Abstract
In this chapter, we examine youth-led innovation in the context of a recent multi-stakeholder development project, in which university students from Uganda and Finland collaborated to generate solutions to water and sanitation problems faced by schoolchildren in Northern Uganda. We focus on the project’s impact on developing change agent capabilities among the participating students and discuss the practical implications for the design and facilitation of similar initiatives. With a view to contributing to the planning of similar initiatives in the future, we propose a framework depicting the approaches and principles applied in this project and their relevance toward the acquisition of individual capabilities and social competencies underpinning critical change agency and responsible leadership.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
The UniWASH project 2014−2016 was funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, UNICEF Finland being in the overall charge of the implementation. More information about UniWASH can be found at https://www.unicef.fi/unicef/tyomme-suomessa/innovatiivisetkumppanuudet/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unicef.fi%2Funiwash-project/.
- 2.
See more about UNICEF-Academia partnerships at http://www.unicefstories.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/IUGlobalFrameworkAcademicPartnerships-2.pdf.
- 3.
The mentors involved in the UniWASH project each had different backgrounds in educational methods and participated variably in the field workshops, thus the project had no pre-alignment between the different methods. Makerere University teachers partnering in the project were engaged in developing the HRBA training modules for students.
- 4.
Building on the abductive approach of Charles Sanders Peirce (Schurz, 2008).
- 5.
Children’s participation needs to be transparent and informative, voluntary, respectful, relevant to children’s lives, child-friendly, inclusive, supported by trainings for adults, and accountable (UNICEF, 2014).
- 6.
PBL in this case refers to three closely linked pedagogical approaches: problem-based learning, project-based learning, and practice-based learning.
- 7.
We recognize that the depth and timeframe of the interaction did not lead to inter- or transdisciplinary modes of interaction, nor was there an aim to do so due to recognized constraints of interaction time. Reaching an effective level of multidisciplinary interaction was seen to be achievable.
References
Albanese, M., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52–81.
Baily, S., & Merz, S. A. (2015). Conducting fluid and timely research in youth activism. In S. Bastien & H. Holmarsdottir (Eds.), Youth “at the margins” – Critical perspectives and experiences of engaging youth in research worldwide (pp. 175–193). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-052-9_9
Bastien, S., & Holmarsdottir, H. (2015). Growing up global: Towards the critical engagement of youth and youth voices in research to address global wicked problems. In S. Bastien & H. Holmarsdottir (Eds.), Youth “at the margins” – Critical perspectives and experiences of engaging youth in research worldwide (pp. 1–19). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Chambers, R. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22(7), 953–969.
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg: Bloomsbury.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Etzioni, A. (1993). Liberals, communitarians and choices. In A. Etzioni & P. Lawrence (Eds.), Socioeconomics: Towards a new synthesis. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Finnström, S. (2008). Living with bad surroundings: War, history, and everyday moments in Northern Uganda. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388791
Fox, J. (2005). Empowerment and institutional change: Mapping “virtuous circles” of state-society interaction. In R. Alsop (Ed.), Power, rights and poverty: Concepts and connections (pp. 68–92). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Foster, G. (2009). Bureaucratic aspects of international health programmes. In M. C. Inhorn & P. J. Brown (Eds.), The anthropology of infectious diseases (pp. 681–701). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Gordon and Breach Publishers.
Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations. Organization, 7(5), 211–223.
Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2012). Reverse innovation: Create far from home, win everywhere. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Hart, R. A. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship, Innocenti Essay no. 4. Florence: International Child Development Centre. Retrieved from https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/100
Hausen, A., & Launiala, A. (2015). Introduction to the human rights-based approach: A guide for Finnish NGOs and their partners. Finland: Finnish Committee for UNICEF. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.fi/HRBA
Helfat, C., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding change in organizations. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ho, E., Clarke, A., & Dougherty, I. (2015). Youth-led social change: Topics, engagement types, organizational types, strategies, and impacts. Futures, 67(2), 52–62.
IDEO. (2015). Design kit. The field guide to human-centered design. Retrieved from http://www.designkit.org//resources/1
Kennedy, M., Billett, S., Gherardi, S., & Grealish, L. (2015). Practice-based learning in higher education: Jostling cultures. Rotterdam: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9502-9
Kemmis, S., & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action research and the study of practice. In B. Atweh, S. Kemmis, & P. Weeks (Eds.), Action research in practice: Partnerships for social justice in education (pp. 21–36). London: Routledge.
Kharas, H. (2013). Reimagining the role of the private sector in development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Koria, M. (2015). Making an interdisciplinary difference: Twenty years of design, business and technology at Aalto. In B. Banerjee & S. Ceri (Eds.), Creating innovation leaders: A global perspective. Berlin: Springer.
Kraemer-Mbula, E., & Wamae, W. (2010). Innovation and development agenda. Paris: OECD.
Kublböck, K., & Straritz, C. (2015). Private sector development – Business plan or development strategy? Vienna: Austrian Foundation for Development Research.
Launiala, A. (2009). How much can a KAP survey tell us about people’s knowledge, attitudes and practices? Some observations from medical anthropology research on malaria in pregnancy in Malawi. Anthropology Matters Journal, 11(1). Retrieved from http://www.anthropologymatters.com/index.php/anth_matters/article/view/31/53
Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.). (2010). National systems of innovation: Towards theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Anthem.
Luttrell, C., Quiros, S., Scrutton, C., & Bird, K. (2009). Understanding and operationalising empowerment. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Markham, T. (2011). Project based learning. Teacher Librarian, 39(2), 38–42.
Matsumoto, D. (Ed.). (2009). The Cambridge dictionary of psychology. Cambridge: CUP.
Mawdsley, E., Savage, L., & Sung-Mi, K. (2014). A “post-aid world”? Paradigm shift in foreign aid and development cooperation at the 2011 Busan High Level Forum. The Geographical Journal, 180(1), 27–38.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: CUP. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678
Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: A study in human capabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841286
OECD. (2012). Innovation for development: A discussion of the issues and an overview of work of the OECD directorate for science, technology and industry. Paris: OECD Publications. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno/50586251.pdf
OECD. (2015). Innovation policies for inclusive development: Scaling up inclusive innovations. Paris: OECD Publications. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno/scaling-up-inclusive-innovations.pdf
Prahalad, C., & Hart, S. (2002). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy+Business, 26(1). Retrieved from https://www.strategy-business.com/article/11518?gko=9a4ba
Radjou, N., Prabhu, J., & Ahuja, S. (2012). Jugaad innovation: Think frugal, be flexible, generate breakthrough growth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sachs, J. (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. The Lancet, 379, 2206–2211.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: OUP.
Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (2nd ed.). London: Penguin Random House.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development: An enquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. London: Transaction Publishers.
Schurz, G. (2008). Patterns of abduction. Synthese, 164(2), 201–234.
SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency). (2015). Support to innovation and innovation systems. Stockholm, Sweden: Unit for Research Cooperation at Department of Partnership and Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.sida.se/English/publications/Publication_database/publications-by-year1/2015/november/support-to-innovation-and-innovation-systems/
Stewart, F. (2013). Capabilities and human development: Beyond the individual – The critical role of social institutions and social competencies. New York: UNDP Human Development Report Office.
Sundbo, J. (1998). The theory of innovation: Entrepreneurs, technology and strategy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Trojer, L., Rydhagen, B., & Kjellqvist, T. (2015). Inclusive innovation process – Experiences from Uganda and Tanzania. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 6(5), 425–438.
UN. (2015). Population 2030: Demographic challenges and opportunities for sustainable development planning. New York: Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/trends/Population2030.pdf
UN. (2016). World Economic and Social Survey 2016. Climate Change Resilience: An Opportunity for Reducing Inequalities. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/WESS_2016_Report.pdf
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2014). UNDP Youth strategy 2014–2017: Empowered youth, sustainable future. Retrieved from http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-governance/youthstrategy.html
UNICEF. (2014). The state of the world’s children 2015. Reimagine the future: Innovation for every child. Retrieved from www.sowc2015.unicef.org
UNICEF. (2015). Government of Uganda – UNICEF: Country Programme Action Plan 2016–2020. Kampala: UNICEF.
United Nations Population Fund & Government of Uganda. (2014). The state of Uganda population report 2014. Harnessing Uganda’s demographic dividend for socio-economic transformation. Retrieved from library.health.go.ug/download/file/fid/580910
Wallace, S. (Ed.). (2009). A dictionary of education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wood, D. (2003). ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Problem based learning. British Medical Journal, 326(2), 328–330. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7384.328
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to Kone Foundation for the funding of The Change in Development Paradigm—New Possibilities for Value-based Corporate Partnerships in Development Cooperation research project, which has made the publication of this book chapter possible. While all the authors have contributed to their specific topics, the key points, framing, and data analysis have been jointly developed. The first author, Riina Subra, was the key contributor to the overall framing, and research data has been collected by Oona Timonen, together with Victor Guma. The last author, Annika Launiala, is the research director of The Change in Development Paradigm Research Project by UNICEF Finland, to which this study contributes. A special thank you to all the students and partners of UniWASH, and to Ugandan researcher Victor Guma, who carried out the interviews with the Ugandan students, as well as the known and anonymous contributors and reviewers for valuable observations and comments. Sincere and warm thank you for UNICEF that has provided valuable support regarding UniWASH project and student engagement since 2010. It should be noted that the opinions and arguments expressed in this book chapter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of UNICEF or other partner organizations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Subra, R., Koria, M., Timonen, O., Neema, S., Launiala, A. (2017). Building Student Change Agent Capabilities: Case UniWASH in Uganda. In: Bastien, S., Holmarsdottir, H. (eds) Youth as Architects of Social Change. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66275-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66275-6_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66274-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66275-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)