Higher education institutions are frequent casualties in violent conflicts. In Palestine, Ukraine and Sudan, to mention only a few recent examples, university campuses have been bombed. Academics, staff and students have been killed, injured or displaced. Teaching, learning and research have been undermined or come to a halt.
Higher education plays a critical role in knowledge production, research, education and skills development in any society. In conflict-affected countries, the sector is also expected to support broader societal recovery, development and peacebuilding in the post-conflict period.
In the aftermath of violent conflicts, higher education systems require support to recover and rebuild. But that has not been a priority for foreign donors and development organisations. Over the past decade, scholars and policy documents have highlighted that conflict settings have been neglected in providing foreign aid to higher education.
As researchers we’re involved in a project supported by the Education Above All Foundation from Qatar. The project studies educational systems, processes and initiatives in fragile and conflict settings around the globe. It aims to provide scientific evidence for improved decision-making by governments, educational institutions and organisations.
In a recent paper, published in the journal Globalisation, Societies and Education as part of a special issue on universities in times of conflict, we analyse aid flows to higher education in conflict-affected countries during the 2013-2022 period.
Our analysis shows that most aid to higher education never reaches countries and institutions in need, but is spent on international scholarships to study in donor countries. It’s also skewed towards certain recipient countries. These aid patterns don’t help countries and higher education institutions to rebuild after conflict.
The evidence of neglect
In our research, we relied on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) aid flows data. We explored where the aid to higher education went, and what types of aid were provided by donors. Our focus was on 23 countries that were either in the midst of violent conflict or in a fragile post-conflict phase during 2013-2022.
Our findings indicate that most donors prefer to give international scholarship aid. They neglect local higher education in conflict settings. Overall, scholarship aid made up more than 80% of aid to higher education provided to the countries in our sample. From 2013 to 2022, scholarship aid saw strong growth, while the aid to local systems and institutions stagnated.
The main problem with scholarship aid is that it does not reach recipient countries. It is spent in donor countries on individual recipients’ tuition, living expenses and other costs. This type of aid supports only a small number of recipients, and is often used by donors as a soft power tool.
Our research further highlights that a few countries have received most of the aid, while other countries with similar needs have been neglected. Despite what donors say about the importance of supporting the countries with greatest needs, our analysis shows that this does not happen with higher education in conflict settings. Many countries in need of assistance have been neglected by donors over the past decade.
Decisions about the recipients of either type of aid to higher education are often political. The provision of funding does not necessarily align with the recipients’ needs but largely follows donors’ strategic interests and priorities.
Rethinking higher education aid
Conflict analysis scholars Sansom Milton and Sultan Barakat wrote in 2016 that the neglect of higher education represents a “major missed opportunity to invest in critical national capacities that are capable of catalysing an effective reconstruction and recovery process” in the aftermath of violent conflict.
This neglect should not come as a surprise. In most developed countries, which are some of the top aid donors, higher education has been organised around neoliberal principles. This had led to underfunding and neglect of the sector by governments. Their provision of aid to higher education in conflict settings is based on the same principles, with the same results.
Our findings present a bleak picture of neglect of higher education in countries affected by violent conflict. The indications for the future are even bleaker due to ongoing aid cuts by many donor countries.
Importantly, our research also provides a starting point for critical engagement with donors and organisations working on education in conflict settings. More critical research, advocacy, activism, engagement and practical work is needed to challenge and reverse the neglect.
Rethinking and reforming foreign aid practices requires moving beyond donors’ strategic interests and dismantling the neoliberal agenda which has shaped much of the thinking about aid, higher education and development in general for decades. This, however, will be a challenge as the politicisation of foreign aid is unlikely to go away in the foreseeable future.
Still, changes are possible. For example:
Donors can redirect some scholarship funds to education systems, institutions and locally driven initiatives in conflict settings.
Donors can shift some international scholarship aid to domestic scholarships. This would make funding available for more students and would support local institutions.
Supporting and rebuilding higher education after violent conflict is crucial to enable systems and institutions to conduct research, develop relevant knowledge, provide quality education and contribute to societal recovery and peacebuilding.
Savo Heleta receives funding from Education Above All Foundation.
Logan Cochrane receives funding from Education Above All Foundation.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
