This study explores how teachers in rural schools in Kazakhstan design and lead Positive Peace Education (PPE) initiatives, and how these initiatives contribute to addressing direct, structural, and cultural forms of violence in their school communities. The study forms part of a wider 2.5-year international research project on PPE in Kazakhstan, and this particular paper presents one in-depth strand of analysis developed from that larger programme of research. While educational reforms in many contexts are often implemented through top-down policies and standardized programmes, this study focuses on teacher-led, bottom-up transformation through action research.

The main research question guiding this paper is: How do rural teachers enact agency through Positive Peace Education to identify and address direct, structural, and cultural violence in their school contexts?

This question is further explored through the following sub-questions:

1. How do rural teachers conceptualize and experience different forms of violence in their everyday school practices?
2. In what ways does PPE influence teachers’ pedagogical approaches, particularly in shifting from punitive to relational practices?
3. How does participation in PPE action research reshape teachers’ understandings of their professional role and agency?

By focusing on rural teachers’ lived experiences, the paper challenges deficit narratives that often position rural schools as lacking capacity and instead highlights teachers as key agents of peace-oriented change.

The study is grounded in Johan Galtung’s (1969) theory of positive and negative peace, which distinguishes between the absence of direct violence (negative peace) and the presence of social justice, equity, and supportive relationships (positive peace). Galtung’s conceptualization of direct, structural, and cultural violence provides the main analytical lens for understanding educational inequalities and everyday school practices.

Structural violence refers to systemic inequalities embedded in social, political, and economic structures that limit individuals’ opportunities. In education, this includes disparities in school resources, teacher distribution, infrastructure, and access to quality learning, particularly evident in rural contexts. Cultural violence involves cultural norms, language, ideologies, and practices that legitimize or normalize inequality, exclusion, and symbolic harm, such as stigmatization of students or devaluation of rural knowledge.

Building on Galtung, the paper draws on the work of Cremin and Bevington (2017) and Cremin and Leighton (2022), who conceptualize Positive Peace Education as an educational approach that promotes empathy, care, inclusion, critical reflection, and active citizenship across multiple levels: inner peace (wellbeing), relational peace (interpersonal relationships), community peace (social participation), and ecological peace.

This framework allows the study to move beyond a narrow focus on conflict resolution and instead examine how teachers engage with deeper, often normalized forms of violence embedded in school cultures and structures. PPE is therefore understood not as a fixed programme, but as a relational and reflective process that enables teachers to recognize violence, question taken-for-granted practices, and enact context-sensitive change.

Although the empirical context is Kazakhstan, the study speaks to broader European and international debates on educational inequality, rural education, teacher agency, and peace education. Rural-urban disparities, deficit discourses around rural schools, and pressures of standardization are common challenges across many European education systems. The findings contribute to international scholarship by demonstrating how teacher-led, low-cost, and relational approaches can foster meaningful change in under-resourced contexts.

By foregrounding teacher agency and action research, this paper aligns with European priorities around democratic education, professional autonomy, wellbeing, inclusion, and social justice. It offers PPE as a transferable framework for educators and policymakers seeking sustainable, context-sensitive alternatives to technocratic or compliance-driven reforms, particularly in marginalized or rural settings.

This study adopts a qualitative research design grounded in action research, conducted as part of a wider 2.5-year international research project on Positive Peace Education (PPE) in Kazakhstan. Action research was selected as the primary methodological approach as it aligns with the epistemological orientation of PPE, which emphasizes reflection, participation, relationality, and practitioner-led change. The broader project involved 32 teachers from seven schools across southern, western, and central regions of Kazakhstan. Schools were recruited on a voluntary basis following an official invitation distributed by the Altynsarin National Academy of Education through regional education departments. From the pool of interested schools, the research team purposefully selected seven schools to reflect geographical diversity, school type, and contextual variation. This paper focuses on a sub-sample of 19 teachers working in four rural schools, which were selected for in-depth analysis due to their distinct structural conditions, resource constraints, and community-based characteristics. Participants included classroom teachers and subject teachers with varying years of professional experience. Data collection was embedded within a cyclical action research process. In October 2023, participating teachers attended a three-day professional development workshop in Astana facilitated by the national research team and the international co-principal investigator. The workshop introduced key PPE concepts and provided training in ethical research practices and action research methods. Following the workshop, teachers independently identified context-specific issues related to wellbeing, relationships, equity, and inclusion in their schools and designed their own action research projects. These projects were implemented over a period of three to nine months. Throughout the process, the research team provided ongoing support through weekly or bi-weekly online mentoring sessions and site visits to six of the seven schools. Multiple qualitative data sources were generated, including: pre- and post-intervention semi-structured interviews with participating teachers; weekly written reflection notes produced by teachers during project implementation; observations and reflections conducted during school visits; All interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed. The analysis followed an inductive-deductive approach, combining emergent coding with theoretically informed categories derived from Galtung’s (1969) framework of direct, structural, and cultural violence. Analytical attention was given to teachers’ narratives of change, pedagogical shifts, and evolving understandings of agency.

This study demonstrates that Positive Peace Education (PPE) can function as a powerful, low-cost and context-sensitive approach to school development in rural settings. The findings indicate that rural teachers are not passive recipients of reform but active agents capable of identifying, interpreting, and addressing forms of direct, structural, and cultural violence within their own educational environments. At the level of direct violence, teachers shifted from predominantly punitive and authoritarian classroom management strategies towards more relational and non-violent practices, such as emotional regulation, non-verbal communication, and restorative dialogue. These shifts contributed to calmer classroom climates and improved teacher–student relationships. In relation to structural violence, teachers became increasingly aware of systemic inequities embedded within school practices, including student labelling, class grouping, resource distribution, and exclusion of learners with special educational needs. Although many of these structures are shaped by national policy, teachers used PPE to challenge internal hierarchies and advocate for more inclusive practices at the school level. In addressing cultural violence, teachers critically reflected on everyday language, norms, and assumptions that legitimise marginalisation and deficit views of students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Through their action research projects, teachers promoted alternative narratives centred on belonging, care, empathy, and community responsibility. The study is expected to contribute theoretically by extending Galtung’s peace framework into micro-level educational contexts, illustrating how peacebuilding can be enacted through everyday pedagogical practices. Practically, it offers empirical evidence for PPE as a form of transformative professional learning that strengthens teacher agency, reflexivity, and leadership. From a European and international perspective, the findings speak to broader debates on rural education, teacher empowerment, and peace-oriented schooling, suggesting that relational capital and community cohesion can be leveraged as key resources for educational change in under-resourced contexts across different national systems.

Cremin, H., & Bevington, T. (2017). Positive Peace in Schools: Tackling conflict and creating a culture of peace in the classroom. Routledge. Cremin, H., & Leighton., R. (2022). The Positive Peace Matrix. Retrieved from www.cperg.org/programmes Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301 Harris, I. M. (2004). Peace education theory. Journal of Peace Education, 1(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1740020032000178276 Nurbayev, Z. (2021). Inequality between students of rural and urban schools in Kazakhstan: Causes and ways to address it. Central Asia Program. Roberts, P., & Fuqua, M. (Eds.). (2021). Ruraling education research: Connections between rurality and the disciplines of educational research (1st ed.). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0131-6