This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 23 November 2014, At: 11:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Globalisation, Societies and EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgse20

The ‘making’ of knowledge society inRwanda? Translations, tensions andtransformationsBeniamin Knutsson aa Department of Pedagogical, Curricular and Professional Studies ,University of Gothenburg , Gothenburg , SwedenPublished online: 01 Jun 2012.

To cite this article: Beniamin Knutsson (2012) The ‘making’ of knowledge society in Rwanda?Translations, tensions and transformations, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10:2, 181-199,DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2012.690306

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.690306

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The ‘making’ of knowledge society in Rwanda? Translations,tensions and transformations

Beniamin Knutsson*

Department of Pedagogical, Curricular and Professional Studies, University of Gothenburg,Gothenburg, Sweden

(Received 12 October 2009; final version received 16 June 2011)

In the year 2000, Rwanda launched an ambitious long-term developmentstrategy intended to render a fundamental transformation from an agrarianto a knowledge society by 2020. Knowledge society, however, could beviewed as a ‘floating signifier’ open for a wide range of interpretations.Guided by a policy translation perspective the aim of this article is toexamine the ‘making’ of knowledge society in Rwanda. The articleanalyses how the government’s notion of a projected knowledge societyand attempts to manage globalisation to the benefit of Rwanda havetranslated into a set of educational policy priorities. This article furtherexposes various tensions that emerge in these translation processes,intimately linked to the country’s deep poverty, complex political situationand high-flying ambitions.

Keywords: Rwanda; knowledge society; education; globalisation;development; policy translation; Vision 2020

Introduction

At the turn of the millennium Rwanda, strained by a legacy of genocide, war,poverty and marginalisation, embarked on a bold and ambitious long-termdevelopment strategy, Vision 2020, intended to render a fundamentaltransformation from an agrarian to a knowledge society within a time spanof 20 years (MoF 2000). The Vision 2020 articulates that the making of aknowledge society is a mandatory response to Rwanda’s goal of achievinglong-term sustainable economic development and that strong policy priority ofthe education sector is of paramount importance in this quest.

Knowledge society, however, is a fluid concept open for a wide range ofinterpretations. Moreover, there is no direct conduit between national policypriorities and educational practice on the local level. Rather policy diffusionand implementation can be viewed as imitative processes where differentactors, on different levels, are engaged in continuous attempts to ‘translate’policy into practice. Guided by a policy translation perspective, the aim of this

*Email: beniamin.knutsson@ped.gu.se

Globalisation, Societies and Education

Vol. 10, No. 2, June 2012, 181�199

ISSN 1476-7724 print/ISSN 1476-7732 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.690306

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

article is to examine the ‘making’ of knowledge society in Rwanda. Morespecifically, this implies an analysis of how the notion of a projectedknowledge society has brought about different policy translations within theRwandan education sector. Further, this article attempts to expose andproblematise various tensions that emerge in these very processes oftranslation. These tensions, in turn, must be viewed as contradictions orcomplicated balancing acts related to Rwanda’s deep poverty, complex politicalsituation and high-flying ambitions of becoming a globalised knowledgesociety. This article is relevant for mainly three reasons. First, Rwanda presentsan exceptionally interesting case in the nexus of the contemporary globalisa-tion, development and education debates. The ambition of becoming aknowledge society and the intention to leapfrog the industrial stage challengethe common view of least developed countries (LDCs) and constitute aninteresting break with traditional development trajectories. Second, a vastmajority of research on globalisation and knowledge societies has beenconducted within, and from the departure point of, OECD countries. There isan evident need to counterbalance this bias through globalisation-relatedresearch empirically based on the margins of the global economy. Third, thetranslation perspective that underpins this study offers an alternative under-standing of dissemination and implementation of policies in the global time�space which challenges mainstream diffusion theory.

The findings of this article are based on fieldwork conducted in Rwanda inApril�May 2009. The research material consists of interview and documentarydata. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a strategic sample of 10officials in senior positions within the Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) andits affiliated semi-autonomous bodies, and three foreign developmentconsultants working in close partnership with the MINEDUC, that is,respondents in a position to give a broad overview of ongoing activitieswithin the sector. The documentary data include a hierarchical framework ofinterrelated government and ministerial documents which step by steptranslates the overall vision into strategies, policies and plans. Moreover avariety of reports, evaluations and academic literature have been scrutinised.

The article is organised in three main parts. Following these introductorynotes, the first part of the article provides some background to the Vision 2020and elaborates briefly on the article’s conceptual and theoretical departurepoints. The second part analyses ongoing policy translations within threeprioritised areas of the Rwandan education sector. It further exposes varioustensions that emerge in these processes of translation. The third and final partpresents the main conclusions of the article.

Rwanda’s Vision 2020

In year 2000, the Government of Rwanda (GoR) launched the Vision 2020, anambitious long-term development strategy intended to transform Rwanda from

182 B. Knutsson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

an agrarian to a knowledge society, and from a low-income to a middle-incomecountry, by the year 2020 (MoF 2000). The Vision 2020 articulates a firmpolitical persuasion, on behalf of the government, to break the horrific chainsof the past � marked by more than half a century of colonial oppression andseveral decades of post-colonial political violence which culminated in the1994 genocide � and build a much more prosperous and brighter future forRwanda. The GoR’s high level of aspiration has further been epitomised inpolitical imagery as becoming the ‘Singapore of Africa’, echoing thedevelopment experience of the East Asian tiger. Crude as this rhetoric mightseem, the starting point of the Vision 2020 document is a full-fledgedrecognition of the country’s bothersome prerequisites for economic develop-ment. It affirms that a vast majority of the Rwandan labour force is engaged inlow-productive, subsistence level agriculture and that population pressure incombination with massive environmental degradation further adds to the direneed of moving labour into other sectors of the economy. Moreover, thepreconditions for industrialism in the traditional sense are portrayed as meagreat best. Rwanda’s reserve of high-value minerals and other raw materials isinsufficient and the country is land-locked which implies high transportationcosts for import and export of goods. Weak institutional capacity, low levels ofhuman resource development and high levels of public debt are furtherhighlighted as severe impediments to economic development.

The problem inventory that opens the Vision 2020 document is followedby a presentation of some comparative advantages which Rwanda might yetbe able to exploit. The Vision 2020 concludes that the country has asubstantial supply of cheap labour, a multi-lingual population and a strategicgeographical location connecting Anglophone and Francophone Africa.Moreover, Rwanda’s delimited geographical area is considered to facilitateand cheapen the dissemination of ICT infrastructure. On the basis of theseperceived opportunities the GoR’s ambition is to build human capital, attractforeign investment, expand the service sector of the economy and transforminto a telecommunications hub of the region. Heavy investments in educationand ICT are considered to be of key importance in this political vision. Thus,in a quite unorthodox manner, the Vision 2020 constitutes a break with theclassical notion of development as an inevitable evolutionary process fromagrarian, via industrial, to a post-industrial society. The GoR intends tosidestep the industrial stage and move directly from an agrarian to aknowledge-based society. In the literature, this kind of intentional bypass issometimes referred to as ‘leapfrogging’ (GoR 2000; Singh 1999; Tikly et al.2003). Although such an approach might give the impression of a quiteradical reappraisal of modernist assumptions it will be argued throughout thisarticle that the GoR’s policies generally give vent to a profound faith inplanned progress and the possibility to ‘engineer’ social change. Thus, like therole model Singapore, the GoR is trying to combine a strong active state withan open liberal trade regime. The promotion of global and regional economic

Globalisation, Societies and Education 183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

integration is imperative in the Vision 2020 and consequently GoR is trying to

embrace and manage globalisation to its own advantage and gear its political

priorities accordingly.Within the framework of this long-term vision, two medium-term Poverty

Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) have been adopted, which translate the

general objectives outlined in the Vision 2020 into a set of strategic output

indicators, and different macro-economic, structural and social strategies to

achieve them (MoF 2002, 2007). These strategies, in turn, have been translated

into different sector-specific policies, for example, an Education Sector Policy

(ESP) and a National Information and Communication Infrastructure (NICI)

policy (GoR 2000; MINEDUC 2003). These policies have been translated into

time-bound plans, for example, Education Sector Strategic Plans (ESSP) and

NICI-plans (GoR 2006; MINEDUC 2008a, 2010). Hence, the overall Vision

2020 is, step by step, translated into PRSPs and different sector policies, plans

and subsequent practices. However, it is important to keep in mind that the

formulation of these strategies and policies is not a simple reflection of the

GoR’s aspirations. In accordance with the PRSP approach � standard

procedure in contemporary development cooperation � recipient countries

develop their PRSPs in close cooperation with international donors (OECD

2005; World Bank and IMF 2004). Thus, through a complex web of

negotiations, barters and compromises, the international donors exercise a

great deal of influence on the recipient country’s strategies and policies. We

shall return to this matter in the second part of the article.Needless to say the Rwandan vision is extremely ambitious and whereas it

has been dismissed as utopian by sceptics, proponents have countered ‘what is

the alternative?’, bearing in mind the precarious and unacceptable situation that

the country finds itself in. Regardless of how one positions oneself in this

controversy it is quite clear that transforming Rwanda into a prosperous,

globalised knowledge society by 2020 constitutes a considerable challenge.

Hindrances along the way include deep and widespread poverty, soaring

inequality and low rankings on nearly all education indicators (Ewald 2008;

NISR 2007; United Nations Development Programme 2007). To this we can

add an extremely complicated internal political situation, largely concealed by

the official policy discourse, rooted in the legacies of colonialism, civil war and

the genocide (Ingelaere 2010; Melvern 2009; Prunier 1998). These inherent

tensions are also reinforced by (and reinforce) Rwanda’s military and economic

involvement in the greater security complex of the Great Lakes region

(Lemarchand 2009; Prunier 2009). Now, as will be argued throughout this

article, it is important to recognise that educational policy priorities in such a

vulnerable social environment are very likely to generate and expose different

kinds of inherent tensions or dilemmas. Dale and Robertson have commented

upon the Janus-faced character of educational systems, which are:

184 B. Knutsson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

. . . expected not only to act as forces of national and social stabilisation, but alsoas the forces of change, for instance through preparing the human capital thatwill propel economic development. (Dale and Robertson 2003, 7)

Frankly, I find it difficult to imagine a more contentious case of thisproblematic than the one provided in contemporary Rwanda. A countryengaged in a difficult balancing act, attempting to simultaneously bring aboutpost-genocide national reconciliation and global economic competitiveness. Itcould of course be insisted that an exogenous development strategy, covetingthe economic, political and cultural benefits of globalisation, is a mandatoryresponse to the relative national isolation which hampered economic devel-opment and enabled a genocidal ideology in the first place. However, the catchseems to be whether the Vision 2020 will contribute to a resolution, rather thana mere reconfiguration, of old internal tensions.

Knowledge society as a ‘floating signifier’

Concepts such as knowledge society and knowledge economy have had anenormous impact in the public debate in recent years. Nevertheless, it is hardlycontroversial to claim that this debate has been characterised by a great deal ofconceptual confusion. There are wide and deep disagreements on the properinterpretation of each concept as well as the elemental differences between thetwo. It is in fact symptomatic that the two terms are used synonymously in theRwandan policy documents. Throughout this article, I have chosen to adhere tothe term knowledge society, but as will be evident below this is actually ofsecondary importance. Now, as indicated in the preamble, the term knowledgesociety has been applied in a wide range of different contexts and it could beargued that its success in terms of dissemination is due to the conceptualelasticity as such. Thus, it is debatable whether the concept is robust enough toqualify as a boundary object or whether its lucidness across sites is so greatthat a more derogatory designation as ‘buzz’ or ‘fad’ is justified (Star andGriesemer 1999).

If we limit ourselves to a purely academic debate we can note that at leastthree substantially different meanings have been ascribed to the concept. Somescholars view knowledge society as a new historical phase in the evolution ofcapitalism in which knowledge has sprung up as the most important factor ofproduction. This new phase, which we have already entered, is intimatelyrelated to the development of information technology, globalisation and newnetwork structures (Bell 1973; Castells 1996; Drucker 1993). Another body ofoptimistic literature pictures knowledge society as something of a new utopia,

assuming that investments in human capital, high skills and lifelong learning,will generate unprecedented prosperity, equality and social cohesion (Becker2002; Hodgson 1999; Reich 1991). A third body of sceptical literature, largelyconstituting a polemical response to the second body, finds the debate to be

Globalisation, Societies and Education 185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

strongly exaggerated and regards knowledge society as foremost a myth withquite limited bearing on political and economic realities (Alvesson 2006;Brown and Lauder 2006; Hislop 2004). Thus, it is quite clear that the conceptdoes not carry an agreed-upon meaning but signifies quite different ideas. Inthis article, I have deliberately avoided any kind of predetermined conceptua-lisation. Thus, to me knowledge society should foremost be understood as afloating signifier, an abstract notion without any fixed reference, which iscontinuously being filled with different meanings in different political, socialand cultural contexts (Laclau 1990). Rather than attempting to defineknowledge society in a Rwandan context I am concerned with understandingthe policies, practices, reallocations, tensions and transformations that aregenerated in the GoR’s quest for this floating signifier. A consequence of suchan approach is in fact that making, rather than knowledge society, becomes thekey concept of the study. Accordingly, I strongly agree with Robertson thatalthough the knowledge economy discourse is permeated with conceptuallucidity and crude rhetoric, the discourse as such can still have very powerfulmaterial effects (Robertson 2005). These effects, in turn, are important to studyand problematise. On the other hand, it is also important to recognise that thepolitics of education has its limitations. As articulated by Foss-Lindblad,Zambeta, and de Lima:

Even though we might expect that national steering measurements and policiesdo have effects, these effects need not be in congruence with the discourses oftheir operation. (Foss-Lindblad, Zambeta, and de Lima 2007)

As will be evident in upcoming sections, this argument corresponds well withthe ongoing transformations in the Rwandan education sector.

A policy translation perspective

The abstract idea of knowledge society, a floating signifier, has travelled inunknown ways in time and space between various actors in the global networkand ended up in Kigali, where it has been tied up with the GoR’s politicalambition of transforming Rwanda into a middle-income country by 2020, andtranslated into various educational policy priorities. The dissemination of thisidea is thus understood as an imitative process where the original idea has beendisembedded, travelled and thereafter been received and re-embedded by actorsin a new and different context based on their understanding of it. Hence whenan idea moves from one setting to another it is always ‘translated’, that is,constructed anew, and accordingly it never remains completely unchanged(Czarniawska and Sevon 1996, 2005). In fact, the Rwandan vision constitutes aclear-cut example of such a translation. Although some might consider theVision 2020 to be ambitious beyond reason it would still be fair to suggest thatthe vision of transforming into a middle-income country � that is, to reach a

186 B. Knutsson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

per capita income of around US$900, a poverty rate of 30% and a life

expectancy of 55 years � differs quite substantially from the way knowledge

society is commonly conceptualised and the way it is portrayed in the more

utopian literature. Stressing a similar argument, the GoR’s ambition has all

along been to become the ‘Singapore of Africa’, not another Singapore.Such an understanding of the dissemination of ideas, models and policies,

has in later years become increasingly referred to as a policy translation

perspective. This theoretical approach can largely be seen as the function of

two intellectual processes. The first is a critique of mainstream diffusion theory

which offers a simplistic view of the possibility to transmit innovations and

ideas, that is, that a receiver can interpret a message exactly as intended by the

sender (Rogers 1995). The second is the theoretical and methodological

development of a perspective outlined in an influential article by Latour

entitled The Power of Associations (Latour 1986). The critique of mainstream

diffusion theory, and the theoretical inspiration provided by Latour’s article,

has thereafter been further developed and advanced in a range of publications

by the so-called Scandinavian school of neo-institutional theory (Czarniawska

and Sevon 1996, 2005; Sahlin and Wedlin 2008). The policy translation

perspective embraced by the Scandinavian neo-institutionalists has provided

theoretical inspiration to this article. There are several implications of this

perspective. First, to dispatch an idea is no warrant for its application. An idea

has to be received by someone and then translated into action. Ideas and

notions are seen as materialised in objects, actions and practices, and

accordingly these should be our primary object of study. Fads, thus, are only

interesting insofar that they are somehow materialised. Second, in line with the

above, the local context is of crucial importance. Ideas and notions with a

global scope are always put into practice by actors on the local level.1 Thus,

processes of dissemination should be understood as acts of translation by local

actors rather than diffusion in the traditional sense. Third, processes of

translation take place on different levels. Political authorities and policy-

makers translate ideas into visions, strategies, policies and plans. Middle-

management officials interpret and re-translate these into decisions and actions

on an intermediate level. Foot soldiers such as, in our case, in-service trainers,

principals, teachers, and technicians, translate and attempt as far as possible to

realise the original vision in practices on a local level. Fourth, institutional

processes rather than results are in focus. These processes, in turn, are seen as

open-ended and unfinished. Accordingly, institutions are continuously en-

gaged in the making and re-making of ‘something’. Fifth, actions and practices

never operate independently of power structures, nor must the outcomes of

these actions and practices be viewed as socially neutral. Consequently,

changes in terms of institutional practices are very likely to generate

reallocation of resources and power (Czarniawska and Sevon 1996, 2005;

Sahlin and Wedlin 2008).

Globalisation, Societies and Education 187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Translations, tensions and transformations

The Vision 2020 has justified substantial investments in the Rwandaneducation sector and various ICT-related activities. In fact, the budgetallocation to the education sector almost quintupled from 2002 to 2008(ODI and Mokoro 2009). Resources have been mobilised internally, viainternational development partners, and to some extent via private enterprisepartnerships. I have chosen to focus on three particular policy priorities whichconstitute attempts to translate the GoR’s notion of a projected knowledgesociety and, simultaneously, expose inherent tensions related to the vulnerableeconomic and political situation that the country finds itself in. These include:vertical and horizontal expansion of the education system; ICT in education;and English as a medium of instruction.

Horizontal and vertical expansion of the education system

In a very obvious way Rwanda’s quest to become a knowledge society hastranslated into a vertical and horizontal expansion of the education system. TheGoR has proved its devotion to investments at all levels of the educationsystem, including early childhood, primary, secondary and higher education,plus various forms of technical and vocational training programmes (MINE-DUC 2003, 2008b, 2010; MoF 2000; RoR 2009). Beyond doubt there havealso been impressive improvements in terms of access. The primary netenrolment rate has increased from 73% in 2001 to 97% in 2007 and theprimary gross enrolment rate is now way above 100%. Moreover, primaryeducation has been extended from grade 6 to grade 9 which means thatRwanda now offers nine years of fee-free and compulsory primary education toall children. Although completion rates are also quickly moving up the ladderthey still lag behind and high levels of drop-out, repetition and failureconstitute major challenges. Significant upward trends in terms of enrolmentand completion, albeit substantially smaller in absolute numbers, can also befound in the secondary and tertiary sectors (MINEDUC 2008a, 2010; UnitedNations Development Programme 2007). Consequently, more pupils startschool and more pupils move on to higher levels of the education system.

However, meeting the ambitious policy targets throughout the entireeducation system is not an easy task. Tensions tend to emerge in the processand although these have been highlighted by other scholars they deserve to beconsidered anew, since they point so clearly towards some central problemsconfronted by poor countries in the global era.

First, Rwanda faces a so-called educational planning dilemma (Lindberg2010; Robertson et al. 2007; Tikly et al. 2003). On the one hand, Rwanda isexpanding the primary education sector both vertically and horizontally. Indoing so, the country tries to establish a large cadre of citizens equipped withbasic knowledge and skills. This approach is coherent with the Millennium

188 B. Knutsson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Development Goals and the Education for All (EFA)-framework. In other

words, providing free and compulsory basic education could be viewed as an

internationally recognised and encouraged approach to poverty alleviation. Now,

besides the country’s own ambition to eradicate poverty and improve

the livelihood of its people, choosing this lane also appeals to international

donors and thus caters for further grants and loans. On the other hand, Rwandaalso wants to attract foreign investments and promote business creation as a

means to expand the economy. This requires human capital formation on a more

sophisticated level including entrepreneurs, engineers and high-skilled techni-

cians. Such an internal cadre of highly skilled knowledge workers can only be

established through substantial investments in higher education and training

programmes. Unlike the international donors, these kinds of presumptive

investors and transnational companies have little interest � at least in the short-

run � in a large workforce provided with merely basic education. Accordingly,

the GoR seems to find itself in a quite precarious balancing act. The Vision 2020

requires large-scale investment in primary, secondary and higher education but

the limited resources at hand make some kind of prioritisation inevitable. Itshould also be noted that certain disagreements have emerged between the GoR,

who wants to put more resources into secondary, higher and technical education,

and several ‘traditional’ bilateral and multilateral donors of Official Develop-

ment Assistance (ODA), notably the UK, Sweden and the World Bank, who fear

that this kind of reallocation of resources will imply loss of the gains made in

primary education and have a negative impact on poverty alleviation. In one

sense, this points to a situation where the traditional donors are more concerned

with issues of equity than the government itself. On the other hand,

representatives of the GoR have countered that the traditional donors’ reluctance

to prioritise human capital formation on a higher level only mirrors a conceitednotion that Africans should stick to the basics. However, and this adds to the

complexity, some ‘new’ partners, for example, private companies and bilateral

donors from emerging economies such as China, and some traditional donors,

are more inclined to support programmes related to higher, technical and

vocational training and ICT training than others. Thus, despite ongoing attempts

to improve donor harmonisation in line with the Paris Declaration and the Accra

Agenda for Action (OECD 2005, 2008), donors pursue different priorities

whereby the GoR navigates in a quite miscellaneous political and financial

landscape. Similar conclusions as regards the lack of donor harmonisation in

Rwanda have been drawn by Hayman (Hayman 2007). On the other hand, it

should be recognised that both the GoR and the international developmentpartners essentially support a whole sector approach. The difficulties lie in

striking a reasonable balance, which only reaffirms that Rwanda is facing an

educational planning dilemma. A crucial problem is that neither the GoR, nor the

international development partners, seem to have coherent policies and

strategies for a balanced whole sector approach.

Globalisation, Societies and Education 189

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Second, although it is a noble cause to ensure school access for all children,the impressive expansion of the Rwandan education system has not beenan exclusively positive affair. It could be argued that Rwanda has somehow beenvictim to its own success, or � to put it bluntly � that quality has beencompromised for quantity. This is not a new phenomenon. In historicalretrospect very similar patterns of rapid quantitative expansion and inability touphold quality characterised the African continent in the first post-independencedecades. In the 1980s and 1990s, this quantitative expansion reversed and manyAfrican countries experienced declining enrolment rates due to harsh StructuralAdjustment Programmes, economic stagnation and deteriorating school quality.However, from the millennium shift and onwards African education finds itselfin a new phase of impressive expansion which makes the question of whether ornot history will repeat itself impending (Kuder 2005; Narman 2004; UnitedNations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 2004). Beyond doubtthere is a tension between quantitative expansion and improved quality ofeducation in a context characterised by limited resources (Jones 2008; King,McGrath, and Rose 2007; Robertson et al. 2007). That there are serious qualityproblems in the contemporary Rwandan educational system is also somethingthat is widely acknowledged among people in the sector and it is articulated inseveral government reports. However, it is notoriously difficult to defineeducational quality. The most well-known comprehensive conceptual frame-work has been developed by the EFA Global Monitoring Report Team. Thisframework is composed of five dimensions including: learner characteristics;context; enabling inputs; teaching and learning; and outcomes (United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 2004). Using this frameworkas a grid it is quite easy to pinpoint a range of quality problems in the Rwandaneducational system: huge class sizes; inadequate and insufficient learningmaterial; unqualified teachers; poor school management; poor completion andhigh drop-out rates; barriers to learning in home environment; limited publicresources available for education, only to mention a few. From this it could beconcluded that the overall vision of becoming a knowledge society, step by steptranslated into strategies, policies and plans, seems very difficult to translate intowell-functioning educational practices on the local level. The foot soldiers of theeducation system lack the necessary resources and capacity to convert the idea,to the extent that they have grasped it, into action. It should be stressed that theproblems are recognised by the GoR and that means are being taken to addressthem. The question is whether additional resources and efforts are sufficient tohandle this formidable challenge.

ICT in education

Although there have been rapid and substantial improvements in terms ofaccess to, and application of, ICT in Africa in recent years, a huge digitaldivide still separates the majority of the people on the continent from the global

190 B. Knutsson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

communication networks (Robertson et al. 2007; United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organisation 2005). A central component of Vision

2020 is the attempt to bridge this digital divide and use ICT as an enabler of

regional and global market expansion, and as an engine for economic

development. Thus, the idea of becoming a knowledge society has translated

into broad and ambitious efforts to disseminate and implement ICT throughout

the Rwandan society. A general NICI policy has been put in place which in

turn will inform a series of four 5-year NICI-plans, intended to guide the

adoption and exploitation of ICT during the 20 years deemed required to

realise the vision (GoR 2000, 2006). Being the first of 10 pillars in the current

NICI-plan, ICT in education is particularly prioritised:

The development of the Rwanda information and knowledge economy willdepend heavily on how much its resources are invested in into promoting thedeployment, utilization and exploitation of ICTs in the educational system. (GoR2006, 81)

The principles and action plans outlined in the NICI-plans have further been

aligned with the ESP, the ESSP and recently an explicit ICT in Education

Policy (MINEDUC 2003, 2008a, 2009). All of these policies and plans adhere

to the new mantra of the education sector:

. . . ICT shall be at the heart of the education system. (MINEDUC 2003, 22)

The policies and plans have further translated into a plethora of various ICT in

education initiatives, programmes and projects � normally in cooperation with

international development partners � focused on: deployment of computers;

infrastructure and Internet connectivity; curriculum development; digital

learning material; e-learning and distance learning; pre-service and in-service

teacher training; public awareness; management and information systems; and

so on and so forth. Nevertheless, the sheer amount of initiatives and their often

overlapping character give a quite confusing impression and the MINEDUC

itself has in fact emphasised the importance of better coordination, alignment

and prioritisation within and between different projects. The newly formulated

ICT in education policy constitutes an attempt to counter some of these

problems and it has resulted in the establishment of an ICT in Education

Coordination Unit (MINEDUC 2009).Although these educational initiatives to bridge the global digital divide may

seem both promising and necessary, they are far from unproblematic. There is an

obvious inherent tension between the ambitious plans formulated in Kigali and

the available resources and capacity on the local level, particularly in the rural

areas. Further there seems to be a risk, at least in the short or medium term, that

the attempts to narrow the external digital divide might in fact aggravate the

perception of the internal divide. There are at least three pertinent problems.

Globalisation, Societies and Education 191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

First, the deployment of infrastructure itself constitutes a considerablechallenge. Lack of electricity is a major problem for the sector although seriousefforts are currently being made to connect all schools within a 5 km range ofthe national grid. For more remote schools, means are taken to deploy solarpanels. Although current electrification in the secondary school sector is farfrom satisfactory it is still substantially better off than the primary school sector,where it is estimated that only 8% of the schools have access to electricity. Tothis one might add the general problem of uncertain and irregular delivery ofpower within the national grid. As far as computers and Internet connectivityare concerned we can note that out of 760 secondary schools in total, so far 415have been equipped with computers and 83 with Internet connection (GeSCI2008). The primary school sector is lagging behind although the ambitious One

Laptop per Child project (OLPC) has recently been launched with the intentionof providing every primary school student with a laptop. So far 5000 laptopshave been distributed to three primary schools. This was followed by anotherorder of 5000 units and recently the GoR placed yet another order for 100,000units (GeSCI 2008). There are in total approximately 2.2 million primaryschool students in Rwanda and the target is to provide all of them with laptopsby 2012 (OLPC 2009). Although progress is being made in terms ofdeployment it is worth considering which schools are actually being targeted.Despite the good intentions of the ICT in Education policy to promote equityand secure access to ICT in remote, rural and economically disadvantagedareas, practical circumstances such as access to the national grid, proximity totechnicians et cetera, mean that schools in urban and semi-urban areas tend tobe cutting line. Bearing in mind the already soaring inequality and the historicallegacy of the country this is somewhat worrying.

Second, even if the infrastructure is put in place it has to be matched withskilled teachers and useful pedagogical software. As argued by Richards,providing ICT infrastructure in schools is no guarantee for it being integratedin educational practice; access is only the first step in a burdensome culturaltransformation process seldom embraced by everyone (Richards 2004). It iswidely recognised in the sector that many Rwandan teachers find it difficult tocarry out ICT education in general, and to integrate the technology into thetraditional curricula in particular. Moreover, the language barrier posed byEnglish constitutes a major challenge in relation to the application of ICT(Mukama 2009). Massive training programmes have been initiated to provideteachers with basic computer literacy. According to representatives of theMINEDUC approximately 50% of all secondary schoolteachers have beenprovided with such training. However, in the primary school sector the onlyteachers that have been trained are the ones engaged in the OLPC-project. Asfar as the deployment of digital pedagogical content is concerned, this is still inan embryonic stage.

Third, even if infrastructure is in place, and the teachers know how to makeuse of it, regular maintenance of the systems is necessary. The issue of

192 B. Knutsson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

maintenance is viewed by several respondents as a serious problem. It iscomparatively easy to get service in Kigali where the MINEDUC, privatecompanies and people knowledgeable in ICT are located. However, in someremote districts there is nowhere at all where schools can turn to for ICT-service. In conclusion: infrastructural limitations; insufficient computerliteracy and pedagogical competencies among the teachers; and maintenanceproblems all contribute to the difficulties in materialising the ambitious ICTvision into adequate educational practice on the local level.

English as a medium of instruction

Language constitutes a third core component of the Vision 2020. A multi-lingual population, able to communicate in English, French and Kinyarwanda,is considered a comparative advantage in the chase for foreign investment anda necessary condition in the process of transforming the country into aninformation hub of the region. Moreover, the path of multilingualismis justified from social and political perspectives. Thus, the vision hastranslated � in both senses of the word � into trilingualism as an educationalpolicy priority and all three languages compose parts of the curriculum fromprimary to the tertiary level (MINEDUC 2003).

In practice, however, trouble has emerged in different forms and because oftotally different reasons. Initially the trilingual educational policy implied thatKinyarwanda was used as the medium of instruction in grades 1�3. From grade 4and onwards it was replaced by either French or English depending on localpreference and capacity. However, estimations suggest that around 95% of theschools chose French when confronted with this option. All three languagescontinued to appear as individual subjects throughout the entire educationsystem. However, on 8 October 2008 the GoR passed a controversial lawwhereby English was introduced as a new compulsory medium of instructionfrom grade 1 onwards. Concurrently, it was decided to put a programme in placeto help government employees on all levels to learn English (RoR 2008). TheGoR has commented that the switch to English as a medium of instructionshould not be interpreted as a deviation from the general principle oftrilingualism. However, it could be countered that English has at least held theupper hand since the new law was passed. Several possible explanations behindthe policy shift can be traced. The GoR has particularly stressed two argumentsin the debate. First, the GoR recognises English as the language of globalisationand international business and thus views a population fluent in English asimperative in relation to the Vision 2020. In this sense, the GoR’s rationality isintimately tied up with the hegemonic status of English as the global language,strongly criticised by many scholars (e.g. Brock-Utne 2003; Gandolfo 2009;Jordao 2009; Prah 2005). Second, Rwanda entered a full membership in the East

African Community (EAC) in 2007. Since English is the official language of theEAC, the membership has been used in the debate to justify the ‘linguistic turn’.

Globalisation, Societies and Education 193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

However, unofficial voices have also stressed the importance of the badrelationship between Rwanda and France, in turn grounded in France’s activeinvolvement in the 1994 genocide (Melvern 2009). This argument has beenrejected by the GoR. However, Rwanda’s continuous applications for member-ship in the Commonwealth from 2003, which was finally accepted at the 2009Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Trinidad and Tobago, couldhardly be interpreted in any other way than as a political statement and as an actof dissociation from France. Finally, financial limitations have been used as anargument for sticking to one medium of instruction.

Regardless of how one values the arguments of the government, severaltensions emerge in the interface between the GoR’s linguistic ambitions and localrealities. First, Kinyarwanda is the mother tongue and the common language ofthe Rwandan people. French is spoken fluently only by a small proportion of thepopulation and English by even fewer. Studies in Rwanda have shown that theoverall level of English among students, as well as teachers, is disturbingly lowand that using English as a medium of instruction in Rwanda is ineffective andobstructive from a learning perspective (Ntakirutimana 2005; Williams 2003). Alot of previous research in African contexts further suggests that teaching in thestudents’ first language is conducive to their cognitive and linguistic developmentand, inversely, points to the negative implications of using a language unfamiliarto the students as a medium of instruction (e.g. Brock-Utne 2007; Brock-Utneand Hopson 2005; Mwinsheikhe 2007; Rubagumya 1994). In the context ofRwanda’s ambition of transforming into a knowledge society this certainly raisesconcerns. Second, using English as a medium of instruction in Rwandan schoolscould be viewed as inconsistent with several international agreements recognisedby the GoR, for example, the EFA-framework and the Convention on the Rightsof the Child (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation2000; United Nations 1989). Several scholars have also argued that foreignmediums of instructions in African schools contribute, in complex ways, toviolations of linguistic, cultural, educational, political, social and economichuman rights (Brock-Utne and Hopson 2005; Gandolfo 2009; Skutnabb-Kangas2001). Third, the new language policy might be counterproductive from a peaceand reconciliation perspective. Most of the people who master English belong tothe contemporary political and economic elite, which used to be in diaspora inEnglish-speaking neighbouring countries. There is an evident danger that theswitch to English as the new language of government, business, diplomacy andscholarship, will generate relative deprivation among the old French-speakingelites who perceive their opportunities to be diminishing. Moreover, frustrationmay emerge among the poor majority of the population. Hence, the new languagepolicy definitely conveys political hazards. Previous literature has pointed to theintimate relationship between violation of linguistic rights and the deepresentment and group-based grievances that fuel political conflict (Kaldor2006; Skutnabb-Kangas 2001; United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organisation 2011).

194 B. Knutsson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Notwithstanding one’s analysis or judgement of these tensions, the GoR’sdetermination and effort to fast-track the implementation of English can hardlybe interpreted in any other way than as an expression of a profound belief in thepossibility of social engineering. The GoR has launched a massive programmeto provide teachers on all levels of the education system with crash courses inEnglish. After finishing the course, teachers are expected to go back to theschools, accommodate their old teaching repertoire to their new languageskills, and as soon as possible, apply English in their everyday classroompractice. So far I have not come across any studies on the effects of these crashcourses. However, bearing in mind what previous research has shown asregards the application of foreign languages as mediums of instruction I seelittle reason to be optimistic. Hence, it seems reasonable to suspect that theinception of English will yet again point to the difficulties of translatingthe ambitious vision into solid educational practice on the local level.

Conclusion

The Vision 2020 brings several great questions of late modernity to the fore.Can a poor and marginalised country manage globalisation to its ownadvantage? Can the industrial stage be leapfrogged? Can education systemsbe used to gear and transform an agrarian LDC into an ICT-driven knowledgesociety? Apparently the contemporary globalisation, development and educa-tion debates all intersect in the Rwandan case. In one perspective the Rwandanvision could be viewed as an innovative attempt to challenge established truths,translate and recontextualise the notion of knowledge society, and create newopportunities for a country on the margins of the global economy. Clearly,there have also been enormous changes, from a context totally characterised bysecurity concerns at the turn of the millennium to the expansive developmentphase that the country now finds itself in. On the other hand, several criticalobjections could be raised against the GoR’s top-down approach and attemptsto ‘engineer’ social change which do not seem to recognise local realities. Asthis article has shown, actors on the local level are having serious difficultieswith translating the ambitious vision into well-functioning educationalpractice. Mukama has captured the bitter tension between vision and practicein the following way:

The sociocultural settings in Rwanda, however, do not seem to offer thisopportunity and even tend to be obstructive. Therefore, it would be an illusion topretend that students will be able to compete worldwide without being competent.Competence comes first and competition follows. (Mukama 2009, 53)

Another danger is that the attempts to embrace and manage globalisation to thebenefit of Rwanda will merely create new patterns of inclusion and exclusionin an already vulnerable political setting. As argued by Ferguson, Africa’s

Globalisation, Societies and Education 195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

integration in the transnational political economy is typically marked by severe

spatial segregation. Resources are normally attracted and concentrated to

socially thin enclaves, simply by-passing or ‘globe-hopping’ the vast ‘unusable

Africa’. Globalisation, thus, must be understood as a process that divides as

much as it unites (Ferguson 2006). Indeed, there is also an obvious risk that we

will see islands of high-skilled, English-speaking knowledge workers,

connected to the global networks, while the great majority of the Rwandan

people remain in communication shadow. Being a floating signifier it could of

course be argued that this is ultimately what knowledge society all boils down

to: a class-based society covered up in a pipe dream. However, if equity

concerns are taken seriously and brought into the knowledge society discourse,

we can conclude that huge difficulties remain to be overcome midway through

the implementation of Vision 2020.

Note

1. This borders on Robertson’s glocalisation argument that the local must always beviewed as an aspect of the global and that the hypothesis of global cultural uniformityis exaggerated (Robertson 1992). The idea that globalisation simply implies culturalhomogenisation has also been seriously challenged by anthropologists such as, forexample, Appadurai and Hannerz (Appadurai 1996; Hannerz 1992, 1996).

References

Alvesson, M. 2006. Tomhetens triumf: om grandiositet, illusionsnummer & nollsum-mespel [The triumph of emptiness: The social limits of grandiosity]. Stockholm:Atlas.

Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Becker, G.S. 2002. The age of human capital. In Education in the twenty-first century,ed. E.P. Lazear, 3�8. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.

Bell, D. 1973. The coming of post-industrial society. A venture in social forecasting.New York: Basic Books.

Brock-Utne, B. 2003. The language question in Africa in the light of globalisation,social justice and democracy. International Journal of Peace Studies 8, no. 2:67�82.

Brock-Utne, B. 2007. Learning through a familiar language versus learning through aforeign languge � A look into some secondary school classrooms in Tanzania.International Journal of Educational Development 27, no. 5: 487�98.

Brock-Utne, B., and R.K. Hopson, eds. 2005. Languages of instruction for Africanemancipation: Focus on postcolonial contexts and considerations. Cape Town:The Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS).

Brown, P., and H. Lauder. 2006. Globalization, knowledge and the myth of the magneteconomy. Globalisation, Societies and Education 4, no. 1: 25�57.

Castells, M. 1996. The information age: Economy, society and culture. Vol. 1, the riseof the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Czarniawska, B., and G. Sevon, eds. 1996. Translating organizational change. Berlin:de Gruyter.

196 B. Knutsson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Czarniawska, B., and G. Sevon, eds. 2005. Global ideas: How ideas, objects andpractices travel in the global economy. Malmo: Liber.

Dale, R., and S.L. Robertson. 2003. Editorial: Introduction. Globalisation, Societiesand Education 1, no. 1: 3�11.

Drucker, P.F. 1993. Post-capitalist society. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.Ewald, J. 2008. Rwanda. In Africa Yearbook. Politics, economy and society south of

the Sahara in 2007, ed. A. Mehler, H. Melber, and K. Vanwalraven, vol. 4, 347�57. Leiden: BRILL.

Ferguson, J. 2006. Global shadows. Africa in the neoliberal world order. Durham, NC/London: Duke University Press.

Foss-Lindblad, R., E. Zambeta, and J. de Lima. 2007. Education restructuring as aworld movement: On the production of educational change in political andprofessional contexts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, April 10�15, in Chicago, USA. http://www.profknow.net.

Gandolfo, A.J. 2009. Education-medium and African linguistic rights in the context ofglobalisation. Globalisation, Societies and Education 7, no. 3: 321�36.

GeSCI. 2008. Rwanda inception report. Kigali: Global E-schools and CommunitiesInitiative.

GoR (Government of Rwanda). 2000. An integrated socio-economic and ICT policyand strategies for accelerated development. Kigali: GoR.

GoR (Government of Rwanda). 2006. The NICI-2010 plan. An integrated ICT-ledsocio-economic development policy and plan for Rwanda 2006�2010. Kigali:GoR.

Hannerz, U. 1992. Cultural complexity: Studies in the social organization of meaning.New York: Columbia University Press.

Hannerz, U. 1996. Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. New York:Routledge.

Hayman, R. 2007. Are the MDGs enough? Donor perspectives and recipient visions ofeducation and poverty reduction in Rwanda. International Journal of EducationalDevelopment 27, no. 4: 371�82.

Hislop, D. 2004. Knowledge management in organizations: A critical introduction.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hodgson, G.M. 1999. Economics and Utopia: Why the learning economy is not theend of history. London: Routledge.

Ingelaere, B. 2010. Do we understand life after genocide? Center and periphery in theconstruction of knowledge in postgenocide Rwanda. African Studies Review 53,no. 1: 41�59.

Jones, P. 2008. The impossible dream: Education and the MDGs. HarvardInternational Review 30, no. 3: 34�8.

Jordao, C.M. 2009. English as foreign language, globalisation and conceptualquestioning. Globalisation, Societies and Education 7, no. 1: 95�107.

Kaldor, M. 2006. New and old wars: Organized violence in the global era.Cambridge: Polity Press.

King, K., S. McGrath, and P. Rose. 2007. Beyond the basics: Educating and trainingout of poverty. International Journal of Educational Development 27, no. 4:349�57.

Kuder, J. 2005. UPE in Tanzania: SWAP-ing quality for quantity � again?Globalisation, Societies and Education 3, no. 2: 165�81.

Laclau, E. 1990. New reflections on the revolution of our time. London: Verso.Latour, B. 1986. The power of associations. In Power, action and belief, ed. J. Law,

261�77. London: Routledge.

Globalisation, Societies and Education 197

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Lemarchand, R. 2009. The dynamics of violence in Central Africa. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lindberg, J. 2010. The changing accessibility of educational opportunities in southernSri Lanka. Development and Change 41, no. 1: 131�51.

Melvern, L. 2009. A people betrayed: The role of the west in Rwanda’s genocide.Vol. 2. London: Zed Books.

MINEDUC. 2003. Education sector policy. Kigali: Ministry of Education.MINEDUC. 2008a. Education sector strategic plan 2008�2012. Kigali: Ministry of

Education.MINEDUC. 2008b. Higher education policy. Kigali: Ministry of Education.MINEDUC. 2009. ICT in education policy. Kigali: Ministry of Education.MINEDUC. 2010. Education sector strategic plan 2010�2015. Kigali: Ministry of

Education.MoF. 2000. Rwanda Vision 2020. Kigali: Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning.MoF. 2002. Poverty reduction strategy paper. Kigali: Ministry of Finance and

Economic Planning.MoF. 2007. Economic development and poverty reduction strategy 2008�2012. Kigali:

Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning.Mukama, E. 2009. Information and communication technology in teacher education:

Thinking and learning in computer-supported social practice. 1st ed. Linkoping:Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linkoping University.

Mwinsheikhe, H.M. 2007. Overcoming the language barrier: An in-depth study ofTanzanian secondary school science teachers’ and students’ strategies in copingwith the English-Kiswahili dilemma in the teaching/learning process. Oslo:Faculty of Education, University of Oslo.

Narman, A. 2004. We have heard it all before: The millennium goals and education inAfrica. In Education, poverty and inequality, ed. J. Galabawa and A. Narman, 16�33. Dar es Salaam: BERRIPA. University of Dar es Salaam.

NISR. 2007. Millennium development goals. Towards sustainable socaial andeconomic growth. Country report 2007. Kigali: National Institute of Statistics ofRwanda.

Ntakirutimana, E. 2005. English teaching in Rwandan education almost 10 years ago.Butare: National University of Rwanda.

ODI and Mokoro. 2009. Sector budget support in practice. Case study. Educationsector in Rwanda. London: Overseas Development Institute and Mokoro.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2005. Parisdeclaration on aid effectiveness. Ownership, harmonisation, alignment, resultsand mutual accountability. Paris: OECD/DAC.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2008. Accraagenda for action. Paris: OECD/DAC.

OLPC. 2009. OLPC centre opens in Kigali: Kagame presides over cermony. http://blog.laptop.org/2009/06/11/one-laptop-per-child-creates-a-global-center-for-excel-lence-in-laptops-and-learning/#more-619.

Prah, K.K. 2005. Language of instruction for education, development and Africanemancipation. In Languages of instruction for African emancipation: Focus onpostcolonial contexts and considerations, ed. B. Brock-Utne and R.K. Hopson.Cape Town: The Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS).

Prunier, G. 1998. The Rwanda crisis: History of a genocide. Vol. 2. London: C Hurst& Co.

Prunier, G. 2009. Africa’s world war: Congo, the Rwandan genocide, and the makingof a continental catastrophe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reich, R. 1991. The work of nations: A blueprint for the future. New York: Vintage.

198 B. Knutsson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Richards, C. 2004. From old to new learning: Global imperatives, exemplary Asiandilemmas and ICT as a key to cultural change in education. Globalisation,Societies and Education 2, no. 3: 337�53.

Robertson, R. 1992. Globalization: Social theory and global culture. London: Sage.Robertson, S.L. 2005. Re-imagining and rescripting the future of education: Global

knowledge economy discourses and the challenge to education systems.Comparative Education 41, no. 2: 151�70.

Robertson, S.L., M. Novelli, R. Dale, L. Tikly, H. Dachi, and N. Alphonce. 2007.Globalisation, education and development: Ideas, actors and dynamics. London:DFID.

Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press.RoR. 2008. Statement on cabinet resolutions of 08 October 2008. Kigali: Minister in

the Prime Minister’s Office in charge of Cabinet Affairs, Republic of Rwanda.RoR. 2009. Early childhood development policy 2010�2014. Kigali: Republic of

Rwanda.Rubagumya, C.M., ed. 1994. Teaching and researching language in African

classrooms. Clevdon: Multilingual Matters.Sahlin, K., and L. Wedlin. 2008. Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing.

In The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, ed. R. Greenwood,C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, and R. Suddaby, 218�42. London: Sage.

Singh, J.P. 1999. Leapfrogging development?: The political economy of telecommi-nications restructuring. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 2001. The globalisation of (educational) language rights.International Review of Education 47, nos. 3�4: 201�19.

Star, S.L., and J. Griesemer. 1999. Institutional ecology, ‘‘translations’’ and boundaryobjects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology,1907�39. In The science studies reader, ed. M. Biagioli, 505�24. London:Routledge.

Tikly, L., J. Lowe, M. Crossley, H. Dachi, R. Garett, and B. Mukabaranga. 2003.Globalisation and skills for development in Rwanda and Tanzania. London: DFID.

United Nations. 1989. Convention on the rights of the child. General assemblyresolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2007. Turning Vision 2020 intoreality. From recovery to sustainable human development: National humandevelopment report. Rwanda 2007. Kigali: UNDP.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). 2000.The Dakar framework for action. Education for all: Meeting our collectivecommitments. Paris: UNESCO.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). 2004.Education for all: The quality imperative. EFA global monitoring report 2005.Paris: UNESCO.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). 2005.Towards knowledge societies. Paris: UNESCO.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). 2011.The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education. EFA global monitoring report2011. Paris: UNESCO.

Williams, E. 2003. Consultancy to develop MINEDUC capacity to create andimplement a ‘trilingual’ policy in Rwandan schools: CfBT/Stoas, January 2003.

World Bank and IMF. 2004. Poverty reduction strategy papers � progress inimplementation. Washington, DC: World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Globalisation, Societies and Education 199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:03

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14