In this article, Caroline Murphy presents some of the findings from a research project commissioned by the Africa Centre, Dublin in 2010. In commissioning the research, the Africa Centre sought to explore an African perspective within development education (DE) with the aim of promoting a more fair and balanced representation of Africa in DE discourse. The research explored how development educators on the island of Ireland define and incorporate an African perspective within their work. It found that participants feel constrained by funding bodies, development non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the media and the formal education sector which limit the capacity for an overtly political and ‘radical development education’. The research therefore has significant implications regarding the extent to which an African perspective is embedded within DE practice in Ireland.

Introduction

‘Freirean liberation theory underpins Development Education, promoting problem-based learning, dialogue and participation within a co-operative learning environment’ (Hogan & Tormey, 2008, quoted in Chaib, 2010: 42). ‘Central to the philosophy of Development Education is a student centred pedagogy, which places the student at the heart of the educational experience and ultimately DE should be about teaching differently rather than teaching more’ (Haran & Tormey, 2002, quoted in McCormack and O’Flaherty, 2010: 1333). DE shares Freire’s anti-didactic approach to education that enables learners to take an active role against oppression in order to bring about socio-political transformation. DE, then, located within this framework, might be considered an overtly political and radical movement that works to expose systems of oppression.

This paper highlights some of the findings that emerged in relation to the extent that DE can bring about political and radical change, and expose systems of oppression due to factors that include; the formal education system, funding bodies, development NGOs, and media and charitable representations of the poor. It is based on research carried out by the author on behalf of the Africa Centre in Dublin and presents a summary of the findings.

Defining ‘Oppression’

Garvin (1987) defines oppression as ‘the destructive effects of social institutions on people, when such institutions damage their identities, denigrate their lifestyles, and deny them access to opportunities’ (quoted in Proctor et al, 2008: 44). Such a definition suggests extreme authoritarian institutional and social control over agency. Indeed, such control was evident during colonial exploitation, and is arguably continuing today through ‘globalisation (the integration, to varying degrees, of all countries into a single world system) which shows remarkable continuity with colonialism...the attempt of the great powers to take over the wealth and raw materials of the world’ (Seabrook, 2009: 63), or, as Asante puts it, ‘the globalizing ethos of White corporate capital that leads ultimately, it seems to me, to another form of enslavement and domination’ (Asante, 2006: 654).

 However, in relation to conducting research in Ireland, it cannot be said that there exists such a level of oppression over the people with whom development educators work, for instance, teachers, students, youth groups etc. It might be argued, though, that there exists a level of, what Harvey (1999) terms civilised oppression, which is oppression ‘embedded in unquestioned norms, habits and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutions and rules, and the collective consequences of following those rules’ (quoted in Deutsch, 2006: 10). From a postcolonial perspective, it could even be argued that civilised oppression, here in the global North, is linked to the reproduction of more extreme oppression in the global South. ‘Broadly speaking, postcolonialism is a theoretical framework which makes visible the history and legacy of European colonialism, including the ways in which the wealth of the global North has been acquired and maintained through a history of exploitation, and examines how it continues to shape contemporary discourses and institutions (Rizvi, Lingard & Lavia, 2006, quoted in Bryan, 2008: 16). It critically addresses the ongoing effects of colonial past which may be evident in systems of neo-colonialism that continue to prevail.  

 In short, from a postcolonial perspective, the term civilised oppression refers to everyday norms, habits and symbols, systems and practices which may act as a prerequisite to maintain the more extreme oppression of the developing world. For example, media representations of the poor, NGO charity campaigns, formal education and funding bodies may fail to foster a critical perspective on the structural causes of poverty (see Murphy, 2011), but rather view the developing world in terms of charity, which is negatively related to concern for the developing world constructed around serving out help, in pursuit of self-interest’ (see Heerde and Hudson, 2010: 397). Thus, by ignoring the structural causes of poverty, a genuine sense of shared community and solidarity between the global North and South is ‘unlikely to evolve’ (see Gil 1998; Gorski 2007; Kivel 2000), and postcolonial oppression and notions of white supremacy are likely to prevail. 

Research Design and Procedure

The research study for the Africa Centre was small in scale and exploratory in nature, a qualitative approach was therefore considered appropriate. The research design consisted of small group interview discussions based on Kreuger’s (1998) focus group format although the research discussion groups were much smaller in size. In total a series of five tape-recorded discussions were conducted ranging from two to four participants per group. Having small group numbers was considered to be important to encourage participants to fully engage in the discussion. Each interview group was given a separate overall pseudonym including Coffee, Tea, Sugar, Cocoa and Banana. Participants in each respective group were also given a specific pseudonym, for example, Coffee 2 or Sugar 1. 

 Participants were recruited from both the north and south of Ireland to ensure a range of perspectives on development education practice on the island. However, this research was not intended as a comparative study. In Northern Ireland, participants were recruited from the Centre for Global Education (CGE) who provided a list of 22 development educators who are members of the Coalition of Aid and Development Agencies (CADA) Global Education sub group. In southern Ireland, the Africa Centre provided a list of 17 development educators who work for various development NGOs and ethnic led minority organisations. Emails were sent to all potential participants, providing a synopsis of the research with an information sheet and consent form. Seven participants responded from Northern Ireland and eight from southern Ireland.

 In total, the study comprised of fifteen participants, five of whom were male and ten female. Four of these participants were based in ethnic minority led organizations with the remaining participants based in various NGOs. Given the small number of participants, the researcher does not claim that the findings can be considered representative of the overall population of development educators based in Ireland. It was nevertheless an adequate sample to facilitate discussion on a full range of factors that were addressed in the research report. 

 In approaching the interview data, the researcher employed qualitative content analysis, or what David Altheide (1987) terms ethnographic content analysis (ECA). ECA uses pre-defined categories in order to identify themes within the data. All of the categories were constantly revised and reduced (see Murphy, 2011) and finally collapsed into three major themes. The themes addressed in this paper are ‘Safe Development Education’ and ‘Radical Development Education’.

Findings

Safe Development Education

One system of, perhaps, civilised oppression that development educators aim to expose is the stereotypical emotional imaging and messaging that the media sometimes use to represent the developing world. Furthermore, many development educators are based in development organisations that are fundamentally concerned with tapping into the media branding of the developing world to encourage the general public to offer financial support for their various projects based in the global South. As Tea 3 explains:

“I think with the charity model, I think it has an emotional factor, and it is also simple and it is uncomplicated. Then some development organisations pedal that philosophy very strongly, and it does reinforce stereotypes, and then when you begin to raise uncomfortable questions that we (global north) are part of the problem, that, um, is a more difficult message to get across.”

 It was found that participants are challenged by the charity model of development that underpins their respective NGOs operations, and ‘the hardest thing is to challenge the NGO you’re working in’ (Banana 2). As Cocoa 1 stated:

“Sometimes before you even get to the general public, it is difficult within the NGO organisation which I think is set up in such a way that it is more beneficial to keep that perception [charity perception] because the NGO is linked heavily to fundraising, and in order to raise more money you need to have that sympathy or charity model. I think even before you get to the public there is a lot of challenges in terms of challenging it within the NGO...I do think people [within a development NGO] would prefer you [Development Educators] to go down the charity route looking at poverty as the focus, and that would be the easier thing to do and we would have more support from other departments [within the NGO].”

Banana 1 claimed:

“If you challenge your NGO, it’s like we need the money. How dare you challenge the money we need that going to help these children? I mean, you can’t go back at that.”

Overall, participants reported that development NGOs ‘view their Development Education as a lot lower down in their priorities and not their direct work’ (Banana 2), and view the fundraising and charitable aspects of the organisation with greater value. Furthermore, participants reported that their respective NGOs view DE as an awareness raising activity that should focus on educating the public about their international projects. As Banana 2 put it, ‘I don’t think half of them (other NGO departments) even know what it (DE) is...they think it is just about raising awareness’.   In this respect, the researcher recommends that research is conducted with NGO fundraising departments and board members to investigate if their knowledge of DE is solely limited to a charity model of development as indicated by the participants of this study. This would provide greater clarity on the challenges of conducting DE whilst affiliated with a development NGO, as well as providing first hand evidence as to how other NGO departments view and value DE.

 With regards to funding, and particularly government funding, participants reported that: ‘there is a pressure to do safe Development Education that I would consider to be more about fundraising or multicultural or whatever’ (Tea 2). Participants referred to the fact that ‘there is a very deliberate attempt by funders to censor your action, especially if it was to highlight issues that would be embarrassing for the government here’ (Tea 3). ‘Funders curtail Development Education, on the whole area of the action element’, states Tea 4, ‘yes so it is all right for people to go and buy fair trade but not to lobby the government’. For the participants, this brings many challenges, and limits their capacity to be overtly political and radical in their practice since they are affiliated with funders who might have a self-interest in the reproduction of white cultural supremacy, or as Seabrook might argue, when DE funding is reliant on ‘the agencies which have impoverished them (the global South) the consequences are predictable’ (Seabrook, 2009: 80-81). Its consequences, perhaps, are to relegate DE to terms and action that promotes aid, Fairtrade and the MDGs, and to wrench, from development educators, the possibility of being overtly political and radical through ‘a critical analysis of government policy’ (Tea 2), and subsequent radical action. Thus, from a postcolonial perspective, it could be said that such funding terms serve the interests of the rich, and perhaps merely pays lip service to global justice, and subsequently ‘decreases capacity to engage in dialogue with the developing world to create a genuine sense of shared solidarity with the global South (see Blaney, 2002: 268), or, in relation to this research, decrease capacity of embedding an African perspective in development education through civilised oppression (see Murphy, 2011).