Education in Emergencies: Standards for Human Rights and Development. Marina Andina

Transcription

1 Education in Emergencies: Standards for Human Rights and Development Marina Andina Monograph International Comparative Education School of Education Stanford University August 2005

2 Stanford University School of Education INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE EDUCATION Education in Emergencies: Standards for Human Rights and Development Marina Andina August 2005 A Monograph in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Approvals: ICE/IEAPA Master s Program Director: Keiko Inoue, Ph.D., date Advisor: Francisco O. Ramirez, Ph.D., date ii

3 Abstract In December 2004, the Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies (MSEE) were released by the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies. This study provides an analysis of how those standards were created and rationalized, drawing on the framework of world society theorists. Using content analysis, the MSEE, regional standards and website materials were analyzed to determine how the regional documents were reconciled at the international level and how the discourses of human rights and human capital were incorporated and added into the Minimum Standards. I find that the process of creating and rationalizing the MSEE fits within a predetermined script for international level agreements. In addition, the changes in discourse from the regional to the international level reflect the pervasiveness of global norms and their importance in providing legitimacy to international standards. These findings illustrate the need for practitioners who use the Minimum Standards as a practical tool to be aware of the framework within which they were created so as to better contextualize the contents and make appropriate localized decisions. iii

4 Acknowledgements It s hard to believe that the year is over and the monograph is done. As much as this was a solo research project, it most certainly wasn t a solo effort. Thanks must go to Chiqui Ramirez for always being excited about my topic and to Keiko Inoue for always being able to see the larger picture and for being a voice of reason. Also, thank you to Allison Anderson at INEE for providing documents and answering my questions. Thank you to the ICE MA 05 cohort for a great year and the many helpful and insightful conversations along the way. In particular, I need to thank my writing group of Tricia Martin and Eric Kramon, without whose help this monograph might never have come together. You were both always able to understand my convoluted thoughts and ideas and helped me make them sound good! Finally, thank you also to my family, Mom, Dad and Seb, for being so loving and supportive. I wouldn t be here without you. And to Andres, for above all else, making me smile. iv

5 Table of Contents ABSTRACT...III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...IV TABLE OF CONTENTS...V LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES...VI ACRONYMS... VII I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE...1 II. BACKGROUND...4 III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS & ARGUMENT...6 IV. CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...8 A. EDUCATION IN EMERGENCIES...8 B. RATIONALIZATION...11 C. STANDARDIZATION D. PROFESSIONALS V. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK VI. DATA AND METHODS VII. FINDINGS & DISCUSSION A. PROCESS & STRUCTURE B. INVOKING GLOBAL STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES Invoking Global Standards Invoking Global Principles: Human Rights Discourse Invoking Global Principles: Human Capital Discourse C. TARGET POPULATIONS AND IMPLEMENTING ACTORS Target Populations Implementing Actors VIII. CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION REFERENCES APPENDIX 1: OUTLINE OF THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR EDUCATION IN EMERGENCIES, CHRONIC CRISES AND EARLY RECONSTRUCTION APPENDIX 2: MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP ON MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR EDUCATION IN EMERGENCIES ( ) APPENDIX 3: REGIONAL CONSULTATION DETAILS v

6 List of Tables and Figures FIGURE 1: NUMBER OF REFUGEES WORLDWIDE BY YEAR 5 FIGURE 2: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 17 TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF DATA AND SOURCES 18 TABLE 2: TIMELINE OF KEY EVENTS RELATING TO THE CREATION OF THE MSEE 23 TABLE 3: INVOKING GLOBAL STANDARDS KEY WORD COUNT BY DOCUMENT 30 TABLE 4: INVOKING GLOBAL PRINCIPLES (HUMAN RIGHTS) KEY WORD COUNT BY DOCUMENT 32 TABLE 5: INVOKING GLOBAL PRINCIPLES (HUMAN CAPITAL) KEY WORD COUNT BY DOCUMENT 36 TABLE 6: TARGET POPULATION REFERENCES BY DOCUMENT 37 TABLE 7: IMPLEMENTING ACTOR REFERENCES BY DOCUMENT 40 vi

7 Acronyms CEC CRC EFA ICRC INEE MDG MSEE NGO UDHR UN UNESCO UNHCR UNICEF UN-OCHA WCEFA WGMSEE Community Education Committee Convention on the Rights of the Child Education for All International Committee of the Red Cross Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies Millennium Development Goals Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crisis and Early Reconstruction Non-Governmental Organization Universal Declaration of Human Rights United Nations United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees United Nations Children s Fund United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs World Conference on Education for All Working Group on Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies vii

8 I. Introduction and Statement of Purpose Conflict and natural disasters can, and do, occur in all countries. When they take place in the industrialized world there are typically sufficient internal resources, infrastructure and mechanisms in place to cope with them. In developing countries, resources and infrastructure are often unavailable or nonexistent, while the need for and right to education remain. Therefore, international organizations have stepped in to fill the void left by incapable or incapacitated governments. As such, the field of education in emergencies has evolved over the past decade to address the needs of affected populations and to promote the necessity of the inclusion of education in humanitarian relief, along with food, water, shelter and sanitation. Interest in the field has reached the international level, as can be seen by the creation of the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) and the organization of global level conferences. Greater interest and activity has brought with it the need for the field to become more professionalized. One of the ways that this is happening is through standardization, which refers to attempts to create formulas to define and regulate activity (Mendel, 2001). The end results of this process are the recently released Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crisis and Early Reconstruction (MSEE). To a large degree, standardization has become a part of the way in which the world functions in the 21 st century. Different types of organizations have succumbed to standardization as a means through which to gain credibility or increase efficiency. 1

9 Often, standardization is used as a means to rationalize 1 a disordered situation. In other cases, the goal is to provide a tool for evaluation, especially in a field such as education where outcomes are ambiguous and hard to define. The increasing importance of professionals also plays a role in the rise of standardization, as they not only set and diffuse standards, but also largely abide by and are defined by them as well (Meyer, 1997). The Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies provide a case study through which to examine the process of standardization, the influence of professionals as well as the rationalizations that occur. Throughout human history, people have coped with crises and emergencies, events that are by definition frenetic. It is only recently that the new phenomenon of standardization has been applied to these inherently chaotic situations in an attempt to bring some order. To achieve this required a great deal of participation on the part of professionals and much rationalization at all levels of the standard setting process. This study aims to examine how the MSEE came to be and explain why certain types of discourse are used within the document. Clearly, minimum standards are only one of several possible options for dealing with emergency and crisis situations. Some might argue that the best way to address these situations is to channel all aid and responsibility through nation-states. However, in a world with large numbers of internal conflicts, governments are often not functioning or have lost the trust of its citizens and are therefore considered illegitimate. Centuries ago, the answer may have been to turn to religious charities to fill the gap. It is particularly 1 In this context, to rationalize a situation is to make it understandable in terms of similar situations (Meyer, 1997) 2

10 striking, and telling, that the MSEE hardly mention such organizations. On the contrary, the actors responsible for addressing the crises include secular non-governmental organizations (NGOs), bilateral and multilateral agencies, and local communities. The question therefore becomes not merely about how these standards came to be, but also about the nature of the larger world that dictates the form that the MSEE takes. The expectations and norms present in global society influenced not only the creation of the MSEE but also the nature of the discourse present within the document. Understanding that standards such as the MSEE are created according to existing global norms is important for both researchers and practitioners. For researchers, this analysis shows that processes such as standardization and rationalization are spreading to areas not previously considered feasible or worthwhile. For practitioners, understanding the larger global framework within which standards such as the MSEE were conceived creates an awareness of what the standards represent. This means that as professionals in the field, whether they agree with accepted global norms or not, they will have a greater ability to interpret the MSEE and make decisions on what may be appropriate for any given situation. In this study, I begin by providing a brief background on refugee and crisis situations, as well as an overview of the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE), the organization that created the MSEE. I then lay out my research questions and argument, review the relevant literature and provide a conceptual framework through which to examine the process of standardization that occurred in the creation of the MSEE. This is followed by a description of the data used and an explanation of my methodology. Finally, the findings are presented and analyzed, 3

11 followed by conclusions and areas for future research. An outline of the Minimum Standards can be found in Appendix 1. II. Background Since the end of the Cold War, the nature of conflict has shifted from traditional war between states to war within states, mostly due to ethnic, religious or cultural differences (Lindenberg & Bryant, 2001), creating large refugee populations as well as a breakdown in government services. Of additional concern is the fact that conflicts can be prolonged for years and sometimes decades, for example Sudan (1989-present) 2, resulting in protracted refugee situations 3. At the end of 2004, there were approximately 9.2 million refugees (UNHCR, 2005). Figure 1, below, shows that these numbers have decreased greatly over the past ten years. However, the number of protracted refugee situations has increased from 27 to 38 between 1992 and The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2004) estimates that the average length of a refugee situation in 2003 was 17 years, up from 9 years in Therefore, while there are fewer total refugees, they are affected for longer, most often leaving them without access to social services such as education. 2 For table of countries in conflict see (Sommers & World Bank, 2002) 3 UNHCR (2004) defines a protracted refugee situation as one that involves 25,000 or more refugees and has continued for 5 years or more. This does not include Palestinian refugees who are under the mandate of UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency). 4

12 Figure 1: Number of Refugees Worldwide by Year* *Adapted from UNCHR website, Due to growing concern for children in situations of emergency and crisis, the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) was created in November 2000 following a consultation on education in emergencies between the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations Children s Fund (UNICEF) and UNHCR. This meeting stemmed from a strategy session at the World Education Forum in Dakar where the participants decided that inter-agency communication and cooperation required improvement in order to effectively respond to educational needs in emergency situations (INEE, 2005b). The Inter-Agency Network promotes access and completion of education of high quality for all persons affected by emergencies, crises or chronic instability (INEE, 2005a) in light of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Education for All (EFA) Declaration and the Dakar Framework for Action. Based at UNESCO in Paris, INEE s primary vehicle of communication is its 5

13 website and electronic mailing list. Virtual communication, as well as a limitation on global meetings, was recommended in the consultation report that created the organization and is included in its mission statement. This is most likely due to the fact that INEE s members are working professionals employed by other agencies and organizations and spread across the globe. The steering group of the organization is comprised of representatives from both multilateral agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 4. While the members of the steering groups are present as representatives of organizations, individuals working or researching in the field are able to become members of INEE by simply submitting an online form. This level of virtual communication and networking allows for a steady flow of information and open lines of communication, a fact that is reflected in the process of creating the MSEE. III. Research Questions & Argument Education in emergencies is a young field that deals with inherently chaotic situations. In order to examine how the process of standardization occurred and the rationalizations involved, the research questions are as follows: How did the creation of the Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies come about? How were the regional documents reconciled at the international level? 4 The information available on ineesite.org appears to have not been updated since

14 What were the rationalizations used in the creation of the Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies? How are the discourses of human rights and human capital incorporated into the documents? I argue that the existence of global norms influences both the process of creation and the discourse used within the documents. Additionally, the importance of legitimacy plays a crucial role in the creation of these standards. For the Minimum Standards to be considered legitimate, adherence to these norms is necessary. The discourse used is one reflection of global society s regard for the ideals of progress and justice. As such, this study will analyze the extent to which the discourses of human capital and human rights are apparent. As each is a framework through which people organize and express thoughts and ideas, both types of discourse can be viewed as a means of rationalization. Although very different from each other, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. By aligning the discourse with existing global standards, the legitimacy of the document is enhanced. The second part of the argument concerns why the standards were created. Of course, any goal to be achieved can be pursued more effectively with a specific technology, whether that technology is a set of guidelines or specialized machinery. In the larger field of international development, many practices have become standardized over the past few decades, including health care and humanitarian relief. In education in particular, which deals largely with long-term effects that are difficult to measure, organizations may be unable to effectively demonstrate the outcomes of their programs. Therefore, to instill confidence in stakeholders and the world at large, they arrange themselves along the lines of other groups that are considered to be effective. In time, 7

15 this leads to standardizations of procedures, through a process of rationalization. This is substantively different from arguing that such standards are put into place because the ideas and practices have been shown to be effective. In that case, these standards would have been shown to be more likely to generate positive results than some other standards or guidelines. As I shall argue, this is not known to be the case. The process through which the standards were created illustrates the need to rationalize a particular problem, in this case education in emergencies. Attempts are made to solve this problem by providing a set of guidelines and indicators in line with global norms, which are determined by professionals and ideally emerge through consensus. IV. Critical Review of the Literature Having been released in December 2004, the only literature available on the MSEE comes directly from INEE and those involved in the WGMSEE, and is more descriptive than analytical. Therefore, to examine how and the context within which the MSEE came about, four bodies of literature will be reviewed. The first examines existing literature on education in emergencies, the second relates to the idea of rationalization in today s world, the third addresses the spread of standardization across fields and the fourth briefly examines the role and influence of professionals in the creation of discourse. A. Education in Emergencies Although the research to date on education in emergencies is scarce there is a body of literature available that can be considered advocacy work, as it comes directly from groups and organization working in the field. An additional distinction must be 8

16 drawn between education for refugees in places of long and short term asylum (Preston, 1991). Long-term asylum usually involves resettlement in a developed country where an education system already exists. Comprehensive literature on this subject exists, and examines how best to incorporate the refugee children, while providing adequate psychological and social support (Hamilton & Moore, 2004; Rutter & Jones, 1998). On the other hand, research into education in emergencies (previously termed education in places of temporary asylum or simply, refugee education ) is scarce and consists mostly of case studies focused on implementation and descriptive reports. Such studies overview education programs in various locations, while highlighting the need for, and positive effects of, inter-agency cooperation during complex emergencies. A particular focus is placed on the idea and importance of education not only during the emergency, but also for repatriation and reconstruction (Aguilar & Richmond, 1998; Retamal et al., 1998). This literature shows a particular interest in establishing education in emergencies within the framework of education as a human right and as a necessity in ensuring the development of human capital. Refugees right to education was originally identified in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and was reaffirmed in 1989 by the CRC and again in 2000 in the Dakar Framework for Action from the Second World Conference on Education for All. The CRC is highlighted as being particularly influential as it goes beyond expressing merely a right to education but rather a right to free and compulsory education for all children (Retamal et al., 1998; Sinclair, 1998). The Dakar Framework, while setting the goal of universal primary education by 2015, clearly emphasizes that additional efforts must be made to reach particular groups, including children in areas of 9

17 conflict or crisis. This reinforces the goals set out in the 1990 World Conference on Education for All (WCEFA), which included education for refugees and children affected by war with other marginalized groups. The WCEFA is identified as a significant event in calling attention to the plight of those not currently receiving education as well as providing a framework for action (Aguilar & Richmond, 1998). However, as education has traditionally been viewed as a development initiative, there is skepticism on the part of donors as to the necessity of educational programming during humanitarian relief work, and therefore a lack of funding. Some of the primary concerns are that education requires a long-term commitment and that by providing schools, refugees will not want to return home. Past experiences show that this is not the case and that refugees will return to their country of origin at the first available opportunity, regardless of the presence of schools in the camps (Sinclair, 2002). In addition, an argument is made that lack of education in crisis situations can lead to further destabilization (Davies, 2004). Furthermore, questions have been raised regarding international organizations involvement in education. One of the contexts in which such involvement has been deemed appropriate is when conflicts are long term, leaving refugees exiled for years (Davies, 2004). The argument for intervention states that education is a necessity for reconstruction (Retamal et al., 1998) by providing the foundation upon which future development, both social and economic, can occur (Retamal & Aedo-Richmond, 1998). The two justifications for education education as a human right and education for the creation of human capital while both novel ideas at the time they were introduced, are now both fully accepted by the global community. Furthermore, these 10

18 two strands of thought are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the human rights and human capital perspectives appear to bolster each other by providing supplementary arguments from entirely different perspectives. The sections that follow provide the context within which to analyze the Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies. B. Rationalization In reviewing the work of institutionalists, Finnemore (1996) highlights rationality as an inherent factor in modern bureaucracies, as well as a cultural value, structured in terms of means and ends. In western society, those ends are progress and justice (Finnemore, 1996). Although progress and justice may be the ends of rational thought, they can also provide the means for rationalization by highlighting the two types of discourse prevalent in much educational work. Progress is most often thought of in economic terms and can be seen to fit with ideas of education for the development of human capital, while notions of justice are synonymous with equality, and conjured in discussions of education as a human right (Finnemore, 1996). Meyer et al. (1997) counter the realist view that any technology adopted is essentially more functional than one not adopted. Indeed, policies and ideas are enacted because they are thought to be the right way to do things, sometimes with little regard for the specifics of the location. This is due to support from the larger environment that views a policy or idea as socially acceptable. Institutionalists argue that bureaucracies spread because rationalized bureaucracy is seen as a social good, not because of efficiency, as there is often much decoupling of policy and practice (Finnemore, 1996). In addition to social merit, organizations have the desire to be seen as modern. For Meyer et al. (1997), the diffusion of ideas of modernity occurs largely due to 11

19 international level organizations, and the professionals who work within them. International organizations, such as the UN, provide not only an opportunity for ideological discussion (Meyer et al., 1997) on any topic, but are also a means of legitimizing such discourse. Rationalization and the spread of norms can also be seen from a constructivist point of view as Finnemore (1993) argues in a study of UNESCO and the spread of science policy. States were shaped by an international organization in that science policy began to spread with no indication that it served any good. The argument made is one of a supply-driven process. As UNESCO existed and was willing to send experts and assist with the creation of science policy, many states accepted. Finnemore (1993) argues that although mimesis occurs, it is part of the process rather than the cause of the diffusion of norms. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) discuss mimesis as one of the processes through which isomorphism 5 occurs. However, following along the lines of Meyer et al, their primary argument states that structures are defined by a need for legitimacy rather than efficiency. Fields that are highly structured are often so due to a level of ambiguity. This uncertainty in how to operate promotes imitation, which leads to homogeneity (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Another aspect of rationalization concerns the definition of the field in which the standardization is occurring: for a field to exist it must be defined. This process of structuration involves an increase in interaction of relevant organizations as well as the development of a mutual awareness among participants in a set of organizations that they are involved in a common enterprise (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, 5 isomorphism is a constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, p. 149). 12

20 p. 148). By this definition, education in emergencies only emerged as an institutional field with the creation of INEE. As such, the processes of standardization that took place can be seen as a natural evolution. C. Standardization Standards can be constructed in several ways. They can be specific rules defining the proper tool for a job or may define a broader socially constructed product (Meyer, 1997, p. 1). In either case attempts are being made to create a formula to define and regulate activities (Mendel, 2001). Realist and institutionalist accounts of why this occurs differ considerably. Realists view standardization as arising from functional or evolutionary processes, expanded networks of interaction and interdependence as well as the coercive and dominating force of expansive power and authority (Meyer, 1997). Institutionalists, on the other hand, believe standardization arises from two main causes: homogenization and rationalization. Homogenization refers to the idea that different situations have underlying commonalities such that common rules can be applied, while rationalization refers to a process of understanding that varying situations are capable of arising for similar reasons or purposes (Meyer, 1997). Accordingly, standardization occurs when there is perceived to be a right way to do things. Diverse situations have underlying commonalities and have arisen due to similar reasons. As such there is presumably one correct way of analyzing those situations. Meyer argues that standardization happens at a gentler pace in the human and social domains because of people s resistance to non-universalistic ideas. In the aftermath of World War II, scientific rationalization provided a framework through which to see similarities across all people. As an organization, the UN embodied theses ideas 13

21 and principles within a common rationalized frame (Meyer, 1997, p. 8), which in turn created an epidemic of standardization, which can be viewed as a cultural phenomenon (Meyer, 1997, p. 9). Standardization can occur in one of three ways: through influence and authority gained by a large market share; through government regulation; or, as the MSEE were created, through voluntary consensus. Consensus standards value the multiple interests that created them and therefore attempt to avoid any undue influence by certain parties (Mendel, 2001). In addition, Meyer (1997) proposes the idea of content-free standardization (p. 10), which looks at processes and procedures rather than outcomes and goals. In essence they tell organizations, regardless of substantive mission, how to manage, account, evaluate and regulate (Meyer, 1997, p. 10). In the field of education, practices have become standardized under the influence of the West/North and the formal model of education has been copied and spread throughout the world. Much of this is due to not only the rationalization of education but also the increasing professionalization of practitioners (Meyer & Ramirez, 2003). D. Professionals With this increasing professionalization, as well as the increasing importance of professionals, an argument has been put forward that standardization is not due to world models of influence alone, but rather to organizational variables (Chabbott, 1998, p.207). It is the processes within the field of international development organizations that drive worldwide educational change, and the key carriers of that information are the professionals. Professionals, whether in the field of international development as discussed by Chabbott, or in humanitarian work, live within their own society, defined by 14

22 the norms and values they deem important, rather than being tied exclusively to their state. These norms and values essentially stem from a global or world culture that exists above the state level. As the participants in conferences such as WCEFA or the creation of the MSEE, a varied group is able to develop professional consensus and generate political commitment, two aspects crucial to the success of the MSEE. V. Conceptual Framework The belief that any event or procedure can be planned for and rationalized is pervasive in current world culture. In the case of emergency situations, such as natural disaster or war, this planning is now being extended from food and shelter to education. This implies a fundamental shift in the framework under which organizations providing services are operating. It is a move from basic relief to development, where the concern is to provide educational opportunities deemed necessary for the affected population s capacity after the emergency has passed (Retamal et al., 1998). The MSEE stem from the work of INEE, an international organization. Actors, such as international organizations that implement education programs, as well as the professionals involved, are embedded within this overarching world culture. The adoption of the principles of this culture, although often unconscious, both defines and directs their actions. Given the fact that culture is embedded within social organizations, it is especially relevant when discussing a process that has taken place within such an environment (Boli & Thomas, 1997). To legitimate themselves, organizations adopt universalistic models within which a consensus is achieved on such issues as human rights and education and it is 15

23 assumed that these models have universal world applicability (Meyer et al., 1997). Therefore, much support for INEE s work and agenda is garnered through adherence to societal norms, especially as an organization that operates at a global level. In a field such as education, where outcomes of programs are often ambiguous, such norms are even more crucial. The procedures used are modeled on what is deemed to be effective by the field at large and not necessarily because the methods themselves are the most effective. These norms are reflected both in the process used to create the MSEE and within the organization s discourse, which follows two main threads: human rights discourse and human capital discourse. Human rights discourse refers to language within the organization s documents that implies a belief in fundamental human rights. This can take the form of referencing international agreements and covenants or simply in the use of key words associated with human rights such as tolerance, equality and diversity. Human capital discourse, on the other hand, is language that implies a need to plan for future development. This development is not concerned so much with physical capital, but rather with the capacities of a population or group of persons. Figure 2 below illustrates the flow of these ideas and how they relate to the creation of the MSEE. 16

24 Figure 2: Conceptual Framework Global Norms Human Rights Discourse Human Capital Discourse Standardization Rationalization Professionals Creation of the Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies Established global norms, stemming largely from Western ideas of justice and progress influence and are, in turn, influenced by prevalent discourses in the fields of international development and education (Chabbott, 2003; Meyer, 1997). The presence of both a human rights and a human capital based discourse has effected the creation of the MSEE, both directly and indirectly. The direct influence occurs in the actual presence of the two types of language in the documents themselves. However, it is through the processes of rationalization, standardization and professionalization that the MSEE have emerged as a coherent and accepted set of guidelines, abiding by the discourses mentioned as well as the larger norms of world society. 17

25 VI. Data and Methods To answer the questions of how the MSEE came about and what rationalizations were used, I conducted a qualitative study examining the standards that emerged from the four regional consultations as well as the final Minimum Standards. These five primary documents were purposively chosen to allow for an analysis of the discourse used within the Standards. Surrounding documentation of the events and processes were garnered from the INEE website as well as from the INEE focal point for MSEE in early This information is relevant as it provides the background, timeline and participant information to allow the results of the document analyses to be put into context. In addition, this examination of the process itself allows for further analysis of how the MSEE were rationalized and how they fit within global norms. Table 1: Summary of Data and Sources Document # of Pages Source Languages Available Online Language Analyzed MSEE 78 INEE website English English Africa 16 INEE website English French English Asia 15 INEE website English English Latin America & Caribbean Middle East, North Africa & Europe INEE website info WGMSEE meeting minutes 11 INEE website English Spanish English 14 INEE website English English n/a INEE website English English n/a INEE focal point n/a English Although a fairly young field, there already exists a fair amount of documentation on education in emergencies. The INEE website lists several other documents as key resources related to the field, mostly advocacy work coming from various United Nations 18

26 (UN) agencies. While very informative, these documents are the precursors to the creation of INEE and the WGMSEE and merit analysis of their own. Examining the four regional documents (Africa, Asia, Latin America & Caribbean, and the Middle East), with the final MSEE, allows for a comparison of discourse from the regional to the global level. All of the documents were obtained from the INEE website ( and represent the information that the organization wishes to share with the public. As such, they are the most pertinent and reliable materials for an examination of the standardization of education in emergencies. While reliable on one hand, the fact that all the documents and data come from one organization means that there is a possibility that opposing views and ideas have been filtered out. It appears that all efforts were made, however, to prevent this from happening, as is apparent by references in the regional documents to points on which there was no consensus achieved. In addition, it is not clear from the information available how the writing process took place for the regional standards. That is, it is uncertain whether they were written more or less from scratch at the time of the consultation or whether a draft was already available and then revisions were made following discussion. To gain a sense of the documents under analysis and to be able to relate the regional standards to the final MSEE, a process of emergent coding was established. After an initial review of the documents three main codes were established: rationalization, target populations and actors. These codes represent areas of analysis necessary to understand how the process of standardization occurred and how the MSEE fit within the larger frameworks of global norms in humanitarian relief work, Education 19

27 For All and human rights discourse. However, in choosing to highlight these areas, other factors were omitted, as they were deemed less relevant to the central themes of this study. The first code, rationalizations, includes two sub-categories: invoking global standards and invoking global principles. Invoking global standards implies reference to specific documents, treaties or agreements as a means of increasing legitimacy and placing the issues within an established framework. The idea of invoking global principles is less explicit and involves references to both the discourse of human rights and that of human capital. Key words were identified, which represented each type of discourse. For example, terms such as diversity, tolerance and equity were coded as part of human rights discourse. On the other hand, phrases such as future needs of learners and relevant education were coded as part of human capital discourse. The second code, target populations, aims to identify the various ways in which the receivers of education activities are discussed. This provides information on who is thought to need assistance and which groups require additional attention, such as minorities or the disabled. The final code, actors, classifies those who are said to be responsible for implementation of the standards, for example NGOs or UN agencies. Often the wording is such that they are not only put in a position of responsibility but are empowered to take ownership of the programs foreseen by the standards. Throughout this analysis the occurrences of each code were recorded to allow for analysis of the variety of ways the standards are rationalized, or a target group or actor is defined. In addition, certain codes were counted to determine any changes in frequency of certain types of discourse across the documents. While I believe this to be 20

28 straightforward and replicable, I am aware that there is a certain subjectivity involved with any coding. This subjectivity is especially prevalent in emergent coding as one is essentially allowing the documents to speak for themselves before decisions are made. It is therefore very possible for two people to read the same document and come away with different opinions on what the important elements are, largely depending on their own interests and backgrounds. However, given the explicitness and clarity of the final codes, I am confident that similar results would be obtained on repetition. VII. Findings & Discussion To determine how the Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies came about, I begin by examining the actual process that resulted in the MSEE. I do this by looking at the structure of both the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies and the Working Group for MSEE, as well as by describing the steps taken to create the standards. I then go on to address the questions of what rationalizations were used. To do so, I looked at the standards themselves and analyzed the documents emerging from each of the four regional consultations as well as the final MSEE. The findings will be presented according to each of the codes described in the previous section. A. Process & Structure The creation of the Minimum Standards occurred quite rapidly. Only 18 months passed between the first meeting of the WGMSEE and the launch of the MSEE in December The process used, and the speed at which it took place, shows a strong connection to global norms in the fields of education and humanitarian relief. In addition, it is apparent that there existed a large degree of consensus at the beginning of 21

29 the project for it to have occurred so rapidly. Understanding how the standards were created allows the later discussion of discourse to be put into context. The process of developing the MSEE began with the creation of a working group, followed by regional consultations, then input from the INEE electronic mailing list and was concluded with a peer-review. The final document was launched in December 2004 at the Second Global Inter-Agency Consultation on Education in Emergencies and Early Recovery in Cape Town, South Africa, a conference organized by INEE. Two years after the creation of INEE in 2000, a meeting was convened to determine the appropriate educational response for humanitarian crises. Six leading NGOs (Care, International Rescue Committee, Save the Children-UK, Save the Children- USA, Norwegian Refugee Council, and Catholic Relief Services) gathered experts from UN agencies and other NGOs to discuss the possibility of creating consensual standards for education in emergencies (INEE, 2005b). These six NGOs are primary providers of humanitarian relief alongside the UN and bilateral agencies, and as such were well suited to take a leadership role at the start of this process. With the support of this group a transition team was created to put in place the WGMSEE, to be housed under INEE. The transition team decided to hire a focal point (project manager), who would be housed at the International Rescue Committee, to be the overall project manager and coordinator. The INEE steering group chose members of the WGMSEE as representatives of organizations who could contribute finances and time (for a complete list of the WGMSEE organizations and representatives see Appendix 2). 22

30 Table 2: Timeline of Key Events Relating to the Creation of the MSEE Date Event Location 8-10 th November, 2000 Inter-Agency Consultation on Education in Situation s of Emergencies and Crisis Geneva, Switzerland Establishment of INEE March 2002 March 2002 June 2003 Experts Workshop on Appropriate Humanitarian Response Establishment of Transition Team Transition Team report and Concept Paper for MSEE developed Paris, France Virtual 4-6 th June, st WGMSEE meeting Washington, D.C., USA rd January, 2004 Africa Collective Consultation Nairobi, Kenya 1-2 nd March, nd WGMSEE meeting Geneva, Switzerland rd April, 2004 Asia Collective Consultation Kathmandu, Nepal 5-7 th May, 2004 Latin America & Caribbean Collective Consultation st May, 2004 Middle East, North Africa & Europe Collective Consultation Panama City, Panama Amman, Jordan June-August 2004 Peer Review Virtual 2-4 th December, 2004 Second Global Inter-Agency Consultation on Education in Emergencies and Early Recovery Launch of the MSEE Cape Town, South Africa 5 th December, rd WGMSEE Meeting Cape Town, South Africa Within the following two years, the working group was constituted, developed a framework for the standards, following guidelines of the Sphere Project 6, held four regional consultations, completed a peer-review and launched the MSEE. The timeline, 6 The Sphere Project is a handbook detailing standards and guidelines for humanitarian relief organizations in the areas of food, shelter and health. INEE aims to have the MSEE become the education guidelines within this handbook when and if additional chapters are added. 23

31 in Table 2 above, illustrates the speed at which all of the above was accomplished. One can see that within the space of five months, from January to May 2004, the WGMSEE was organized and held all four regional consultations. In addition, by the end of 2004 the group was ready to launch the standards, showing both a large amount of organization and coordination among all the parties involved as well as a clear vision of the final standards from the beginning. Although this description presents a very cut and dry process, without having interviewed the participants it is impossible to know how political it might have been. However, given the speed at which the standards were created, it is likely that there was not a great deal of disagreement. Once the working group was established, the following step was to involve as broad a base as possible in the creation of the minimum standards. The intention was to include opinions from all regions of the world as well as from different sectors of society. According to the INEE website, over 2,200 people were involved in some capacity over the course of the entire project. A large portion of these participants came through prior meetings that the delegates to the regional consultations conducted. These meetings and visits were held with a variety of practitioners and stakeholders so as to bring as much information as possible into the discussions and as many as 300 to 650 additional people were consulted by each delegate (INEE, 2005c). The INEE Facilitator s Guide suggested that the meetings could take place in locations ranging from refugee camps to UN or NGO field offices with groups of members of the affected population, such as students, teachers, parents, government authorities and NGOs (INEE WGMSEE Consultation Team, 2004). At the regional consultations, a total of 137 delegates from 51 countries convened to develop minimum standards based on their own expertise and the 24

32 information gathered at the local meetings. While not representative of every country, there was a fairly large base present at the consultations. The details on number of delegates, as well as their countries of origin and professional affiliations are presented in Appendix 3. With the regional consultations complete, the documents were passed on, as planned, for final writing and a peer-review. The peer-review group was made up of representatives with expertise in the areas of education, child protection, health and humanitarian issues (INEE, 2005c) and the review was conducted via under the coordination of a hired consultant (INEE WGMSEE, 2004) 7. Of particular concern to the members of the WGMSEE was that the thoughts that emerged during the regional consultations not be omitted in the drafting of the final document. As such, there was an awareness of the need for the reviewers to represent a diverse group, not just experts from the West/North (INEE WGMSEE, 2004, p. 7). The process of creating the MSEE, as described above, fits well with globally accepted practices and norms regarding education and humanitarian assistance. Chabbott (2003), in her analysis of the WCEFA, describes how conferences follow a script developed over 50 years of various international gatherings. This script entails problematizing an issue, having professionals develop a report, statement or declaration, gathering a diverse and representative group of people to discuss, and releasing the final document. By following this script, conferences gain support and legitimacy rapidly as they invoke ideals that [are] taken for granted in international discourse. While the 7 Further details on the peer-reviewers were not available in the documents I obtained as they date from before the group was put in place. 25

33 WCEFA and the creation of the MSEE are different enterprises, they are comparable as they both have as their final outcome a document that is to be used both for practice and advocacy. Although not a conference, the creation of the MSEE followed a path similar to that of preparation for the WCEFA, where the regional consultations and professionals essentially created the draft of the final EFA declaration. Following the type of script set out by international education conferences could happen for one of two reasons. The first is that the script is so internalized that it isn t even questioned and all those involved believed that this was how the process should happen. The other possibility is that the script is known and consciously followed so as to avoid future reprimand or decreases in the legitimacy of the final product. It was most likely a combination of these two factors at work, with participants believing that this method was correct and knowing that the project could suffer from a lack of legitimacy in the future if it were not done this way. The similarities extend also to the ways in which participants were invited to attend as efforts were made to include a diverse group, both in geographic and professional terms. This idea of inclusiveness is one way in which INEE attempts to legitimate the standards that were created. Having a broad based consultative process is certainly considered the appropriate thing to do according to world culture. This is due to the debate in global society having shifted from one of exclusion to one of inclusion (Ramirez, 2001). For example, in many countries today all persons are considered citizens regardless of race or gender, rather than being excluded based on these characteristics. Not only did the process of creating the MSEE follow the same script as 26

34 conferences such as the WCEFA, the process of voluntary consensus used in standardization suggests the dominant role of global norms. According to Mendel (2001) there are three ways in which standardization occurs. The first is through large market share, in that an organization or company can have sufficient influence to set the standards for the entire field. In the case of the MSEE, this could have entailed a large international organization such as Save the Children or the International Rescue Committee creating and distributing standards based on their own practices, which were then adopted. The second method of standardization occurs through government regulation, and is a far more top-down and regulatory approach. In the absence of an international government, in today s world, this could be done through the United Nations. However, neither of these occurred to any visible extent. Instead, a process of voluntary consensus was used to create the MSEE. This fits within the framework of current world culture, where authoritarian, top-down rule is frowned upon by global culture and participatory group processes are seen as the best way to do things. The consensus model must include a broad base of stakeholders and is, by nature, a highly rationalized process. Participants at a conference, or in the creation of the MSEE, must sit and discuss what to include and what to omit, often sparking disagreement. As a final decision must be made, reasons for inclusion or omission of any one point are given and justified. In the case of the MSEE, the two-year time frame provides further support for the premise that consensus existed before the process began, as there would have been little room or time for fundamental disagreements. Certainly, the existing standards within the fields of humanitarian relief and education, such as the Universal Declaration of Human 27