92
V. R. Vargas et al.
traditional ethical processes. One of these dilemmas is that sustainable development
research in the Global South funded by international aid can be seen as paternalistic
and neocolonial (Andreotti 2016, 2014; Rajan and Thornhill 2019). Therefore, trying
to avoid the pitfalls of neocolonialism requires an intentionally reflexive approach
from those responsible for the initial framing and implementation of projects.
Global citizenship is a framework that looks at ways of addressing social issues.
This is similar to the ODA related funding for universities’ research. However global
citizenship, especially its conceptualisation in recent years, brings together issues of
social and environmental wellbeing whilst critically engaging with a range of ‘political’ communities such as indigenous communities or neoliberal western communities (Pashby et al. 2020). Therefore, global citizenship is an appropriate framework
to explore the intentions of universities and researchers in ODA countries working
in sustainable development projects.
Exploring the intentions of a university’s research involves researchers questioning the funding and conception of this research. How should universities take
steps to interrogate the framings of their international research projects in order to
‘decolonise’ the academy and to be congruent with a desire to do public good (Walker
and McLean 2013)? How do universities see themselves as ‘good global citizens’
while also seeing themselves as competitive businesses? These are questions that
have yet to be explored in the literature (Stein et al. 2019) and is the focus of this
paper.
As universities find their place on the global stage there have been moves towards
a more outward-looking perspective (Hudzik 2014). Although this could lead to a
conception of the university as an agent for global citizenship, one material consequence has been an increasing tendency towards a competitive ‘globalised outlook’
(Engel and Sizcek 2018). This is often conceptualized as ‘internationalisation’ of the
university but is limited in its extent appearing to be self-serving rather than focussed
on public good (e.g. Friedman 2018), with national interest as the key driver (Engel
and Sizcek 2018). These authors thus conclude that based on their exploration of
university internationalisation strategies these “limit the possibilities of advancing
central tenets of global citizenship” (Engel and Sizcek 2018: 749).
Consideration may thus be given to whether, as Engel and Sizcek (2018) suggest,
global citizenship should be principally seen as an outcome of increased international
co-operative efforts or whether it is a motivational driver of these efforts. Although
UK higher education has been said to have an increasing audit culture (Erickson et al.
2020), which has helped to stifle engaged citizenship in its staff (Spooner 2017), it
is still possible for individual staff to be motivated by a sense of service.
Universities characterise two main areas of activity: education and research.
Funding of international research in the UK in recent years has been via the Global
Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), as part of the UK’s ODA commitment. However,
there is little information on the direct benefit to local actors versus the return to the
developed world (e.g. what proportion of funding returns to, or never leaves, the
UK).
It has been well-documented that in some sectors, the funding of local efforts
for self-help are routinely marginalised. For example, in humanitarian responses to
V. R. Vargas et al.
traditional ethical processes. One of these dilemmas is that sustainable development
research in the Global South funded by international aid can be seen as paternalistic
and neocolonial (Andreotti 2016, 2014; Rajan and Thornhill 2019). Therefore, trying
to avoid the pitfalls of neocolonialism requires an intentionally reflexive approach
from those responsible for the initial framing and implementation of projects.
Global citizenship is a framework that looks at ways of addressing social issues.
This is similar to the ODA related funding for universities’ research. However global
citizenship, especially its conceptualisation in recent years, brings together issues of
social and environmental wellbeing whilst critically engaging with a range of ‘political’ communities such as indigenous communities or neoliberal western communities (Pashby et al. 2020). Therefore, global citizenship is an appropriate framework
to explore the intentions of universities and researchers in ODA countries working
in sustainable development projects.
Exploring the intentions of a university’s research involves researchers questioning the funding and conception of this research. How should universities take
steps to interrogate the framings of their international research projects in order to
‘decolonise’ the academy and to be congruent with a desire to do public good (Walker
and McLean 2013)? How do universities see themselves as ‘good global citizens’
while also seeing themselves as competitive businesses? These are questions that
have yet to be explored in the literature (Stein et al. 2019) and is the focus of this
paper.
As universities find their place on the global stage there have been moves towards
a more outward-looking perspective (Hudzik 2014). Although this could lead to a
conception of the university as an agent for global citizenship, one material consequence has been an increasing tendency towards a competitive ‘globalised outlook’
(Engel and Sizcek 2018). This is often conceptualized as ‘internationalisation’ of the
university but is limited in its extent appearing to be self-serving rather than focussed
on public good (e.g. Friedman 2018), with national interest as the key driver (Engel
and Sizcek 2018). These authors thus conclude that based on their exploration of
university internationalisation strategies these “limit the possibilities of advancing
central tenets of global citizenship” (Engel and Sizcek 2018: 749).
Consideration may thus be given to whether, as Engel and Sizcek (2018) suggest,
global citizenship should be principally seen as an outcome of increased international
co-operative efforts or whether it is a motivational driver of these efforts. Although
UK higher education has been said to have an increasing audit culture (Erickson et al.
2020), which has helped to stifle engaged citizenship in its staff (Spooner 2017), it
is still possible for individual staff to be motivated by a sense of service.
Universities characterise two main areas of activity: education and research.
Funding of international research in the UK in recent years has been via the Global
Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), as part of the UK’s ODA commitment. However,
there is little information on the direct benefit to local actors versus the return to the
developed world (e.g. what proportion of funding returns to, or never leaves, the
UK).
It has been well-documented that in some sectors, the funding of local efforts
for self-help are routinely marginalised. For example, in humanitarian responses to