Cultural Measurement in International Development: The Need for Capacity Building in Cultural Statistics

2015 ◽  
pp. 109-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Pessoa
2014 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Moore

Abstract This autoethnographic narrative explores the author’s capacity building experiences, observances, insights, and reflections over a two year period working with a youth livelihoods nongovernmental organization in the South Pacific nation of Vanuatu. Autoethnographies explore the author’s own personal insight and reflection of their own experiences, which in turn may encourage readers to reflect on their own beliefs and practices. The author will define autoethnography and capacity building, briefly outline the historical context of Vanuatu, discuss the successes and challenges of facilitating capacity building, and reflect on her own values, assumptions, and learning within the social context of an international development professional working with local staff in Vanuatu.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
Hanne Kirstine Adriansen ◽  
Lene Møller Madsen

Internationalisation of higher education in the global South manifests in different ways through different modalities. Using a multi-disciplinary mobility-lens, this paper discusses outcomes of geographical mobility practiced by African scholars going to universities in the global North as part of research capacity-building programmes. Over the past 30 years, Danida (Danish International Development Assistance) has provided financial assistance – including research visits at Danish universities – to academics in the global South, who would work with problems in their home countries. This type of internationalisation through research capacity building is used in many European countries and is interesting because it facilitates geographical mobility across the North-South socio-economic divide. Based on a survey sent to 499 current and former African scholars as well as 15 qualitative interviews, the aim of this paper is to analyse the reflections from African academics being involved in this type of internationalisation practice. Thereby we give voice to scholars from the global South who are the practitioners of South-North mobility. More specifically, we analyse the role of different locations for becoming an academic and for their knowledge production. Thus, the paper critically examines the impact made by ‘internationalisation as mobility’ on the personal and professional development of African academics. Key words: Internationalisation, Academic mobility, Knowledge production, Africa, Capacity building How to cite this article: Adriansen, H.K. & Madsen, L.M. 2021. Internationalisation through South-North mobility: Experiences and outcomes of research capacity-building programmes for African scholars in Denmark. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in the South. 5(1): 46-65. DOI: 10.36615/sotls.v5i1.166. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/  


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy McDonough ◽  
Daniela C. Rodríguez

Abstract Background Global health donors are increasingly transitioning funding responsibility to host governments as aid budgets plateau or decline and countries meet development and disease burden goals. Civil society organizations (CSOs) can play a critical role as accountability mechanisms over their governments, but transitions raise questions about how donor-supported CSOs will fare following transition, especially in environments of limited political commitment. Decreases in funding may force CSOs to scale back activities, seek other funding, or rely on their governments for funding. Vulnerable populations most in need of support may lose critical advocates, compromising their access to lifesaving care and threatening the reversal of global health achievements. This review investigates donor strategies used in the past to support CSOs as accountability advocates across the international development sector by exploring what activities are supported, how support is provided and who receives support. It provides considerations for global health donors to better equip civil society as advocates during and following transition. Methods A literature review of four databases of peer-reviewed literature, websites focused on civil society support and snowball searching identified 180 documents for review, after application of exclusion criteria, covering up to December 2019. Results were categorized and analyzed by who, what and how donors have supported civil society’s accountability role. Results Donors support a variety of civil society actors, including individual organizations and networks, through capacity building, access to information, backing participation in policy dialogues, securing citizen engagement and targeting the broader policy context. Funding may be provided directly or through pooled, intermediary or bridge mechanisms. Key concerns identified include insufficient engagement of CSOs in defining support, limited donor flexibility, tensions in balancing organizational professionalization with community connections, and jeopardized CSO legitimacy and independence from relying on foreign funds. Conclusions Given the urgency of global health donor transitions, the literature demonstrates that any donor support to CSO advocates should emphasize transition preparations from the start. Capacity building, institutionalizing mechanisms for civil society participation, planning for information needs, and flexible funding are priority mechanisms to ensure that vulnerable populations continue accessing lifesaving care and global health progress is not reversed.


2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 155
Author(s):  
David Lempert

The article offers an easy-to-use indicator for scholars and practitioners to measure whether NGOs, international organizations, and government policies and projects meet the criteria for design and implementation of “capacity building” projects that have been established by various international organizations and that are recognized by experts in the field. The indicator can be used directly to address failures that are routinely reported in this key and growing development intervention. Use of this indicator on more than a dozen standard interventions funded today by international development banks, UN organizations, country donors, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) reveals that while many smaller organizations are working to change institutions and society in ways that effectively build long-term capacity, most of the major actors in the field of development have failed to follow their own guidelines. Many appear to be using “capacity building” as a cover for lobbying foreign governments to promote international agendas (“purchasing foreign officials”) and/or to increase the power of particular officials at the expense of democracy, with the public lacking simple accountability tools. The indicator points to specific areas for holding development actors accountable in order to promote development goals of sustainability and good governance. The breadth of the field of “capacity building” also allows this indicator to be used, with some modifications, for a large variety of development interventions. This article also offers several examples of where current capacity building projects fail, along with a sample test of the indicator using UNCDF as a case study.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document