|
|
|||||||||||||||
The UK’s Higher Education Links Scheme (HEL) promotes exchanges (usually for three years) between UK and overseas universities. In line with objectives set out in its 1997 White Paper on the Elimination of World Poverty, the UK is keen that HEL should focus on poverty alleviation, sustainable development and gender equity. Is this re-emphasis producing results? Reports from the University of Manchester’s Institute for Development Policy and Management provide an institutional and societal evaluation of HEL. They focus in particular at the impact of the scheme on policy, practice and decision making relating to women, the environment, education, human rights, economic stimulation and poverty alleviation. Data was collected from questionnaires sent to the British-based and in-country co-ordinators, meetings with British Council (BC) scheme managers, workshops and projects visits in 8 countries. One hundred and sixteen links were surveyed, a quarter of the entire links in the scheme. Evaluators found that the relatively modest outlay on each link is producing results and that the scheme should be continued. 81 per cent of active links are directly aligned with relevant DFID sector priorities and are likely to contribute to achievement of objectives within those priorities. Some wider societal benefits, though likely to accrue some time in the future, are not easily verifiable. Though some links have produced demonstrable shifts of thinking in methods of health service delivery and environmental protection, other links may be unlikely to influence practices due to unpropitious policy contexts. Is gender being mainstreamed? A mixed bag of responses indicated that some link coordinators are themselves in need of gender training. In general, however, findings indicated that gender concerns are reflected in the planning, design and implementation of links. In-country coordinators (three quarters of them male) were more likely to consider that the scheme is having a substantial impact on gender inequalities compared with their UK counterparts. Other findings include:
Main recommendations include:
Source(s): Funded by: Department for International Development, UK id21 Research Highlight: 14 March 2002
Further Information: Tel:
+44 (0)161 275 7443 Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM), UK Other related links:
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||