6.3.2.1 The Ways University Tutors Create a Safe Space for Challenging Discussions (Study 7) At the beginning of the focus group interview, the four teacher trainers were asked to describe the optimal classroom environment for them, which they characterised as a comfortable, safe space permeated with democratic values, where students trust each other, like being together, and do not feel pressured to contribute to the discussions. Their definition of a safe space thus mostly coincided with what the literature proposes (Gayle et al., 2013), even though they did not make any explicit references to the diversity of the students.

6.3.2.2 The Ways Secondary School Teachers Create a Safe Space for Challenging Discussions (Study 8) The 12 secondary school teachers characterised their optimal classroom atmosphere similarly to university tutors: in such an open, respectful, and authentic space, the members enjoy being together, their curiosity is raised, and they can express their views about anything. These components also have some overlap with the definitions of safe and brave spaces proposed by Arao and Clemens (2013), Gayle et al. (2013), and Holley and Steiner (2005). When the participants were asked how they create such a safe space for their students to engage in challenging discussions, most of them agreed that no preparation is necessary, contrary to what the literature proposes (Council of Europe, 2016; Griffin & Ouellett, 2007; Oxfam, 2018; Szesztay, 2020). Only three out of 12 participants claimed that they discuss the basic rules of interaction with their groups, and they try to encourage them to keep to the rules. The participants explained their decision not to prepare their groups for such discussion by saying that the students would not interrupt each other anyway and that controversial issues are raised by the students frequently, so they cannot always prepare the group. In the reflective journals, there were hardly any instances of heated debates mentioned and not even in these few cases had the teachers prepared their groups by discussing the guidelines.

6.3.2.3 Conclusion and Implications The findings of both studies suggest that both university teacher trainers’ and secondary school teachers’ ideal classroom atmosphere approximates the idea of a safe space for challenging discussions. Teacher trainers seem to embrace conflict in their lessons, they think that students can learn a lot by listening to and reacting to opposing viewpoints. Even though a similar idea came up during the two focus group sessions with the secondary school teachers, most of them did not seem to embrace tense situations. It became apparent from the studies that there are teachers who believe it is important to create ground rules with their groups to get the best out of these discussions, while other teachers think it unnecessary as they do not think conflicts would arise. There are clear indications in the literature that preparing one’s group for challenging discussions is a better idea because even during these activities, students can develop a human rights stance (Starkey, 2005), and develop many of their skills (Council of Europe, 2016; Griffin & Ouellett, 2007; Oxfam, 2018; Szesztay, 2020), including their language skills (Starkey, 2005). The participants mentioned many techniques with which they react to conflict in their classrooms and apparently, they use techniques relying on the students’ active participation as well, such as whole group discussions and encouraging students to reflect on what happened (these student-centred techniques for conflict management are also promoted by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (2017) and Warren (2007)).