinforce the need for structured, supportive teacher training (e.g., Adi-adian) that provides tools to handle controversial histories ethically, critically, and inclusively; leverages testimonies; fosters emotional education; involves families; and creates safe, dialogic spaces to counter fear and silence.

Future teachers in the Basque Country generally uphold human rights and delegitimize violence, show empathy toward victims, and express motivation to learn and act for peace. Nonetheless, a minority may justify certain violence; acknowledgment of state-level violations is less categorical; and many perceive limited peace and constrained public expression. Students report uncertainty about implementing these topics in classrooms and dissatisfaction with the information previously received, with families and media as primary sources. Future work should deepen qualitative exploration of attitudes toward violence, assess potential biases in official narratives, and rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of Adi-adian and similar programs in enhancing critical historical understanding, respect for rights, and rejection of violence. Teacher training should prioritize controversial-issue pedagogy, peace/emotional/intercultural education, and family involvement, and research might usefully extend beyond the Basque Country to other Spanish contexts. Mixed methods remain valuable for investigating complex, ethically charged educational topics.

The study provides a pre-implementation baseline within a single institutional context (UPV/EHU teacher education programs), which may limit generalizability. Data are self-reported and cross-sectional, and some items had notable missing responses. The authors note the possibility of bias in official historical narratives but lacked data to confirm this within the present study. Although narratives were collected post-program, only the baseline (“I used to think…”) component was analyzed; nonetheless, potential recall/context effects cannot be entirely excluded. Datasets are not publicly available (part of a larger ongoing project), limiting external replication.