Shortly before the 3rd EDULINK Stakeholders Conference on 01 – 02 October in Lisbon, the ACP Secretariat asked all the projects to submit a short paper, explaining how the project addresses and/or contributes to poverty alleviation in ACP countries and regions.
To date, 23 projects out of 66 have responded to the request, i.e. slightly more than ⅓. Non-respondents are reminded that their answer is still expected.
From the analysis of these 23 papers, a pattern emerges that can confidently be expected to be confirmed as more replies are received. Essentially, it is characterised by 2 aspects:
- The body of practically of all papers consists of a description of the projects’ activities - implemented or planned to be implemented – with an explanation of the chosen methodology and the expected results;
- All papers explain (in more or less clear terms) that the contribution of the projects (and of the HEIs implementing them) to poverty alleviation, while demonstrable, is by nature an indirect one. Thus, the projects, by creating/improving curricula that incorporate/mainstream development issues, will produce more and better qualified professionals, who will be agents of change and poverty alleviation. The impact will be more direct where the target groups of these curricula are professionals such as health workers (doctors, nurses, midwives …), agronomists, rural development workers, teacher trainers etc. The impact will be more indirect, where the target groups are demographers, social scientists, environmentalists, geographers etc., who will, through the training received with the support of the EDULINK Programme, be in a position to provide public and private sector entities with the set of data & skills that will facilitate informed decision making for targeted interventions aimed at poverty alleviation.
Conclusion
If we follow the explanation of the projects regarding their contribution to poverty alleviation, verification of whether there is an impact will have to be done at a later stage and through application of the Logical Framework matrix:In other words, if the projects show that they have achieved their specific objective(s), as evidenced through the Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs) and the Sources of Verification, then we would assume that there is an impact on the overall objective level – which is poverty alleviation.
PS: the writen contributions on this subject received from the projects will be published in this web site next to the respective project description.
Comments
Yes, I agree that with curriculum development kinds of initiatives, the results will be more indirect - yet still very necessary in creating the infrastructure that will support the kind of poverty alleviation that mere aid efforts, which often create short-term results, but long-term dependency if they do not transition into something else.
At the same time, I keep thinking there can also be direct results, if we choose to think of HEIs a little differently.
For instance, curriculum, course-work, and university education can lead to tangible businesses - several of my students have left courses with me and then started an actual business.
They can also lead to a direct connection with the poorest of the poor, instead of only serving the elite of the society who can afford higher education -- this connection in past courses I have offered has been enhanced through ICT, and certain strategies for opening conversations.
Another way is if students get in direct contact with policy makers, and have some say in what comes from government, etc.
I'm sure there are many ways there can be a direct impact on poverty - especially if we start to think about universities and university education a little differently.
So hopefully the conversation doesn't just end at concluding that the impact can only be indirect, although those types of impact are also very valuable.
RSS feed for comments to this post.