Mission

From Starbucks to baristas at McDonalds and the emergence of the fair trade label, I wonder how many people ever contemplate the journey of the coffee in their cup. Through a deeper study of higher education in developing countries, I found a unique partnership between Michigan State University, Texas A&M, the University of Rwanda, and USAID. The Partnership for Enhancing Agriculture in Rwanda through Linkages (PEARL) assisted the nation of Rwanda in its efforts to rebuild from the aftermath of the war and genocide of 1994. PEARL works with rural communities across Rwanda to generate income through agricultural product development and market linkages. The project trained 17 faculty members from Rwanda at MSU and Texas A&M, assisted in curriculum development at the University of Rwanda, established an outreach center where coffee farmers in Rwanda can glean knowledge created in the university setting, and implemented washing station and cupping technology for coffee co-operatives.

While visiting MSU, I visited a CEO of a coffee company who was one of the first buyers. He showed me the whole coffee production process and spoke about his reasoning for buying coffee from Rwanda. You can buy specialty Rwandan coffee at Whole Foods or on the Paramount website.

In speaking with both students from Rwanda and program administrators, it seems clear that one of the most successful components of the project stems from the diffusion of the mission of a land grant college. From its inception, MSU was designed to be of service to its surrounding community and to transfer knowledge from the laboratory to the farmland. This land grant mission is now taking on a global flavor. The model seems to be an appropriate way for universities in developing countries to facilitate education in a way that links university knowledge, human capacity building, and technology transfer to communities in a way that reduces poverty. The participants in the co-operatives assisted by PEARL and all of its participants provide a model representation of how we can move away from the ivory tower university and move toward a more globally responsive land grant mission.

Labels: coffee, development, Rwanda, universities

The university is often seen as a key player in the knowledge economy, especially when it comes to science research. Scientific research in the university setting can be a powerful force for a nation-state, especially when connected to promoting social and economic well being. However, as with many aspects of globalization, there is often a degree of stratification and inequality. WORLDMAPPER is an initiative at the University of Sheffield directed by Dr. David Dorling. The project created the map above, which shows the proportion of all scientific papers published in 2001 written by authors living in that geographic region. It demonstrates the greater amount of scientific research (measured by published results) in richer territories. The United States and Europe (and the northern hemisphere in general) are shown to have a substantially greater number of publications than regions like South American and Africa.

The UNESCO Science Report in 2005 showed that the world devoted 1.7% of the GDP to research and development. The same report showed that while 70.6% of the World's population lives in developing countries, only 22.2% of the gross expenditure on research and development is spent in those regions. Knowledge, education, science, technology, and innovation are drivers of progress, and there is a greater need for higher education to facilitate the relationship between these components in a way that benefits society. The role of the university can be crucial to promote the advancement of the society through scientific and technological means. Dr. Dorling noted on the WORLDMAPPER website that "Scientific research is as much the product of the society that enables it, as of the individuals who author it."

The UCLA Academic Senate provided a grant to study the impact of the World Bank on higher education in developing countries. Two countries were chosen as case studies: Thailand and Uganda. Each country has a unique history, culture, and approach to education. Thailand was the first country I visited. While there, I was able to interview staff members from the World Bank, officials from the Thai Ministry of Education, and professors in science and engineering programs who have benefited from the World Bank loan to Thailand. These loans were provided to enhance science and technology programs at various institutions of higher education. The money from the loan provided equipment for teaching and research for twenty of the best public universities in Thailand. The photo on the right is from a lab that benefited from the Bank loan to Thailand.

Uganda was the second country I visited. A loan from the World Bank was recently procured for the advancement of science and technology. Given their history of borrowing, as well as the trials and tribulations of Western colonialism, perceptions of development by Ugandan officials and the World Bank was quite different from views represented in Thailand. In both countries, I took photos of the universities I visited as well as labs for science and technology. One professor in Uganda suggested that I visit a village while in the country so that I could have a glimpse into the difficult educational path from village life to a university. The photo on the left is a picture of a school in a village a couple of hours away from Kampala.

Both countries face several challenges to developing their higher education sectors. Funding, access, and development are all key areas that need support. While the Bank has had a varied history of supporting this sector, a larger commitment has been made to developing science and technology in the university setting. This area of research shows promising results for incubating indigenous research that will serve local and global needs.

Over the last couple of months the World Bank has been under turmoil concerning the actions of now former president, Paul Wolfowitz. Full documentation of the events is available on their website, www.worldbank.org. The documents explain that Wolfowitz engaged in making salary arrangements in the Bank and outside the Bank for his companion, Shaha Ali Riza. Wolfowitz and the Bush Administration claimed that the accusations were more about his involvement with the Iraq war and his habitual inattention to consensus building. The irony of the favoritism accusation was the self proclaimed mission of the former president to combat corruption. The reality of the situation is that the ousting of Wolfowitz was likely a combination of his inability to be an effective leader and the incident of favoritism.

Currently the Bush administration has named Robert B. Zoellick as their candidate for the position. Zoellick has worked in top economic policy posts under three Republican presidents beginning with Ronald Regan. The top position at the Bank has always been an American, but this is by tradition, not the bylaws of the organization. European leaders threatened to disrupt this tradition if Wolfowitz did not step down. Zoellick has been described as one of the few in the inner circle of the Bush administration that will be acceptable to European leaders (NY Times, May 29, 2007).

The rift caused by Wolfowitz and the impending appointment of Zoellick highlight a larger tension at the World Bank. As a general rule the organization operates on the idea that economic development will decrease poverty in developing countries. As a result, the Bank pushes policies that favor privatization of utilities, construction, and education. The reality of the situation is that economic growth does not necessarily reduce poverty. Higher education is a small portion of Bank lending and is currently a GHERC research project. This summer an impact analysis is being conducted on Bank loans for higher education in Uganda and Thailand. Reactions to a new president (to be announced on June 30, 2007) are yet to be seen. Undoubtedly this position is an influential aspect of the ability of developing countries to participate in the knowledge economy, in which universities are key players.

Finding resources for research in the area of Globalization and Higher Education can be a difficult task. While there is a lot of information about higher education in other countries, this is usually referred to as international comparative work. While this research is useful, it is different from the objectives of GHERC (http://www.globalhighered.com/). GHERC is working to foster a critical perspective that seeks to redefine the university as an agent of social transformation committed to a democratically negotiated definition of the public good. The Center aims to contribute to this body of work, while also serving to promote research with similar objectives.

Some existing works that are available now include The University, State, and Market: The Political Economy of Globalization in the Americas, edited by Robert A. Rhoads and Carlos Alberto Torres. With contributions by Noam Chomsky and Sheila Slaughter, this compilation contains an important theoretical foundation that is necessary to approach this topic. This book can be purchased at http://www.amazon.com/ for less than $20.

Building Knowledge Cultures: Education and Development in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism, edited by Michael A. Peters with A.C. (Tina) Besley, is another book that will provide a strong introduction to the idea of the knowledge economy. It is an in-depth theoretical resource that elaborates upon the key constructs and concerns linked to the knowledge economy, development, and the role of education. These two resources will certainly enhance the ability of the field to pursue further knowledge about a rapidly changing world and economy that is shaped in many ways by higher education.

-Chris

Recently, I watched the movie, "The Departed." It was entertaining, farcical, dark, and offered an important aspect of social critique. I will do my best to convey the presented critique, without spoiling the movie. However, you should go see the film as soon as possible.

A tag line from the movie is "Cops or criminals. When you're facing a loaded gun what's the difference?" Scenes of brutal violence follow, but the film refrains from the gratuitous or senseless violence found in many films. They serve a purpose in identifying the outcome of corrupt and entangled alliances. When covert operations designed to serve a greater good interface with similar missions from different agencies, it becomes difficult to distinguish the good from the bad ones. I found myself wanting to know who is good and who is bad throughout the entire movie. Entangling alliances weaken good intentions. No character in the movie could be identified as wholly one or the other.

The social commentary falls upon a country which is self-identified as the good side - claiming to only use force and violence to "defend" justice. Just like the movie, the entangling alliances deconstructed that image. For example, the video footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein is the most concrete image I can recall (look up the documentary "Why We Fight" to see this footage and to find out more about the military industrial complex). All of those involved in such fatalistic associations end up, well, "departed."

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports each year on the billions of dollars that the Department of Defense in America contributes toward research and development through higher education (http://chronicle.com/weekly/almanac/2006/nation/0103305.htm). The large amounts of money and the type of research being conducted certainly implicate university research in the entangling alliances of violence and force. Keep checking the GHERC articles page for scholarly research on this topic.

-Chris