Dr. Gonzalez, you have been with NOHA since the very beginning of the project. Remind us how it all started and why the „network approach“ is still relevant today.
It was the year 1993, shortly after ECHO, the European Commission Humanitarian Office had been constituted, that the need was felt for a new type of humanitarian professional. There were excellent doctors in the field, and managers and engineers and.... the need was for people who had elements from different fields to take the appropriate decisions, were able to understand humanitarian law, knew how to understand the local populations and make their case in the media when needed because they understood the local and the global issues at stake, people who knew how to manage crisis. Professionals from different fields were working in the field from different angles, the organizations were training people in their mission but there was the need for a new professional who goes went to the field with an interdisciplinary education, appropriate background, understanding and with an important ethical approach from the start. It was important to reduce possible mistakes of lack of training and search for quality from the starting point of the career in a delicate field. It was important to bring research and new paradigms, new ways of understanding reality and new ways of thinking. The field was complex enough and relevant enough to deserve a new academic field and a new type of professional.
The essence of the network approach is cooperation with others in a joint mission where each one brings its contribution. It is respect for different ways and different approaches, with the conviction that all have significant value. It is based in the belief that we do things better when we do them with others, taking others into consideration. We are stronger because we become more flexible and possibly more understanding and more humble. This is critical for holding a vision of an interdependent, multilateral world where many- all if possible- are called to play a role and there is a need of joint thinking and joint creation for tasks that involve not one but many actors. The network - is a training to work with the appropriate approach into a complex and varied world which needs joint vision and capacity to move forward, with a sense of direction of where our common efforts can lead us. This network approach was important when NOHA started; it is critical 20 years later.
There are a lot more graduate programs focusing on humanitarian action than there was 20 years ago.(Geneva, Paris, Harvard,...) Does the NOHA programme still have an edge over competing programs? And if so, what is that special something?
NOHA was the first in this field and NOHA is continuing to develop and to innovate. It is a mature programme and the calibre of the people it trains shows that it has an „edge“, I have come to hear from representatives of Quality Agencies that NOHA is a mature Master, a very developed educational programme; it has been selected and continues to be selected as example of good practice over and over again....There is something in NOHA which is like a magnet- people feel attracted to it. I honestly think that people recognise the quality of the programme and the values it tries to convey. After 20 years one continues receiving letters from students who finished the programme with passion for the field and for humanity and want to understand it better and want to serve better and be more prepared for their task. Organisations continue trusting the programme and the network –the family- develops its mark with more clarity. What is the special something? The people who are chosen to take up the programme, the values that are held, the common vision and the shared dreams. Of course together we can count on a vast Faculty of people more and more experienced every year and a group of over 2,500 alumni with vast field experience and who have developed a significant wisdom in the area. The accumulation of this makes NOHA unique.
Many students, especially those without field experience, are hungry for « practice oriented education » and hope to get that during their time with the NOHA masters. The program being taught within an academic environment, how do you address such expectations.
The interaction between theory and practice has been one of the guiding elements in the development of the programme. Of course, even if we are unconscious of it, we all use theory for explaining the world to ourselves and to each other. Our way of thinking the world and its problems shapes our practice. We need to teach current trends and new ways of thinking in order to offer the potential to make choices about practice.
Other elements of this “practical oriented education” are the constant interaction with people from the field, the introduction of field work experiences and above all the internship period, which most of the students take, particularly those who follow the professional track. Many of their master theses are actually planned as a case study of a theoretical problem or as a theoretical analysis of a context and the different scenarios which could emerge. Some students extend this period to even a year and for others, this ends up in a permanent post. But it is an important aspect and the preparation acquired in the programme allows the less experienced students to enter a delicate field where there is no room for experimentation.
Looking back at the issues that were discussed by humanitarian academics and practitioners 10 years ago, it seems that the same issues remain at the forefront: humanitarian space, emergency to development continuum, coordination. Does it mean nothing has changed?
Indeed some issues are quite the same and this is normal as they are fundamental and complex issues and as in every science and discipline, some aspects evolve rapidly while others remain as core central issues that are fundamental for the discipline itself.
But, of course, the context has
changed. In the last decade there is an increasing “instrumentalization” of
humanitarian action for political and security objectives. In places like Iraq,
Afghanistan, Colombia and Haiti, humanitarian action has been linked with
peace-building for the sake not of human security but for stabilization and
containment of what are considered threats to international security from weak
or fragile states. As pointed out by numerous reports, from 9/11 there have
been some trends that have made civilians to be even more vulnerable than
before: direct attacks on civilians continue in most conflicts and military
stabilization operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have had a major negative
impact on civilians. This evolution has led to a shrinking of humanitarian
space, humanitarian actors less able to reach the affected populations and
vulnerable groups with less access to assistance and protection. There is also
a greater military involvement in humanitarian action, which compromises its
principles and purposes.
Moreover, the concern that humanitarian action is seen as hijacked by political
and security objectives, together with the recognition of the need to develop
integrated and comprehensive approaches to achieve stable and lasting solutions
to crises and conflicts pose difficult tensions and dilemmas.
It is important also to emphasize that other aspects like Disaster Risk
Reduction, the Cluster system, new approaches to protection, or the entrance of
new actors, the new trend in integrating
standards and management tools, and a stronger emphasis on accountability have
been incorporated and are reshaping the content of humanitarian action.
There are also other elements of change: the evolving profile of the students
and the evolution of the sector. These are having a profound impact not only on
the content but also in the way the master is taught. What remains unchanged,
however, is the call to serve in a challenging profession which requires solid
academic training and a unique combination of human capacities for a very
special task and mission.
Post to Twitter
