Reflecting on a security and risk management course in humanitarian contexts: ‘there is never only one story’

By Posted on 347 views

In this reflection blog, Agostino Luisetti, a Master’s student in Political Science at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, recounts a three-day course on Safety and Security for Researchers in Humanitarian Contexts, led by the Safety & Security Research Initiative, at the Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá, and what it taught him about doing humanitarian and academic research.

Image by Juan Rojas https://www.pexels.com/@24302738/

I came to the Universidad de los Andes for a course on security and risk management for fieldwork, and what struck me first was the room itself. Around the table sat people that had worked across many parts of the world: humanitarian practitioners and academics, security experts, anthropologists, human rights lawyers, and Indigenous activists. I am a Master’s student in Political Science at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, still early in my own fieldwork, and I had the rare luck of learning alongside people who already had so much lived experience.

I had come expecting do’s and don’ts. Yet what Dr. Rodrigo Mena, who teaches the course, offered us instead, through the Safety and Security Research Initiative (SSRi), was a space of reflection, one that interrogated some of the things we usually take for granted.

Much of what is written for researchers completing ‘fieldwork’ concentrates on getting there safely. The encounter itself, and what comes after we return, receive far less attention, and closing that gap was part of what the course set out to do. Official protocols from NGOs or institutions get us to ‘the field’, but they say little about the moment we sit face to face with someone who has survived something terrible. How do I interview a person carrying trauma without inflicting further harm? How do I know that what they tell me is “true”? As we discussed in the course, memory is not a filing cabinet. Under distress, people recall events out of sequence, anchored to a smell or a sound rather than a clean timeline; pressed to produce a linear story, they may construct one, and the tidy account I write down may be the least reliable of all. As we were reminded, there is never only one story, and in areas affected by conflict or disaster, where rumour spreads and distrust runs high, that notion should make us more cautious about the accounts we gather.

What I also learnt is that when working in conflict or disaster-stricken areas, nothing we touch is neutral. As feminist scholarship has long argued, no knowledge is ever produced from nowhere: our perspective is always situated, partial and positioned. Not the conflicts and disasters we study, and not the data we collect. We arrive under pressure from our institutions to “obtain data,” and this economy of information can itself become a source of harm, especially to communities that are already vulnerable. We tend to frame our work as a “research problem”, but to name something a problem is already to treat the people involved as something to be solved. Everyone wants to be ethical; the harder question, and the one the course kept returning to, is how we operationalise that intention without causing harm.

During our work, the term “ethical” was brought down to earth: not a box to tick before departure, but a constant iterative and reflexive practice of not creating risk or harm for others, and of accepting that even transparency is never fully within our reach. What we were reminded throughout the three days was that to enter another person’s world as a researcher is a privilege, not a right, and the ethical and security dilemmas that come with it are simply the price of that privilege.

Dr. Mena also taught us that saying “no”, for example by choosing not to go somewhere when we judge the conditions unsafe, is itself a privilege many of our interlocutors do not have. This was particularly interesting to me because of my background in journalism, where we are often quick to claim the authority of “having been there”. Yet what does it really mean to say I went, and how much should it license me to say afterwards?

As I reflect on these days, one particular sentence has stuck with me, bouncing around in my head: “it is not what we do, but what we are perceived to be doing”. My relationship, as a foreigner working in a given context only temporarily, with any person in any place can put my local colleagues at risk long after I have flown home. This is because risk is transversal: it touches drivers, translators, hosts, families. Practices around “localisation” can themselves become a form of risk transfer, where a large organisation, through its work, delegates the danger to a local partner. As international researchers we can always leave; yet what do we leave behind?

Several other things stayed with me from these three, intense days. We rehearsed with our bodies: we practised where to sit during transport and where to leave a bag if riding on a bus, so we could move quickly in an emergency, and we learnt the difference between safety and security, the first being protection from an involuntary accident, the second protection from a deliberate attack. We spoke about mental health, about aggression in its different forms, and about whether, in a high risk situation, we freeze, fight or flee. We also learnt to treat our digital footprint as part of the risk picture: working with sensitive information across borders, every click is traceable, so we were urged to think before connecting and before clicking.

We closed with a final exercise that I won’t give away, both because it deserves to be met without warning and because that is part of its lesson. What I can say is that the only way through it was to communicate, to stay present, attentive, human, caring. When it ended, my colleagues applauded, and after days spent on such sensitive subjects I felt something I had not expected: joy, and a real sense of community. It became my metaphor for the whole course, the moment a blindfold lifts and the room fills with light. Though I came in as the least experienced person in the room, I left certain that this was the work I wanted to do.

In a world driven by extraction and disregard for the other, too often rewarded by those in power, this course reminded me that there are still many who want to do humanitarian and academic work diligently and with care. The security precautions we take are the least we can offer. In exchange, we are trusted with the greatest gift of all: other people’s stories and experiences. It is up to us to put ourselves in the best position to do no harm, to ourselves and, most importantly, to those who make our work possible.

 

About the author

Agostino Luisetti is a Master’s student in Political Science at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, with a background in journalism. His research focuses on international NGOs construct and negotiate their authority across different governance contexts, with a particular interest in the North/South dynamics of the global aid sector.

Politics of Food and Technology Series | India’s protracted hunger crisis and the digitalisation of its Public Distribution System   

By Posted on 1575 views

This blog is part of a series on ‘the Politics of Food and Technology’, in collaboration with the SOAS Food Studies Centre. All of the blogs in this series are contributions made at the International Humanitarian Studies Association (IHSA) Conference in Istanbul-Bergen, October 2025, to the panel with a similar title. To read the rest of the blogs in this series, please click here.

The Public Distribution System (PDS) of India, one of the largest food security programmes in the world, is a rights-based legal entitlement that distributes food grains to below poverty line households. In 2015, digitalisation, using a biometric Aadhaar system, was introduced to deal with the problems of corruption and leakages and make it more efficient. In this blog, C. Sathyamala and Somjita Laha argue that digitalisation has not necessarily led to the streamlining of the programme but has, in fact, resulted in the exclusion of the food insecure. 

  

Photo Credit: Bliss

In the early post-colonial period, India was a food deficit country dependent on international food aid. However, in the last three decades, it has become self-sufficient in food production and a net food exporter. Yet, the country has one of the highest prevalence rates of undernutrition in the world, which has been termed an ‘Asian enigma’, or a ‘development paradox’.  As such, the country is experiencing a protracted hunger crisis. In 2025, as per the Global Hunger Index, out of the 123 countries that were assessed, India ranked 102: that was categorized as ‘serious’ level of hunger. This is despite the existence of  several food security and social assistance programmes, the foremost being the Public Distribution System (PDS). Touted as one of the world’s largest food-based safety net programmes, the PDS’ aim is to ensure that certain foodstuffs are distributed at highly subsidised prices to vulnerable populations. In 2015, digitalisation was introduced to deal with the problems of corruption and leakages. In this blog we argue that digitalisation has not necessarily led to the streamlining of the programme but has, in fact, resulted in further exclusion of the food insecure.  

Evolution of the PDS 

During World War II, the British had introduced a system of food rationing that was functional from 1939 to 1943. Post-Independence, the Indian state revived it primarily to stabilise open market food prices and to provide some basic measure of food security, and the programme came to be known as PDS. Since its inception in 1950 the PDS has undergone several changes. In 1997, it changed from universal provisioning to a targeted system catering to only those households identified as below poverty line (BPL). Passed in 2013, the National Food Security Act (NFSA) made PDS into a rights-based legal entitlement even while retaining the targeted approach.   

In 2015, digitalisation was initiated by linking ration cards with the Unique Identification biometric (Aadhaar) number of the recipients. This was to enable the authentication of the biometrics (fingerprints and iris scans) during collection of rations. This move was based on the state’s rationale that corruption would be reduced by accurate identification of beneficiaries and the elimination of fraudulent ‘ghost’ beneficiaries. During the Covid crisis, under the  Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) (The Prime Minister Food grain Scheme for the Welfare of the Poor) food grains were distributed free. This scheme  of free grain distribution has now been extended until January 2029.  According to the 2025 year-end review of the Department of Food and Public Distribution, digitalisation of PDS is a resounding success with the digitisation of 100 % of ration cards with beneficiaries data and an almost 100 % of ‘Aadhaar’ seeding (linking to the Aadhaar card). 

Problems of exclusion  

The ground level reality is somewhat sobering, though. Marginalised populations in the country have faced serious problems of exclusion. Even if eligible, households may not possess a ration card or are unable to include additional household members on that card. One reason for exclusion has been the faulty methodology used in identifying BPL households. Another is the limiting of coverage and freezing of enrolment because of a quota system. The initial BPL household identification was based on the 2011 census and in the subsequent years no cognition was taken of the population growth or changes in the economic status of a household. For instance, the central government had allotted 7.27 million programme beneficiaries in Delhi. This allocation was exhausted by 2020. Following this, a freeze on new ration cards resulted in a long list of pending applications. In 2024, the Delhi government acknowledged that 1.1 million beneficiaries were to still get a ration card.  

Catch-22 situation  

At times, registering for the PDS, can be a ‘Catch-22 situation’, where following official channels could result in further exclusion. One example is from our study carried out in urban resettlement colony in Delhi. An eligible BPL household attempted to access rations several times without success. This was because, the first time, a clerical error meant that their card did not have an official stamp. They were denied rations because the card without the stamp was considered invalid. Some 3 to 4 years ago, the family paid Rs 2000 (approximately €25 at the then exchange rate) to a middleman to mitigate this issue but the problem could not be resolved. One year ago, they approached yet another middleman who told them that they needed to cancel their previous ration card and make a fresh application. They then decided to give up. The irony is that digitalisation had probably categorised them as a ‘ghost’ beneficiary household because they had not accessed their rations from the time the card was made. This could also happen to migrant households if they are unable to verify their existence by completing their e-KYC (electronic know your customer) process in the specified period at the original place of registration. Currently, only 800 million people are being covered by the PDS as against the intended coverage of 813.5 million pe. 

Digitalisation is not fool proof 

Digitalisation poses further hurdles in accessing benefits, including difficulties in the authentication of beneficiaries. To be able to claim their food entitlement, beneficiaries must authenticate their fingerprints or iris scans at ePoS devices in ration shops that are linked to the centralised database for Aadhaar. However, the biometric authentication process is not infallible, and fingerprints may not match for the elderly or manual workers, the latter forming the bulk of the PDS recipients. When this happens, an iris scanner is used, but that can also fail for people with eye problems such as cataracts, or if they have had eye surgery. Often connectivity is an issue with the server being frequently down, in which case the customers have to wait until it is back online. The other problem that digitalisation cannot resolve is the quality of food grains in the warehouses which was not always found to be good. Though black market diversion has somewhat reduced, leakages continued because digitalisation has not led to the elimination of fraudulent/inaccurate measurements at the distribution point.  

Conclusion  

Digitalisation of the PDS has been promoted for its efficiency and transparency, but the ground-level realities appear to be different. By making it dependent on a ‘BPL’ constructed at a particular point of time, a dynamic situation has been made static. Further, digitalisation assumes importance only in situations when social welfare is targeted at a subsection of the population where it needs to operationalise a dividing practice in the Foucauldian sense. Given that digitalisation is not fool proof, it inevitably leads to further marginalisation of the marginalised.         

 

Acknowledgements: Subodh Kumar, Arjun Dubey (IHD) and Chhaya Sharma for data collection.  

 

This blog post uses findings from an ERSC-funded project entitled: Digitalising food assistance: Political economy, governance, and food security effects across the Global North-South divide (https://digitalisingfood.org/). For the working paper on India see  https://digitalisingfood.org/digital-food-assistance-in-india-towards-a-digital-welfare-state/  

 

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the authors:
C Sathyamala 

C Sathyamala is the Co-Principal Investigator and India lead researcher of the project. She is a Senior Visiting Senior Fellow at the Institute for Human development (IHD), New Delhi, and a Visiting Fellow at the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS), Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Hague. Her areas of interest include food politics, political economy of health, reproductive rights, environmental justice, and medical ethics. 

Somjita Laha

Somjita Laha is a Visiting Senior Fellow at the Institute for Human development (IHD), New Delhi, and is trained in Heterodox Economics, and Development Policy and Management. She is interested in interdisciplinary research on political economy of labour, global value chains, environmental sustainability and gender in development. 

 

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

Reset how? A commentary on ‘The Humanitarian Reset’ by members of the Humanitarian Observatories Network

By Posted on 1194 views

 

‘The Humanitarian Reset’ is an initiative launched in March 2025 by the (at the time) new UNOCHA Emergency Relief Coordinator, former British diplomat Tom Fletcher. According to the UN Inter-Agency Standing Committee, it is a ‘collective effort to deliver for people in crisis today while building a system fit for tomorrow. The Humanitarian Reset is about making our system faster, lighter, more accountable, and more impactful.’ The initiative combines several sub-projects, including trying to stimulate localization, creating “sharpened” country plans, finding “efficiencies”, and advocacy.

But is this really a true ‘reset’? And for whom is the system being ‘reset’? Similar promises were made following the World Humanitarian Summit and associated ‘Grand Bargain’ in 2016, but  these initiatives were characterized as top-down, and in some cases quite removed from the daily lived realities of people affected by crisis, and the people and organizations that respond to crisis.

Photo Credit:  Baset Alhasan

This blog follows a discussion held by members of the Humanitarian Observatory movement: a network of 16 grounded, self-governing, and multi-actor spaces that aim to foster humanitarian knowledge sharing, research, advocacy, coordination, and dialogue. During the Observatory Network meeting in October 2025, held in Istanbul in the lead-up to the IHSA Conference, more than 25 people representing 16 Observatories discussed the ‘Humanitarian Reset’ (split into groups), critically analysing its relevance in the real world and imagining a more relevant a poignant reset. This meditation on the Reset joins several others, including a statement by NEAR Network, ICVA, and even a recently-released think piece by the CHA thinktank in Berlin heralding the ‘fading’ of the Reset.

This blog is based on those discussions, with three main themes having emerged:

Theme 1: A Humanitarian Reset focusing only on better responses is partial

Across multiple groups, Network members discussed a perceived focus only on making humanitarian response better within the Humanitarian Reset. Multiple groups highlighted the need for a more holistic and long-term approach to humanitarian action if the Reset was to be made more relevant. This approach should be cognizant of and try to combat past historical injustices that have affected how people in various contexts are able to ‘deal with’ humanitarian crisis: “we should focus on the structural and historical issues, including everyday threats to people’s lives”, and “a lot of crises are structural and based in power and historical structures.” It was felt across various groups that formal humanitarianism focusing only on responding to disasters is missing quite a lot of ingrained and historically-related precarity that affects people’s day-to-day lives more than technical disaster response improvement does.

Meanwhile, multiple groups also highlighted that with the ever-growing effects of climate change leading to a “permanent state of emergency”, the nature of humanitarianism is changing and thus the Reset should consider taking a different and more cyclical approach: “Why is the current system not working? It is designed for quick fixes and emergency management”. In general, the groups saw a lack of attention in the Reset documents and discourse around Disaster Risk Reduction, Anticipatory Action, and other longer-term projects and initiatives that try to reduce people and societies’ vulnerabilities. One contributor quipped that the Reset seems to be trying to make the formal humanitarian system more resilient to funding cuts, rather than making societies more resilient to disasters; especially due to its call for ‘hyper prioritisation’.

Theme 2: The Humanitarian Reset should pay attention to a wider range of actors as being part of the ‘humanitarian system’

Across all discussions, Observatory Network members highlighted that the Humanitarian Reset seems to spend too much time focusing on the work of the ‘formal’ humanitarian system; for example iNGOs, UN Agencies, and some national organisations (depending on the context). This leads to a partial definition of ‘who’ and ‘what’ needs to be ‘reset’, and also reduces the transferability of its proposed changes. The focus on the international organisations leading local also led to discussions on the Reset as a form of neo-coloniality.

For example, several groups highlighted that the Reset up until this point has not particularly engaged with state actors, which are becoming ever-more pertinent humanitarian actors (or: actors with humanitarian aid roles), and especially with reference to slower-moving crises caused by climate change, such as extreme heat. The axing of most USAID programmes in early 2025 underlined this experience in Namibia: “it was a wake up call to the government, to work on its own and sustain its own people. This is something of a positive, it has helped push the government to provide for its communities… there is a new youth empowerment programme, whether the government is giving funding for young people to start up projects.” Meanwhile in  South Asia, colleagues found that following USAID cuts they could pivot to work with affected people to define their own recovery from disaster (in this instance, extreme heat).

HO Network members brought attention to the point that most of the actors addressed by the Humanitarian Reset’s priorities are part of the established or ‘formal’ humanitarian system: “I haven’t really seen any region where the reset is happening or being driven by people on the ground. It is very top down”, and “most of the humanitarian [work] is coming from the North to the South, and this is part of the problem.” One group brought up the continuing presence of UN Agencies as being the main funding channels as an example that the approach taken in the Reset is unnecessarily narrow. The impression for many members of the Network is that the reset is a Global North-led initiative, that hasn’t really begun to approach shifting the centre of humanitarian work from its historic headquarters. In Kenya, for example, despite its ambitions, Reset-led initiatives it have not yet demonstrated a meaningful shift toward locally led decision-making or recognising the leadership of actors responding to climate-related crises, especially in the Kenyan arid/semi-arid regions. This theme also raised questions about accountability: you cannot genuinely reset a system if governments (and the donors supporting that system) do not feel accountable for causing the conflict or crisis (e.g. in Palestine and Sudan).

However, many of the groups did note that the number of people and organisations doing humanitarian work is broadening as a response to their context. Trends highlighted include several donors (for example, Gulf Donors) preferring to channel their funds directly to local or national actors.

Theme 3: A Humanitarian Reset cannot be ‘one size fits all’, and should be contextual

“We need to break down the universalism of the humanitarian system, as there are multiple humanitarian systems in place”. Many members of the Observatory Network observed that assumptions of universal applicability of many humanitarian reform initiatives hamper actual, real-world reform. Several people also highlighted that the language of humanitarianism used in many of the Reset documentation is not an accurate reflection of most people’s lived realities, and drew parallels to HDP Nexus initiatives: “it is now becoming detached from reality, and is becoming only useful for donors.” It is also important to highlight that a universal attempt to reform the humanitarian system minimises the differences in how change happens in diverse contexts. For example, in DRC, Network members noted that change will require bringing together national Civil Society organisations, not just (i)NGOs. “In our experience, changes are not linear. It is like a farmer; you plant seeds and wait. Something is happening [under the surface], but it is hard to see each step.” Meanwhile, the more diverse and plural the reset, the more effective it is likely to be in South Asia. Standardization is useful, and as a start, to lead to many local blooming of reset that is harmonized, localized, and contextualised.

Other takeaways

Within the group, several people noted that the Humanitarian Reset documents and statements mention further collaboration with the Private Sector as a way to increase efficiencies, funding, and broaden service provision. Whilst participants generally mentioned the potential possibilities of (further) Private Sector inclusion in humanitarian aid provision, for example by allowing displaced people living in Thailand to work in the private sector, obtain a wage, and live with more dignity, many sounded cautionary notes:

In India there is a discussion that there is a huge focus on corporate organisations taking humanitarian action. A lot of privatisation is taking place. A lot of monetisation is taking place in the name of cash transfers. The victims are not seen as victims, but as a potential workforce. HOISA finds that Reset must move from this ahead to make each victim an agent of new, safe, and less at risk community and nation with the help of the authorities and corporations as soon as possible.

In Kenya, meanwhile, there are discussions within the observatory network that increasing private sector involvement in drought response and climate services, while useful in some cases, is also creating concerns. In several contexts, essential services risk becoming commercialised, with vulnerable households treated more as customers than rights-holders. Hence, the need for safeguards to ensure that private sector engagement supports resilience rather than deepening existing inequalities.

In general participants also called attention to issues with “hyper prioritization”, which may lead to humanitarians having to make choices between contexts undergoing moderate severity crisis versus high severity crisis, with one participant saying that the approach might lead to “not providing food aid to the hungry, to allow provision to the starving”.

Conclusion – Reset how?

The Humanitarian Reset has the same potential as other reform initiatives led by the UN (as one participant highlighted: “this isn’t a new initiative”) including the Grand Bargain, but it might be better for the UN to take a more introspective look and propose reform, for example via the UN80 initiative. Within the Reset, there is a lot of talking happening, but this risks of becoming performative, rather then genuine transformation and meaningful action. Unfortunately, the Reset’s narrow focus in several ways means that it is likely to be a tool for funders and institutions that consider themselves part of the ‘formal’ humanitarian system. Indeed, several people highlighted that the slashing of USAID funding and programming caused bigger on the ground shifts due to necessity. Whilst there are new developments in multiple humanitarian contexts, including bigger roles for local/national organisations, inclusion of networks and citizens’ groupings in programming, and new forms of funding – these are happening at the same time as the Humanitarian Reset, not as a result of it.

This blog was written with contributions from:

  • Humanitarian Observatory DRC
  • Humanitarian Observatory of Ethiopia
  • Humanitarian Observatory of Latin America and the Caribbean
  • Humanitarian Observatory of Palestine
  • Humanitarian Observatory of the Netherlands
  • Humanitarian Observatory Initiative South Asia (HOISA)
  • Humanitarian Observatory of Namibia
  • Humanitarian Observatory of Kenya
  • Humanitarian Observatory of Central and Eastern Europe
  • Humanitarian Observatory for Policy and Education, South East Asia (HOPESEA)
  • Humanitarian Observatory of Nigeria
  • Humanitarian Observatory of Myanmar
  • Humanitarian Observatory of Somalia
  • Humanitarian Observatory of the Philippines
  • Maraka Humanitarian Observatory of Pakistan

 

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

The Authors:

Mihir Bhatt (AIDMI), Juan Ricardo Aparicio Cuervo (Uni. Los Andes), Eunice Atieno (ORNACO), Patrick Milabyo Kyamugusulwa (ISDR-Bukavu), Julia Goltermann (KUNO), Tom Ansell (HSC-ISS), Kaira Zoe Canete (HSC-ISS), Gabriela Anderson (HSC-ISS) 

 

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

This blog is part of the ‘Humanitarian Observatories: Building a Knowledge and Advocacy Network on Humanitarian Governance’. This project has received funding from the European Union under the Horizon European Research Council (ERC) Proof of Concept.

Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

To address recurring crises, we must attempt global development policy reforms

By Posted on 2450 views

Global Governance and Policy Analyst Chimwemwe Salie Hara looks into the road towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 in this blog, arguing that reform of financing and governance must be made in the face of significant geopolitical tensions if we are to achieve better outcomes for countries across the world that ‘leaves no one behind’.  

Photo by John Cameron on Unsplash

The world is experiencing an escalation of geopolitical tensions that have impacted development trends in various regions. These tensions have led to uncertainties as various shocks require responses from global development policies that are coordinated and cooperative between the countries in the ‘Global North’ and the ‘Global South’. Currently, the global value chain has been disrupted and high inflation rates have led to increased poverty for many people in both developed and developing countries. In addition, challenges such as wars, climate change which has exacerbated inequalities and immigration, and the rise of populism have made global cooperation more difficult as actors from the Global North and South have failed to tackle these important issues together. At a time when global governance institutions such as the United Nations are focused on achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030, ongoing conflicts in regions such as Africa, Europe and Middle East are jeopardizing SDG 16, which emphasises the promotion of peace and SDG 17 of promoting partnerships to achieve all goals.

Nationalist turns in the ‘Global North’ hit development financing

The challenge of financing these global goals is exacerbated by a shift in priorities in relation to multiple armed conflicts. Much of the effort and attention is now focused on buying arms rather than investing in development cooperation programs that could help people affected by geopolitical crises, many of whom are currently living in dire poverty. Unfortunately, as a result of these geopolitical upheavals, some regions, particularly in Europe and America, have changed their development policies and prioritised security over global development cooperation. Recently, the ‘Dutch government’ announced to cut development cooperation and the British Prime Minister also announced to cut development aid and allocate more funds to defence security. And the USAID was disbanded with President Trump’s second term. This shows that most countries that had pledged 0.7% of their gross national income (GNI) to the United Nations are reducing their spending on official development assistance (ODA)/development cooperation. This puts progress towards achieving some of the SDGs at risk around the world, particularly on poverty, hunger, education and health.

This shift can largely be attributed to the rise of nationalist governments and populism, reminiscent of the situation in the United Kingdom (UK) during Brexit. Although, there are some efforts at engagement, such as the European Union’s (EU) Global Gateway Initiative (launched in 2021), which aims to strengthen relations with African countries, significant changes in their approach are still needed.

The focus should not only be on humanitarian aid, but also on investments in the energy sector development and trade that focuses on improving the value chain and governance as these remain major challenges for most African governments. For example, Malawi has an energy sector problem and poor road infrastructure development that affects industrialisation and trade for economic transformation. With allies like the EU through the Global Gateway Initiative, the country could improve its socio-economic development indicators. This approach would help achieve some development initiatives despite the geopolitical challenges.

Global governance has struggled with difficulties in development cooperation, especially in climate finance, even after the heads of state and government endorsed the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015. The situation worsened when the United States withdrew from the climate agreement during Donald Trump’s first term, and then again now in his second term as part of an inward-looking development policy and significant funding cuts under the nationalist slogans of ‘America First’ and ‘Make America Great Again’. This highlights the challenges facing global cooperation, leading to a decline in development efforts rather than strengthening solutions to tackle climate change. This call for radical reforms to international financial planning draws some lessons from the Bridgetown Initiative, which campaigned and advocating for reforming global financing in 2023 Paris Summit, France.

Reducing geopolitical tensions is key for better outcomes for all

With only five years left until the 2030 deadline for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), significant efforts must be made, especially by global leadership with negotiating experience, to reach common agreements that reduce geopolitical tensions. This focus is critical to advancing global development cooperation, especially in times of crisis. The geopolitical tensions on trade between China and the United States must be resolved amicably as no country can sustain itself in a globalized world with its own resources. This requires the intervention of institutions such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to protect global trade partnerships. Therefore, considerable efforts should be made to review trade agreements between the two countries on the basis of rules, not power. If these tensions escalate, they will disproportionately affect countries in the Global South, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and others, as President Trump has already announced tariffs around the world, even on poor countries like Malawi.

Once geopolitical tensions subside, world leaders must find common ground to address the major challenges by organizing global development cooperation in a way that takes into account the interests of all stakeholders from the Global North and the Global South. Efforts should also be made to develop mechanisms that support long-term global sustainability goals. A global governance institution such as the United Nations should lead the reform process and ensure that global development cooperation adapts to current realities rather than relying on the development models of the 1940’s when most institutions were established. It is important to remember that the world is currently facing several geopolitical crises. Financing should also be a priority, as financial challenges are hampering achieving global goals. There is an urgent need to develop clear standards that apply more equitable and inclusive methodologies. This will help define future collective, complementary, and cooperative activities and responses.

The world needs a leader that can influence and set an example in this regard. The countries of the Global South, especially sub-Saharan Africa, should advocate innovative investment approaches such as the exchange of technical knowledge and value creation capacities with a liable partner. This would promote trade within the framework of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) established in 2018. In the long term, the continent will move away from dependence on the global economic system by promoting economic trade for socio-economic development instead of relying solely on aid. Financing opportunities for domestic revenue mobilization in the Global South should be promoted through the development of a strategy aligned with the 2015 Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA). This approach can help finance the Sustainable Development Goals and close some of the gaps created by donor fatigue

In this way, voices from the Global South would have much to say about their development pathways, strategies, and tactics to combat poverty, food insecurity and cross-border challenges through collaborative and coordinated global development policies. In that way, SDGs ‘Leave no one behind’ by 2030 will be achieved.  Currently, the system is still dictated by the countries of the Global North, be it in trade or in the financing of global goals thus why radical reforms are needed.

Therefore, to effectively address today’s polycrisis and global social issues, changing global development policy will require a consensus that prioritizes fairness, economic stability for all, and collaboration.

 

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the Author:

Chimwemwe Salie Hara

Chimwemwe Salie Hara is a Global Governance and Policy Analyst and Programmes Adviser for Sustainable Livelihood Development at Opdracht (Mission) in Africa (AiO), The Netherlands. He holds an MSc in International Public Administration from Erasmus University Rotterdam, with a focus on governance, management, and policy. His work centers on globalisation, development cooperation, public policy, social protection, and humanitarian governance.

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

 

A clash of peace(s)? Feminist-decolonial reckoning with extractive disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration (DDR) programmes in Africa

By Posted on 2210 views

Conventional Disarmament, Demobilisation, and Reintegration (DDR) frameworks in Africa remain limited by masculinist and colonial legacies that marginalise the knowledge of African women’s and their lived realities. In this blog, visiting International Institute of Social Studies (ISS) researcher, Esther Beckley advances a feminist-decolonial intervention that centres women’s knowledge as indispensable to reimagining peacebuilding beyond militarised and exclusionary paradigms. This shift is essential for achieving effective peace processes.

Photo by Alessandro Armignacco on Unsplash

“We are not firing guns, but we are not at peace”. This sentiment, echoed by one of the women I encountered in Liberia during my PhD field research in 2022, encapsulates a critical challenge in “post-conflict” Africa. More than two decades have passed since the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (WPS), which prioritised women’s protection and participation in conflict and its aftermath. Hailed as a landmark in recognising women’s experiences of war and contributions to peace, the resolution laid the groundwork for gender-sensitive peacebuilding frameworks worldwide, including Disarmament, Demobilisation, and Reintegration (DDR) programmes.

Yet, in Africa, where histories of conflict and resistance continue to shape present realities, these frameworks remain largely extractive, technical, and blind to African women’s lived realities.   They are extractive because they use women’s stories to fit donor agendas without truly listening to their needs. They are technical, relying on rigid checklists that ignore the complex ways women build peace daily. They are blind to the plural forms of African women’s peacebuilding that do not fit Western stereotypes. This creates a gap between peacebuilding frameworks and the real lives of the women they aim to support. This way, women’s agency is not only marginalised but actively erased through peacebuilding paradigms that are masculinist in design and colonial in logic.

In this article, I offer a feminist-decolonial reckoning with DDR in Africa – one that challenges the colonial roots and gender biases of these processes, and centres the voices and realities of African women so often ignored. Drawing on examples from Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), I reflect on how DDR processes continue to operate through narrow definitions of combatant identity, exclusionary disarmament criteria, and a persistent inability to value women’s plural and communal approaches to peace. Beyond the question of inclusion, I ask: Which kinds of peace are being imagined? Whose security is being prioritised? And what violence is rendered invisible in the process? Doing so allows for a deeper understanding of how African women’s experiences can reshape peacebuilding into a more just and grounded practice.

 

Beyond the rhetoric of inclusion: The limits of gender mainstreaming

Women in Africa have never been absent from conflict. In Sierra Leone, figures like “Adama cut hand” and “Krio Mammy” embodied a complex warrior identity, challenging the stereotype of women as passive victims of war. In northeastern Nigeria, the widespread use of girls as suicide bombers by Boko Haram reveals a calculated militarisation of girlhood. Likewise, in Goma, DRC, some of the women I encountered in 2022 spoke of occupying roles as commanders, platoon leaders, logistics coordinators, and so forth. Yet, DDR programmes across Africa have persistently treated women’s participation in conflict as anomalous or secondary.

The problem is not just one of oversight; it is structural. DDR programmes are designed around a narrow, militarised conception of combatant status – one that centres gun ownership, formal enlistment, and the ability to surrender arms as prerequisites for recognition. In this framework, women who served as spies, cooks, caregivers, sex slaves, or who fought using traditional weapons such as machetes or “juju” (voodoo) are not seen as legitimate ex-combatants. As a result, they are excluded from reintegration benefits and left to “self-reintegrate” without psychological, social, or economic support.

This exclusion is not incidental. It reflects the coloniality of peacebuilding, a system that privileges Western top-down models and masculinist understandings of war, while delegitimising the complex and fluid roles women occupy during and after conflict. In Sierra Leone, female fighters within the Kamajor Civil Defence Forces were left out of DDR processes because they did not fit the predefined mould of the disarmed soldier. In Nigeria, women affected by the Niger Delta insurgency and the counterinsurgency war in the Northeast were similarly marginalised by state-led peace initiatives such as the Presidential Amnesty Programme and Operation Safe Corridor. These programmes, despite being framed within WPS language, failed to acknowledge the socio-political and gendered dynamics that shape women’s experiences of conflict and recovery.

“Informal” peacebuilding as epistemic resistance

In the face of structural exclusion from formal peace processes, African women have long practised peacebuilding on their own terms, drawing from cultural knowledge(s), spiritual resilience, and communal solidarity. These practices, often unseen by dominant DDR frameworks, constitute powerful forms of epistemic resistance – challenging dominant knowledge systems and asserting their own ways of knowing and being. In this context, it represents women’s active resistance to the narrow definitions of peace and peacebuilding embedded in DDR programmes. They offer plural ways of knowing and doing peace, rooted in collective healing, intergenerational memory, and care.

Consider Liberia, where women’s movements, notably Women in Peacebuilding Network (WIPNET), mobilised mass actions combining Christian and Muslim prayer circles, sit-ins, song, and silent protest. Their methods, born out of necessity and resilience, may not have resembled conventional conflict resolution, but their impact was undeniable. Through everyday activism, they created political pressure that eventually helped end the war and paved the way for the election of Africa’s first female head of state. These practices disrupt the distinction made between victim and agent, public and private, formal and informal, reclaiming peace as a communal, ongoing process rather than a set of steps to be completed.

These forms of peacebuilding are not simply add-ons to liberal peace processes; they expose how the “peace” envisioned in DDR and WPS agendas often neglects the violences women continue to endure in “post-conflict” contexts: domestic violence, land dispossession, political exclusion, illiteracy, and trauma. As one of the women in Liberia told me, “The war is over, but our struggle is not”. Their activism around issues like drug abuse, domestic violence, and declining female political representation, though not always labelled “peacebuilding”, is deeply political and rooted in relational justice and survival.

By ignoring these practices, DDR programmes perpetuate epistemic injustice. They continue to treat peacebuilding as a domain of expertise held by international actors and armed men, rather than a relational, lived process in which women are already engaged. Feminist-decolonial approaches compel us to ask: Which forms of knowledge are recognised as legitimate? Who is authorised to speak, and whose voices remain unheard?

Towards feminist-decolonial peacebuilding

For DDR in Africa to be truly meaningful, it must abandon its masculinist, militarised, and top-down foundations. A feminist-decolonial approach demands a radical reimagining beyond the standard three-step process. Disarmament must extend beyond weapons to acknowledge women’s unique experiences of war, while demobilisation must ensure safety and inclusion for female ex-combatants. Reintegration requires holistic healing that is psychological, spiritual, and relational, not just economic support. Crucially, we must ask what peace and reintegration mean for women whose bodies were sites for warfare and survival or who bore the burdens of conflict without wielding arms.

Central to this transformation is recognising African women’s knowledges such as prayer, storytelling, rituals, and care as vital peacebuilding practices that challenge the liberal peace framework. Tokenistic gender mainstreaming falls short because DDR must confront colonial legacies that marginalise women’s political labour and exclude them from decision-making. Feminist-decolonial peacebuilding calls for fundamentally reimagining peace as justice, dignity, and relational repair, emerging from communities rather than institutions. This is not a tweak but a reckoning and a shift toward liberation grounded in voices too often forgotten.

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

 

About the Author

Esther Beckley

Esther Beckley is a visiting research fellow at the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS). Her PhD research centered the peacebuilding practices of indigenous women in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Liberia, learning how they navigate and reshape complex ‘postconflict’ environments within their communities. Grounded in a feminist-decolonial approach, her work challenges dominant colonial narratives that have long silenced these women’s voices, foregrounding the significance of their spiritual, relational, and communal methods of building peace. This research provides critical insights into the limitations of conventional Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) programmes and emphasises the need for more transformative and contextually grounded peace processes.

 

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

What has been happening to higher education in Laos?

By Posted on 6663 views
Source: Author

In August 2024, the Laotian Times alarmingly wrote about a ‘record low’ in candidates registering for the entrance exams of the National University of Laos (NUoL). It attributed the decline to rising living expenses (over 2023 there was a 31.2 % increase in consumer prices in Lao PDR) and low prospects of finding gainful employment in the domestic labour market following university graduation. Without dismissing these reasons, in this blog piece Roy Huijsmans puts the current ‘record low’ in broader perspective by asking what has been happening to higher education in Laos and in relation to whom? 

Laos’ higher education landscape is relatively small and young. Following the establishment of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) in 1975, the communist regime prioritised basic education for the masses because tertiary education is relatively costly and a much less egalitarian public investment. For (re)building a tertiary educated professional class the newly established, yet cash-strapped, Lao PDR largely depended on its socialist allies.(1)  In the period 1976-1980, more than half of the in total 4,603 Laotian students pursuing education beyond secondary level did so abroad in countries part of the, then, Soviet Block.  

An education reform paved the ground for the (re)establishment (2) of the National University of Laos (NUoL) in 1996. There was also an increase in Laotian students pursuing higher education domestically; partly forced due to the collapse of the Soviet Block and associated scholarships. Over the period 1996-99 the number of Laotian students in higher education nearly doubled (15,634, compared to 8,635 in 1991-95) whereas those doing so abroad increased only marginally (from 995 to 1,101).  

At present, NUoL has remained Laos’ most prominent university despite the establishment of additional public universities, and the rapid growth in private higher education institutes. Total enrolment in Laos’ public universities stood at 45,677 in 2008 (36,706 enrolled at NUoL). By 2008, 86 private higher education institutes were active in Lao PDR, enrolling a total of 20,000 students in 2007 (up from 4,000 in 2000). Still, enrolment at tertiary level has remained low at 12 per cent in 2021 (1.14 gender parity) following an all-times high of 19 per cent in 2012.(3)

In Laos, seats available for university enrolment are set top-down. Once announced, secondary school graduates can register for entrance exams. Registration can be done online, yet the actual exam must be taken in person. Because of quota set for several groups (women, ethnic minority groups), some students enter university regardless of taking (or passing) the entrance exam.(4) 

Piecing together various data sources , Table 1 shows that the number of candidates taking the 2024 NUoL entrance exam was indeed very low and even lower than 2021-22 Covid affected year. Table 1 further shows a gradual decline in the enrolment quota since 2020-21. Whereas the drop in ‘demand’ has received ample attention in Lao media, the opposite is true for the apparent reduced ‘supply’. It is also unclear if this NUoL trend is also reflected in enrolment trends of private higher education institutes in Lao PDR, or alternatively whether we see a shift from public to private higher education or into other forms of public education.(5)  

Table 1: NUoL student figures 2015-2024 

 

Pursuing higher education abroad has remained common in segments of the Laotian population. Yet, destinations and conditions have changed remarkably since the revolutionary days. Lao PDR ranks second on the list of international students studying in China (and many doing so on a Chinese government scholarship), others pursue higher education in Australia, the USA, Japan or in Europe, sometimes on scholarships of the host-country but not-uncommonly also self-financed reflecting the presence a class of super-rich. This latter group is relatively unaffected by the rising cost of living.  

For 2023, the World Bank calculated a 31.2 per cent increase in consumer prices in Lao PDR, following a 23 per cent increase for 2022. This has contributed to putting higher education out of the financial reach of the (lower) middle class in particular. In fact, increasingly Laotian students are leaving formal schooling prematurely. The total number of students taking the secondary year 4 exam dropped from 83,544 in 2022 to 68,850 in 2023 (-18%), while for the final secondary school exam (year 7) the number declined from 55,828 in 2022 to 50,276 in 2023 (-10%). Additionally, there is low prospects for gainful employment in Lao PDR following higher education graduation. This has been a challenge for long, including large numbers of young Laotian working across the border in Thailand. Perhaps what has changed most profoundly is the rise in technology related earning possibilities in the Lao PDR, ranging from platform-mediated food-delivery and ride-sharing work to using social media platforms for commercial activities, including in rural areas.  

In sum, the ‘record low’ in NUoL entrance registrations is likely because of young people of (lower) middle class background (including ethnic minorities) discontinuing their studies confronted by two intersecting realities. First, due to rising cost of living completing secondary schooling and pursuing higher education has become a substantially larger financial challenge. Second, there is easily accessible migrant work and a rise in domestic income earning opportunities. Both do not require higher education and contribute to reducing some immediate financial pressures. Against such a background, a call for more scholarships to ensure that Laotian higher education remains accessible also for those with fewer financial means is unlikely to make much of a difference.  

Endnotes

  1. During the 1970s about 10 per cent of the population of what is now Lao PDR fled the country, among them many of the higher educated elite.
  2. Following the communist take-over in 1975, Sisavangvong University in Vientiane (established in 1958 by the Royal Lao Government) was dissolved into various colleges.
  3. World Bank data show a gross enrolment rate for primary schooling of 97 per cent in 2022 (0.97 gender parity) and an all-times high of 122 per cent in 2012. For secondary education, the gross enrolment rate was 57 per cent in 2022 (0.95 gender parity) and an all-times high of 66 per cent in 2017 and 2018.
  4. Note also instances of cheating or side-stepping exams, e.g. https://laotiantimes.com/2016/09/14/students-to-resit-nuol-entrance-exams-after-questions-leaked/
  5. Government resolutions seek to channel students into shorter, and cheaper ‘courses at vocational training schools’ in ‘priority fields’ (Vientiane Times, p2, 28 July 2023). Yet the scale of these initiatives is unclear.
  6. From the academic year 2020-2021, there are more than 16,700 students who registered for the online exam, but more than 14,000 people came to the real exam, among which the university plans to enroll more than 9,000 students in all system.

 

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

                         About the Author: 
Roy Huijsmans

Roy Huijsmans is a teacher and researcher at the International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam. His research focuses on the role of young people in processes of development and change.

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

IHSA Annual Lecture Reflection: Starvation crimes, network shutdowns, and obstacles to humanitarian action in Gaza and Sudan

By Posted on 2208 views
Image by Unsplash

In this blog, IHSA Vice-President and Senior Research Fellow at the Food Studies Centre at SOAS (University of London) Susanne Jaspars summarises and expands upon a contribution to the roundtable that followed the inaugural IHSA Annual Lecture on “War and Humanity” held in Bergen in May 2024. The blog was prepared with the help of Tamer Abd Elkreem and information gathered from their research project on the effects of digitalising food assistance.   

Starvation as a crime against humanity 

For about a year now, there’s been talk about imminent famine- and now famine – in Gaza and parts of Sudan, with very little action. In this blog post, I discuss starvation as a war crime and crime against humanity, what can be done in practice to act on starvation crimes, and why blocking communications networks needs to be seen as such a crime.   

War causes famine through acts that undermine the means of survival of particular population groups. This includes acts of commission such as attacks on production, markets, restriction of access for humanitarian actors, and the obstruction of relief. Also acts of omission such as failures to act in response to warnings or signs of famine, and acts of provision: the selective provision of food to one side of the conflict. These tactics can be part of counter-insurgency operations but also yield benefits for some. For example from being able to sell food at high prices and buy livestock at low cost, or use cheap labour from displaced populations.      

Extreme famines are therefore the result of political acts or decisions (local, national, international), meaning we need to understand: Who committed the famine? How was it committed and why? Who were the victims? Who was involved? In contrast to famine, a crime is not ended, but criminals are deterred, detained, prosecuted.   

Legal frameworks such as International Humanitarian law (IHL) and International Criminal Law (ICL), specify starvation as a crime:  ‘It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population […] for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance … whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive’. The crime of starvation includes wilfully obstructing humanitarian aid. The term “objects indispensable to survival” includes more than food, encompassing water installations and supplies, irrigation works, medicine, clothing, shelter, fuel, and electricity. There is no pre-defined list as items indispensable to survival are evolving and context dependant.   

Also, in 2018, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2417 which condemns the use of starvation as a method of warfare against civilians and emphasised that it may constitute a war crime. I would like to discuss this a little further, in particular: 

How does reporting and accountability for starvation crimes work in practice? 

The Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP) report twice yearly to the UN Security Council (UNSC) on Resolution 2417.  The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) can also write closed White Papers to the UNSC and individual donors (like FCDO or the EU) too.  But how is this being operationalised?  What and how are FAO and WFP reporting?  What are some of the obstacles?   

Consider the February 2024 FAO/WFP report to the Security Council on Gaza and Sudan – which is remarkably apolitical.  The report states the facts on displacement, impact on food systems, and obstruction of humanitarian access, and then what is prohibited under IHL. However, these are mostly passive statements such as: 

  • ‘Unprecedented levels of conflict-induced displacement … have occurred.’  
  • ‘Civilian infrastructure has been damaged (water, fuel, electricity, bakeries, farms)’ 
  • ‘Conflict has halted production, prices have increased’ 
  • ‘Humanitarian aid has been restricted’ 
  • ‘Hostilities have led to telecoms blackouts’
     

War seems to almost be external to people’s economies or society, something neutral.  Using the passive tense to describe acts of war and its effects removes politics and responsibility.  This is exactly the opposite of what is needed to understand starvation crimes.    

What’s not in the report is who is causing starvation and who should be held to account (although there are some exceptions about Israeli actions in Gaza – e.g on the effect of evacuations without putting adequate infrastructure and services in place). Yet, Sudan has a long history of aid manipulation and since April 2023 there is evidence of the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) denying access to humanitarian aid, and of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) looting, destroying farms, and recruiting forces by threatening starvation. This presents an intensification of the long-standing extractive political economy, and involves regional and international actors.  Note that exports of gold, and livestock are continuing and crude oil exports were higher in December 2023 than in the previous year.     

The recommendations are all clearly needed but bland: restore humanitarian access, pressure warring parties to adhere to IHL, have an independent investigation.  With UN organisations reporting, how could it be otherwise? A focus on starvation crimes was supposed to put the politics back into famine analysis. But can UN resolution 2417 do it?  Questions remain on who should be reporting starvation crimes (states? resistance movements? activists? students?) and who should act on it.   

The South Africa case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) sets an important precedent,  in particular the amendment to the provisional measures in March 2024: to take all necessary and effective measures – without delay – for the provision of humanitarian assistance, in response to reports of famine and starvation.   Since then the International Criminal Court (ICC) is seeking a warrant for the arrest of Israeli leaders, in another unprecedented move, for  war crimes of starvation.   Even with these high-level actions, the crimes continue.   

In contrast, on Sudan there is mostly inaction.  While starvation and genocide in Gaza is played out daily on our television screens, such reports on Sudan are rare.  Recent warnings of famine, and statements by UN experts, have had little impact except to pressure warring parties to come to power-sharing agreements rather than holding them to account. 

Communications networks as objects indispensable to survival 

Of course, much of the lack of action in response to Sudan’s crisis is due the prioritisation of geopolitics and economic interests over humanitarian response and – ultimately – stopping the war.  Sudan’s invisibility is also a result of blocking and manipulating communications networks and connectivity. Most societies are digitalised, meaning that people are increasingly dependent on connectivity for their day-to-day activities or – in the case of Sudan – their survival.  Connectivity becomes important in relation to starvation crimes because:

  • Blocking communications networks hides information on violations of human rights and humanitarian law.    
  • Internet shutdowns disrupt social networks, remittances, food systems.   
  • Third, network shutdowns also block aid provision, not because it hinders the coordination, information and security of aid organisations, but aid itself is increasingly digitalised: pre-paid debit cards, electronic vouchers, and mobile money. 

In Sudan, the Bankak App from the Bank of Khartoum has been a lifeline since  the start of the April 2023 war because it could be used to transfer of money to crisis-affected people and local organisations. From early February, however, the RSF disabled all internet providers.  Soon after, Starlink Satelites were introduced in RSF-held areas, which ordinary people pay to use for internet connection but which were brought in and managed by the RSF. As such, control over communications has become a way of denying services and resources to the enemy, life or death for ordinary citizens, as well as a new way of profiteering. It also illustrates the moral dilemmas of providing aid in conflict and the challenges of reporting on famine crimes.  This does not mean we stop calling out starvation crimes, but rather highlights the importance for humanitarians to analyse famine as a political scandal that requires global as well as local action.  

 

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

                         About the Author: 
                           Susanne Jaspars

Susanne Jaspars is a Senior Research Fellow at the SOAS Food Studies Centre. She has been researching the social and political dynamics of food security, livelihoods and forced migration in situations of conflict, famine and humanitarian crises for more than thirty years. Susanne’s geographical focus is has been mostly Horn of Africa, specifically Sudan and Somalia with shorter periods in the Middle East, where she has worked as practitioner and researcher. She is currently the PI of an ESRC funded project entitled: ‘Digitalising food assistance: Political economy, governance and food security effects across the Global North-South divide.’ More information about Dr. Jaspars can be found on the SOAS website. 

 

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

UNFCCC Conference 2024 | How a feminist approach to climate change can help bring together animal welfare and gender equality agendas

By Posted on 2339 views
Source: AI Generated Photo
Source: AI Generated Photo

Attending the UNFCCC (SB60) Conference in Bonn in June this year as a representative of the World Federation for Animals (WFA) was a remarkable experience for ISS PhD researcher Irma Nugrahanti, most of all because it visibilized the striking parallels between climate change-related issues faced by women and animals and the crucial role of these two advocacy groups in fighting climate change. In this blog article, she reflects on different conversations that took place at the conference and how this reaffirmed the significance of a multifaceted approach to climate issues.

At the recent UNFCCC conference, observing dialogues on animal welfare, gender, and climate change enhanced my understanding of how these topics are interlinked and what this means for climate action. Each conversation opened my eyes to the rich tapestry of perspectives, revealing how interconnected and parallel these issues are, like chain links, impacting one another and forming an intricate and powerful network of interactions. Reflecting on the discussions at the UNFCCC conference and beyond, it is evident that embracing the intersectionality of feminism and animal welfare is essential for creating a just, sustainable, and resilient world for all living beings — and for tackling climate change.

Author at the UNFCC (SB60) Conference

A step in the right direction

While preparing for the UNFCCC side event focused on the crucial role of animals in climate change mitigation strategies, I reviewed the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of various countries. I observed the notable failure to acknowledge the contribution animals can make to climate resilience. However, from different discussions at the conference, I observed a positive shift towards recognizing the role of both human and non-human actors in environmental protection. For example, the crucial role of the social sciences in understanding indigenous communities and the human-nature relationship, particularly within the context of ocean-climate dynamics, was acknowledged.

Additionally, there was a strong emphasis on engaging local governments, advocating for locally-led solutions tailored to community needs, and advancing the implementation of global stocktake suggestions. These recommendations include incorporating animals into the Loss and Damage (L&D) matrix, allocating resources to scientific research and data collection, and ensuring that the contributions of animals are acknowledged in IPCC reports and NDCs. These discussions highlight the need to move beyond an anthropogenic view of humans as the central to climate solutions and to embrace a plurality of perspectives that value different types of knowledge and practices, the diversity of life, and its intrinsic values.

As these conversations advanced, it became evident that while progress was made in embracing different perspectives, the commonalities between the experiences of women and animals in relation to climate change have not been sufficiently acknowledged. And they should: women and animals, while vulnerable to the effects of climate change, both play a pivotal role in mitigation efforts. Thus, furthering the role of women in climate change action and strategies and protecting animals are intertwined objectives. This recognition is crucial because caring for animals transcends compassion; it is a profound expression of feminism.

Recognizing the shared challenges faced by both women and animals in the context of climate change could help broaden our understanding of vulnerability and resilience, so that we can transform existing policies that often overlook these marginalized groups. In doing so, we must also recognize and confront the existing power dynamics that influence climate policies. As many studies have shown (see here, here and here), in the climate change domain, men have a dominant presence, namely in research, policy, implementation, and activism.

What women and animals have in common

1. Both women and animals face substantial obstacles stemming from oppression, violence, and objectification.

The connection between patriarchal gender relations and the exploitation of animals reveal how sexism and speciesism come from the desire to dominate inferior groups; this mindset, rooted in patriarchal values, shapes people’s attitude toward women and animals, as Ashley Allcorn and Shirley M Ogletree have noted. Women in countries with a strong patriarchal culture experience multifaceted oppressions, which results in limited possibilities for accessing education and economic opportunities, as well as in exposure to growing harassment and violence. This systematic marginalization is embedded in legal frameworks that hinder gender equality. Likewise, animals endure exploitation and cruelty, being seen as simple commodities rather than sentient beings.

2. The economic value of animals and women in mitigating climate change is underrecognized.

Moreover, although women’s environmental care work plays a crucial role in climate change mitigation, economic assessments often overlook their value. Conventional economic indicators, including the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), fail to include the unpaid care work performed by women in the form of managing natural resources and supporting their communities. This omission underestimates their valuable efforts and maintains ongoing gender disparities. Likewise, the ecological benefits offered by animals, such as carbon sequestration and biodiversity preservation, are rarely accounted for in economic analyses. This omission results in the insufficient protection of animals and a lack of investment in animal welfare. Integrating economic analysis using a gender lens, such as gender-responsive climate budgeting, and the direct valuation of animal welfare in environmental economics may help to ensure adequate resources and appropriate valuation for both women and animals.

3. Both women and animals play a pivotal role in protecting the environment and combating climate change.

Women’s knowledge of sustainable agriculture, water management, and biodiversity conservation is invaluable. Thousands of women-led initiatives around the world serve as proof. For instance in Peru, the indigenous women-led initiative Asociación de Mujeres Waorani de la Amazonía Ecuatoriana (AMWAE) is dedicated to preserving the Amazon rainforest. These women use indigenous knowledge to combat deforestation and advocate for sustainable land use, making a substantial contribution to carbon sequestration and the preservation of biodiversity. Similarly, women play a critical role in community-based conservation efforts. In Kenya, the Green Belt Movement, founded by Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai, has empowered women to plant trees, combat deforestation, and restore ecosystems. This initiative not only mitigates climate change but also improves local livelihoods and promotes gender equality.

In a similar vein, the preservation of an ecological balance and the promotion of biodiversity depend on the existence of healthy animal populations. For instance, African forest elephants make significant contributions to natural carbon capture. They reduce competition and facilitate the growth of larger trees that store more carbon by trampling young trees as they move through the rainforests. This would increase carbon capture equivalent to over 6,000 metric tons of CO2 per square kilometre if their population were to be restored to its previous level, which highlights their critical role in climate regulation.

Why an ecofeminism lens is useful

Ecofeminism, a branch of feminist theory, offers a critical analysis of the dominance of nature and animals imposed by patriarchal systems, drawing parallels with the oppression experienced by women and marginalized populations. Carol Adams and Lori Gruen in their 2022 book Ecofeminism: feminist interaction with other animals and the earth explain the notion of the “logic of domination”. This concept highlights the shared struggles women and animals experience: they are subjected to hierarchical dualisms that diminish their worth, objectify them, and dismiss their individuality and intrinsic value. On objectification, women are often valued according to their appearance or reproductive capabilities, while meats and dairy products have been deeply valued and integral to human diets in most cultures for thousands of years.

Another example of using a feminist lens is incorporating multi-species justice in climate change action. Multi-species justice theories advocate for the recognition of rights, welfare, and interconnectedness between human and non-human beings. It calls for rethinking justice systems for the impacts of human actions on non-human entities and the environment. Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka in their book Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights for example advocate for a political framework that recognizes animals as co-citizens and grants them rights and protections. This viewpoint challenges the traditional concept of justice by advocating for a political framework that acknowledges animals as co-citizens. Their ideas extend the concept of justice, commonly applied to humans and challenging the anthropocentric bias in political ideologies.

Lastly, the feminist and animal rights movements are both grounded on ethical issues. Lori Gruen emphasizes the objective that ethical veganism and feminism have in common, namely to put a stop to the exploitation of the powerless by those in positions of power. This ethical position challenges the prevailing systems of oppression and exploitation, promoting a society that is more compassionate and just.

Toward an ethics of care

Ecofeminism offers a framework for defining an ethics of care that transcends human interactions and includes every living being and the environment. It emphasizes care as an essential component of our interactions with others, both human and non-human. Its relational and caring approach not only criticizes current power structures but also suggests a paradigm shift toward inclusive and compassionate behaviours, especially those related to animal welfare. In her book In A Different Voice, Carol Gilligan critiques anthropocentric and patriarchal structures through her definition of ethic of care by promoting a caring and attentive connection with nature, akin to a mother’s care for her child. This entails actively listening to and caring for nature in a non-hierarchical manner, promoting a transition from unequal power dynamics to ecologically responsive relationships.

The ethics of care promotes a deep appreciation for natural environments, including animals, which contribute to the process of carbon sequestration and the conservation of biodiversity, which is essential for the ability of ecosystems to face the impacts of climate change. Therefore, in our ecological relationship, it is important to reflect on the way we are being, doing, and seeing to be more environmentally conscious and honour the interconnectedness of all living beings. I believe the common task for posthumanist feminist scholars and policymakers now is to translate this concept into policy and legal frameworks, a complicated but important mission to achieve.

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the author

Irma Nugrahanti

Irma Nugrahanti is a PhD researcher at the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS), focusing on the intersection of gender, climate change, and public finance management. Her research highlights the importance of integrating a gender lens into climate budgeting policies and practices, particularly at the national and regional levels of public expenditure management. With a background in the non-profit sector, Irma has extensive experience in finance, program management, and policy advocacy, striving to bridge the gap between research and practice to create inclusive and sustainable climate policies.

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

Is Liberia’s illiteracy problem linked to absent fathers?

By Posted on 5585 views
School Reading Corner: Image by Author

The prolonged civil war that brought life in Liberia to a standstill for over a decade has left deep wounds that the country is still working to heal more than twenty years after the conflict ended. While significant interventions have been made in the country’s education sector, low literacy rates persist — but the war and its aftermath may not be the only reasons, writes ISS MA graduate Christo Gorpudolo.

Liberia has one of the highest illiteracy rates in the world, with an adult literacy rate of 48.3% in 2017 (the global average is 84.7%) and a youth literacy rate of 77.46% (the global average is 91.68%). The country scored 177 out of 193 countries and territories on the 2022 Human Development Index (HDI), a composite statistic used to measure and rank countries’ levels of social and economic development according to the level of education, life expectancy, and standard of living.

But while the country’s low adult literacy rate has been linked to civil war and resulting poverty, a lack of infrastructure, and inadequate teacher training, recent research I conducted in central Liberia revealed another possible explanation: absent fathers. This observation is important because it is a factor that is not directly attributable to the civil war but that may have a potentially significant impact on efforts to address the persistent low adult literacy rate.

Understandings of Liberia’s low literacy rates

Much of Liberia’s education-related backlogs have been attributed to the civil war that ravaged this low-income country between 1989 and 2003. The long-standing impact of the war, including the destruction of much of the country’s trained workforce, has led to a struggling educational system still recovering from many challenges, including those related to access to education, the quality of instruction, and a lack of human and financial resources.

The absence of fathers hitherto has not been cited as a factor contributing to illiteracy, although it has been marked by scholars as an important factor positively affecting the growth of school–going children in Liberia. A report by the 2024 World Education network on Liberia’s education system moreover states that fathers’ involvement in children’s education means a lot to children, who eventually tend to perform better.

Conversely, non-profit organization All For Kids states that children who grow up without fathers are more likely to experience unemployment as adults, have low incomes, remain on social assistance, and experience homelessness. The organization also states that absent fathers is a factor consistently co-occurring with a wide range of mental health disorders and related problems, particularly anxiety, depression, and increased suicide risk.

An unexpected observation

My observation that the absence of fathers could be linked to low literacy levels among children came as I was conducting research on another topic. In March this year, I was hired by the CERATH Development Organization to research how young Liberian adolescents view the Liberian food system. This research is intended to help CERATH understand Liberia’s food security and what children’s visions are for a food secure Liberia. I spoke to 50 young adolescents between the ages of 9 and 17; of these children,19 were not attending school and the remaining 31 children were attending school.

During the research, while interviewing the children who were not attending school, I made an unexpected observation: all the children I spoke to who were not in school faced absent fathers at home or in their lives. Some of them live with mothers, aunts, or grandmothers who work to some extent; others live with mothers, aunts and grandmothers who are physically able to but do not engage in economic activities.

One of the children (aged 16) stated that his father died in 2020 in Monrovia, Liberia’s capital. Because of his father’s death, he and his mother had to move back to Bong County in central Liberia; he has not been enrolled in school since 2020. Another participant aged 16, also without a father, has never been to school. Yet another participant aged 9, also without a father, has also never been to school.

Thinking outside the box

Given their ages, all of these children were born after the Liberian civil war and were not actively involved in the war. Most of them also live close to schools and don’t necessarily have to walk miles to school. The country moreover has a free and compulsory primary education policy, which was introduced in 2003. Yet, despite these factors that may facilitate (or at least do not hinder) school attendance, these young adolescents are not currently in school. Could absent fathers be a reason for this and, thus, for Liberia’s low literacy rate?

Speaking with these young children, I observed that they are increasingly concerned about possibly never going to school. Others hope that their mothers and guardians would secure funding to send them to school. It is clear that the children I interviewed do want to attend school, but do not foresee the possibility of doing so. This is why it is important to examine all possible reasons for children’s failure to attend school.

The World Literacy Foundation states that in developing and emerging countries, the number of children and youth with no basic foundational and literacy skills is continuing to rise by an estimated 20% per year. Without any effective intervention, these young people face a lifetime of poverty and unemployment. Thus, further investigation is needed to ensure that children can attain quality education. Investigating the possible link between school attendance and the absence of fathers is an important place to start.

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the author:

Christo Z. Gorpudolo is a development practitioner with over 9 years of work experience in the development sector. She is particularly interested in research  areas that cover peace and conflict, children rights, humanitarian aid and gender. She has a Masters of Arts degree in Development studies, Social Justice Perspective from the International Institute of Social Studies.

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

 

Public spaces as learning arenas: How parks and playgrounds contribute to early childhood development

By Posted on 5128 views

Public spaces, especially areas facilitating outdoor play and learning, play a pivotal role in early childhood development. However, they are often framed as mere recreational zones by urban planners and policymakers. In this article, ISS PhD researcher Ana Badillo highlights the multifaceted benefits of parks and playgrounds and emphasizes the need for collaborative community-driven urban planning as a way to counter dominant narratives of parks. Using Bellavista’s park transformation as a case study, she champions spaces that prioritize children’s holistic development, foster social cohesion, and help reimagine urban landscapes.

Children learn as they play. Most importantly, in play children learn how to learn.” – O. Fred Donaldson

In the hustle and bustle of modern urban life, public spaces like parks and playgrounds are often viewed simply as recreational outlets for city residents. Yet, these spaces transcend mere recreation; they serve as vital arenas for comprehensive early childhood development [1].
As a mother, I have come to understand that play is the primary way that children learn about the world around them — an essential mechanism that fosters physical, socio-emotional, cognitive, and motor development [2]. Parks and playgrounds offer a plethora of play opportunities, from simple swings to complex structures, allowing children to test their limits, develop their problem-solving capacity, and practice essential life skills. Here are some of the primary benefits of public spaces and outdoor play:

 

1. They provide opportunities to develop essential life skills. Sharing, negotiating turns on the slide, or participating in group games all teach children valuable lessons in cooperation, conflict resolution, and empathy. This enables them to become adults who can effectively work in teams, appreciate different perspectives, and handle interpersonal challenges with sensitivity and maturity.

2. They serve as meeting places for children (and parents) from different backgrounds and cultures. Playgrounds and parks can foster intercultural interaction and understanding, providing opportunities for children from diverse backgrounds to interact and learn from each other. These interactions not only enrich a child’s social experience but also lay the groundwork for a more inclusive and understanding society where differences are celebrated and mutual respect is cultivated from a young age.

3. They enable increased physical activity. With the rising concern of childhood obesity worldwide, and particularly in Latin America [3], parks act as necessary venues for physical activity. Climbing, running, and jumping contribute to motor skill development and significantly contribute to children’s physical fitness and reduces the risk of childhood obesity [4], [5].

4. They can contribute to an improved relationship with nature. Frequent interaction with and play with/in nature during childhood has long-term benefits, fostering a lasting relationship with the natural environment. Children who regularly interact with natural elements develop a sense of wonder, curiosity, and respect for the environment. This early bond with nature fosters a lifelong commitment to environmental stewardship [6].

While the value of parks and playgrounds in early childhood development is increasingly recognized by parents and caregivers, urban planning still tends to sideline these areas as mere recreational spaces. The message is clear then: we as the parent community need to champion the comprehensive role of public spaces in child development. How? Through collective urban planning approaches.

 

Bellavista’s play park: An example of a low-cost, high-impact community-led project

A newly transformed park in Bellavista, a hilly neighbourhood in Ecuador’s capital Quito, stands as an emblematic example of how impactful low-cost initiatives can be when driven by community engagement. As a resident and a mother, I’ve witnessed the park’s evolution from a neglected area to a vibrant green, playful haven. A year ago, the park was barely functional, but the community’s proactive approach, starting with securing funding from the municipality’s participatory budgets, initiated its transformation.

However, the revamped space would lack a children’s playground due to budget limits, which sparked a new wave of community action. Several parents, including myself, told the community leaders at the inauguration of the revamped park that we need a playground for our children. I expressed to the community leaders my desire to volunteer, sharing my experience in participating in the design of parks, which I witnessed and participated in as a resident in Delft while living in the Netherlands. I requested to hold a meeting with the community leaders to start thinking about the design and funding of the playground.

In May 2023, a small group of community leaders, grandparents, aunts, and I convened the first meeting, where we proposed the idea of making the design of the playground a participatory process. This process would actively involve children, parents, and caregivers. We share various ideas for playgrounds and discussed the child- and family-friendly principles that we would like to use for co-creating public spaces. This initiated a project fuelled by the neighbourhood residents’ aspirations and it was later supported and led by several organizations.

PLURAL led the design, management, and implementation (the construction of the playground and socio-environmental sensory circuit) of the project Recorridos Con Sentidos (Pathways with Senses), along with various social organizations and collectives in Quito, including Yura, Acción Ecológica, Cabildo Cívico de Quito, and Bellavista neighbourhood committees. PLURAL won an international public space contest led by LAPIS and Placemaking Mexico, which was pivotal in designing and constructing an early childhood-centric playground guided by a participatory process. The creative signage of the project was carried out by artist Natalia Espinosa, a member of the community and team.

From a collective dream to a beautiful reality

The community’s journey to design Bellavista Park was a blend of determination and creativity. Engaging methodologies from LAPIS, like the ‘magic camera’ and children’s drawings, were used to capture young minds’ visions for the park. These ideas were not just fanciful dreams; they became the blueprint for the park’s design. Parents, grandparents, caregivers, and early childhood educators joined in, providing valuable insights and fostering discussions about creating a safe play environment.

Photo by Project Recorridos Con Sentidos

Photo by Project Recorridos Con Sentidos

The transformation, completed in just three weeks, is a testament to the power of cost-effective solutions and community involvement. Utilizing recycled materials and harnessing the energy of volunteers, the project minimized costs while maximizing community engagement and pride. Workshops and collaborative activities, such as tree planting and establishing park maintenance protocols, cemented the community’s commitment to the park’s sustainability.

A symbol of community resilience

Today, Bellavista’s play park is more than just a space; it’s a symbol of community resilience and innovation. It has become a lively hub where families come together, where children engage in play that is both fun and developmental, and where the community celebrates its collective achievement. This transformation, fuelled by the dreams and efforts of children and their families, has reinvented the park into a sanctuary of learning and joy, specifically tailored for the needs of early childhood.

The community’s deep sense of ownership and pride in this space is palpable. My two-year-old girl no longer merely says, “Mommy, take me to the park,” but confidently claims, “Mommy, take me to MY park.” Parents, too, are immersed in this renewal, forging new relationships and orchestrating community events (Halloween Festival). More than just a playground, this park serves as the heart of the community, weaving together social ties and fostering unity in times of profound need.

 

Towards collaborative urban planning

The park’s remarkable transformation has not only attracted nearby families and childcare providers who were previously unaware of its existence but has also drawn residents from all corners of Quito, turning it into a beloved destination for recreation and childhood exploration. This bottom-up initiative has served as an inspirational example for other communities. Residents from diverse neighbourhoods across the city when visiting this park all expressed their desire for a similar space for their children in their own neighbourhoods, which underscores the widespread need for such interventions.

Access to safe, green, and areas for playing should not be a privilege reserved only for a few children living in gated communities in suburban zones, as is unfortunately still the case in most cities. Such spaces can be created throughout the city, but it is crucial for local authorities to recognize that public spaces, like parks, must cater to the desires and needs of their users. To make parks truly conducive for early childhood, authorities should begin by actively listening to the voices of young children and their caregivers, as the developers of Bellavista’s park did. Placemaking programmes endorsing the community-led co-design and co-creation of public spaces can ensure that such spaces are welcoming, safe, and conducive to learning and play.

References

[1] Islam, M.Z., Johnston, J. and Sly, P.D., 2020. Green space and early childhood development: a systematic review. Reviews on environmental health, 35(2), pp.189-200.

[2] Ginsburg, K.R. and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2007. The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 119(1), pp.182-191.

[3] 3 in 10 children and adolescents in Latin America and the Caribbean have overweight (unicef.org)

[4] Bell, J.F., Wilson, J.S. and Liu, G.C., 2008. Neighborhood greenness and 2-year changes in body mass index of children and youth. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(6), pp.547-553.

[5] Sanders, T., Feng, X., Fahey, P.P., Lonsdale, C. and Astell-Burt, T., 2015. Greener neighbourhoods, slimmer children? Evidence from 4423 participants aged 6 to 13 years in the Longitudinal Study of Australian children. International Journal of Obesity, 39(8), pp.1224-1229.

[6] Chawla, L., 2006. Learning to love the natural world enough to protect it. Barn–forskning om barn og barndom i Norden, 24(2).

Documentation of the Collaborative Journey of the Park Co-Design and Co-Creation María Elena Rodríguez Y. on X: “El pasado sábado realizamos la entrega a la ciudad del proyecto #RecorridosConSentidos, que se propuso crear espacios públicos específicamente para niñez temprana, es decir, niños y niñas de 0-6 años y sus cuidadores/as. Este espacio, el primero público en #Quito fue realizado… https://t.co/ksnuwacweo” / X (twitter.com)

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the author:

Ana Badillo is a PhD researcher at the ISS, focusing on the political economy of social protection reforms in Ecuador and Paraguay. She works at the Partnership for Economic Policy (PEP) as Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Senior Specialist. She is also a Fellow at Our Kids’ Climate, advocating for a just, green, and safe present and future for children in Ecuador.

 

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

 

Feeling the Crux of Justice

By Posted on 2600 views

Justice and mobility are intertwined elements of our civilization and affect all of us significantly. Through two blog posts, Bachelor’s students of Erasmus University Rotterdam Kaitlan Adams, Cassandra Kamberi and Yannis Diakantonis discuss affective justice and mobility, drawing on their individual experiences and perceptions. This post reflects on their diverse understandings of what justice is and, most importantly, how it feels like.

Image by Steve Johnson/Pexels

Justice is not really about holy scriptures, legal artifacts, or the dialogues of a “Suits” episode. As Kamari Maxine Clarke points out in her concept of ‘affective justice’, developed in her 2019 book Affective Justice: The International Criminal Court and the Pan-Africanist Pushback, it is “affective” and hugely influenced by our emotions. Exactly because justice is so inextricably linked to personal emotions, it automatically becomes subjective and, hence, potentially divergent between individuals. That is why a universal definition of justice is hard to come by, despite the proliferation of “best” strategies to achieve it. The feeling of justice is very difficult to delineate; it feels like anger, it feels like control, it feels like a type of equity. All at the same time.

‘We perceive justice to be correlated with what we feel is right.’ In a general sense, we define justice as the fair and impartial treatment of others. On an emotional level, justice feels like a mixture of empathy and anger. On one hand, having empathy for both those who have been wronged and those inflicting injustice is what is needed to achieve equitable outcomes. Empathy means understanding and sharing the feelings of others. On the other hand, anger is also connected to justice because where empathy is lacking, we feel anger. We felt anger and a lack of justice when one of us experienced sexual harassment. We felt a lack of empathy from the people who did this. We felt anger at societal expectations that have normalized these behaviours. Understanding justice in its affective dimension highlights that justice could be achieved; if women’s feelings were actualized and if the emotional root cause of toxic masculine behaviours was acknowledged. For justice to be achieved, practices that cater to emotional causes and consequences must be mobilized.

‘For us, justice goes hand in hand with a feeling of control.’ Namely, control over the most fundamental aspects of our lives, as well as control over the process of restoring the system of values and laws we have all collectively agreed upon. In other words, justice feels like confidence that one’s basic rights and dignity will be respected (Cremer & Bos, 2007). Upon coming to the Netherlands for his studies, Yannis wanted to join the football club of our university. The problem? All the other players and coaches were a group of Dutch friends who had known each other for years. Nevertheless, they immediately tried to break down any linguistic or national barriers that might have existed between them. Hence, Yannis felt that justice was being done to his body, his ambitions, and his social interactions while playing the sport that he had loved ever since he was a little child.

‘After quite some thought, we realized that our sense of justice is based on a feeling of life-value equity.’ We believe there are some “fundamental” truths that when violated, lead to injustice. The biggest fundamental truth for us is that all life is equal in value. For example, it feels utterly unjust that some people in the world live in wealth and luxury, while at the same time, others live in poverty and suffering. The fact that our contemporary economies and systems of production perpetuate this situation (making this gap even bigger whilst exploiting people), makes a statement about how and whose lives we value most. Such an unjust way of doing things feels disturbing, leading us to the conclusion that we must dedicate our lives toward somehow lessening this inequitable way of life. Otherwise, we would once again be part of a huge injustice without truly contesting it.

‘Reflecting on how to restore justice,’ we  recognize that its various perceptions, as well as the numerous inherent differences between individuals, can present a challenge when trying to create a universally applicable definition. This tension is equally tangible in the extensive Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on justice (Miller, 2021). Since justice is so important, yet feels so different to each of us, perhaps the first important action we can take is to understand each other. Talking with our neighbours about what injustice feels to them could be a small first step. Perhaps the feeling of control can be obtained through dialogue and expression; anger about injustice can be resolved when it is no longer suppressed; equity in the value of life could be achieved through radical reforms of our socioeconomic systems. Through building communities that thrive on mutual understanding and creating institutions that reflect the diversity of emotional responses to justice, we could develop a more inclusive and holistic reality of a just world—one that reflects a multitude of lenses.

Bibliography

Clarke, K. M. (2019). “Affective Justice: The Racialized Imaginaries of International Justice.” PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 244–267, https://doi.org/10.1111/plar.12307.

De Cremer, D. and K. van den Bos (2007). “Justice and Feelings: Toward a New Era in Justice Research.” Social Justice Research, vol. 20, no. 1, Mar. 2007, pp. 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0031-2.

Johnson. http://www.pexels.com/photo/blue-yellow-and-orange-canvas-painting-2362791/.

Miller, D. (2017). “Justice.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 26 June 2017, plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/.

Read their first article on Justice and Mobility.

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the authors:

Kaitlan Adams is a third year Bachelor’s student in Erasmus University College. Majoring in Political Science and International Relations, with a double-minor in International Human Rights Law, as well as Arts, Culture, and Society, Kaitlan has interests in working with NGOs that fight for human-rights and has a background in teaching English to underprivileged Youth.

Cassandra Kamberi is a third year bachelor student majoring in Psychology and Philosophy at EUR. She is a board member of Positive Impact Society Erasmus (PISE), aiming to help students identify how they can have the most positive impact they can with their career and resources. Some of her projects include running a committee alongside other students for Improving Institutional Decision Making,  and writing her philosophy thesis on the mental health crisis. Perhaps her biggest interest lies in understanding what drives suffering in human beings even when all their basic needs are met, and how we can potentially alleviate this suffering through both cultural reform and individual practices.

Yannis Diakantonis is a third year Bachelor’s student and Research Assistant in Erasmus University Rotterdam. Some of his current research projects relate to candidate selection and electoral systems in the context of developing countries. He has worked in several NGOs which, among others, promote Climate Neutrality, Green Finance and Sustainable Digitalization.

 

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

 

Development Dialogue 19 | Participatory art as an alternative project monitoring tool? How an INGO is using picture diaries in Timor-Leste

By Posted on 2696 views

International development projects need to be monitored to see whether they are on the right track. Although the logical framework (log frame), which depends on a standard indicator for monitoring project outcomes, is widely used, it often proves insufficient in capturing progress made by beneficiaries. In this blog article, Young-Gil Kim discusses why alternative monitoring systems are needed and introduces picture diaries as an alternative monitoring tool . He shows how international NGO ThePromise has used these diaries in Timor-Leste to hear from illiterate children and argues that participatory arts have the potential to capture project progress in contexts where conventional monitoring systems frequently encounter challenges.

Image by Author

The log frame: a silver bullet?

While I was working for an aid funding agency (which I did for around eight years), I frequently used the log frame — a monitoring tool in which inputs and activities yield short-term outputs and long-term results — to monitor project progress. Regardless of whom I worked with — UNESCO, the ILO, the UNDP, and so on — the log frame was consistently employed. I kept wondering whether it was truly the silver bullet it was being portrayed as. Briefly speaking, it is a rigid tool  that relies on quantitative surveys. Development practitioners with statistical skills use it to observe causal relationships between the input/activity and output. However, in other development sectors such as governance projects, causal relationships are often more complex, and it takes much longer to see changes.

Some time later, when talking to volunteers working for international NGO ThePromise who were implementing an educational project in Timor-Leste, the question popped up in my mind once again when Jisu An[1], one of the volunteers, told me that monitoring educational progress in illiterate children was challenging because good indicators seemed not to exist. Even if they did, she said, because the children targeted by the project are mostly illiterate, surveying them on paper seemed counterintuitive.

I decided to study the problem by delving into the literature on the topic. I found that the international development arena, saturated with the log frame, leads us to believe that it upholds a profound tradition, while the reality is quite different. First, it was “originally created as a planning tool for military purposes” in the US and later adopted by USAID in the 1970s . Second, the log frame is “virtually unknown outside the development community, and it is noteworthy that it has not been adopted to any great extent elsewhere.” Thus, there is concern that the log frame is “[used] indiscriminately across all programs in the development scene regardless of the nature of the work being measured: from agriculture to human rights, from micro-finance to culture.” This might also be the case for ThePromise, I thought, which might explain why they were facing challenges. I spoke to volunteers such as Jisu An about their work for ThePromise and presented some of my observations and findings at the recent Development Dialogue conference, which I also discuss in this article.

 

Tracking the progress of a teaching programme in rural Timor-Leste

ThePromise is an NGO (with its HQ is in Seoul, South Korea) that seeks to “provide better opportunities” in several developing countries by conducting projects ranging from education, water and sanitation/hygiene, and disaster relief to credit cooperative initiatives. In Timor-Leste, the NGO in 2023 focused on the education sector and was active in a few rural, marginalized areas inundated with challenging educational conditions. This includes mostly illiterate children, teaching methods not provided to many Timorese teachers, insufficient teaching materials, and parents not paying adequate attention to their children’s education. A team of ten South Korean volunteers had been dispatched there, where they taught children in two kindergartens to strengthen the educational environment of the community and improve education standards. Monitoring the project’s progress through the log frame was one of their important tasks.

This proved challenging due to the high illiteracy rate and the young age of many of the children they taught. Hence, they could not complete survey forms specified in their log frame. After having several meetings by themselves, the teachers decided to use picture diaries as an alternative to the survey. After each class, children drew pictures of how they experienced the lesson. The aim was for teachers to monitor their progress effectively using these picture diaries.

Picture 1: Adu’s Picture Diary on 15 March 2023

Picture 2: Adu’s Picture Diary on 10 May 2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

These two picture diaries were drawn by a Timorese child named Adu. The left-hand diary depicts Adu’s reflections on his daily class on 15 March 2023, while the picture diary on the right, drawn a mere two months later, demonstrates a noticeable improvement in Adu’s ability to articulate his daily learning experiences — the pictures are more detailed, and Adu’s writing has progressed from simply adding individual words to writing complete sentences.

This led me, as an independent researcher who once questioned the widespread use of the log frame, to ask whether participatory art could serve as an alternative to the log frame tool for monitoring project progress. Participatory art is gaining traction in the international development arena because it offers spaces for envisioning futures and cultivates critical thinking. Inspired by the MSC method, I interviewed four Korean teachers who assessed around 200 children’s picture diaries for four consecutive months. They all felt that the diaries were a good tool for children to express themselves. One teacher for example stated:

I believe that the picture diary is a good tool for monitoring children’s educational progress. When we introduced it in the early stages of our education programme, children rarely expressed themselves; there were no writings and no pictures. As time went by, their ability to express themselves improved. Some of them could articulate their thoughts on sketchbooks in written form as well as through pictures. I also observed that in the early stages, children just added a few words in their sketchbooks, whereas a few weeks later, they started to write in full sentences, articulating themselves better than before. I think the picture diary serves not only as a good tracking tool but also as a means to encourage children to express themselves freely.

Another teacher felt that more research was needed to assess its effectiveness as a monitoring tool, stating, “I […] think that three months is not a sufficient timeline to see any tangible changes in [the children’s way of expressing their experiences].” Overall, the teachers thought that the diaries were primarily a means for children to express themselves. Their effectiveness as an alternative monitoring system — and that of participatory art in general — therefore still needs to be determined. Participatory art could perhaps complement conventional approaches such as the log frame, especially in contexts where surveys cannot be used, until its effectiveness as a monitoring tool has been further investigated.

References

Davies, R. (2005). The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique: A Guide to Its Use. UK: Care International.

Flower, E. and Kelly, R. (2018). Arts-based research practices and alternatives: reflections on workshops in Uganda and Bangladesh. Changing the Story Working Paper No.3

Fontes, C. (2016). The What and the How: Rethinking Evaluation Practice for the Arts and Development. In Stupples, P. and Katerina Teaiwa (eds). Contemporary Perspectives on Art and International Development. Taylor & Francis. pp. 238–251.

Hailey, J. & Sorgenfrei, M. (2004). Measuring Success: Issues in Performance Management. Occasional Paper Series 44, Oxford: INTRAC

Mkwananzi, W.F., Cin, F.M., and Marovah, T. (2021). Participatory art for navigating political capabilities and aspirations among rural youth in Zimbabwe. Third World Quarterly, 42(12), 2863–2882.

Stupples, P. and Teaiwa, K. (2016). Introduction: On Art and International Development. In Stupples, P. and Katerina Teaiwa (eds). Contemporary Perspectives on Art and International Development. Taylor & Francis. pp. 1–24.

Tools4Dev website: https://tools4dev.org/about/

[1] Thanks go to Jisu An who helped shape my thoughts on the issue through our many interesting discussions and for providing valuable input into the article.

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the author:

Young-Gil Kim is a PhD student at the University of York, UK. He worked as a visiting researcher at the Center for Korean Studies (CKS) in the National University of Timor-Leste (UNTL) in 2023.

 

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

Development Dialogue 19 | The right to be heard: How listening to children’s perspectives can help challenge North–South dichotomies in development

By Posted on 1659 views

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) is the most ratified international human rights treaty in the world. But much more needs to be done to ensure that more children have their voices heard on their needs and perspectives. In this blog article, Timisha Dadhich acknowledges the nuanced experiences of children in the Global South with the example of children’s representation within the normative debates on child labour. We need a pragmatic child rights-based approach that prioritizes the inclusion of children, respects children’s agency, and fosters intergenerational collaboration to effectively ensure children get the right support as soon as they need it, she argues.

Image by Leonardo Burgos/Unsplash

Children’s voices still go unheard

There is a robust understanding in international law that children and young people hold the fundamental right to freely express their views on anything that impacts them. Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 notably recognizes that children have the right to be heard.[i] This convention implies that children are agents who can determine their own fate through their involvement in decision-making processes instead of being passive recipients of aid.[ii] However, the lack of representation of children’s perspectives in development research and practice persists, and many development initiatives are contributing to persistent disparities instead of having an enduring and sustainable impact. We are still not listening to children despite our pledge to heed their right to be heard.

How can we prevent this from happening? We first need to remind ourselves why we need to listen to children and how it impacts them if we don’t. As I will show in this article, in order to truly enrich and enhance our understanding of the role children’s rights can and should play in development interventions, it is important to listen to the viewpoints of children that contest the normative assumption of ‘best interest of the child’.[iii] Child rights advocates believe that to improve children’s well-being, we should unlearn our assumptions about their needs.

 

Child labour requires a nuanced understanding

Take the example of child labour, which is a complex challenge, especially in post-colonial societies. Child labour is commonly either demonized or normalized; this duality in perspectives hides the bigger picture that not all forms of child labour are extreme forms (slavery and trafficking, for example). In fact, children mostly work on smallholder farms — 70% of all child labour worldwide takes place in the agriculture sector.[iv] The ‘abolitionist approach’ focused only on completely eradicating child labour denies children their right to protection from the oppressive and challenging circumstances at work, which further adds to their systematic exploitation. Institutionalization or banning child labour is seen as a one-stop solution, but the emphasis must be on protecting (working) children.[v]

Moreover, ‘rescue attempts’ are rarely successful. Due to the absence of effective measures to compensate or rehabilitate children ‘rescued’ from child labour, many children end up returning to the same work ‘post-rescue’ because of financial constraints, a lack of alternative opportunities, weak law enforcement, social pressures, and debt bondage.[vi]

India is one example. The economic and labour market disruption and increased school dropout rates after the COVID-19 pandemic worsened the child labour situation, with a growing demand for cheap labour and an amplified need for an additional household income.[vii] Thus, in India, approximately 13 million children between the ages of 7 and 17 work, primarily in the agriculture sector or doing unpaid family work.[viii] Similar trends can be observed in many other countries. It is therefore vital to understand the unique developmental stages and needs of countries and to tailor a more inclusive and just collaboration between the Global North and Global South for ensuring children’s rights.

 

We need to start recognizing children as agents and political actors

It is necessary to intervene — we need to protect children facing abuse or unsafe working environments. But while child labour undoubtedly deprives children of their rights, understanding its role in access to education and the right to survival is crucial for taking actions in the ‘best interests’ of the working children. We need to take action by listening to them. Beyond the label of ‘innocence,’ their opinions should be at the forefront when we make decisions that shape their lives.

Moreover, the dominant narrative on working children as passive victims waiting to be rescued is challenged by working children who as political actors assert their right to dignified work.[ix] Bhima Sangha, a union for working children, for example claimed, “Let anti-child labour not be anti-child,” which to me stands as a testament to the enduring struggles of working children in Asia.[x] It also demonstrates how complex the issue is and why inputs from children are crucial for finding the most suited ways to tackle it. Crucially, children have views of their own situation and of proposed interventions.

Thus, contrary to the assumptions about how to improve the working conditions and lives of children that negate children’s agency, we should define clear boundaries for policy making that assure the ‘best interests’ of the child as seen from an informed perspective. It is high time we move past the quick fixes and work towards sustainable solutions that empower both children and their communities — and asking children about their experience is an important starting point.

 

We first need to address our ‘saviour complex’

When it comes to child labour, the focus is fortunately shifting to ensuring a social protection net for children and their families instead of just banning an act. This is impacting our programme designs, research, and development projects that continue to be based on the idea of ‘saving’ working children. However, there is still some way to go. A pluralistic and critical approach to child labour would entail recognizing, first and foremost, that children don’t necessarily “need to be saved”. This patronizing mindset is also symbolic of the colonial past that is inextricably linked to the ‘saviour complex’.

 

We also need to challenge our adult-centric views 

This mindset also stops us from creating a framework that properly considers the economic, cultural, and social realities children face. Globally, children are ignored also because they do not represent the values or discourses on children as presented by adults. In an important instance, when asked about participation of children’s unions in international conferences, an International Labour Organization (ILO) expert stated, “It’s a bit like getting invited to a vegetarian party and then ‘talking about the advantages of eating meat’.”[xi] This statement suggests that the participation of working children is considered ‘irrelevant’ at such conferences because they contradict the mainstream representation of all working children as ‘vulnerable victims’.

We need a gradual shift from ‘ritualised humility’ practiced by international and national agencies to rethinking power dynamics when facilitating children’s participation.[xii] Ritualised humility is perilous because it uses children for tokenism as they speak in sync with the adult-centric views of the organisations involved instead of having a constructive dialogue with them. A key element of children’s representation would be recognising them as partners, acknowledging their concerns and aspirations as crucial in catapulting development efforts to achieve meaningful transformation.

 

Toward a child rights-based approach

Building on a rights-based approach, we need to create solutions by redirecting our focus, rectifying disparities, and championing a more inclusive and equitable global conversation on childhood. The North–South dichotomies in child-centric development can be addressed by cultivating mutual trust and support, engaging in joint decision making and acknowledging significant barriers to development, including a lack of resources and complex institutional or political landscape.

A key shift would be toward a child rights-based approach that integrates the perspectives of children and makes the initiatives more inclusive and efficient. Based on the vision of the CRC, the development interventions that target children in the Global South should look beyond the ‘management’ of participatory initiatives and consider the right of children to be heard while conceptualizing, developing, and executing projects in diverse contexts.[xiii] The right of every child to be heard means all children should be included in discussions that affect them and that development actors should create programmes based on the needs, views and opinions of the children affected.[xiv]

The Lundy Model for Child Participation is one example of an effective framework that can provide guidance for meaningful children’s participation across four interrelated concepts: space, voice, audience, and influence.[xv] And, keeping this in mind, we should further make a special effort to include children who face digital access barriers in developing countries.[xvi] The inadequate representation of children’s voices from the Global South due to restricted access and infrastructure does not mean these children lack perspectives. It indicates the need for increased efforts on equitable collaboration to generate high-quality evidence for researchers and policymakers to achieve better outcomes for children-focused initiatives. And most importantly, it is crucial to protect children’s identities when local safeguards are insufficient to protect their privacy or if criticizing national policies places them at additional risk.

 

[i] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child

[ii] https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/crc/2009/en/70207

[iii] See the General Comment 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration: https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/crc/2013/en/95780

[iv] https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/06/1137567

[v] Read more on right to protection at work in this example of Bolivia: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Manfred-Liebel-2/publication/283280916_Protecting_the_Rights_of_Working_Children_instead_of_Banning_Child_Labour/links/5a45fdf0a6fdcce1971a94f3/Protecting-the-Rights-of-Working-Children-instead-of-Banning-Child-Labour.pdf

[vi] https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2023/Dec/25/india-may-miss-international-target-of-eliminating-child-labour-by-2025-2644709.html;  https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/children-from-bengal-rescued-as-bonded-labourers-return-to-chennai-to-resume-same-work-after-turning-18/article67811584.ece

[vii] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/13/covid-19-prompts-enormous-rise-in-demand-for-cheap-child-labour-in-india

[viii] https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—asia/—ro-bangkok/—sro-new_delhi/documents/publication/wcms_359371.pdf

[ix] https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/61843/978-3-031-04480-9.pdf?sequence=1#page=143

[x] https://www.concernedforworkingchildren.org/empowering-children/childrens-unions/

[xi] https://www.spiegel.de/international/tomorrow/child-labor-in-bolivia-is-legally-permissable-a-1130131.html

[xii] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1080/09578810701667508

[xiii] Read more about children’s right to be heard: https://www.refworld.org/docid/4ae562c52.html

[xiv] https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/pdf/5259.pdf/

[xv] https://www.qub.ac.uk/Research/case-studies/childrens-participation-lundy-model.html#:~:text=SPACE%2C%20VOICE%2C%20AUDIENCE%2C%20INFLUENCE&text=SPACE%3A%20Children%20must%20be%20given,be%20acted%20upon%2C%20as%20appropriate.

[xvi] https://jprm.scholasticahq.com/article/38764-online-intergenerational-participatory-research-ingredients-for-meaningful-relationships-and-participation

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the author:

Timisha Dadhich is an independent human rights consultant and holds a European Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation (EMA). She is also a trained criminal justice social worker who is very passionate about access to justice and reducing social inequalities. She has the experience of working with international organizations, national NGOs and government agencies in India on issues related to children’s right to participation, child protection, education and juvenile justice.

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

Development Dialogue 19 | Dealing with difference in collaborative research

By Posted on 1963 views

Collaborative research is increasingly promoted as an ethical and participatory form of knowledge generation. However, as innovative as the approach is, collaboration can lead to frustration or conflict and may require much more resources in comparison to ‘classic’ research methodologies. While this has already been acknowledged, empirical evidence on the challenges researchers face when collaborating is still lacking. It is therefore pertinent to communicate about field experiences so that practitioners as well as educational and funding institutions can realistically consider the limits and requirements of this approach — something PhD researcher Maria Fernanda Córdova Suxo does in this article.

Image by Author

Collaborative research is a methodology used increasingly and especially by researchers from academic institutions, interdisciplinary teams, and community organizations to foster inclusive knowledge creation. This methodological approach emphasizes active participation in the knowledge production process, shared decision-making, and inclusive contributions from various stakeholders.[1] An anti-colonial critique is strongly present in this methodological approach, since it challenges dominant research practices, driving a change from conventional research roles of ‘the researcher’ and ‘the researched’ to a partnership where both parties actively co-create knowledge. In addition to challenging traditional research roles, the methodology aims to avoid the extraction and appropriation of knowledge that largely benefits the interests of the researcher instead of those of the target group. In this regard, collaboration has been positioned as a relevant approach for fostering inclusive development practices.

 

But does an ethical and participative approach suffice?

Simply considering collaborative research through the lens of equality and horizontal partnership dynamics doesn’t suffice to dismantle harmful knowledge production practices and to ensure an inclusive process of knowledge creation. Reality shows that relationships operate on multifaceted levels beyond ethical intentions alone. For one, fieldwork roles beyond the renaming and allocation of labels like ‘partner,’ ‘participant,’ or ‘co-researcher’ often stem from preconceptions influenced by past experiences and entrenched power structures, while additional or incompatible responsibilities and interests, influenced by historical, economic, and political conditions, will define collaboration. Drawing on my fieldwork experience during which I adopted a collaborative approach, in this article I review two situations where I encountered limits to doing collaborative research and discuss the way forward.

 

Does everybody aspire to be a co-researcher?

For my PhD research on the narrative construction of indigenous subjectivities within development discourses, I collaborated with the community of Caluyo, situated in the highlands near the historic ruins of Tiwanaku in La Paz, Bolivia. The aim was to collaborate in understanding and shaping collective identities, practices, and belief systems that inform a shared development perspective. I sought permission from the community assembly to initiate our collaboration by presenting my research topic and expressing my intention to work together during a community gathering in October 2021. I was granted permission and we could then start collaborating. I have visited the community for a period of three months each year for the past three years, participating in local activities such as assemblies, football tournaments, celebrations, planting and harvesting activities, as well as organizing workshops and conducting interviews.

Despite being from the same region and not encountering any language barriers, my presence brought with it pre-existing expectations. I wasn’t the first researcher to visit, nor was my collaborative engagement approach uncommon or unknown to them. Also, they were interested more in my educational experience — not necessarily in directly participating in the research but rather in how their ties to me could help foster opportunities for their children or grandchildren to access higher education or scholarships abroad.

During the several assemblies I attended, participants also expressed their desire to attract more researchers to the area to collaborate with the community, which they believed would aid in the systematization of knowledge. They were particularly interested in research on their culture and traditions that could further explain the pre-colonial era and the ruins that surrounded them. Their heavy labour on their land and farms, and their bureaucratic duties in the city, did not allow them to prioritize this task, as they perceived that it was important to communicate their traditional knowledge when interacting with visitors interested in it.

In this situation, I was thus asked to assume a traditional researcher role. Moreover, in Caluyo, the ancestral knowledge that researchers want to know about still needs to be understood by the community itself, with external researchers being seen as playing a role in helping facilitate this task. The traditional role of the researcher is found not only in this context but has also generated practices and trades that are predominantly — if not exclusively — located and validated in their interaction with the outside world.

 

Perspectives converging, realities diverging

Moreover, collaboration doesn’t guarantee a smooth ride in the research process; frustration and misunderstandings can arise. While I was in Caluyo, community members asked me to help them craft a project proposal for building a cultural center — something beyond the scope of my research. They sought my help since an official from the municipal government was charging them 2,000 bolivianos (around 270 euro) for this task — which they considered costly — and since I had project management experience.

I proposed conducting a joint workshop to draft the proposal — I would provide tools and expertise, but the vision for the cultural center and the project objectives would be theirs. We held the workshop in March 2023, inviting local authorities to collaborate. After four hours of work, the proposal had taken shape. I presented the document we had worked on to them and assured them that I would print three copies and bring them back to the community during my next visit.

They were skeptical about the proposal, however, asking me if we followed the correct procedure and wondering whether we needed an architect, since the municipal official they would have hired was an architect. I assured them that our work followed the requested plan and the funding format. A woman stood up and shared her experience in another community, where she was involved in drafting a similar project proposal. She had given money to an architect, and in return he gave her a book. She expected that the workshop I had organized would have the same outcome in the form of a book.

Murmurs filled the room after her comment, indicating their dissatisfaction with the process and outcomes. We had done things completely differently. This was the first time they were engaged in working out a project proposal, and they found it strange that this would come from an exchange of ideas and not from a professional voice like the architect’s, which gave them the feeling that something was not done right or that they had wasted their time. Once again, I explained that we had filled out all the requirements requested by the form to apply for funds and that if necessary and required afterwards, we could ask an architect to help. But at the moment, nothing indicated that we would need one for this proposal. The meeting ended with a small celebration, an apthapi (the communal sharing of food), which masked the disappointment of all the participants, including mine.

Despite their misgivings, they expressed their gratitude and I sent the prints and copies of the project proposal a week later, as I had promised. I took care to make these copies look like the books that were expected. These were eventually handed to the mayor during the town’s anniversary in May last year. The mayor stated his approval of the proposal and pledged that the cultural center would be realized. Construction began a couple of months ago, suggesting a successful collaboration.

 

Difference can cause distress

Although this experience is rich in insights into the procedure of setting up projects, I would like to highlight here the distressing aspects of the situation. Such interactions can highlight the inequalities and differences between participants. In the case I describe above, despite having a joint goal, the project proposal, our language, representations, and expectations of it varied considerably. Even though the project outcome was realized in the end, the community’s expectations and mine diverged, making it difficult for us to feel like we were truly co-creating something. The research dynamics of collaboration therefore demands adapting to interactions that are not contemplated beforehand.

In general, conflict, misunderstandings, and different expectations are inherent in such interactions where multiple visions come together but end up playing out differently. Ultimately, it is up to those we work with — so-called ‘research participants’ — to decide whether the research is collaborative, as my colleague Beatrice Gilbertini argued during one of the Development Dialogue’s panel discussions.

 

A way forward: embracing our differences

Many researchers and practitioners that seek a more participatory and ethical way of creating knowledge engage in participatory research. To date, there is enough literature reflecting on positionality and creating awareness to avoid extractive and appropriative research. However, relying solely on a reflective and ethical intention is insufficient — collaborative processes expose the real extent of differences and the depth of inequalities underlying these processes. Each encounter creatively illustrates these disparities, sometimes manifesting as conflicts and clashes. The question is then, what to do with it?

One way forward is to embrace these conflicts as opportunities to make methodological and theoretical adjustments that respond to the demands of those involved. The complexity of such interactions should be conveyed not with the aim of achieving equality between participants and researchers, but rather to understand the origins of these cleavages that reflect different interests and needs. Emphasizing an equal partnership as the sole criterion may obscure these gaps, potentially perpetuating violence.

Last, while collaborative practice should be promoted, it’s essential to ensure the provision of necessary resources and qualities demanded by such endeavours while preserving its inherent flexibility. It prompts us to consider whether there’s a need for more comprehensive research that is better integrated with entities beyond academia, such as social movements and civil society spaces, where theoretical work can truly be grounded in practical realities.

[1] See The SAGE Handbook of Action Research, for example.

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the author:

Maria Fernanda Cordova Suxo is a PhD candidate in Sociology at the University of Kassel, specializing in the exploration of alternatives to development through the lens of social movements and indigenous peoples’ experiences. She holds a Master of Science degree in Critical Development Studies and a Master of Arts in Peace and Conflict Studies. Her professional background has predominantly revolved around international cooperation and humanitarian aid agencies. She currently teaches at the university and conducts workshops on global learning.

 

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

 

Development Dialogue 19 | Reckoning with the past and imagining the futures of development research and practice

By Posted on 1661 views

The field of development studies is not estranged from critiques of extractive and hegemonizing policies and practices. In fact, development research and praxis are now undergoing a moment of reckoning as scholars and practitioners grapple with the limitations and shortcomings of dominant approaches to development. The recent Development Dialogue (DD) conference held at the ISS sought to create a space of resistance through dialoguing about these reckonings. In this article, the planning committee of the DD introduce a special blog series on discussions and presentations that took place at the conference as an opportunity for engagement outside of the normative to reckon development, the past, and to imagine futures outside of those confinements.

Image by Author

Development operates as a metaphysical order — it casts perceptions of space, place, times, and peoples which become edified by the practical action of “doing development”. As an ordering principle, it constructs the naturalized idea of the “commons” and its foil known under many names such as “the uncommon”,” the undeveloped”, “the underdeveloped”, “the differentiated”, or “the other”. Cast this way, development operates as an intangible or perhaps invisible force, enabling dispossession, transmogrification, extractivism, and rigidity.

Despite academia’s unrelentingly simplified engagement and resultant static forms of post-development, the creators/ enablers of development remain imperceptible, and development’s binaries remain entrenched in the “doing”. As scholars Moulton and Salo noted, these “doings” or norms of development frequently position communities of colour to be “raw material of development or the spatial excess that remains following meaningful development.”

 

Calling for a new reckoning

Calling for reckoning is not new but a longstanding demand from communities around the world who work to decolonize development by rethinking traditional development indicators and metrics and incorporating participatory and inclusive approaches. These approaches prioritize local knowledges and perspectives as well as social and environmental sustainability to focus on shifting power dynamics so plural and diverse world(s) can exist together.

The 19th Development Dialogue (DD)   that took place in November last year, contributed to this call for a new reckoning by serving as a space for resistance by collaboratively exploring the visions of practitioners, thinkers, and artists who look to confront the inequities and normative assumptions that position worlds within entrapments of colonial violence. The DD is a platform for PhD researchers to come together once a year at the ISS to engage in conversation and research sharing. Each iteration’s theme builds on the social happening of global events, serving as a metacommentary on the longstanding critique/ engagement with the field of development studies and development practice. The programme of the 19th DD can be found here.

 

Radical possibilities through imagination

As the planning committee, we sought to invoke the power of imagination to urge a transformative scholarship — from a current critical and disembodied positionality to one that generates space for radical possibilities and care for ourselves, for each other, and for the non-human world. Delinking from existing practices in which absence and erasure endure, we invoked the radical questioning of development through imagination and experience.

Radically questioning development in this context entails uncovering the binaries sustaining differentiation and the deeply racialized, gendered colonial legacies perpetuated in theorization and practice. In other words, making visible what systems, peoples, or policies constitute/legitimate harm and then promoting changing or delinking practices that transition away from that violence toward spaces of care. We find these conversations urgent, built on the longstanding calls for abolition, agency, and freedom for our own communities and others around the globe similarly confronted with inequity and injustice.

This blog series contributes to the conference’s goal by challenging where and how knowledge is produced and placing an emphasis on narratives to guide thinking on the transitions required in development and society writ large. The articles in this special series build on the interests of presenters of the 19th DD, who disproportionately come from the Global South.

 

Reckoning in different ways

The DD was organized along several sub-themes also reflected in this blog series that cogently addressed the experiences and geographically disjointed reckonings happening in our communities. These themes were intentionally broad in order to facilitate greater engagement with scholars/activists/artists of varying disciplines and practitioners from different fields. The themes were:

  1. Global north-south relations: reckoning with power imbalances and building more equitable partnerships
  2. Co-creation and co-design for development: fostering inclusive and collaborative development approaches
  3. Rethinking evaluation: past and future of how we measure development outcomes
  4. Approaches to reckoning and healing: including the role of indigenous knowledge and traditions
  5. Gender and sexuality in development research & practice: reclaiming our bodies and shaping our identities
  6. Challenging growth-oriented development: examining the limits of growth and the need for alternatives
  7. Environmental justice: examining the intersection of environmental degradation, climate change, and development, and exploring strategies for promoting environmental justice and sustainability
  8. Development and mobility, rethinking the tie: reckoning development effects in people on the move, displacement and (im)mobilities of things and people.

Indeed, the wide range of sub-themes demonstrates the entanglement of these concepts in the construction of our current world and the need to commune and collaborate towards resistance and refusal. This entails recognizing how scholars and disciplines are isolated in their respective academic silos and, more specifically, how this disconnection stifles conversation, requiring us to more rigorously integrate ourselves and our knowledges into these spaces and places to facilitate engagement across disciplines and sites.

 

Collectively recognizing our need to delink from the past

What became evident during the course of the dialogues was the prevalence and in some cases primacy of embedded logics that privileged “Western” or normative development thinking in research. However, equally prominent was the engagement to challenge the “normal” assumptions through panels, workshops, and conversations — whether outside of the formal setting of the conference or not. These conversations brought to the forefront a persistent sentiment across the dialogues, namely the common understanding that “the past cannot continue to constrain the future.” Linked to this understanding is the objective of identifying in what ways scholarship/art/doing can lead us to more equitable and free futures.

 

Embodied resistance through dialoguing

We found the conference to be a microcosm of conversations by and in communities of colour, conversations across spaces and times to reckon the “truths” and “invisibilities” of development in effort to conceive of futures outside of the current colonial matrix confinement. Engaging these reckonings, each embodied resistance and delinking from the academy’s normativity and institutional complicity gives insight into the generative as well as transformative narratives of healing, escape, liminality, and solidarity building outside of the defined temporal and spatial site of Man.

Transitioning beyond critique and outside of hierarchies of expert knowledge enables engagement with narratives that subvert and refuse universalisms, and in turn find solace and reprieve in openness and complexity. The aim of the DD was to foster solutions that may not have immediate answers by questioning the normative and holding space outside of the legacy of academia’s “research”. Thus, this blog series builds on the presentations and discussions from the DD19, spurred by workshops and lectures which further questioned relationships of power and the spatial and temporal locus of longstanding justice narratives and practices.

References

Escobar, A. (2021). Reframing civilization (s): From critique to transitions. Globalizations, 1–18.

Gilmore, R. W. (2022). Abolition geography: Essays towards liberation. Verso Books.

Gómez-Barris, M. (2017). The extractive zone: Social ecologies and decolonial perspectives. Duke University Press.

McKittrick, K. (2006). Demonic grounds: Black women and the cartographies of struggle. U of Minnesota Press.

Mignolo, W. (2018) “The conceptual Triad: Modernity/Coloniality/Decoloniality” in Mignolo, W. and Walsh, C. On Decoloniality: concepts, analytics, praxis, Durham: Duke University Press pp. 135–152.

Moulton, A. A., Davis, J., Van Sant, L., & Williams, B. (2019). Anthropocene, capitalocene,… plantationocene?: A manifesto for ecological justice in an age of global crises. Geography Compass, 13(5), e12438.

Moulton, A. A., & Salo, I. (2022). Black geographies and Black ecologies as insurgent ecocriticism. Environment and Society, 13(1), 156–174.

Motta, S. C. (2016). Decolonising critique: From prophetic negation to prefigurative affirmation. Social sciences for an other politics: Women theorizing without parachutes, 33–48.

Wynter, S. (2003). Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/freedom: Towards the human, after man, its overrepresentation—An argument. CR: The new centennial review, 3(3), 257–337.

The 19th Development Dialogue (DD)  took place in November last year contributed to this call for a new reckoning by serving as a space for resistance by collaboratively exploring the visions of practitioners, thinkers, and artists who look to confront the inequities and normative assumptions that position worlds within entrapments of colonial violence. The DD is a platform for PhD researchers to come together once a year at the ISS to engage in conversation and research sharing. Each iteration’s theme builds on the social happening of global events, serving as a metacommentary on the longstanding critique/ engagement with the field of development studies and development practice. The programme of the 19th DD can be found here.

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the author:

Jonathan Moniz is a dedicated thinker deeply invested in radically questioning the issues that shape our contemporary reality. He engages in topics ranging from environmental issues, the role of law in perpetuating colonial relations, abolition, Black studies, and sustainable development issues.

 

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

 

International Humanitarian Studies Association conference roundtable and North South University statement on Gaza: “As scholars and practitioners of Humanitarian Studies, we strongly condemn acts of widescale and indiscriminate violence against civilian populations”

By Posted on 3665 views

[vc_row css=”.vc_custom_1592900783478{margin-right: 0px !important;margin-left: 0px !important;}”][vc_column css=”.vc_custom_1592900766479{margin-right: 10px !important;margin-left: -10px !important;}”][vc_column_text]This blog is part of a series about the International Humanitarian Studies Association (IHSA) conference in Dhaka, Bangladesh. In this piece, Dorothea Hilhorst (Professor of Humanitarian Studies at ISS, outgoing IHSA President) and Sk. Tawfique M Haque (Professor and Chair of Political Science and Sociology, North South University) present a statement made by participants of a roundtable held at the conference to take stock of the humanitarian situation in Gaza.[/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”custom” accent_color=”#a80000″ css=”.vc_custom_1594895181078{margin-top: -15px !important;margin-bottom: 10px !important;}”][vc_single_image image=”25834″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_separator color=”custom” accent_color=”#a80000″ css=”.vc_custom_1594895181078{margin-top: -15px !important;margin-bottom: 10px !important;}”][vc_column_text]At the IHSA biennial conference in Dhaka, Bangladesh, a roundtable took place on the ongoing violence and humanitarian catastrophe in Palestine. The roundtable included contributions from Professor Dorothea Hilhorst (outgoing IHSA President), Research Professor Antonio De Lauri (incoming IHSA President), Professor Sk. Tawfique M. Haque (North South University), Professor Shahidul Haque (North South University), Professor Mohamed Nuruzzaman (North South University), and Dr Kaira Zoe Canete (International Institute of Social Studies).

During the roundtable, several aspects of the ongoing humanitarian situation were discussed, including access for humanitarian aid, the interests and positions of stakeholders in the conflict more generally, ways to counter the situation being used to further polarize society, and what the role of Humanitarian Scholars is in the face of the situation.

The International Humanitarian Studies Association and Center for Peace Studies (CPS) at North South University would like to share this statement, following the roundtable:

We extend our solidarity and sorrow towards those grieving loved ones in Palestine and Israel, and deplore violence carried out during this conflict. As scholars and practitioners of Humanitarian Studies, we strongly condemn acts of widescale and indiscriminate violence against civilian populations. This extends not only to ongoing military violence, but the blocking of humanitarian aid and assistance.

These actions by the Israeli state and military amount to multiple breaches of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), including the 1949 Geneva Convention that was signed by Israel. We condemn the collective punishment of over two million people in Gaza, of which more than half are children.

We also highlight UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2417, which condemns the use of starvation as a weapon of war, and confirms that any blocking of humanitarian aid breaks IHL. Further, we draw attention to Israel’s role as an occupying power in the Palestinian Territories, and its commitments to maintain medical services and infrastructure under IHL.

We call for respect for and adherence to IHL, International Criminal Law (ICL) and UNSC 2417 to prevent starvation (due to blocking access to food, water, electricity, health care and other items essential to survival) and death of civilians. This means allowing immediate access to aid for those who need it and protecting civilians.

Humanitarian Studies scholars need to use their knowledge and evidence to speak truth to power and counter any silencing mechanism that jeopardizes academic freedom and the freedom of expression. One of the challenges of wide-scale violence, wherever it happens, is that it makes us question the value of humanity. We need all voices in this discussion to maintain dignity and respect, and we condemn the use of antisemitic and Islamophobic language, as well as narratives of dehumanization and polarization especially when they come from powerful institutions, political leaders, and states.

For more information about the IHSA Conference, check out their website.

[/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”custom” accent_color=”#a80000″ css=”.vc_custom_1594895181078{margin-top: -15px !important;margin-bottom: 10px !important;}”][vc_column_text]Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.[/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”custom” accent_color=”#a80000″ css=”.vc_custom_1594895181078{margin-top: -15px !important;margin-bottom: 10px !important;}”][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699612513242{margin-top: 0px !important;}”]About the authors:

Dorothea Hilhorst is professor of Humanitarian Studies at the International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University.

 

 

 

 

Professor Sk. Tawfique M. Haque is the Director, Center for Peace Studies (CPS), South Asian Institute of Policy and Governance (SIPG), North South University.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column css=”.vc_custom_1596795191151{margin-top: 5% !important;}”][vc_separator color=”custom” accent_color=”#a80000″ css=”.vc_custom_1594895181078{margin-top: -15px !important;margin-bottom: 10px !important;}”][vc_column_text]

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text][newsletter][/vc_column_text][vc_separator color=”custom” accent_color=”#a80000″ css=”.vc_custom_1594895181078{margin-top: -15px !important;margin-bottom: 10px !important;}”][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Mujeres Indígenas Profesionistas Trabajando para Transformar las Ciudades en México: Reflexiones Metodológicas

By Posted on 2734 views

Las prácticas de investigación continúan sin reconocer la multiplicidad de puntos de vista, experiencias y conocimientos de las diversas personas involucradas en los procesos investigativos, pasando muchas veces por alto los significados que las personas dan a sus propias vidas y a la realidad, y silenciando así las interpretaciones subjetivas. En este blog compartimos algunas reflexiones sobre la metodología desarrollada en el marco de un proyecto sobre el Derecho a la Ciudad con mujeres indígenas en Guadalajara, México. Pensar la investigación como un sistema vivo, compuesto por numerosos engranajes movilizados por el trabajo colaborativo, puede ayudarnos a investigar de forma más consciente y responsable, escriben Azucena Gollaz y Marina Cadaval.

Photo taken by the authors

En 2022, iniciamos un proyecto de investigación enfocado en comprender las principales barreras que enfrentan las mujeres indígenas profesionistas para acceder a los bienes y servicios en las ciudades, especialmente aquéllos relacionados con la educación superior, el trabajo y la movilidad. Nuestro punto de partida fue la exclusión sistémica por razones de género que existe en las metrópolis latinoamericanas, y en particular la discriminación por cuestiones de raza que se vive en Guadalajara, Jalisco, México. El proyecto fue financiado por el International Institute of Social Studies – Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS-EUR).

En el marco del proyecto, trabajamos con cinco mujeres indígenas profesionistas: E.B. (Rarámuri) del estado de Chihuahua, A.G. y S.G. (Ñoo da´vi) y N.O. (Zapoteca) del estado Oaxaca, y D.E. (Totonaca) del estado de Veracruz. Todas nacieron o se mudaron a Guadalajara en donde se han involucrado en acciones específicas para construir espacios urbanos diversos y equitativos. En nuestros diálogos, individuales y colectivos, problematizamos el concepto del “Derecho a la Ciudad”. Desde una perspectiva feminista interseccional, buscamos comprender y cuestionar las limitaciones que enfrentan las mujeres mientras viven y se mueven en las ciudades, en especial con relación a las estructuras de poder de género, de raza y de clase social. Juntas buscamos nuevas formas de entender y transformar tales realidades. Uno de nuestros acuerdos comunes fue la pertinencia de resaltar los aportes que las mujeres indígenas profesionistas realizan para la transformación de los espacios urbanos como participantes activas, en lugar de mirar exclusivamente las barreras que enfrentan.

Esto nos llevó a reflexionar sobre nuestro proceso metodológico de manera más amplia, y pensamos en el concepto de “engranajes colaborativos” como una analogía de un mecanismo que pone en marcha formas innovadoras de hacer investigación mientras se actúa frente a los problemas sociales. En nuestro proyecto, esta premisa se materializó trabajando con mujeres comprometidas a pensar críticamente sobre cómo crear espacios urbanos culturalmente diversos y equitativos. Los diferentes contextos, profesiones, posiciones y entendimientos sobre el Derecho a la Ciudad de cada una de nosotras, fueron los puntos de partida y fortalezas para construir nuestros argumentos y propuestas comunes. Este enfoque es lo que consideramos una metodología transformadora, que también se puede utilizar para revelar los aportes de las personas que son menos reconocidas, tanto en las redes colaborativas como en los procesos de investigación. Para nosotras, el reconocimiento, el cuidado y el respeto fueron factores esenciales para movilizar un sistema vivo de producción de conocimiento.

 

Engranajes transformadores

El engranaje inicial fue nuestra conexión como dos mexicanas haciendo doctorado en el ISS-EUR en los Países Bajos. Como colegas y amigas pudimos compartir y discutir nuestros proyectos académicos en múltiples ocasiones. Las dos hemos trabajado con metodologías feministas. La investigación de Marina se basa en la colaboración, el respeto y el cuidado y la de Azucena en el valor de las experiencias encarnadas de las mujeres para transformar los espacios y las movilidades urbanas. Nuestros intereses comunes nos llevaron a desarrollar el proyecto “El Derecho a la Ciudad y las Mujeres Indígenas: Mapeando el Racismo”.

Posteriormente, el engranaje siguió avanzando con el apoyo de la Prof. Karin Arts (ISS-EUR) quien se unió y nos ayudó a materializar la iniciativa. La experiencia de la Prof. Arts como investigadora y su asesoramiento puntual guiaron nuestras reflexiones generales y ayudaron a consolidar el marco conceptual. Su asistencia en la navegación de los procesos institucionales (administrativos) también fue importante.

Al mismo tiempo, las trayectorias, conocimientos y perspectivas de cada una de las cinco mujeres indígenas profesionistas con las que interactuamos constituyeron bases invaluables para dar forma y re-direccionar la investigación. E.B. es estudiante de la licenciatura en Diseño Urbano y forma parte de NUCU (Nuestras Culturas), un colectivo de estudiantes universitarios de comunidades indígenas y afromexicanas. A.G. obtuvo una licenciatura en Ciencias de la Educación y S.G. tiene una licenciatura en Administración de Empresas. Ambas forman parte de los colectivos JIU (Jóvenes Indígena Urbanos) y ÑOI, Cultura en tus Manos, un colectivo de mujeres indígenas. N.O. cursó la licenciatura en Historia y la maestría en Género y Desarrollo; trabaja como bibliotecaria en la universidad estatal. D. E. es licenciada en Pedagogía y tiene una maestría en Investigación Educativa; trabaja en una entidad pública que coordina y promueve políticas públicas para el desarrollo sostenible de los pueblos indígenas de Jalisco.

 

Transformar también significa actuar

El movimiento de los engranajes ha sido sostenido por los aportes y esfuerzos conjuntos de todas las colaboradoras del proyecto. Cuatro acciones y productos específicos resultaron del proceso metodológico. 1.- Un artículo colectivo para el blog Resistencias y Mujeres Profesionistas Indígenas con propuestas concretas para construir ciudades inclusivas y diversas. 2.- La creación y publicación de los mapas de movilidad urbana y experiencias de cada participante en Carftofem 3.- Este texto que todas revisamos y acordamos todas, y 4.- Un artículo académico coescrito.

 

Elementos que seguir reflexionando

Identificamos varias complejidades en el proceso de llevar a cabo una investigación colaborativa y contextual. La academia en general no considera suficiente tiempo, materiales y recursos financieros para desarrollar prácticas basadas en las experiencias de las comunidades indígenas. Por ejemplo, tejer redes, iniciar y mantener diálogos, reflexionar, repensar los matices derivados de escuchar y colaborar con las participantes de la investigación; escribir, validar borradores con cada participante, traducir entre diferentes idiomas y considerar las zonas horarias. Todo ello requiere mucha atención, tiempo y recursos económicos que no corresponden a los plazos y a los presupuestos académicos.

Sin embargo, si bien es un desafío, la colaboración desde y a través de la diversidad también es un proceso de aprendizaje y una contribución a las metodologías feministas y transformadoras. Las metodologías transformadoras deben implicar una forma respetuosa y solidaria de producir conocimiento que asegure que los contextos y las realidades se representen desde múltiples perspectivas. Es por ello que todas las participantes y colaboradoras fueron reconocidas y tuvieron injerencia en los procesos y resultados de la investigación. Para nosotras, este es solo el primero de una serie de engranajes necesarios para generar una forma alternativa y necesaria de realizar investigaciones y transformar las prácticas académicas actuales.

 

The translation of this article has not been checked by ISS Blog Bliss; it is therefore not responsible for factual or other errors that may occur in the translation process.

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the authors:

Azucena Gollaz Morán is a PhD researcher at the International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam and an Associate Professor at ITESO University. Her research interests focus on gendered embodied experiences, gendered mobilities and sustainable cities. She has specialized in mobile feminist mapping methods to understand gendered and intersectional geographies of exclusion. Azucena is currently conducting research about Gendered and Intersectional Embodied Daily Urban Mobilities Experiences in Guadalajara, Mexico. More information about the project can be found at: https://cartofem.com/en_us/.

 

Marina Cadaval Narezo is a Mexican PhD candidate in Development Studies at the International Institute of Social Studies -Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS-EUR) in The Netherlands where she also completed a master’s degree in Social Policies for Development. Her action-research passion around the tensions of gender, race and class in education policies derive from her involvement in the first graduate scholarship programs in Mexico aimed at indigenous people. She is interested in producing knowledge from a collaborative and feminist perspective considering diversity and care as main values (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-82654-3_7).  She has also participated in several selection committees in higher education and advised educational policies.

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

Scholars at risk: why the Dutch system for protecting persecuted scholars is failing and why the government urgently needs to get involved

By Posted on 4770 views

In the past, scholars facing persecution have regularly been received by Dutch universities, which have provided them with a safe space to continue conducting their research in times of adversity. In 2019, the Dutch system for providing a safe haven for such scholars collapsed – an event that went largely unnoticed at the time. Ever since, efforts to help scholars have been mostly futile, largely because the bureaucratic hurdles to providing a safe space are more or less insurmountable. In this article, Linda Johnson explains how and why the Dutch system for supporting refugee scholars has become ineffective and suggests what should be done about it.

Photo Credit: Ron Lach

The Russian invasion of Ukraine early last year galvanized universities in the Netherlands into a brief flurry of solidarity and a frantic but largely ineffectual effort to provide a safe space for Ukrainian researchers to continue their work. Working parties were set up, web pages were designed and countless meetings were held. The consternation was immense. Sadly, none of this led to much concrete assistance for imperilled scholars and students. There was simply no system in place that would allow grants to be paid out to those in dire need. It became abundantly clear that the infrastructure for supporting scholars at risk is inadequate.

The lack of an infrastructure for organizing meaningful support was systematically exposed in January this year in a report issued by a prestigious group of critical scholars (The Young Academy), who for the first time showed the deficiencies of the current system in a rigorous report that describes and analyses the situation as it is today. They have made clear that the infrastructure for supporting scholars at risk from all over the globe (Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey, Iran and the list goes on…) is woefully inadequate. But how could this have happened and what needs to be done to remedy the situation?

The early days of Scholars At Risk NL

To answer this question, it is important to first take a look at what has happened in the past few years. In around 2010, the American organization Scholars at Risk (SAR) started approaching universities in Europe with a view to expanding global provision for at-risk scholars. I had been active in university internationalization circles globally for several decades; hence, I was one of the individuals approached for initial discussions on setting up a SAR provision in The Netherlands.

I was enthusiastic about the proposal and felt that the Netherlands should get involved in this important work. The aims of SAR and the mission of ISS were in alignment and it was not difficult to gain the approval of the then ISS rector (Professor Leo de Haan) to begin receiving students at ISS. Many ISS colleagues were in favour of creating a structural provision for scholars under threat. I set up an infrastructure and little by little extended the pilot so that the whole of the Erasmus University could participate.

We managed to place one or two scholars a year at ISS and occasional placements were found in other parts of the university. Mentoring a scholar who has had to flee for his/ her life is not easy work, but there were enough excellent colleagues willing to go above and beyond the call of duty to make the system work. Similar efforts took place at most universities in the Netherlands, largely based on solidarity and relying on colleagues who were willing to spend time and effort over and above their working hours to keep the system afloat.

Between 2010 and 2015, most European countries, including the Netherlands, set up programmes to help scholars at risk. The Dutch support organization for refugee students, the UAF, coordinated Dutch efforts and fulfilled the important task of disbursing the grants made available to scholars at risk. These grants came from a variety of sources (universities, private donations, local councils, SAR and others). For some time, things went well enough.

 

A turn for the worse

Sadly, in 2019 the UAF decided to end its partnership with the Dutch arm of Scholars at Risk. Worries had begun to surface about possible fines being imposed by the Dutch tax authorities because of the UAF’s role in the distribution of grants. The Dutch tax authorities had indicated that the modest bursaries could be construed as salary and would hence fall under the category of ‘notional’ employment on which the recipient would need to pay tax, and over which the employer would need to pay social insurance. This would multiply the costs involved and reduce the grants to a size too small to meet living costs for the scholar in question.

The financial risk was deemed too great by the UAF – in 2020, it withdrew entirely, effectively making it impossible for Dutch universities to offer financial assistance to at-risk scholars and also bringing to an end any structured coordination of support to at-risk scholars. Expertise on how best to support scholars at risk could no longer be shared and data could no longer be collected and collated on the numbers and origins of scholars seeking assistance from Dutch universities.

In short, since 2020, Dutch universities have no longer been able to make any provision to assist scholars at risk. This situation is in sharp contrast to the generous and well-organized support structures available in many European counties, such as Poland, Germany, the UK, and others.

 

Ripples of concern, but no comprehensive effort

In 2021, the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan led to a modest ripple of concern among Dutch universities. Small, but uncoordinated and largely unsuccessful efforts were made to offer a safe haven to a few Afghani scholars and their families. This proved to be impossible because of the lack of a grant distribution system. Very quickly, the concern ebbed away without any scholars being placed. A year later, in 2022, the onset of the war on Ukraine led to another ripple of concern within Dutch academia. The problem was closer to home this time. Most Dutch universities felt a moral imperative to get involved and to do something constructive to assist scholars and students from Ukraine. Nothing very concrete was achieved, in spite of the best efforts of some individuals.

 

Attempts to restart the system

A group of concerned university administrators from Dutch universities met several times throughout 2020-2022 to try finding a way to improve matters. I convened and chaired these meetings. It was agreed that Nuffic, the Dutch organization for internationalization and education, could perhaps take on the role previously fulfilled by the UAF. This seemed to be a good choice, as Nuffic has an extensive network within the Dutch higher education sector, is used to administering grants, and has considerable expertise that would be handy in helping to ensure that at risk scholars are placed in settings appropriate to their field of research.

Nuffic was keen to get involved but at the eleventh hour felt obliged to decline further involvement because of the risks involved in relation to tax authorities and the labour inspectorate. Back to square one…

 

An opportunity to turn the tide

At this point, the Dutch Young Academy decided to get involved. On 23 January of this year, the Young Academy’s report called ‘Support for at risk scholars in the Netherlands’ was launched. This was a tremendously important step: for the first time, a measured and reflective analysis of the support system was committed to paper in the form of a well-researched report. It showed that at-risk scholars are woefully underserved in the Netherlands. The main conclusion of the report is crystal clear: “There is currently no national infrastructure in the Netherlands for the registration and reception of at-risk scholars.”

The exposure of this embarrassing gap in provision for scholars at risk is important: it gives Dutch universities who wish to host scholars at risk the opportunity to do some repair work on a broken system. They need the assistance of the Dutch government in this endeavour. The question is whether this opportunity will be recognized and acted upon. The Young Academy has laid bare an uncomfortable truth. It is surely impossible for the government to ignore their plea for action……

I believe that the only way forward is for politicians to enter the arena to resolve the impasse. The tax authorities and the labour inspectorate understandably have little interest in ensuring that scholars at risk are supported within Dutch universities. It is hardly their core business. The ministers involved (Education, Culture & Science, and Finance) thus need to take the political initiative to remove the obstacles around the tax and labour regulations and to provide guarantees that will allow the universities in collaboration with Nuffic and UAF to fulfil their moral duty to support scholars who cannot practise their profession in freedom and/or whose very life is threatened.

“It is precisely scholars who are often the first people to pose a threat to repressive regimes, and they are therefore often among the first group who must take flight.’’ – ‘Support for scholars at risk in the Netherlands’, January 2023.

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the author:

Linda Johnson was the executive secretary of ISS, but has now retired. She is particularly interested in the societal relevance of research. In addition, she has done recent work on the safety and security of researchers and co-developed a course on literature as a lens on development.

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

The Global South and the return of geopolitics

By Posted on 3784 views

A rise in the number and scale of political tensions between countries in the Global North clearly signal the return of geopolitics; the war waged by Russia on Ukraine is a key example. But while such conflicts are widely reported on, a new geopolitics emerging in the Global South, while equally significant, is often overlooked and should be receiving more attention, writes Wil Hout, ISS Professor of Governance and International Political Economy.

Students of international relations are typically familiarised with the work of Alfred Thayer Mahan and Halford Mackinder, who both stressed the relevance of geographical dominance for great power status. Mahan focused on the role of sea power, while Mackinder’s notion of the ‘heartland’ (which referred to Eastern Europe) stressed control of land masses as a central factor for great power status. Mahan and Mackinder’s work is usually discussed to illustrate the popularity of geopolitical thinking at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century.

When opening a newspaper or looking at news websites in early 2023, it is obvious that we are witnessing the return of geopolitics. In Europe, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has spurred transformations that were unimaginable since the end of the Cold War, leading amongst others to a spike in military spending, the application for NATO membership by Sweden and Finland and the granting of EU candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova. Relations between the US and China have soured and led to a so-called ‘chip war’. Apprehension about China’s expansion in the South China Sea and the Indo-Pacific, as well as about its claims to Taiwan, resulted in the completion of a US-led defensive ‘arc’ in East Asia and the establishment of the Australia-United Kingdom-United States Partnership (AUKUS) in 2021. Vulnerabilities related to the sourcing of rare earths elements have led to increased activities on the part of the US and the European Union to strengthen their position in regional value chains related to these metals.

Geopolitics and the Global South

While current news reports pay much attention to the geopolitical dimensions of great power interactions, the return of geopolitics is certainly as relevant for countries across the Global South as for those in the Global North. In many cases, the manifestations of geopolitics will differ in the Global South, and that is why it is relevant to pay specific attention to them. For reasons of space, the following paragraphs will mainly focus on Africa.

One of the most important – and by now quite well documented – developments has been the challenge to the post-World War II international or ‘liberal’ order posed by the so-called rising powers. Currently, China is seen as one of the key challengers of the principles of the liberal, multilateral order: the creation of so-called parallel institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the Chang Mai Initiative Multilateralization (CMIM) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is often seen as an attempt to provide alternative mechanisms for Western-dominated, multilateral organisations as the World Bank, IMF and NATO. Further, the Belt and Road Initiative is a Chinese attempt to forge stronger ties with countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, importantly through increased investment and the extension of loans. The rhetoric of South-South Cooperation is applied quite regularly to emphasise China’s solidarity with countries in the Global South, but many scholars have voiced criticism of China’s claim to position itself within the developing world.

Africa is an obvious target of the new geopolitics. A first sign of this is the increased diplomatic activity targeting the continent that has been visible in recent months. In December 2022, delegations from 49 African countries and the African Union were hosted by President Biden at the US-Africa Leaders Summit, at the occasion of which US Secretary of State Blinken emphasised that ‘Africa is a major geopolitical force’. In the first two months of 2023, representatives of most major powers toured the continent, with the foreign ministers of China, Russia, Germany and France, the US treasury secretary and the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy visiting fourteen African countries.

Will Africa benefit from the increased attention?

While former colonial powers such as France and Britain remain involved in Africa for economic and security considerations and the EU recently concluded, together with the African Union, a Joint Vision for 2030 as part of the Africa-EU Partnership, some of the rising powers have also made deliberate attempts to strengthen their foothold in the continent. With the vast majority of countries in Africa having signed a memorandum of understanding with China on the Belt and Road Initiative, China has expanded its investment in infrastructure across the continent. The Kampala-Entebbe and Nairobi Expressways, together with the Mombasa-Nairobi Standard Gauge Railway, are the most visible signs of Chinese investment in Africa. Critical voices have meanwhile criticised the Chinese presence in Africa because it has led to a new form of dependency by luring countries into a ‘debt trap’. Through the activities of the notorious Wagner Group, Russia has also been active militarily in the Central African Republic, Mali, Libya, Sudan, Mozambique and Madagascar, where they supported the incumbent regime or particular groups in exchange for mining concessions. India, as one of the champions of the Non-aligned Movement, is picturing itself as an alternative to Western and Chinese involvement and has supported, for instance, Africa’s call for a permanent seat on the UN’s Security Council, which is also referred to as the Ezulwini consensus.

External involvement in Africa is undoubtedly important, but developments in the continent also have important geopolitical dimensions. A recent report of the European Union Institute for Security Studies discusses the ‘new geopolitical frontlines’ in terms of four geographical spaces (sands, oceans, cities and peripheries) and four functional domains (trade, digital, jobs and information). It is obvious that Africa currently faces a broad array of geopolitical opportunities and challenges. Driven by Africa’s economic dynamism, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is an obvious opportunity to redraw the (regional) economic boundaries that are dividing the continent. The agreement could be a motor for economic development, by creating a larger intra-African market, and could reduce economic dependence on other parts of the world. The AfCFTA not only aims to liberalise continent-wide trade, but is also intent on establishing the free movement of persons, capital and services.

The various geopolitical spaces contain noticeable centripetal forces that may have a positive influence in the African geopolitical landscape, while certain centrifugal developments could lead to more adverse outcomes. The Sahara is both the area that connects the countries of North and sub-Saharan Africa, and a fertile ground for criminal activity, including human and drug trafficking, and the rise of transnational terrorist networks. Likewise, the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Guinea are areas of trade and military activity while they also attract groups involved in piracy and armed robbery. African cities are the hotbed of growing middle classes and economic dynamism, but they also contain the potential for political mobilisation and resistance to the dominance of political and economic elites. Finally, peripheral areas, which are distant from the political centre of the state, are vulnerable to the rise of extremist, jihadist groups.

The upcoming panel at the EADI CEsA 2023 General Conference will be a place to assess and discuss the extent to which geopolitics has returned in the Global South and what are the implications of this return. Important questions are: does heightened geopolitical struggle offer opportunities for the countries in the Global South to maintain or strengthen their political and/or economic position, are there any obvious allies for addressing geopolitical challenges, how do the countries in the Global South define their own geopolitical position, and is regional cooperation a viable instrument to counter geopolitical fallout?

This blog was first published in EADI blog.

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the author:

Wil Hout is Professor of Governance and International Political Economy at the International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

 

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

I know what you did last summer: are destination conferences a problem?

By Posted on 3192 views

Year in and year out, academics send themselves halfway across the world to attend conferences. In an age in which flying for leisure is fast becoming a taboo, are such conferences in which academics and their universities pay large sums of money to converge for brief moments to present their research and to network also becoming impermissible? And are they even more concerning when they take place in ‘exotic’ places at convenient moments – are destination conferences a thing, and are they a problem?

Most of us have been invited to a destination wedding – one where you travel to an unusual location where your friends/colleagues/family members choose to get married. At a safari lodge, in a forest, on an island, on a holiday farm, in the snow, or even in a different country – Thailand, Scotland, Finland, the Maldives. Anywhere that seems romantic, really.

If you’re anything like me, such invitations make you grind your teeth: you would love to go, because the locations are often idyllic and a wedding will make them even more so, but the costs of attending a wedding half the world away are astronomical. It’s not just about a plane ticket and the accommodation: meals, excursions, wedding gifts, and outfits add up to make it an expensive few hours of celebrating someone’s matrimony. And then there’s the emissions – in an age where flying is the new smoking, we’re thinking twice before hopping on a plane to visit a friend, watch a concert, or explore a new city.

Over the years, I’ve missed quite a few weddings in the country in which I was born and raised because I simply couldn’t justify flying there just for that. These weren’t even destination weddings to the couples who organised them, but to me, living at least twelve hours away by plane, they were. Those weddings that I did manage to attend took place when I was home visiting my family – over the Christmas period mostly. But I don’t fly somewhere just to attend a wedding. No matter how close I am to the couple to be wed.

This brings me to the idea of a destination conference and whether this is a thing. Are academic conferences organised in far-away places to lure academics into attending? And should we be saying no to this form of external validation?

Two things made me ponder this. First, I recall a conversation I had with a colleague some years back. We were discussing the conferences that we’d like to attend that year. Our university makes available money so that we (PhD researchers) can travel to and present our research at one or two conferences per year. My colleague suggested attending a conference in Hawaii. I was enthusiastic, of course, because who doesn’t want the chance to explore a major travel destination, mixing business with pleasure? When I asked him what the conference was on, he told me, and I realised that I in no way could attend. My research was in a totally different field and I could not adjust my proposal to fit the conference theme.

That got me thinking about why we as academics attend academic conferences and which of them are actually directly relevant to our research. If we present our work at these conferences, is it because it is good practice for becoming future academics? Are we presenting our research in area-specific sessions attended by peers that we respect and possibly want to collaborate with? Or are we presenting something vague in panels with general titles without the aim of actually using the conference to put forth new ideas and start with ground-breaking interdisciplinary work?

The second occurrence is more recent. I recently decided not to attend a large biennial conference set to take place in Portugal during this year’s summer holidays in person, even though I am co-convening a panel with a senior researcher. Fortunately, the conference is hybrid, which gives participants the option of attending online. Before the covid pandemic, this was not even an option, so we have come a long way. Meeting online is now just as acceptable, although not quite as desirable, as meeting in person. But hundreds, if not thousands, of conference participants will flock to the southern European country in July for the conference, which takes place over the course of a few days.

The decision not to attend the conference is based on the unwillingness both to fly within Europe, for whatever reason, and to attend a conference in an ‘exotic’ location just for the sake of doing so. I’d already sworn off flying within Europe for leisure – my partner and I had driven 2,000 kilometres over two days during the December holidays to visit his parents in Italy and had returned in the same way – and now I was doing the same for work. I’d always disliked conferences because of the massive expenses that have to be incurred to deliver half-hour presentations (registration fees, accommodation, travelling) and the purpose, which I sometimes feel is seldom more than ‘showing face’ and trying to remain relevant in a certain academic field.

Nevertheless, you’d think that I’d be attending a conference where I was co-convening a panel. My hesitance to do so, even with funding available to send me there, is interesting to me. It makes me wonder whether my aversion for academic conferences in general has turned into an aversion for ‘destination conferences’. Would I be just as hesitant if the conference were to take place in Portugal in the middle of the winter, or if it were to take place in a cold and dreary country, for example Ireland or Germany?

And is there anything wrong with academics going places for conferences? Is it still an unfortunate necessity if you as academic want to make your voice heard or make it in this cut-throat academic world?

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the author:

Lize Swartz is a PhD researcher studying how changes in urban water availability affect human-water relations. She has co-authored a book called Bron on how residents of Cape Town navigated the near-collapse of the city’s water system. She has been editor of Bliss since 2017.

 

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.