Development education (DE) has become an increasingly central element in formal and informal education in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland. In this article, Michael Mahadeo will explore the effectiveness of DE in the formal and informal education sectors as a means of raising public awareness about the interconnectivity of local and global communities. In formal education, it is integral to the delivery of citizenship education in the school curricula and an established option in university degree programmes and pathways. With informal education, for example, it is sometimes used in the curricula for community development activist training and political awareness, with the aim of enriching understanding of local and global issues, and how community practitioners can connect with these issues. In particular, the article will compare development education at the formal university level with development education in informal community education settings, and assess the strengths and weaknesses of both in increasing public awareness of global issues. The article will begin with some definitions of development education and provide an overview of its evolution from the margins to the mainstream of education practice. It will go on to provide a critical assessment of DE in the formal and informal sectors through case studies and make some suggestions for improvement in delivery.

Development education: A definition

Firstly, it is useful to provide a working definition of development education.. The concept is by now fairly well understood as a theoretical proposition and form of practice. However, there are always variations and debate regarding meaning and application to changing circumstances which can limit definitional usefulness. Indeed, Bourne has pointed out that the concept of development education has been ‘defined as one of a number of the adjectival educations [including] environmental education, peace education, human rights education [and] multicultural education’ (Bourne, 2003:3).

            Nonetheless, a definition can provide a context in which we can focus on and analyse the issues at hand. The article, therefore, uses a definition of development education as ‘the consciousness-raising process through which people become involved in the creation of that type of society which fosters autonomy, solidarity, and popular participation in change’ (Pradervand, 1982:454). This definition is characteristic of many development studies, which involve:

“[A]ttempts to understand on the one hand, how and why nation states and their subordinate social organisms attempt, succeed or fail, in increasing the wealth, improving the well – being, and widening the rights and opportunities available to their members…” (Oxenham, 1980:29).

            Again, Bourne states that development education, regardless of its learning contexts and evolving agenda, is:

“[M]ore than one of a series of social and political educations, but a distinct approach towards learning which directly relates to educational and social change. One possible way of seeing development education is as being rooted in development and education for social change, putting human development at its heart” (Bourne, 2003:5).

Therefore, education involving development and global issues must incorporate an ethos to promote change if it is to go beyond simply understanding. It should ‘enable the learner to critically assess in their own way and on their own terms the subject under discussion’ (Bourne, 2003:5). Development education thus aims to put into effect solidarity, critical analysis, societal transformation and the encouragement of active citizenship (Bourne, 2003; Khoo, 2006). Accordingly, it is a means for analytical and reflective citizens to act in solidarity with human struggles for justice everywhere.

            In the above context, Leadbetter points to ‘a need, particularly in education, to respond to the challenges of globalisation, to engage and shape it for the benefit of all’ (Leadbetter, 2002; cited in Bourne, 2003:6). Bourne adds that innovation and imagination is part of development education in this era of globalisation to help create a better world (Bourne, 2003). Thus development education aims to support learning about global issues through an active learning, participative methodology and ultimately seeks to encourage action towards positive social change. The next section provides a brief history of development education.

Development education: A historical sketch

The concept and practice of development education can be traced to the post-war era and the period of decolonisation. In the three decades from the end of the Second World War to the 1970s, there emerged a group of states and societies termed the ‘third world’ or the states of the ‘global South’. These states originally formed part of the trans-oceanic empires of the Western European powers, only entering the global stage as formally independent societies within the last few decades. Almost immediately, the view that these new societies had to be ‘developed’ along the same path of development followed by the Western industrial states was adopted by Western governments and their academic policy supporters (Allen & Thomas, 2000). The resulting attempt to ‘understand’ the ‘underdeveloped’, with the aim of redressing their status, can be viewed as the beginnings of development education, albeit with significantly different understandings of the relationship between the global North and South seen in today’s DE practice. 

            According to Pradervand, there were three phases of the evolution of development education. The earliest phase covered the period of the late 1950s and early 1960s and was charity–oriented and paternalistic. The ideas expressed in the curricula of the time were calculated to induce a sympathetic response with a view to increasing public spending for various international causes (Pradervand, 1982:451). In this initial phase, the template of Western development was unchallenged largely as the model to follow in the developing world. ‘Underdevelopment’ was the ‘misfortune’ of the peoples of the global South and they needed to ‘modernise’. With aid in the form of financial and technical help, poor countries could be placed on the path to ‘development and progress’ mirroring that in the more prosperous global North.

            The next phase promoted a more mature attitude to global issues and underdevelopment:

“With the influence of non-governmental organisation (NGO) activism at home and abroad and the energy crises brought on by the increases in the oil price in the 1970s people were beginning to question their own societies and make the links to the structural causes of underdevelopment” (Pradervand, 1982:451). 

This was a period of the ‘awakening of social criticism’ (Pradervand, 1982:451), as public consciousness of development issues and the causes of global poverty and inequality began to grow in the global North. 

            This shift in thinking enabled educators to analyse issues in a cultural environment more conducive to a critical view of the global order. The enriched discourses around race, class, decolonisation and the emerging environmentalist movement made for a more proactive focus on international development within schools’ curricula. Increased public understanding, moreover, served as a catalyst for the next qualitative change in development education. It ‘forced development educators to broaden their critique to more and more aspects of our own societies’ (Hirsch, 1976; quoted in Pradervand, 1982:451). Pradervand goes on to point out that, by the 1980s, links between global issues such as waste build-up, the arms race, refugees, environmental degradation and unequal development, began to be formed. This process was reflected in the focus of development education, which became ‘broader every day, to the extent one might describe it with the old Latin saying, “nihil humanum mihi alienum est”, “nothing pertaining to the human condition is alien to me”’ (Pradervand, 1982). The concept of development became then more holistic, applying to both the global North and South with an increased awareness of the commonality of the human condition within the global system. 

            Today, development education policy is established at national levels in both the UK and Ireland, supported by government departments devoted to educational initiatives in the formal and informal education sectors. Moreover, the non-governmental sector, experienced in delivering DE to a variety of target audiences, has over the years brought ideas of humane holistic development to the public in the UK and Ireland (Pradervand, 1982; Jolly & Luckham, 2006). As a result of the above, public awareness of development issues has grown steadily over the years in all regions of the UK. More specifically, McCloskey points to the uneven but steady rise in development education activity in the north of Ireland: 

“In its formative stages, development education activity was marginal to government policy-making, poorly funded and lacked strategic direction which limited its impact on civil society. However today we can detect broad public understanding of the importance of development issues and a greater willingness to become actively engaged with global agendas” (McCloskey, 2005:7). 

Citing as examples anti-war demonstrations in 2003 and the Make Poverty History campaign in 2005 , McCloskey reminds us that ‘the importance of these public manifestations of solidarity with developing countries should not be underestimated in a society where conflict denied opportunities for engagement with the wider world and created inward – looking perspectives’ (2005: 7). This solidarity does not necessarily imply a great understanding of developmental and global issues, but does indicate a basis for raising public awareness around interconnections with the wider world and mutual interdependence. This public attitude reflects real progress by the Irish and British governments as well as NGO practitioners in engendering public support for development. The next section examines development education practice in the tertiary sector.

Development education at university level

It is useful to analyse global and development educational practice in contrasting educational contexts in order to ascertain whether different institutional settings increase public awareness to the standards of the definition as outlined above. The two environments examined in this article are the formal tertiary education sector and the informal community education sector. At university level, development education is mostly delivered to undergraduate students in final year modules. In first and second year courses, global developmental issues tend to be incorporated into other modules. Modules dedicated to development topics are usually in the final year programmes. These modules have proven to be popular with and challenging to students, with dedicated social science courses on development issues being offered for over a decade in Northern Ireland. 

            Students show a reasonable awareness of the importance of the modules on global/developmental issues and many have completed courses focusing on globalisation or environmental issues as part of undergraduate degrees in subjects like geography, sociology and politics. The students taking these modules are usually equipped thereby with an above average overview of development topics and global interdependence and can often recognise how development issues are connected to a range of subject areas.

            Student awareness of development issues tends to reflect the increasing level of public concern with global poverty and the mindset of ‘what can be done’ to support developing countries. Most participants believe that the UK and Ireland can and should do more to help the poor and marginalised. As German states, ‘there is no evidence that the humanitarian instincts of the public have weakened’ (German, 1997:15). Lader (2007) finds a similar pattern of consistent public concern in a recent survey of public attitudes to development. The survey was carried out in 2006 for the UK’s Department for International Development (DfID).